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.

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)

Disputed content

Michigander411, rather than edit warring and removing content repeatedly, could you discuss why you think this content should be removed? Furthermore, you did not provide an edit summary as to why you reverted the last edit - could you explain why, and in future use edit summaries? Thanks, — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I did include commentary in the first times I edited it. But the content you're including is incredibly biased and cherry picked comments from a multi-year career. On this platform we strive to be impartial and include only the relevant biographical and fact-based details. If you actually go back and listen to the interviews where it's suggested those comments were made (which I did in full for total context from the original source), that is not at all what she said in either instance. The source being used to report that is Michigan Advance, which is a known Democratic run news entity - not an unbiased or credible source to be citing, particularly their "reporting" from an election cycle where they were openly backing Tudor's opponent. If we are striving to be an unbiased source of information then it's not acceptable to keep those comments included. Michigander411 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Michigander411: thanks for the response. On Wikipedia we go with what reliable sources say, and even discounting Michigan Advance (also re "known Democratic-run news entity", do you have any source for this claim? It may be "known" to you but it appears to be a non-profit, which would not match with your claims of it being a "known" Democratic-run news entity), the Detroit Metro Times backs up the information about Dixon's comments too. Given these comments received coverage in the news, it seems fair to include them - no cherry picking, no "bias", just reflecting what's been covered. Much like we include the conspiracy theories spread by Jamaal Bowman on his page, which received similar responses. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)