Talk:Braxton Mitchell

AP content should be restored

It's relevant context to note that the "group" that Mitchell is designating as a terrorist group is not a group nor have been there been any activities by this "group" in Montana.[1] This is all content that the AP deems worthy enough to bring up in the context of Mitchell's legislation to designate antifa as a terrorist group. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the hasty removal. I propose: In February 2021, Mitchell introduced legislation to designate antifa as a domestic terrorism group. Antifa is an umbrella term for far-left leaning militant groups and not a single organization. Antifa-affiliated groups are not known to be active in Montana. Thoughts? KidAd talk 19:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I support your proposed version. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done KidAd talk 19:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous IP that just tried to use a Facebook video as a source

tinyurl.com/384a2pjt is a URL referenced by an anon IP, in his edit summary, that removed some sourced info from the article. That URL is a redirect to a Facebook page owned by an account called "Comments", an account created on March 22, 2021. The Facebook account's sole contents are a video of a man purporting to be Larry Brewster. If it is Larry Brewster, this appears to be an attempt by someone closely connected to the subject of the article to edit this page and make Mitchell appear in a more favorable light, which would be a serious violation of WP:COI. Either way, Facebook links are not usable as reliable sources, in any way. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Just one more note - 174.45.44.195 (the IP making the possible COI edits) geolocates to Helena, Montana. That's the capital of Montana and the location of the Montana Legislature. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

Change the statement, "Antifa-affiliated groups are not known to be active in Montana,[9] and there was no rioting in Montana during the George Floyd protests of 2020." and delete it. There were George Floyd protests in Montana. (ie: Kalispell, Whitefish, Missoula, etc.) I happened to be a witness to two of them. Person7269 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done - statement is sourced. Unfortunately, a brand-new account saying "I happened to be a witness to two of them" is not considered a reliable source. Especially from an account that made this edit earlier. Benicio2020 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Unsourced content"

@Benicio2020: you are claiming that the following content is unsourced. You have removed my edits several times under the guise of WP:UNSOURCED. Is there a reason you are claiming these are unsourced? Here is the article that was in the citation. Please let me know how this content was unsourced, thanks.

Article quote: "I just don’t want to go into a future where [political violence] becomes the norm, and I hope as a country, we can start moving away from political violence on both sides," Mitchell told Fox News.
WP edit: and there were no rioting in Montana during the George Floyd protests of 2020. Mitchell stated "I just don’t want to go into a future where political violence becomes the norm, and I hope as a country, we can start moving away from political violence on both sides."

Article quote: Montana did not see any rioting last summer during the George Floyd protests, which frequently turned violent in many cities across the U.S., but that isn't deterring the freshmen state legislator from taking a stand.
WP edit: and there were no rioting in Montana during the George Floyd protests of 2020. Mitchell stated "I just don’t want to go into a future where political violence becomes the norm, and I hope as a country, we can start moving away from political violence on both sides."

Article quote: For example, some Montana state Democrats asked that other groups be included in the measure, including organizations that participated in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
WP edit: Mitchell was asked by Montana Democrats to also designate other groups including that which stormed the United States Capitol in January 2021, but Mitchell stated that the resolution was too narrowly tailored toward antifa.

Article quote: But Mitchell pointed out that his resolution is tailored to offenses committed by Antifa members, such as attacks on certain journalists, along with doxing and stalking members of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
WP edit: Mitchell was asked by Montana Democrats to also designate other groups including that which stormed the United States Capitol in January 2021, but Mitchell stated that the resolution was too narrowly tailored toward antifa.

These are the quotes pulled from the article directly. I will ask this as plainly as I can to Benicio2020, how is this unsourced?
I will concede that I made an error and did not clarify the bracketed insertion into the quote in the quote I included, which I will remedy. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: going to ping you again as I see you are editing the article. Can you please address the above? Thanks. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The constant re-addition of white-washing text from WikiEditorOffice has to stop before we can even start to discuss sourced additions. The text about the pro-gun marches is straight from the source material. Some of his edits are identical to the edits of an IP address which traces back to the Montana State Legislature. He has refused, multiple times, to discuss those changes. Once that situation is resolved, perhaps we can move on and improve the page. Until then, the edits from WikiEditorOffice are too disruptive and I will continue to revert them. Benicio2020 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: that's not how this works. Fix his edits then, not mine. You specifically called the edits that I made (referenced above) as "original research," "not sourced," and "opinion-based verbiage not in the sources." Can you address this since you also requested that I take it to this talk page? You have reverted MY edits. I am asking you for the last time as to why you did that? How are my edits original research or unsourced? If you do not reply to this inquiry and continue to revert my edits, I will request a dispute resolution. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I have tried work with PerpetuityGrat to help fix bloated text and remove unnecessary additions to the article. Wikipedia is not an agenda driven and partisan site Benicio2020. You have consistently edited on an agenda driven basis, and keep claiming I am connected to Mr. Mitchell and PerpetuityGrat on multiple occasions. I am not sure which edits are correlated with an IP address if you can please provide a date/time, and keep in mind the Montana Legislature is also not currently in session and Legislators in that state do not live there full time. There have been multiple edits by IP's and Red Users with favorable additions and unfavorable additions / vice versa.

Quick note, the user that added this paragraph has been blocked indefinitely. Benicio2020 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Benicio2020, I don't really care about that, but I see that you continue to ignore the core argument above. Instead you continue to deflect and refer to this other user (who I told you to open an SPI a very very long time ago now). Would you still like to comment on the fact that you claimed my additions were "original research" and such? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not addressing you in this prior paragraph. I was responding to the user that was blocked. Perhaps you lost track of which account you were logged into? Benicio2020 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: Your tone is really not warranted here. I have been respectful, kind, and for some reason you think that I am engaging in sockpuppetry. I have told you several times to open an SPI. I am telling you to do that now so you can stop deflecting and actually answer for why you claimed the content I added above in bold, you considered original research. There is no reason as to why you continue to dodge the primary purpose of this section. I think we both know why... --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In your edit summary here, you directed "shame shame shame" at me (even though the text I added was directly from the source). I didn't take that as "kind" or an attempt to discuss. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Just continue to ignore the core of the section. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

One last attempt to interact with you here. Please address the above. You first called this original research, then white wash, now soften the image of a politician? Is there a real reason why this sourced content shouldn't be included? You deleted this content several times now and haven't justified anything in this section as to why, yet your reasoning in the edit summaries continues to evolve. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Deletions of sourced material

First, from the article text: when asked about government funding for affordable housing, Mitchell states, "No. I think it's a private sector responsibility, not a government responsibility." That's opposition to government funding for affordable housing.

Second, the tweets section is completely sourced, to reliable sources. Your deletions here are pure white-washing. Given the nature of your edits, and those of the blocked user, it's obvious you're not interested in NPOV. Benicio2020 (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First, you continue to use the blocked user as ammo for your own argument. They were blocked because of their name, nothing else. And you still haven't acknowledged why you repeatedly deleted my sourced content under the auspices of "original research." You are WP:Cherrypicking one policy out of that entire article for the purpose of debasing Mitchell. Why not include "Mitchell believes that affordable housing is a policy meant for the private sector" or something a bit neutral and what the source says, rather than "Mitchell is against government affordable housing?" Come on... There are dozens of policy pieces in that source that you added. But you chose to home in on one to further debase his image (WP:ATTACK). The tweets are moot because sources literally call these alleged. The tweets are not proven to be his. WP:ALLEGED, WP:TENYEARTEST. No one is going to be talking about these tweets in ten years. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your reversion today is a deletion of sourced info. I have re-added it. Can you explain why you're deleting sourced info? Benicio2020 (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you actually engage with me rather than making reverts? Again, you ignore what I'm typing all over this talk page and even your own talk page. If you don't engage with me regarding the actual content we are discussing and continue to deflect and dodge, I will be seeking additional attention to your behavior and these edits. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm engaging with you right here. In the source, Mitchell states he opposes government funding for affordable housing. That's his political position. You deleted that exact wording from this article. Can you explain why? Benicio2020 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The source you added has lots of policy pieces. And instead of choosing to add any of them, you chose specifically to say that he opposes government funded affordable housing. WP:Cherrypicking, WP:ATTACK. Your edits are solely made to disparage Mitchell's character. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying you deleted that text solely because you think that I'm trying to make Mitchell look bad? That's a different rationale than you provided in your edit summary, where you stated "Mitchell never said he opposed affordable housing in the article." - right here. Feel free to add any relevant political positions that you see in that source. I don't see any other positions that are unambiguously stated by Mitchell in that article, other than the one on government subsidies to affordable housing. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: Regarding the tweets, WP:ALLEGED, from the source in the section: The alleged tweets first surfaced during the election during the primary and general election. Mitchell’s Democratic opponent, Debo Powers, said she saw the alleged tweets during the race last fall. It is not proven that these tweets are his. Can we remove this? WP:NOW.

Mitchell sent those tweets, and you know this. Why continue to deny it? Here's the screenshot of the tweets: right here. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the policy stance. What do you think about "Mitchell believes that the private sector should be responsible for affordable housing rather than the government." rather than the current policy stance? Also, why not include other policy stances from the source? Why choose that one alone? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

See my paragraph above. There's no reason to reword what I wrote other than to whitewash and try to paint Mitchell in a more positive light. That is, I believe, a violation of NPOV. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is absurdly annoying how you constantly refer to me "whitewashing" the article.... WP:WHITEWASH is about advocacy, promotion, or opinions. The way you have phrased his political stance is abhorrent. It is in the most negative light. You can't even be reasonable and attempt to meet some middle ground? And yet again you completely ignore the twitter aspect of this (AND ignore the section above as well). --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I had never even heard of WP:WHITEWASH. I was using the term "whitewashing" in a general sense, as in, you are trying to remove anything negative about the person from the article. You are clearly far better versed in Wikipedia policies than I am. Which is quite amazing, considering the amount of time you have been active, and looking at your earliest edits, it indeed appears that you were an expert from Day 1. Benicio2020 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

So... you're just flagrantly using the term "white-wash" to defend your edits (and remove pretty much most edits you disagree with? Without any basis? Ok, glad we could have a collaborative discussion. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Focus on my edits please, not my character. I don't have to justify myself to you! But since you keep holding this nonsense over my head, look up Wikipedia:Clean start. You are the only person here who is failing to address the conversation at hand. Do you see how this section (and the one above) has spiraled out of control and been completely derailed? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I read Wikipedia:Clean start. I was not sure what you're saying by linking to that. Are you saying that you had an old account, and this PerpetuityGrat account is a new account? Benicio2020 (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Benicio2020: yeah.... I'm going to disengage from this talk section, because it's clear that you're not here to discuss the article. You have brought up countless other things, except the content in question. You reverted the sourced content I added and claimed several times that it was original research, unsourced, NPOV, now to soften the image of a politician, and have never justified why. You have refused to communicate with me time and time again. I'll let admins resolve the WP:AN3 notice. Cheers. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Benicio2020 since the 3RR warned us both from reverting, I am going to ask that you not re-add the Twitter content that you continue to add. It is unproven that the tweets are legitimate. The source even uses the terms "alleged tweets" four times. Your response above Mitchell sent those tweets, and you know this. Why continue to deny it? Here's the screenshot of the tweets: right here isn't satisfactory here. Frankly, no, I don't know that Mitchell sent those tweets. And a screenshot from Twitter is not a reliable source (see WP:RSPTWITTER). This is not me "white-washing" the article. This is my attempt to not include false and potentially defamatory information on a BLP encyclopedia article. I am kindly going to ask you here to address the content of this section alone, and not bring up things that aren't germane to this section. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI, it appears that the article was restored to a previous version with the Twitter content still in place (and grammatical errors which were later fixed). I assume this was unintentional. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Braxton Mitchell 2021.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"Deadnames and bullying"

There have been multiple attempts to add poorly-sourced content (see this diff). Mitchell is not known by any other name, per reliable sources, so whether he had a different name at birth and changed it is irrelevant unless reliable sources draw attention to it. A listing of court proceedings is insufficient. Referring to an earlier name as a "deadname" is inaccurate, as that term specifically refers to transgender and non-binary individuals. The assertion that he "has refused to acknowledge his own deadname" was completely unsourced. The only relevant content, his support for HB361, is now in the article in appropriately neutral language. Schazjmd (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry for causing any misunderstandings about this..... now that I have reviewed the diffs once again it seems as if the article should be kept as it is now. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 01:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)