Talk:Winsome Sears

message: Why have all the racist accusations from Democrat Party officials and talking heads been snatched out of this article?  That stuff needs to be in the article for completeness. Examples of the racist slander was that she is a "Black mouth" of White supremacy" and "White Supremacy By Ventriloquist" by Democrat Michael Eric Dyson.  Joy Reid's claimed she "legitimizes white supremacy" just because she thinks differently from Democrat Black people.  WTF?  PUT IT BACK!§
: I'm one of the people who added some of those quotes, but my addition was reverted. Here's the diff which shows my content being removed:
: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winsome_Sears&type=revision&diff=1053772996&oldid=1053771984
: And here's the content that I added, which was removed. I put this in the "Career" section, and I created a new sub-section called, "Accusations of being a white supremacist"
: The Atlantic writer Jemele Hill said of Sears, "It’s not the messaging, folks. This country simply loves white supremacy."Virginia Lt Gov-Elect Winsome Sears slams Jemele Hill after sports writer blames 'white supremacy' for her win, Fox News, November 3, 2021
: Vanderbilt University Professor Michael Eric Dyson said of Sears, "The problem is, here, they want white supremacy by ventriloquist effect... There is a black mouth moving but a white idea running on the runway of the tongue of a figure who justifies and legitimates the white supremacist practices."MSNBC Guest on Winsome Sears: ‘There Is a Black Mouth Moving but a White Idea Running on the Runway of the Tongue’, National Review, November 5, 2021
: When I added the content, I commented, "Accusations of white supremacy. Both accusers are notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles, so I think these accusations are notable."
: The person who removed it commented, "violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV"
: I'm curious to heat what others think of this.
: Baxter329 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not have consensus for this content. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:NPOV. KidAd • SPEAK 21:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  LIBERAL BIAS IN ARTICLE 

message: Substituted at 10:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: My addition to this article (included below) was rejected as "undue," without any specific reason given. Therefore, I'm forced to address every possible objection. Here goes:
-- "Neutrality requires that main space articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." My addition fairly represents a significant viewpoint (actually, it represents facts). The cited sources are reliable, including the Human Rights Campaign, the pre-eminent gay rights organization in the United States, and the Daily Press, the mainstream newspaper of record for the Tidewater, Virginia, region. 
-- "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." My addition represents facts, not views. The "views" are not of a "tiny minority," but pertain to the entire gay population. To label it a "fringe" is, at best, not cognizant of modern-day concepts of a large, valid, high-profile, often-discriminated segment of the population."
-- The facts included in my addition are based primarily on writings of the subject of the biography HERSELF, not "fringe" critics.
-- "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." My addition does not reflect undue weight in any of those regards.
-- "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Again, I presented facts, not opinions; they are not "minority views."  
-- The person who is the subject of the biographical piece is a politician -- a very controversial one at that -- and her views on gay rights are absolutely relevant, as her official actions may arguably be affected by her personal viewpoints. Gay rights is NOT a fringe issue, and her views are not only fair to include in my addition, but SHOULD be included.
This is the addition I attempted to include:
===Controversy over gay rights===
Sears, accused by the Human Rights Campaign of running political campaigns based on “her staunch opposition to LGBTQ rights,”  wrote a 2004 op-ed piece in the [], stating that she “emphatically” supported a constitutional amendment “preserving the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman.” In the piece, she added, “I also believe our society has gone immeasurably beyond almost all standards in accommodating the homosexual community over the last couple of decades.” During a 2004 political debate, she criticized comparisons of the gay civil rights movement to the Black civil rights movement, saying, “I and people who look like me can’t believe our movement is being hijacked.”
DavidMWalter (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you're new here and and an WP:SPA, but  is nonsense. WP:UNDUE is Wikipedia policy. That means it is the . Per WP:STRUCTURE,  This article would benefit from a neutrally-written "Political positions" section. I do not suggest that you attempt to create one. KidAd • SPEAK 23:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition inappropriately rejected 

message: Sears, accused by the Human Rights Campaign of running political campaigns based on “her staunch opposition to LGBTQ rights,”  wrote a 2004 op-ed piece in the [], stating that she “emphatically” supported a constitutional amendment “preserving the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman.” In the piece, she added, “I also believe our society has gone immeasurably beyond almost all standards in accommodating the homosexual community over the last couple of decades.” During a 2004 political debate, she criticized comparisons of the gay civil rights movement to the Black civil rights movement, saying, “I and people who look like me can’t believe our movement is being hijacked.”
DavidMWalter (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you're new here and and an WP:SPA, but  is nonsense. WP:UNDUE is Wikipedia policy. That means it is the . Per WP:STRUCTURE,  This article would benefit from a neutrally-written "Political positions" section. I do not suggest that you attempt to create one. KidAd • SPEAK 23:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over gay rights

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: it's probably better to discuss this here than through edit summaries. I prefer titling the section "Gay rights" over "LGBTQ rights". Both labels are accurate, but I think the former is more helpful to readers because it's more specific. (For the same reason, I don't think we should rename the "Abortion" section to "Women's rights"). The only information I can find about Sears's views on LGBT rights are her views on gay marriage, and the gay rights movement more generally (e.g. the quote about going too far "accommodating the homosexual community", and her comments about the gay rights movement not being comparable to the civil rights movement). What do you think? Colin M (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's less helpful for readers because it's more specific. The HRC, arguably an authority on the matter, uses "LGBTQ". It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, however. :) Good either way. --Kbabej (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading: "Gay rights" vs. "LGBTQ rights" 

message: An IP editor (who I unfortunately can't ping) has removed the following sentence from the "Gay rights" section a couple times:
Their stated rationale is that "HRC is an interest group not a reliable source... it's like putting the NRA opposes x or y Democrat, interests groups are never used authoritatively".
I'm actually leaning in favour of removing the sentence, mostly because I don't think it adds much to the reader's understanding of the topic. We've already established she strongly opposed gay marriage and has expressed a general aversion to the gay rights movement. Is it at all surprising that the HRC finds this problematic?
Analogously, in the "Abortion" section we establish that she's generally opposed to abortions, and would support legislation to strictly limit their availability. Would the section be improved by adding a sentence stating that EMILY's List has described her as "rabidly anti-abortion"? (per ) I'm inclined to think this would not be useful.
Thoughts? Colin M (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it adds context, and expands beyond simply gay issues. It's the first mention of LGBTQ issues as a whole, and it states she has "staunch opposition" to them. I'm in favor of inclusion. --Kbabej (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But does she actually oppose any LGBT rights that aren't gay rights? As I said above, I haven't found any evidence of her expressing views on trans rights. I think their enlargement of scope to "LGBTQ rights" obscures the matter more than it illuminates. Colin M (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The source directly states she does oppose LGBTQ rights. I don't see how that could possibly be confusing for anyone reading this article. --Kbabej (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you've really engaged with my question above:  If not, then enlarging the scope of the statement to "LGBTQ rights" just confuses the issue. Colin M (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, the HRC is the largest lobbying and advocacy org in the US dealing with LGBTQ issues. It's an important org, regardless of one's political leanings. I think their analysis makes sense here. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to understand where you're coming from, what do you think about the abortion example I described above? Or what about adding a quote to the section about guns saying that the NRA has described Sears as "committed to protecting our fundamental right to keep and bear arms"? Would these improve the article? I would regard these as similar situations. Just as HRC is the largest lobbying LGBT lobbying group, Emily's List and the NRA are probably the largest groups in their advocacy areas. Colin M (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the gun and abortion sections are quite clear. The "gay rights" section (which you renamed) isn't as clear, since gay rights and LGBTQ rights are different things. LGBTQ rights include gay rights, but gay rights don't necessarily include LGBTQ rights. Does that make sense? --Kbabej (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

text: The point is not made with the current material, as (stated above) "gay rights and LGBTQ rights are different things. LGBTQ rights include gay rights, but gay rights don't necessarily include LGBTQ rights." The inclusion covers two topic matters under the subsection. --Kbabej (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't bring anything new to the article besides their stated opposition. For that point to even be valid it would have to note her opposition to other aspects of LGBT rights and it doesn't. It just notes their opposition to her campaign. Also, you haven't made a compelling point about why this should break precedence on sourcing. I've not found an analogous example on Wikipedia of a source used like this. 107.77.241.57 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me a WP policy that states this would violate sourcing requirements? Subject matter experts are routinely quoted on pages, including BLPs. --Kbabej (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the HRC article is considered an opinion article and it should be used with deference to balance. The idea is not to use opinion articles as authoritative sources, thus you should consider balance when using them. It doesn't bring any new information besides HRC's opposition to her campaign so it brings undue balance to the page and should be removed. 107.77.241.57 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me a WP policy stating that? I also don't agree that it's an opinion article. It also does bring new info, as it states she is opposed to LGBTQ rights, not just gay rights. --Kbabej (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're reading too far into it. Even if she is opposed to just gay rights, it's still accurate to say she's opposed to LGBT rights. Sometimes sources use an umbrella "LGBT" even if a more specific term applies. Analogy: source A says that Sally's Smoothies has opened three new locations in France. Source B says that Sally's Smoothies has expanded to Europe. We cannot logically infer that B provides new information, i.e. that the business has locations in Europe, not just France. Colin M (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversely, I don't think you understand the difference between LGBTQ and gay. You're also wanting to go down the OR route. You can't assume you know the intent of the HRC by stating . As the arguable experts on the matter, I think they choose their language carefully. Even if they don't, it's still what was stated, and it's not for you or any other editor to interpret. --Kbabej (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Simply put, you're trying to sanitize an article when the content is clearly DUE. I could also ask you why you care so much about its exclusion? I've made thousands of edits on WP. You've made less than 50. Proportionally, your edits are much more focused on one issue than mine are. Your IP is basically an SPA. --Kbabej (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. I don't think these kinds of accusations are fair or helpful, nor do I see how their number of edits is relevant. Colin M (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Describing an IP as an SPA whose last six of seven contributions this year are focusing on removing info on a BLP is hardly unfair. —Kbabej (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You also accused them of "trying to sanitize" the article. That's an imputation of bad faith. Colin M (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  HRC quote