Talk:Dan Cox

"hoping he would win"

@Soibangla: I dispute your edit summary, 538 makes it clear this is the intent. The closest I see to that in the source is

Narration: Recently, a Democratic political action committee came under fire for spending millions to elevate far-right candidates who may be easier to defeat in November.

I read this as 538 saying the Democratic Governors Association was criticized for doing so. (Otherwise, the source quotes Kelly Schulz making the allegation.) 538 saying DGA was accused of such motivation is not the same as saying that was their motivation. Also, resting this on one source is pretty weak.

The rest of your summary, Dems are doing this elsewhere, there is no other reason they'd be doing this, is utterly lacking in support no matter how much anyone may believe it. Pemilligan (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Why Democrats are paying for ads supporting Republican primary candidates". NPR.

• "Democrats spend millions on Republican primaries". Open Secrets. Political groups and nonprofits aligned with the Democratic Party have spent nearly $44 million on advertising campaigns across five states' Republican primaries to boost the profile of far-right candidates in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Maryland.

• Karl Rove. "Why Democrats Are Funding the GOP Fringe". WSJ.

There's nothing improper about it soibangla (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Who said improper? Unsupported is the point, and adding sources here doesn't change that at all. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can say Unsupported is the point followed by adding sources here doesn't change that at all. So if the current source is insufficient, adding more sources that more explicitly support the text wouldn't make it sufficient? Is that what you're saying? soibangla (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The current source is insufficient. Adding sufficient sources would make the claim sufficient. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Change far right to right wing 72.93.86.234 (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2022

Dan Cox is NOT far Right. He’s Republican. At this point that phase is being tossed around similar to the word racist and being used as a weapon. We see what you’re doing now. Grow up. 2601:150:4200:3B0:7118:FBCD:123:A961 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 17:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

“American far-right politician” meanwhile AOC, Ilhan Omar are not stated as far left. It’s so obvious that there’s bias, why can’t u guys just be real and stop pretending there isnt. It should say he is a right-wing politician who is the Republican nominee for governor. 71.244.148.209 (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:RS and WP:NPOV Cannolis (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested rewording of opening sentence

Current: Daniel Lewis Cox (born August 9, 1974) is an American far-right politician

Suggested new version: Daniel Lewis Cox (born August 9, 1974) is an American Republican politician described as being far right.

The reason for this change is that the delimiter for "far" changes over time and this revision would make it more "future proof". In coming years, he might be described as being other things and this structure supports those without changing the meaning of the passage. It takes some of the subjectiveness out of the opening sentence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but your proposal's a breach of WP:WEASEL. I'd argue that the lead is fine as it is - if the delimiter for being a far-right pol changes and renders Cox anything else, sure, we can check back then. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I actually agree with Ceyockey in this instance. I don't like Cox as a politician whatsoever, but I don't think that Ceyockey's suggestion rises to the level of violating WP:WEASEL. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 14:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is so biased it is a farce.

"Far right" politician, "disproven conspiracy theory" that the 2020 Presidential election was rigged, and-so-on. Wikipedia was intended to be a neutral place - but now it just pushes agitprop. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:C070:5697:3455:A836 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean an article can't contain unflattering facts. --Steve Foerster (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)