Talk:Tudor Dixon/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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

• 220721-tudor-dixon-main-se-218p-f240cb.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Completely ridiculous

This article seems to be, and probably was, written by a staffer for the other candidate. It reads like a list of talking points from the other candidate, not a neutral biography. For one, the only stances on issues listed relate to controversial topics such as the 2020 election and abortion. What about education? Fiscal policy? Taxes? Infrastructure? Wikipedia has gone so far from what it used to be. I’m not going to criticize without offering some ideas to make it more neutral, so here’s a few. List some other issues and descriptions of positions that aren’t attack vectors from the other candidate, such as those previously listed. Use one the many photo’s that are licensed that aren’t the worst possible one you could find. This article is way too biased, just make it neutral. It reads like the script for an attack ad. This article should be unlocked given that whoever is currently in charge of it wants it to be that way. 2601:40A:8101:F400:9DFF:5937:8016:612 (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have addressed many of your concerns. I added eighteen new sources mentioning Dixon's agenda, detailing her plans for education, fiscal policy, and voting policy. I also included several criticisms directed by Dixon against Whitmer. And I mentioned that Dixon got a bachelor's degree in psychology.

Since the controversial/negative information is reliably sourced, as a rule, it should not be removed.

• WP:BLP states that "[i]n the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

• WP:NPOV explains that due weight must be given. That is, all significant views must be told. However, a significant view must not be put next to a fringe view without explaining the difference, as this will create a false balance. An article about Earth's shape cannot mention the viewpoint that the Earth is flat without stating that it's an unfounded and fringe claim. The same goes for baseless political claims, such as that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election, or that there's widespread voting fraud in recent American elections. This isn't exclusive to Tudor Dixon's article. Please check out the articles for Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, QAnon, Pizzagate, and other conspiracies and their believers.

Keep in mind that none of the sources used to write this article are partisan, though some are more biased. This article relies significantly on The Detroit News, a publication whose conservative editorial team endorsed Dixon. The controversial information is conveyed by Axios, CNN, The Hill, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other credible sources.

With regards to her photo, it's difficult to find a photo that is freely licensed. Editors can't use any photo, as they can be copyrighted, and improper use can expose Wikipedia to lawsuits. That's why the current photo is taken from C-SPAN, which has a license decent enough for editors to use. You can attempt to submit a non-free image here, however, there are criteria that must be met, and no guarantees are made that the image will stay up. It doesn't hurt to give it a shot. FlantasyFlan (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This is actually much better, I'm glad someone on here is interested in neutral presentation of candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40A:8101:F400:AD05:DA98:8037:F3C1 (talk) 04:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

The birthplace of Tudor Dixon needs to be corrected. She was not born in Muskegon, Michigan. She was born and raised in Illinois. Here is a USA Today article as a source: https://news.yahoo.com/tudor-dixon-4-things-know-113407992.html. Thank you.174.249.212.4 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC) 174.249.212.4 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, this article needs to be more neutral. It is far too biased and hostile.174.249.212.4 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see above reply by FantasyFlan. The birthplace has been removed from the article in whole until consensus is reached as to which sources should be used to verify this as there are contradictions. Article neutrality also seems to have been addressed by the same user in the below edit request. If you have further concerns regarding article neutrality, open a new request and specify specifically what should be changed in the form of please change X to Y. —Sirdog (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2022

Tudor Dixon was born in Illinois not Muskegon Michigan. 2600:6C4A:4A7F:F0DE:955B:8E9D:944E:B97 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done you need to provide a source. PRAXIDICAE🌈 03:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a source: https://news.yahoo.com/tudor-dixon-4-things-know-113407992.html. Could you not have found it yourself and corrected the article? She was born AND raised in Illinois. Please correct the article.174.249.212.4 (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Though she was raised in Illinois, it's not established whether she was born in Illinois. Yes, the article you linked does mention that, but two other articles by the Detroit Metro Times and Bridge MI claim that she was born in Pennsylvania, which is plausible as multiple members of her family were born in Pittsburgh. I'll compromise by removing the birthplace from the article until it can be definitively settled. FlantasyFlan (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! 174.250.6.7 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

This article is completely biased, even those siding with her can agree. I suspect this was written solely by a political enemy. This article should just state helpful facts rather than attempt to degrade. Keeping this semi-locked does not benefit anyone, and proves it difficult to fix biased errors. Superiorpsyche (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Remove Clearly partisan comments on political candidates page in the case remove the sentence about Dixon supporting conspiracy theories and the comment inserted under abortion "without explanation" both 'sources' are highly partisan and have little to no evidence in their articles. This can sway an election and may have already, which is probably the intent. labeling something a consipracy just because the right believes it and the left doesn't is the begining of fascism. even if it is an actual conspiracy theory it also fall under free speech. Politics should be neutral on information sites. Lionsarenotsafe (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary apostrophe

Under Early life and education 2000 isn't possessive. The apostrophe needs to be removed, as "2000s". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.32.126.32 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why it took a month to get this handled, but I just fixed it. Marquardtika (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

This Article is Clearly Politically Bias

This is not a fair and objective Wikipedia page, and a demonstration how left of center partisans gain control of otherwise “objective sources.”

Why is she accused of COVID disinformation on the third sentence of the page? That’s preposterous. Is the third line in Gretchen Whitmer’s Wikipedia that she spread misinformation about the need to send the elderly to nursing homes, the need for aggressive shutdowns, and the support for long periods of remote school? How about her misinformation about line 5 having any material impact on global temperatures? How about the disinformation that Michigan will revert to a total abortion ban when the Michigan Supreme Court is very liberal?

Politicians can have unpopular and disagreeable positions and policies. Many times they are not factually supported or turn out wrong. It is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia to make contested and inflammatory accusations of a major candidate in a initial bio section of the page, reserved primarily for basic and fundamental facts about the person’s identity. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that partisan democrats edit Wikipedia and then lock it for editing. These obviously political statements should be removed or placed in a section later in the article. 2601:400:8001:2150:E1F8:1EC0:5DCC:B153 (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The phone is horrible and unnecessary

Please place a normal, accepted photo akin to a neutral news source as her bio photo. The photo chosen is obviously poor quality: it’s zoomed it, granular, and the candidate does not appear as though she is ready or expecting a photograph to be taken and used. She isn’t smiling and making an odd, apprehensive face. If the photo is cut from a longer video, that is even worse. Why was this photo, with this facial expression, cut from a video?

Feel free to look up any reasonable, non-partisan news source and take a reasonable photo of her. This otherwise demonstrates a remarkable lake of taste and fairness. 2601:400:8001:2150:E1F8:1EC0:5DCC:B153 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo not phone

Photo 2601:400:8001:2150:E1F8:1EC0:5DCC:B153 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Add that Dixon Opposes Lockdowns and Supports Enhanced Police Funding

This article is clearly politically biased. One possible way to amend this is by adding that Dixon opposes the school and societal lockdowns Gretchen Whitmer imposed during COVID. In addition, this article should discuss crime, which is a major issue. Dixon supports enhanced funding and involvement for police to address crime in the state.

In addition, education policy is not just ESAs. Dixon supports school choice and the ability of students to attend charters. This should be mentioned if the article is also going to be talking in detail about Dixon’s position on sexually explicit material for third graders. 2601:400:8001:2150:E1F8:1EC0:5DCC:B153 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This Article is Clearly Politically Biased*

This is not a fair and objective Wikipedia page, and a demonstration how left of center partisans gain control of otherwise “objective sources.”

Why is she accused of COVID disinformation on the third sentence of the page? That’s preposterous. Is the third line in Gretchen Whitmer’s Wikipedia that she spread misinformation about the need to send the elderly to nursing homes, the need for aggressive shutdowns, and the support for long periods of remote school? How about her misinformation about line 5 having any material impact on global temperatures? How about the disinformation that Michigan will revert to a total abortion ban when the Michigan Supreme Court is very liberal?

Politicians can have unpopular and disagreeable positions and policies. Many times they are not factually supported or turn out wrong. It is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia to make contested and inflammatory accusations of a major candidate in a initial bio section of the page, reserved primarily for basic and fundamental facts about the person’s identity. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that partisan democrats edit Wikipedia and then lock it for editing. These obviously political statements should be removed or placed in a section later in the article. 2601:400:8001:2150:E1F8:1EC0:5DCC:B153 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this. You have experienced editors with a clear political agenda, who if you did this against a person/issue that they liked, would be spouting Wikipedia rules and regulations for hours and hours. I've reported this to see if more objective editors can step in and take care of this. Right now, leaving this stuff in the opening is a joke, and in the end, is counterproductive to what Wikipedia claims it is trying to be. Asc85 (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Asc85, who exactly are you are accusing of having a political agenda here? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that sentence in question that I have been trying to take out isn't a deeply partisan comment? If you think it's a deeply partisan comment, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, much less in the opening. If you think it's a totally appropriate comment (that didn't have any documentation behind it BTW), then we have a huge difference of opinion, one that I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise. Asc85 (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

There are reliable sources in the article's body supporting that claim. I don't see what's partisan about it. Facts aren't partisan, they're just facts. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question - if there's editors you think are trying to push some sort of agenda (which is against Wikipedia's guidelines), name them or withdraw the claim. Aside from that, I concur with Elli - facts are facts. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Facts are facts" you say. OK. Let's look at Merriam-Webster's definition of "Fact," which is: 1 - Something that has actual existence. 2 - A piece of information presented as having objective reality. 3 - The quality of being actual. I will give you some examples of "facts": 1 - Joe Biden is President of the United States 2 - Phil Murphy is Governor of New Jersey 3 - Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. These three things are all facts. Then let's look at the sentence that has provoked discussion regarding Tudor Dixon, "She has promoted misinformation about topics such as COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election." Is this really a fact? I can appreciate that this might be a "truth" for you, but your "truth" is not a fact, and doesn't belong on a Wikipedia entry. Heck, just for kicks, let's discuss the difference between a "fact" and a "truth." "A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and quantifiable measures. Facts go beyond theories. They’re proven through calculation and experience, or they’re something that definitively occurred in the past. Truth is entirely different; it may include fact, but it can also include belief. Oftentimes, people will accept things as true because they fall closer to their comfort zones, are assimilated easily into their comfort zones, or reflect their preconceived notions of reality. Fact is indisputable. Truth is acceptable." If you like, you can continue reading this article here: https://channelnomics.com/2018/03/two-realities-truth-and-fact-and-theyre-not-the-same/#:~:text=A%20fact%20is%20something%20that's,it%20can%20also%20include%20belief. So in closing, I will only add that if you continue to see the Tudor Dixon statement as a fact...that is indeed frightening. Asc85 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

"Facts" for the purpose of Wikipedia means statements that are verifiable. Have a read of WP:NOTTRUTH. So far you have yet to provide a policy based reason for why you're challenging this content. Is it simply because you don't believe it's true? ––FormalDude (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE issues in lede

The sentence "She has promoted misinformation about topics such as COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election" in the lede is WP:UNDUE. It's not a good reflection of the weight given to this content in the body, relative to other content in the body. Please gain WP:CONSENSUS before re-adding. Marquardtika (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

A one sentence summary of two topics from the body seems fully appropriate and inline with WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

There are six sub-sections on political views. It doesn't follow WP:LEAD to only include one of them in the lede. Why covid and not abortion, education, etc.? Marquardtika (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well now there's three sections that detail her misinformation and conspiracy theories. That should be plenty justification for inclusion in the lede. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There are sections titled "Abortion" "COVID-19" "Education" "Equal rights" "Fiscal policy" and "Voting policies". So no, it doesn't make sense to only include content about covid in the lede. Marquardtika (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a polarizing controversially political statement like that certainly does not belong in the opening lead segment. Mathmo ^Talk 08:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please Cite Check the Discussion of Sexual Identity

The article states that Dixon would support barring teachers from “talking” about sexual identity. Yet the article cited paraphrases the bill without citation to the language.

Wikipedia should not be misleading people on the meaning of legal language promoted by serious candidates for public office. The source cited notes that Dixon was reintroducing the sexual identity bill from Florida. But that bill does not prohibit “talking” about sexuality, it prohibits lecturing, teaching, or having curriculum that is not “age appropriate.” It is totally misleading to imply the bill in Florida prohibits talking about homosexuality in any way, in any circumstance, just advancing it as part of classroom instruction for kindergarteners to third graders.

Someone who can fairly interpret and read legal language should confirm this assertion, which is bare citation from a local news source paraphrasing a highly politicized topic. 2601:400:8001:2150:A58D:EDE0:B9AF:8265 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Why Does it Matter if the DeVoses Also Support School Choice?

Why does this page out of nowhere mention the DeVoses also support Dixon’s positions on school choice? It is very disjointed and not well explained. It comes across more as a recitation of common Democratic Party talking points tying Dixon to DeVos (in order to make it look bad that Dixon receives support from very wealthy conservative donors).

If you want this Wikipedia to focus on political talking points, perhaps it should do the bare minimum of explaining why the DeVoses should be discussed in the context of education policy. Right now, it appears to be throwing a bunch of random ideas together and calling it a summary. Example: “Whitmer opposes the expansion of school choice alternatives. Teachers unions also support the restriction of school choice alternatives.”

A greater question, why is it significant what wealthy donor supports which candidate? Why isn’t Wikipedia discuss the tens of millions of dollars from wealthy donors for Whitmer? Maybe because all major US politicians receive donations from affluent people and it’s by and large irrelevant to their basic biography? 2601:400:8001:2150:4847:9E7A:4824:98F8 (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a question to bring up on the Whitmer page. If you have a specific change that you'd like to see, then make your proposal there, along with supporting references to reliable sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the out of context and largely irrelevant discussion of the DeVoses from the description of Tudor Dixon's education policy. It comes across as more a recitation of a Democratic Party attack ad than an objective description of Dixon's positions.

Alternative: If the citation to third-party donors is included in the "policy position" section, for the sake of effective writing and communication, the article should include some transition or connecting thought tying Dixon's education position to the DeVoses. Right now, the writing is disjoined and unclear. 24.127.33.121 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposing specific language changes with citations would greatly increase your chances of such an edit being made.

Edit requests should be in the format of: "change x to y" because that makes your request very concrete and clear, while also making it easier for someone to implement your request. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

some of this stuff needs to be in the article

I can't believe I'm saying this but her views on the civil war deserve attention ASAP

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/27/politics/kfile-tudor-dixon-conspiracy-democrats-topple-america/index.html 2602:306:BC74:6240:7C92:840B:9E23:7A32 (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Added. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the linked article says anything about Dixon's "views on the civil war". The article certainly talks about her views on the Democratic Party, but on the civil war? Nonsense. Eastcote (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Tudor Dixon Did Not Assert that the "COVID-19 Pandemic" Was Created By Democrats

The article states: "In a June 2020 episode of her show, 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."

This sentence clearly implies that Dixon believes the COVID-19 virus was created by the Democratic Party, a la the Chinese lab leak theory. That is totally false. Dixon was stating that the Democratic Party was exploiting the COVID-19 pandemic to undermine the country and promote their agenda, which according to Dixon's statement in the video would result in the decline of the United States.

It is extraordinarily different for a politician to claim that their opponents policies would result in the decline or collapse of the modern U.S. (see Joe Biden claiming the Georgia voting bill would establish the second coming of Jim Crow), and claiming that a medically identifiable virus was created and spread by the opposition, which is would be a wild conspiracy theorist akin to QAnon. Notably, the CNN source cited by this article itself quotes Dixon (unlike Wikipedia) and further explains that Dixon stated "Democrats were using this moment to 'topple' the US."

Please see the video yourself: https://www.facebook.com/RealAmericasVoice/videos/1392098987648654/?extid=CL-UNK-UNK-UNK-IOS_GK0T-GK1C&mibextid=6IxyOt&ref=sharing. It is simply not a fair reading to imply that the "COVID-19 pandemic" was created by the Democratic Party. She was arguing that the reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic was part of a decades-long plot. That is very, very different. She never stated or implied that the virus itself was created by or a plot of the Democratic Party.

The article as written is misleading to readers. To the extent Wikipedia wishes to add every comment that can potentially damage conservative politicians onto their pages, this article should instead state that Dixon asserted the Democratic Party used the "COVID-19 lockdowns" and "the protests of 2020" as part of their "plot" to "fundamentally change the United States." Quote the original source, not a summary of a summary published by CNN. 24.127.33.121 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We actually do need to quote summary 3rd party reliable sources. Maybe there's another one other than the CNN one? The video would be a WP:PRIMARY source. Andre🚐 17:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The use of this CNN report in this article is a good example of sloppy Wikipedia editing, and a good example that a "reliable source" is not necessarily reliable. Nowhere in the CNN report is Dixon quoted as saying "the COVID-19 pandemic was part of a plot that Democrats have planned for decades". Dixon did not say that. CNN said that. Dixon never said anything about Democrats wanting to topple the USA "in retaliation for losing Civil War". Dixon did not say that. CNN said that. Yet CNN's false claim goes into the article as if it was Dixon herself who uttered the words. All because CNN is a "reliable source". An obviously biased hatchet job is still a hatchet job, even if the hatchet is wielded by a "reliable source". Wikipedia editors need to review all sources with a critical eye, particular on political topics. It's no wonder that nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore. Eastcote (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have another source please provide it and we will update the article. Andre🚐 21:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You obviously missed the point. I have no other "reliable source" for these comments of Dixon, because there IS NO reliable source for them. She didn't say what the source says she did. CNN said it, and is was false reporting on their part. So this shouldn't be in the article at all. But I suppose you'd want a "reliable source" to say that the CNN article was false. And so the Wikipedia cycle of misinformation continues.... Eastcote (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty simple - we say what reliable sources say. Even if they might be wrong. You need an RS for whatever you want to add or change. Andre🚐 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Pretty simple. "We repeat a lie that is clearly a lie, because an authority has said it". Like I said, the Wikipedia cycle of misinformation continues. Eastcote (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOVHOW, "Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

Per WP:BLPREMOVE, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Per WP:SOURCESDIFFER, "Articles should be based on thorough research of sources."

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." Thinker78 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

LOOK, YOU NEED A BETTER IMAGE FOR HER. THERE ARE SO MANY BEAUTIFUL IMAGES OF HER, YET YOU PICKED THIS IMAGE??? AY YO CMON, MAN. LOOK! OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE HER BEAUTY!!! 2606:69C0:5120:3104:F03E:7D9A:5090:B788 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide a better image with an acceptable license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This one appears to be available for use, with CC 2.0 license:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/192094652@N03/52329445148/

Someone would need to crop it a bit, but it's definitely more crisp and professional looking than the current photo, in my opinion. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've added the suggested image, please crop it when you can. Please phrase edit requests in a more objective and constructive manner in the future. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

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)