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)