The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing
Tudor Dixon and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This Bridge Magazine article has some information which doesn't appear here. For example, the article should include the candidate's birthplace, among other things. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/tudor-dixon-what-know-about-republican-taking-michigan-gov-whitmer
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I find the article on Tudor Dixon biased and hostile. I have always appreciated Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information and tgis article is disappointing. You should remove partisan comments from your pages on living and active political figures. 2600:1007:B034:54A9:6CD0:2084:1D40:152A ( talk) 18:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree that this article is biased and very hostile. Disgustingly so, and I'm no fan of Ms. Dixon. This is yet another example of why I no longer donate to Wikipedia. No matter side of the fence you're on politically, this article is not professional at all. Can we imagine what would happen if someone wrote an article about Michelle Obama, or similar, the way this one is written? It needs to be redone, properly. Here is her campaign page. Use it: https://www.tudordixon.com/about-tudor. This current article is demeaning to successful women on both ends of the political spectrum. 174.249.212.4 ( talk) 17:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
It's amazing that there seem to be crickets in response to the bias of this article. And Wikipedia continues to go down the toilet. What a joke this has become. 174.250.6.7 ( talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, could a more flattering photo of her not be found? Come on! There are plenty on the internet where she is smiling. There is one in the USA Today article: https://news.yahoo.com/tudor-dixon-4-things-know-113407992.html 174.249.212.4 ( talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought maybe it was just me. Even after the edits, this is one of the most poorly, unprofessionally written articles I've seen in a long time. It still appears to be a smear campaign subtly endorsing her opponent out of fear. Regardless of the sources used, there is no balance whatsoever in this article, along with some "factual" statements that are clearly opinion of the writer without factual basis, or statements from sources taken out of context. As mentioned above, this type of article is exactly why I don't contribute to Wikipedia because the information is often unreliable and biased. There are glowing pieces out there of Tudor Dixon and her merits, but none of those characteristics are reflected here. Yes, maybe a few mitigating samples of issues are presented in a vain attempt to look somewhat unbiased, but they're severely inadequate to accomplish any ambition of neutrality, including superficial ambitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.32.122.221 ( talk) 20:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Should the lede section include a sentence about Dixon's promotion of misinformation and conspiracy theories? –– FormalDude (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
"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".
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."
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)
then we the citizens who they serve should be informed about such problematic
"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)
"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)
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)
"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)
I'm talking about career differences.
About the example of basketball star Kyrie Irving's antisemitism.
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)
References
On 19:42, 17 November 2022, User:FormalDude made a revert with the single misleading explanation "fails verification". Said action reverted an edit I had made using neutral language that more accurately and objectively reflected Dixon's statement about covid-19 vaccines and the CDC guidance.
I researched the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies beforehand and took my time in analyzing and also researching relevant reliable sources. The text I had modified and FormalDude restored reads, Dixon has additionally falsely stated that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren. [1]
I checked the source used for that text. The main relevant part reads,
Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation Thursday to add the COVID-19 vaccine to childrens’ annual immunization schedule, GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children.
“A Dixon Administration would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list,” Dixon said in a statement Thursday. “Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process.”
As it can be seen here, Dixon did not state that "lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren". She stated, “Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children". Two different things. In addition, Dixon ECHOED "false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children". The key word here is echo, which has broader meaning than "to state" or "say".
According to Merriam Webster, echo (verb): 1a. "REPEAT, IMITATE", 1b. "to restate in support or agreement", 1c. "to be reminiscent of : EVOKE". We can see in the source that after writing that Dixon echoed false right wing claims, she is quoted to what she actually said. And she did not say that "the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children". She ECHOED that claim of the right-wing, Dixon saying in her own words, "Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process.” She used the words pushing and, in the other sentence, government overreach.
The reverted edit reads, [2] [1]
Also on October 2022, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, by unanimous vote, favored updating the recommended schedule of immunization to include Covid-19 vaccines. Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."
If we analyze both sources, we can see that Dixon issued her statement in response to the unanimous vote of the CDC regarding covid 19 vaccines. Therefore, the claim of FormalDude that this text "fails verification" is mistaken. Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."
Problem is, the quote itself is "correct" only in so much as that's what Dixon said.
lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildrenI really don't understand the debate here. She either said it or she didn't. We have a quote where she clearly didn't say it. I kindly wait for a quote to support the "falsely claimed" editorialization. Nemov ( talk) 23:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children."
liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process"
Parents should be in charge of deciding if the COVID-19 vaccine is right for their child - not the CDC or Gretchen Whitmer's bureaucrats"
She was forcing the vaccine on people."
"Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process."According to the article, this is untrue.
"Parents should be in charge of deciding if the COVID-19 vaccine is right for their child - not the CDC or Gretchen Whitmer's bureaucrats ..."Ahem, parents *are* in charge. Not the CDC, and not Whitmer, or anybody else.
"Dixon's claim: 'She was forcing the vaccine on people. You remember her program, 'Vacc to Normal?' You could only get your liberties and freedoms back if you got your neighbor vaccinated.' ... The facts: Whitmer released her 'Vacc to Normal' plan in April 2021. It set milestones for reopening based on the number of Michigan residents 16 and older who received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine ... At no point did the Whitmer administration advocate for requiring COVID-19 vaccinations among adults or children ..."
that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren. The
pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our childrenquote is getting closer, but still not a claim that it's required. The other sources aren't about school requirements.
would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required listI'd say roll with the source, but the quote exists and she doesn't make that claim. She's got plenty of other nonsense to cover though. Nemov ( talk) 00:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe it would be better to collectively work towards language we can all agree on then, rather than debating this endlessly? Some greater context could be given, but then we're also looking at expanding something that is currently one sentence into many sentences, giving this small thing even more attention and page space than it had before etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 02:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In an October 2022 statement, Dixon repeated false right-wing claims that the US government is mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren.
In October 2022, the CDC favored updating the recommended schedule of immunization to include Covid-19 vaccines. Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."
Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children"? –– FormalDude (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
"Editors don't follow sources, we follow Wikipedia guidelines."So I'm not sure where to go from here, if there is even disagreement about that basic principle. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 21:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
apparently it hasn't been read by FormalDude– In fact I read and directly responded to your "detailed analysis". –– FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Following an October 2022 decision to include covid-19 vaccines on the CDC's optional immunization recommendation schedule, [3] Dixon alleged that "liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process". According to Michigan Advance, the state "does not have a vaccine mandate for COVID-19 and unvaccinated children are not precluded from attending school"; the media outlet further noted that "This is not the first time Dixon has touted misinformation about COVID-19 and children". [4] [5]
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
Thinker78 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing
Tudor Dixon and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This Bridge Magazine article has some information which doesn't appear here. For example, the article should include the candidate's birthplace, among other things. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/tudor-dixon-what-know-about-republican-taking-michigan-gov-whitmer
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I find the article on Tudor Dixon biased and hostile. I have always appreciated Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information and tgis article is disappointing. You should remove partisan comments from your pages on living and active political figures. 2600:1007:B034:54A9:6CD0:2084:1D40:152A ( talk) 18:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree that this article is biased and very hostile. Disgustingly so, and I'm no fan of Ms. Dixon. This is yet another example of why I no longer donate to Wikipedia. No matter side of the fence you're on politically, this article is not professional at all. Can we imagine what would happen if someone wrote an article about Michelle Obama, or similar, the way this one is written? It needs to be redone, properly. Here is her campaign page. Use it: https://www.tudordixon.com/about-tudor. This current article is demeaning to successful women on both ends of the political spectrum. 174.249.212.4 ( talk) 17:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
It's amazing that there seem to be crickets in response to the bias of this article. And Wikipedia continues to go down the toilet. What a joke this has become. 174.250.6.7 ( talk) 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, could a more flattering photo of her not be found? Come on! There are plenty on the internet where she is smiling. There is one in the USA Today article: https://news.yahoo.com/tudor-dixon-4-things-know-113407992.html 174.249.212.4 ( talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought maybe it was just me. Even after the edits, this is one of the most poorly, unprofessionally written articles I've seen in a long time. It still appears to be a smear campaign subtly endorsing her opponent out of fear. Regardless of the sources used, there is no balance whatsoever in this article, along with some "factual" statements that are clearly opinion of the writer without factual basis, or statements from sources taken out of context. As mentioned above, this type of article is exactly why I don't contribute to Wikipedia because the information is often unreliable and biased. There are glowing pieces out there of Tudor Dixon and her merits, but none of those characteristics are reflected here. Yes, maybe a few mitigating samples of issues are presented in a vain attempt to look somewhat unbiased, but they're severely inadequate to accomplish any ambition of neutrality, including superficial ambitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.32.122.221 ( talk) 20:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Should the lede section include a sentence about Dixon's promotion of misinformation and conspiracy theories? –– FormalDude (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
"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".
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."
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)
then we the citizens who they serve should be informed about such problematic
"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)
"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)
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)
"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)
I'm talking about career differences.
About the example of basketball star Kyrie Irving's antisemitism.
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)
References
On 19:42, 17 November 2022, User:FormalDude made a revert with the single misleading explanation "fails verification". Said action reverted an edit I had made using neutral language that more accurately and objectively reflected Dixon's statement about covid-19 vaccines and the CDC guidance.
I researched the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies beforehand and took my time in analyzing and also researching relevant reliable sources. The text I had modified and FormalDude restored reads, Dixon has additionally falsely stated that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren. [1]
I checked the source used for that text. The main relevant part reads,
Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation Thursday to add the COVID-19 vaccine to childrens’ annual immunization schedule, GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children.
“A Dixon Administration would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list,” Dixon said in a statement Thursday. “Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process.”
As it can be seen here, Dixon did not state that "lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren". She stated, “Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children". Two different things. In addition, Dixon ECHOED "false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children". The key word here is echo, which has broader meaning than "to state" or "say".
According to Merriam Webster, echo (verb): 1a. "REPEAT, IMITATE", 1b. "to restate in support or agreement", 1c. "to be reminiscent of : EVOKE". We can see in the source that after writing that Dixon echoed false right wing claims, she is quoted to what she actually said. And she did not say that "the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children". She ECHOED that claim of the right-wing, Dixon saying in her own words, "Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process.” She used the words pushing and, in the other sentence, government overreach.
The reverted edit reads, [2] [1]
Also on October 2022, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, by unanimous vote, favored updating the recommended schedule of immunization to include Covid-19 vaccines. Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."
If we analyze both sources, we can see that Dixon issued her statement in response to the unanimous vote of the CDC regarding covid 19 vaccines. Therefore, the claim of FormalDude that this text "fails verification" is mistaken. Thinker78 (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."
Problem is, the quote itself is "correct" only in so much as that's what Dixon said.
lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildrenI really don't understand the debate here. She either said it or she didn't. We have a quote where she clearly didn't say it. I kindly wait for a quote to support the "falsely claimed" editorialization. Nemov ( talk) 23:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children."
liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process"
Parents should be in charge of deciding if the COVID-19 vaccine is right for their child - not the CDC or Gretchen Whitmer's bureaucrats"
She was forcing the vaccine on people."
"Liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process."According to the article, this is untrue.
"Parents should be in charge of deciding if the COVID-19 vaccine is right for their child - not the CDC or Gretchen Whitmer's bureaucrats ..."Ahem, parents *are* in charge. Not the CDC, and not Whitmer, or anybody else.
"Dixon's claim: 'She was forcing the vaccine on people. You remember her program, 'Vacc to Normal?' You could only get your liberties and freedoms back if you got your neighbor vaccinated.' ... The facts: Whitmer released her 'Vacc to Normal' plan in April 2021. It set milestones for reopening based on the number of Michigan residents 16 and older who received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine ... At no point did the Whitmer administration advocate for requiring COVID-19 vaccinations among adults or children ..."
that lawmakers in the US were mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren. The
pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our childrenquote is getting closer, but still not a claim that it's required. The other sources aren't about school requirements.
would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required listI'd say roll with the source, but the quote exists and she doesn't make that claim. She's got plenty of other nonsense to cover though. Nemov ( talk) 00:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
Thinker78 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe it would be better to collectively work towards language we can all agree on then, rather than debating this endlessly? Some greater context could be given, but then we're also looking at expanding something that is currently one sentence into many sentences, giving this small thing even more attention and page space than it had before etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 02:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
In an October 2022 statement, Dixon repeated false right-wing claims that the US government is mandating COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren.
In October 2022, the CDC favored updating the recommended schedule of immunization to include Covid-19 vaccines. Dixon stated that her administration "would fight this government overreach and move to ban Michigan schools from adding COVID-19 vaccines to the required list."
Tudor Dixon echoed false right-wing claims that the government is now requiring the vaccine for school children"? –– FormalDude (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
"Editors don't follow sources, we follow Wikipedia guidelines."So I'm not sure where to go from here, if there is even disagreement about that basic principle. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 21:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
apparently it hasn't been read by FormalDude– In fact I read and directly responded to your "detailed analysis". –– FormalDude (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Following an October 2022 decision to include covid-19 vaccines on the CDC's optional immunization recommendation schedule, [3] Dixon alleged that "liberal policymakers are pushing COVID-19 vaccines on our children and forcing parents out of the process". According to Michigan Advance, the state "does not have a vaccine mandate for COVID-19 and unvaccinated children are not precluded from attending school"; the media outlet further noted that "This is not the first time Dixon has touted misinformation about COVID-19 and children". [4] [5]
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source.
Thinker78 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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)