This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Michigan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

I think this would be a good revision to summarize her positions on abortion, limiting synthesis.

In July 2022, Slotkin voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have established "a statutory right for health care providers to provide, and patients to receive, abortion services."^[1] During her reelection campaign in 2022, Slotkin chose not to run any TV ads on abortion.^[2] Slotkin has stated that she believes her district to be "pro-life."^[3][4] In 2022, Slotkin's congressional district voted for Proposal 3, a ballot proposal to codify access to abortion in the Constitution of Michigan, by approximately 15%.^[5] In 2023 she left the House Pro-Choice Caucus.^[6][7]

-Mad Mismagius (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Mad Mismagius (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of issues here, but for starters, the statement that she did not run any ads relating to abortion is out of date and false.

[1]https://awpc.cattcenter.iastate.edu/2022/10/27/42633/ Cpotisch (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear WP:SYNTH to mention the district results here, since there is not a reliable source making that connection to her stating her district is "pro-life". We need a reliable source to connect these two things to mention them in such a way. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And I’m combing through the excel sheet and don’t see anything that explicitly says the numbers by district. Cpotisch (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where in this spreadsheet does it list the district results because I’m not seeing it. Cpotisch (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find district level refrendum data, I can concede that the refrendum violates WP:SYNTH but as to the claiming her district pro life part it is supported by direct reliable source, I can not condede this. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a massive difference between what sources say and what is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Her making a statement about the nature of her district is not significant. This isn't an article about MI-7. You seem to think that her claim is some sort of "gotcha", but given that you just accepted that the SoS doc offers no insight into how the district voted, there is no such angle. Cpotisch (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone provided district-level result in this page with source 2022 Michigan Proposal 3 and it is pro choice+15, so now I think it has due weight to be added back since it, plus her"my district pro life" speech, does show she fail tu under her district when it comes to abortion. 165.91.13.234 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, that source did *not* show district-wide results, and furthermore no secondary RS has mentioned it, so again, it’s not clearly significant. Cpotisch (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the sources again and I don't even see where they show her saying that the district is "pro-life." It's not listed in any of the text, so if it's in there at all, it's buried in one of the videos. That makes it pretty clear that there is no established notability. Cpotisch (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are lying, In the first link from 5:00 to 5:06 she literally said "my district that I represents currently tilts pro life", in the second link it is from 7:08-7:0 in which she says "my district is pro life" 47.219.236.178 (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of lying is certainly not assuming good faith, the clearest case yet of WP:BLUDGEONing, and also closing in on a personal attack. But moving past that, you may notice that I struck my remark that I couldn't find the comment. Nonetheless, her saying it twice between two interviews totaling close to an hour doesn't make it notable. It's not in the text of any article I can find. She said a million different things in those interviews but we clearly don't list them all out here. You still haven't proven that it's worth including. Cpotisch (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She emphasized it twice in different interviews as the beginning of her statements on abortion, it clearly has enough notability. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I can agree on the latest version you write. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She did claim it was pro-life but I understand people’s concerns a about it’s significant. She also was referring to the former configuration of Michigan 7th (based on when it was said) but I understand concerns it’s not relevant. Xandroe (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because a new guard of brand new editors have started re-adding the contentious content, paging @Methanerocketancestor: @Thespeedoflightneverchanges: @Xandroe: @Elli: @Muboshgu: @Burger1018: @Binksternet: @Appleguy01: @Andrevan: to discuss this further. I am strongly of the opinion that the quote about her district leaning pro-life has in no way been shown to be relevant or meaningful, and the claims about how the district voted in the referendum have thus far not been sourced. Cpotisch (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quote about her saying her district was "pro-life" could possibly be meaningful if it made any news or prompted discussion regarding it. I'm not seeing this shown to be the case. Moreover, it seems to reinforce a falsehood about Slotkin's beliefs. The commentary on the district's actual lean is clearly original research. Burger1018 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By this case Slotkin vote for roe v wade should also be deleted, there is no news descuss about Slotkin being one of the house rep who vote for it. The link that I have deleted do not mention slotkin wt all.You can't use double standard. Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your line of thinking is with this. The bill to codify Roe gained massive media attention! For example this article explains precisely who voted for it and who didn't in the second paragraph! Conversely, there is no example of any outlet explaining Slatkin's opinion of how her district leans. Cpotisch (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version do not have original research about her district, and she use "my district is pro life" as the core of her points on abortion TWICE on notable medias that both have wikipedia page, this should be notable. Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway its clear that you are using double standard here, when proving Slotkin is pro choice you only.need the quote link comes from credibke source, but when proving Slotkin is pro life you think coming from credible source is not enough and there should be another media that report it indirectly. This is obviously unfair. Either delete both or keep both. Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a valid argument if there weren't multiple outlets showcasing the importance of NARAL. For example, this Hill article mentions her as one of a dozen House Democrats being endorsed by them for reelection. So no, this doesn't help your case. Cpotisch (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This response, like your past responses, simply does not address the concerns raised by myself and other editors. It is not sufficient for her to simply say a few words in an interview conducted by CBS. By your logic, her words "thanks for having me" are sufficiently notable to be laid out int his article, but that's obviously not true. Cpotisch (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, still agree that it's undue to mention that comment from the interview. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/michigan/2023/02/06/michigan-economic-development-negotiations-code-names-nda/69858803007/ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-congresswoman-silent-why-she-signed-hush-agreement-chinese-tech-company https://thelivingstonpost.com/theis-joins-others-in-calling-for-investigation-of-proposed-battery-plants-chinese-connections/ https://www.yahoo.com/?err=404&err_url=https%3a%2f%2fnews.yahoo.com%2fnrsc-ad-puts-dem-rep-095031498.html Many media reported Slotkin signed Non disclosure agreement with a Chinese company over a battery factory, should it be put here? if it should be listed here which section should it belongs to? Thespeedoflightneverchanges (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant, and is exceptionally common especially for state legislators to do. Here's an article about that happening in Kansas. It would be relevant for an article about the site, but not Slotkin. Burger1018 (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Burger1018 read the links you and him provided they are different, Slotkin sign NDA about a project far from her district while the project DO NOT need her approval(it only needs state legislature approval), so what she do is abnormal, and it caused much more effects than the kansas example since this anomaly caused political attack. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for sharing. I'm a little confused what you mean when you say, "it caused much more effects than the kansas example since this anomaly caused political attack." The article I linked portrays the Kansas NDAs as negative, very similarly to how the Fox News article explains Slotkin's NDA. It's really pushing the boundary for relevance if you're having to give that much context to justify it. Burger1018 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Burger1018 Kansas example never mentioned it is used in political ads, while according the fox article it is used in a lot of political ads 47.219.236.178 (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Fox News is not acceptable to use for U.S. politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, but then I think The New Republic describing Slotkin as the Next Sinema should be kept since it is listed as reliable source onWP:RSPSS

link:https://newrepublic.com/post/174340/two-democrats-help-republicans-pass-vile-ban-pride-flags-military 165.91.13.234 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Republic is a reliable source. Calling her "the next Sinema" though? I don't think one throwaway line, especially making a jump like that, is WP:DUE. We should stick with the facts, i.e. why The New Republic thinks she's "the next Sinema". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu The reason in the article are the policy positions that are already listed in "political position" section, so listing them again will cause WP:DUPCITES 47.219.236.178 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday a footnote was added in the "LGBT" section of this page claiming that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin support the flag banning amendment white even the source itself do not say so, it only says Austin support banninng hate flags while pride flag is not hate flag, shouldn't this lying footnote be corrected or deleted? 165.91.13.234 (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch: 165.91.13.234 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about Slotkin and flag display is covered in the Newsweek source. The context is clear that it's referring to the 2020 Pentagon ban on flags. It's not disinformation. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is deleted anyway but you are clearly lying here, the original quote is "supports a policy endorsed by Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin to ban hateful flags from flying on military bases", Is pride flag hateful flag? 47.218.111.38 (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers please do not remove nuclear testing. I have been talking with Binksternet on my talk page and we have both agreed that the source provided is valid. I don't want to revert your reversion and start an edit war so please either reply with an explanation of why you reverted it here or revert your edit. OrcaLord (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I self-reverted pending discussion. I don't think we should be reporting all of Slotkin's votes as opposed to her views. Absent any explanation of why she voted, we have no insight into her view on nuclear weapons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked at the source, but I broadly agree with this formulation of the distinction, and it should be codified somewhere if it isn't. This isn't the first time that someone has, in good faith and for valid reasons, wanted to add a story about a particular vote. However, as FFF says, I believe it should be included only if we can substantiate some relevance to the candidates' views, thoughts, actions, activities, or prior or subsequent statements. Andre🚐 19:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a vote tracker. We need more than a source just saying "Slotkin voted for/against X" for it to merit inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the history of this page and see there are both first-hand source and second-hand source that covers this. https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2020142 and

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/508206-house-votes-to-block-funding-for-nuclear-testing/. The latter one is from The Hill which is listed as notable and reliable source on WP:THEHILL And it lists out her name in the article:"Two Democrats, Reps. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and Henry Cuellar (Texas), voted against the amendment, while one Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), supported the measure.". If this do not meet the notability standard to be covered, what kind of coverage meets it? 114514politics (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is she is a legisalator, whose vote is what really matters politically and directly affect the laws. If a legislator claim to support something but vote against it like what Scott Peters did with medicafre negociating drug price, the vote will decide the fate of this policy. So putting "explainations" above views is improper.

Also in many other articles about legislators. the legisaltor's position is shown by listing their record. For example, the "political position" chapter of the incumbent senator of this seat Debbie Stabenow includes this: "In October 2002, Stabenow was one of 23 senators who voted against authorization of the use of military force in Iraq.^[1]" "Stabenow voted against providing COVID-19 pandemic financial support to undocumented immigrants on February 4, 2021.^[2]". If this should be deleted, what about these? 114514politics (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments by a sockpuppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, Muboshgu, Andrevan, and OrcaLord: Reopening this discussion given my bold edit [2] removing this information which was reverted with an accusation of disruptive editing [3]. Based on discussion here, it appears to be a general consensus (aside from the sockpuppet) that Wikipedia should not be a simple vote counter/tracker and that this particular vote doesn't have the WP:WEIGHT to be worth its inclusion. The citation provided is an article from The Hill which simply states how Slotkin voted. As Muboshgu and Andre, votes itself (even if reliably sourced) aren't automatic inclusions into articles about members of congress. Given the hundreds of votes members take every year, I agree that we need a reliable source that explains exactly why that particular vote has relevance. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is consensus against including this vote coverage. At the very least, there is no consensus for its inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Given the lack of disagreement here, I will make the edit again. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One person agreeing is not consensus. Also, seeing that you deleted the section and replaced it with one saying she supported a previous act of a similar name is a clear violation of WP:ADDBIAS. Not to mention that you are also in violation of WP:DE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:SPA, and probably numerous other violations, please do not alter the section unless you have a valid reason. OrcaLord (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are three other users on this talk page who have discussed this and agree with the removal. That's a pretty fair consensus on a page with 76 watchers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @ScottishFinnishRadish: -- I'd rather not get into a battle of reverting with @OrcaLord: on this matter so hopefully someone else implements the consensus.

Regarding, WP:DE, I'd suggest with respect that this edit [4] complete with an un-civil edit summary going against consensus would actually be the disruptive edit. I'm not sure why WP:SIGCOV would be relevant here (it seems to be about whether an article is notable, not whether something is due weight. And WP:SPA, I've edited about political topics generally -- seems like your edit history is similar. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it again. Consensus (at the very least lack of consensus for inclusion) is pretty clear here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be raised here... see for your information Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1135#Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Thespeedoflightneverchanges was indefinitely blocked for their behavior on this article and one other. Cpotisch stated at the end of that discussion that the user reached out to them offwiki seeking to implement their desired changes and said there's a group of editors who "all hate Slotkin" looking to influence the article. Let's all keep an eye out for any suspicious POV pushing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've blocked 114514politics as a sock of Thespeedoflightneverchanges. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That figures. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising at all. Was going to open a topic here about the article's generally negative tone which isn't in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I plan to make some edits to try to improve this article. Hopefully, the wider editing community can remove some of the excessive negativity and undue weight to make this a better, well-rounded portrait of the congresswoman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering why I reverted these deletions, see at User talk:Dcpoliticaljunkie#Disruptive edits on Elissa Slotkin page. OrcaLord (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section under "political positions" is based on a one minute clip, which I believe mischaracterizes the Congresswoman's position a longer Slotkin interview ("don't love it" / not important to people in her district /= opposed). I believe it should be removed entirely (or, if other editors strongly believe it should remain, be a more accurate summary of what she said in the interview). As it stands, I believe it is undue weight to devote a section to about 10 seconds in a longer interview where she essentially just tries to move past the question of motives. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Marquardtika (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid source under Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals. Also considering that the article's title is "Don't question the motives of manchin, sinema", it seems like a pretty valid thing to add. Saying you believe it is a mischaracterization is not evidence. Looking at the City Pulse Wikipedia page, you can see that it is a media source that received a significant journalism award of honor so it is notable and reliable. Seeing by your edit history on the page, it feels like this is moreso done for political reasons than anything as you only delete things that paint Slotkin in a negative light and add things that paint her in a positive light. This is a clear violation of WP:ADDBIAS and I strongly recommend against proceeding with these actions or I will contact an administrator. OrcaLord (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, administrator here. Reign in the hostility and speculating on other editors' motives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about sounding hostile. I just feel that we should discuss things on here first before we make any deletions. I am always open to conversations on how to best handle the page and I mean no harm and have never intended for this to turn into an edit war. OrcaLord (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder of the need for civility, @ScottishFinnishRadish:

I want to emphasize that my goal is not “negative” or “positive” information. My goal is to ensure that information is accurate and neutral point of view. I note that you share your political affiliation on your profile page (my vote in the primary was for Warren, if you were curious) and perhaps that shades your view but I don’t want to turn this into a battleground. Also, I'll note that by bringing this question to the talk page rather than WP:JUSTDOIT, I was in fact trying to open a discussion.

Back to the topic of discussion (Sinema), I continue to believe a throwaway comment from a longer interview where she was pressed for a response is not WP:DUE. Although it seems at least one other editor agrees, I'll hold off on making the edit for now in the interest of collaboration and seeing if there’s more input. Tagging @Firefangledfeathers, Elli, Burger1018, and Cpotisch: who have recently engaged in other discussions on this page for potential input. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the contentiousness of the article, I’m going to remove this until there’s consensus for inclusion. Also worth noting that OrcaLord is part of the same cohort of anti-Slotkin Twitter users who originally resulted in the page getting ECP. Cpotisch (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch: That's very interesting... I just reviewed mentions of Slotkin on the user's Twitter feed (he provides a link on his user page). The anti-Slotkin invective there combined with pushing a similar editorial point of view here makes definitely creates the appearance of political advocacy. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit but it was reverted. Bringing to the talk page because the current wording is, I believe, goes into far more detail than appropriate about what is a relatively mundane action by a candidate for office. As far as I can tell, the summary of the story is that she rented a property from a donor so that she could campaign in the district then moved back to her primary residence following the election in preparation for a statewide campaign. I'm not sure why we need to go into more detail unless the point is to present a non-NPOV suggestion that there was something untoward about her actions (which would create BLP issues and is not in the citations provided). Would love input from other editors here to find a consensus. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this content is fine as is. It just summarizes what the WP:RS says and doesn't make any original points or insinuations. Marquardtika (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that reports in its own voice that Slotkin leased the Lansing apartment "in order to establish residency in the new district"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find one. Looking back at the page's edit history, it looks like this content was first added here (by an indefinitely banned account, FWIW). I think with the MLive and Detroit News stories about the property rental it's worth including, but we obviously need to make sure any content is reflecting the sources and not adding in anything original or biased. Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't either. I removed the unsourced bit and added a denial of wrongdoing from Slotkin and the landlord. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small edit here [5] noting that she paid fair market value rates here. I still think that this bit goes beyond what is WP:DUE. None of the WP:RS seem to indicate much more than a run-of-the-mill rental agreement, small donation from a business exec to his member, and signing a bipartisan letter that advocated for a program that benefited her district. The way it's written seems to imply that something inappropriate happened when there's no indication of that beyond accusations from her political opposition but defer to consensus here. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still have concerns that this run of the mill coverage is being unfairly focused on as if it were a major issue of the 2022 campaign, not just a run of the mill story. I don't like the implication that there was something improper about the rent when only her opponents have suggested that.

It seems to me that if there were any disagreement about the rent being fair market rate, reporters would have pointed that out given the reporting includes that the rent was $2,000. The same reporting also indicates that the donations were in "small dollar amounts" which I added but has since been removed. Is there any objection to re-adding that portion? (tagging @Marquardtika)

I'd also like to remove the City Pulse citation (per section below) leaving the Detroit News citation which substantiates the same thing but want to be sure I'm correctly applying consensus. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following line appears int he article:

According to Lansing newspaper City Pulse, "The bill was specifically targeting the rainbow flag, not Confederate flags."

I don't believe that a "free, alternative weekly newspaper" founded by a journalist who is not notable enough to merit his own Wikipedia page, which seems to derive most of its (dubious) notability from an article about giving out free joints to celebrate the state's legalization of recreational marijuana is a WP:RS to describe the contents of a Congressional bill. Even if a reliable source could be found, this section of the article is already excessive and seems to be undue weight in my opinion. Would appreciate thoughts from other editors here before I prune it as part of my efforts to bring this article to a more neutral point of view rather than a smorgasbord of non-notable tidbits about the congresswoman.

@Firefangledfeathers, Muboshgu, Andrevan, Binksternet, OrcaLor, Elli, Cpotisch, Burger1018, and Cullen328: Tagging all of you as editors who have previously engaged on this talk page that I'd appreciate learned input from, both on this particular point and the discussions above. Thanks! Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tag. Will do some looking into City Pulse and this issue. Off the top of my head it seems like it got a lot of attention and is probably notable enough for inclusion (unlike some of the other controversial additions that I opposed) but will have to look more before leaning one way or the other. Cpotisch (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. In terms of the section about the vote, I do question its inclusion overall as a minor vote in one congress, but if it is being included, I think that any discussion of the underlying bill should come from an actual RS rather than elevating a little alternative weekly's POV so prominently.

Would also appreciate you (and the others') eyes on the other conversations I've started on this page. (Refrained from tagging multiple times so as to not spam! 😀) Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the vote merits inclusion, but also that City Pulse is not the best source to use here. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly looked around for a source that can reputably claim that Slotkin's vote was about Pride flags, but couldn't find one saying that specifically. The vote should stay included, but this source should be removed. It's conjecture that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Burger1018 (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I've gone ahead and removed the City Pulse portion of this. Language could probably be tightened up a bit still. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my view is now that anything in City Pulse not corroborated by other RS is not notable or reliable. Cpotisch (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that there is a consensus over this as it seems to be only you who directly said the source should not be included. One person besides you said that the City Pulse wasn't the best source to use but that the information should be included, yet you deleted the whole thing. ScottishFinnishRadish I am wondering if you agree that there is no consensus and if so can you revert what he did? Because I don't want to keep reverting things without discussion. OrcaLord (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus as you say, then WP:ONUS applies. It says The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radish is correct. The burden of proof is on you, as the individual advocating for inclusion of contentious content. Cpotisch (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you for pointing out WP:ONUS, it was very instructive and seems quite sensible. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here seems to think that City Pulse is not a reliable source. I agree and will be removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.126.69 (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the clear consensus here against usage of City Pulse as conferring notability or reliability, I've removed this line which was also only corroborated by it. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And, after some searching, I was able to find a better citation so I have re-added this information. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edits including one that's very clear according to Wikipedia's manual of style to remove the scare word "claim" about something Slotkin said was reverted by someone claiming vandalism. I did a little looking back at the history of the page and it appears OrcaLord has a history of adding misleading material to the page which this new editor who just so happened to come across the page has a location that aligns with OrcaLord's location. I think editors here should be aware that there's an effort by Twitter users including Orca to organize and insert as much false information to damage Slotkin as possible (I myself came to this page because I came across a thread with some of them discussing this) so you can be aware of it and prevent it. 216.93.126.69 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@216.93.126.69 First, I am not Orca Second, "Claim" is needed because "the bill do not focus on banning pride flag" is a fringe theory that, by vote result, obviously only held by few people including Slotkin, so it must be pointed that it is she who says so instead of being listed as a fact. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@216.93.126.69 Also the Background that the flag ban includes pride flag and she faced criticism before giving explaination are vital backgrounds provided in the source. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The $2800 Slotkin donation is hardly notable per WP:WEIGHT, and comes off as electioneering. It's hardly unusual for donors to give money to candidates from both parties. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a quote on Slotkin's feelings on impeachment. This seems (like the #Krysten_Sinema quote which there was consensus for removal) to be just a throwaway quote from an interview that doesn't really add anything to the article. Just a politician explaining her position. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally different situation, okay? The "Sinema" issue itself do not naturally bear enough notability but Inmeachment of trump itself isnnotable enough that showing her position fully in this issue is vital. And It not only just have a thrownaway quote about impeachment but the whole section is about it. "Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Holly) is the incumbent Democrat representing Michigan’s Eighth Congressional District, running for a second term in the U.S. House. Despite running in 2018 on a promise of not picking fights with Trump, she did end up voting to impeach the president and co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for an investigation into Trump’s dealings with foreign governments.

“I can’t think of an issue I wanted to work on less in my first term in Congress than impeachment,” she says. “And I was against impeachment for a long time." It should not only be added back and the part that she pledged not support impeachment in 2018 should also be added. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to throw away a whole secrion of interview about the notable impeachment issue? which do not make sense. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love when the talk page consists of @NelsonMandelaBarnes writing in broken English again and an IP editor failing to maintain civility. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like we're clearly pretty far into WP:MEAT by now? Cpotisch (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not familiar with the orcasaccount or that ip address, someone happen to have similar ideas do not count as WP:MEAT NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m grouping all of these topics in one place to avoid confusion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling her a "moderate"

If she votes 100% with the party-line, she is by no means a "moderate". She is a partisan and a far-left one at that. 2600:4040:445D:C200:3054:D91:F82E:74D1 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources call Slotkin "far left"? Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she votes with Biden 100% of the time. Unless you mean to tell me that abortion after birth and open borders are "moderate" positions. 2600:4040:445D:C200:698D:32A4:85C0:7809 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Votes have never been and never will be an accurate measure of an officeholders' positions, and even if they were, it's not Wikipedia's job to draw conclusions from that data, so you'd need a reliable source (likely multiple) Politicdude (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need anyone to tell me what I can see with my own eyes. Some hack "journalist" posting a piece making far-left Elissa Slotkin look far less extreme than she actually is (as well as the rest of the Democrats) does not change the fact that she has been a mindless rubber stamp for Biden's agenda. 2600:4040:445D:C200:9852:55AA:BC87:3374 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's what you believe with your eyes, that's fine. But writing that on an article is a clear violation of Wikipedia:SYNTH and Wikipedia:OR policies and does not belong on a Wikipedia page without sources backing it up. Politicdude (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "objective research" when all of these "sources" are horribly biased? 2600:4040:445D:C200:D6CA:DA41:3C63:E306 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article as currently written does not attempt to make an "objective" claim that Slotkin is a "moderate." It cites multiple sources showing sources describing her as a "moderate Democrat." Even if these characterizations result from bias, Wikipedia can cover them, as Wikipedia does NOT disqualify reliable sources for bias alone if they are the best way to cover a topic. Govtrack.us, Politico, and the New York Times are not currently Wikipedia:DEPSOURCES. If you believe that these are unreliable sources that should not be used on Wikipedia, you are welcome to discuss adding these sources as depreciated on this talk page, but that discussion does not belong here.

You have also claimed that Slotkin is not only not a moderate but is "far-left." You are welcome to hold that viewpoint, but you cannot add it to Wikipedia without reliable sources describing her as such. So far, the only source you have provided is that she votes with Biden 100% of the time, which was true, at least in the 117th congress. However, that singular fact is not sufficient to say that Slotkin is "far-left," without a source tying the two together because of Wikipedia's policies on synthesis of sources.

Whether or not Slotkin is "far-left," a mainstream Democrat, or a "moderate" is not the issue here. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide. Wikipedia is able to cover how reliable sources describe her ideology. Politicdude (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that Wikipedia only uses "reliable" sources with horribly skewed left-wing biases. 2600:4040:445D:C200:41BA:FED4:B5F6:2E37 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One, these sources are not biased in any way, shape, or form. While it would've been much more necessary to include that Elissa Slotkin has still voted for bills supporting access to abortion, removing the sources saying she left the Pro-Choice Caucus, said her district was pro-life when it voted for Proposition 3 by 15%, and some of her other stances isn't right. The language of the edits were not biased.

And second, making the assumption that he's mentally handicapped is very disrespectful. You could've just included that he could've been ESL, but saying he could be handicapped isn't proper. You should really be ashamed of yourself for making that kind of assumption. Windorrum (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the same source Krysten Sinema also vote with Biden 100% of times does that mean she is mot moderate to conservative democrat? The problem is they can be moderate by stopping bills from getting a vote which makes this number highly skrewed. 47.219.236.178 (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kyrsten Sinema is not moderate. She is far-left. 2600:4040:445D:C200:9852:55AA:BC87:3374 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sentence from political positions.

Marquardtika can you please comment on why you removed the sentence of Elissa Slotkin being the 5th most politically right/bipartisan Democrat? I know you say it is a WP:OR issue but how is govtrack not reliable? Would these two sources work?
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/09/22/elissa-slotkin-paul-junge-fact-check/5854179002/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/21/paul-junge/fact-checking-rep-elissa-slotkins-record-bipartisa/#sources
I am hoping that we can come up with a solution to this, so please reply here with your response or revert/change your edit. OrcaLord (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, report the analysis but say where it came from. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional sources--I'll re-add in a minute. Marquardtika (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all -- I've gone ahead and removed this piece of information. As noted in the conversation above, there appears to be a concerted effort to force as much 'negative' information about Slotkin into the article as possible. I understand that GovTrack is a reliable source, however, I would argue that it's only one of many different entities that track members of Congress' votes. FiveThirtyEight ranks Slotkin as with Biden 100% of the time. We could also note that she's one of the most bipartisan Congresswoman. We could note that she's one of the least likely to miss votes and votes with the party more frequently than the average Democrat according to ProPublica. Cherry-picking one source to characterize her as "conservative" doesn't serve readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 18:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering why I reverted these deletions, see at User talk:Dcpoliticaljunkie#Disruptive edits on Elissa Slotkin page. OrcaLord (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I note in my response to OrcaLord, I think we should keep the discussion about this article on the talk page and directly about the content being discussed. It's unfortunate that OrcaLord seems to believe that he owns this article and frequently reverts or defends any change that he doesn't like. Given the article's obvious slant which has been remarked upon multiple times in this talk page, I believe it would improve the encyclopedia to improve so that it provides a more neutral overview of the congresswoman and avoids giving undue weight to niche subjects which, while cited (largely to Bernie-stans), are inappropriate when seeking to present a NPOV, balanced view of the subject. I believe that should be the goal here and I hope other editors, including OrcaLord, agree. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:ScottishFinnishRadish Based on consensus from the page, it seems that due to the congress being so evenly split and bills don't go to the floor unless they have the votes, the 117th congress Biden score is misleading and should not be included here. Despite this, @User:Thmymerc keeps reverting it back. Can you handle this situation? OrcaLord (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you open a section on this talk page and discuss it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus here, and this is a stat that's included on articles for pretty much every member of Congress.

I also agree with those who disagree with calling her a conservative.

If I'm reading this correctly, there appear to be 3 editors (@Dcpoliticaljunkie, @Burger1018, and myself) who disagree with the usage of the word "conservative". On the inclusion of the percentage of votes with Biden, I only see you & @Burger1018 with reservations on it with @Dcpoliticaljunkie and myself in favor of inclusion. Seems like @ScottishFinnishRadish is neutral... Given that it's on most articles without pushback, aside from the qualitative description of whether it's more or less than predicted for their district, I don't see why Slotkin should be an exception so will re-add it along with removal of the word conservative. Thmymerc (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to the govtrack score mentioned by polifact, marquadtika, me, burger1018 all think it should be kept though burger1018 think the language should be changed to reflect what the source says so I just did so accordingly, and as to 538 score, the polifact source itself points out "Raw vote counts are misleading without context, especially with a high percentage of non-controversial votes," wrote Ian Ostrander, an assistant professor of American politics at Michigan State University. "Some votes matter much more than others." " which suggest it is not reliable, besides, there is no secondary source here that covered her 538 score so it has WP:OR issue, it only exist in all articles because you add them. Bottom line, if you insist on adding it back, you need to find a reliable second source, like media coverage, of the 538 score and provide that coverage as well as the 538 score as source, as how her govtrack score was covered here. Then it will fit the Wikipedia policy and I will agree to keep it. OrcaLord (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

538 is media coverage. Will be adding this back in. Thmymerc (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my preference would now be to say that she is viewed as a "moderate Democrat" and remove both the 538 score and the GovTrack ranking. But if we are going to include a misleading ranking like "most right wing" then we should certainly include the Biden score. A neutral descriptor like "one of the most bipartisan members" would be preferably all around. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response here, I have edited this [6] to what I believe to be a more NPOV and appropriate description of her politics. Rather than describing her as "conservative" (a word which is not even used by the GovTrack source cited), I have added FiveThirtyEight's summary of her voting record. If we want to include a description of her relative stances according to GovTrack or PolitiFact, the descriptor PolitiFact uses is better summarized as "bipartisan" and "moderate" not "conservative" which is in the lede of the section. Obviously, I am open to thoughts, constructive criticism, and collaboration here. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am remaining balanced. I did not revert your edit which added pro-Slotkin information. I simply believe that deleting evidence that is anti-Slotkin is wrong. If the information is relevant and accurate and follows the rules, then there is no reason to delete it. I have talked with others on this page before about this in a way that we could compromise, but instead of doing that you choose to delete first. Please, in the future, can we talk about this in a civilized manner before you choose to make deletions? OrcaLord (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've edited this page to keep the messages chronological. Hope that's fine. First of all, I find it concerning that you view the information here in the context of "pro-Slotkin" or "anti-Slotkin" -- our goal should be to build a balanced article not use Wikipedia as a platform to push our political views. Second, I did discuss this edit and waited 24 hours prior to re-implementing it. Third, you say "if the information is relevant and accurate and follows the rules, then there is no reason to delete it" -- could you then explain why you deleted the FiveThirtyEight information about her voting with Biden? [7]

Instead of viewing all information as "pro" or "anti", I think it'd be helpful if we could refocus on simply providing accurate information to readers. I don't believe characterizing the GovTrack source [8] as conservative is accurate or appropriate -- it's original research when all the source states is "bipartisan" and "politically right" (the political right of the Democratic caucus would be centrist or moderate, if we're being sticklers).

@Firefangledfeathers, Elli, Burger1018, Cpotisch, Marquardtika, and ScottishFinnishRadish: -- apologies for tagging again but would welcome additional input here from you as editors who have recently contributed here. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so you are right that the word "conservative" is never used. I wrote the original line there before someone edited it for conciseness, and it read, "5th most 'politically right' and 5th most 'bipartisan' member" or something similar. That's clearly not nothing. Voting in line with the President 100% of the time is a misleading phrase when the Congress is so evenly split - bills don't go to the floor unless they have the votes. I don't feel that the edit you made necessarily reflects what the media reports about her political ideology, personally. Also, I can't speak for other editors, but please only tag me when it specifically pertains to me. Burger1018 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Burger1018 -- understood regarding tagging you. Will refrain from doing so going forward. In terms of the GovTrack source, I will make an attempt at rewording it to hew closely to the source describing her as bipartisan. I do think the FiveThirtyEight measurement (along with perhaps the additional Lugar Center bipartisan scorecard) are both worthwhile inclusions. Perhaps the FiveThirtyEight score would be better included with the addition of her +47.3 "Biden plus-minus" but I'm afraid that would be excessive detail. Obviously, I welcome good faith feedback and collaboration. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the inclusion of the Fivethirtyeight score.

@Cpotisch, Marquardtika, Burger1018, Binksternet, OrcaLord, and Elli: I see @Thmymerc: keep adding FiveThirtyEithy score to the political position section. I think it should not be included here but I do not want to trigger an edit war, so I ask you all to discuss whether it should be included here.why?

Based on WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, Content that has not received any significant coverage is not notable enough to be included. And as I have googled to find there are no other sources other than the NRSC, which is obviously not reliable, that covered it. So it does not have the notability to be included. There are many contents on this page like the nuclear testing vote, her speech about Sinema, and how many times her vote meets the way Kelvin McCarthy voted in the house, that are deleted from the page because they are not covered by another source to be considered notable.NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what you want to include, or what you don't want to include. Your argument is confusing.

Her voting record isn't an opinion; it's a fact. Comparing her voting record to Biden's political positions is allowed by WP:SECONDARY sources. Nate Silver's 538 is one of those sources. It has not been listed as unreliable or unusable. I think it is fine to attribute the source and share its analysis. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone fixed it for me idk, but you do not solve the notability problem that it has recieved no coverage to meet the notable standard, since this page is a WP:BLP we need to be cautious about what is notable enough to be included,and there are many things, like the nuclear testing vote, her speech about Sinema, how many times her voted meets the way Kelvin McCarthy voted in the house, are deleted from the page because they are not covered by other source to be considered notable. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit history I find this:In 117th Congress Slotkin and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy agreed on 45% of the votes^[1] and in 116th Congress Slotkin and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy agreed on 39% of the votes.^[2]

By the same standard should it be added? 165.91.13.189 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I find this:

the "100%" support is wrong beccause it is outdated and thus leave out a vote where Slotkin do vote against Biden: Slotkin voted against Extreme Risk Protection Order Act https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/117/house/2/236 which is supporrted by Biden https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/hr2377-SAP-FINAL.pdf.

As a result it is outdated and inccorrect now, it should be deleted. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Binksternet said, it’s not super clear what you are advocating for, but from context I think you’re saying that this should not be included? I haven’t looked at this particular issue yet, but it looks like you are misunderstanding WP:OR. First off, FiveThirtyEight does not seem to be listed as unreliable — which makes sense, as it is commonly cited by RS — and “original research” specifically means research originated by an editor. If secondary sources’ own research always counted as OR, then literal everything would count as OR!

On that note, one thing that IS original research is your/Burger’s claim that the voting record is irrelevant because only things with the votes end up on the floor. Like, yeah, I would personally agree with that, but it’s original research so we can’t use that as a basis to exclude something reported by an RS. All of which is to say that it would be helpful if you could clarify what you would like to happen here, and maybe point to some reliable sources that agree with you. Cpotisch (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He said " I think it should not be included here"so I think he wants to delete it. But how can you address his point 2? Like there are so many things deleted from this page even though they are from reliable secondary source but is ruled as missing the notability standard. And compared to them the 538 score fits the notability standard less. Why do you think they should be deleted but this should be kept? 165.91.13.189 (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit history I find this:In 117th Congress Slotkin and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy agreed on 45% of the votes^[1] and in 116th Congress Slotkin and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy agreed on 39% of the votes.^[2]

By the same standard should it be added? 165.91.13.189 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my fault, my understanding on WP:OR is flawed so I deleted it. But the notability issue still exists especially since many similar contents, especially a similar score that is published by Propublica, Which is markes as reliable on WP:RSPSS, got deleted because it is judged as not notable. Can you expiain why the FIveThirtyEitght Score is specially notable? NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd to me that some editors are so adamantly against including this score on this article but haven't made similar arguments on the numerous other articles which include it. I don't really want to get into a big discussion that seems to have more to do with editor's political positions or some sort of obsession with Slotkin than anything else.

@NelsonMandelaBarnes, the ProPublica score is just you choosing two random members in the generator. That appears to be original research and you choosing what's significant. We could easily include a 91% score compared with her MI colleague Rashida Tlaib. Better to just stick to 538 compared to the White House as is done in other articles. Thmymerc (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "100%" support is wrong beccause it is outdated and thus leave out a vote where Slotkin do vote against Biden: Slotkin voted against Extreme Risk Protection Order Act https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/117/house/2/236 which is supporrted by Biden https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/hr2377-SAP-FINAL.pdf. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Other Articles" are added by you and no one on those pages has argued against it do not mean it fits the Wikipedia rule. Also, the results do not need to be generated: you can directly see the score by clicking the link from the listed reliable media sources. It is not Original Research by any means.

By the way, although the "generator" claim is irrelevant here if it were generated instead of a pre-computed result then every time you "generate" a new link will be provided to show the result. Which is not the case here. Your claim about the "Tlaib score" also neglects the fact that McCarthy was the House minority caucus leader in those two congresses while Tlaib is just a backbencher without any leadership role in the house, or in any committee.NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure why there's so much back and forth here but not on other articles where this was also added. Seem like other editors agree that the 538 score is significant to include and randomly picking another member out of a hat on ProPublica isn't. Don't wish to get into a back and forth further here. Thmymerc (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I find this:

the "100%" support is wrong beccause it is outdated and thus leave out a vote where Slotkin do vote against Biden: Slotkin voted against Extreme Risk Protection Order Act https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/117/house/2/236 which is supporrted by Biden https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/hr2377-SAP-FINAL.pdf.

As a result it is outdated and inccorrect now, it should be deleted. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of synthesis is inappropriate, and you've made an error. Slotkin voted against a procedural motion on the 8th, but she did vote for the act itself when it came up on the 9th. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the Propublica sccore overall? why should it be removed while you keep the Fivethirtyeight score? NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the 538 info. Many Democratic reps and senators did not have a 100% Biden score, so we can't say the number is insignificant Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the Propublica sccore overall? why should it be removed while you keep the Fivethirtyeight score? NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does Propublica have an overall score? The ones I removed were comparisons to McCarthy in two congresses. Propublica lets you compare the records of any two contemporaneously serving reps. McCarthy is certainly an interesting choice of comparison, but it's still just a choice. I don't think picking that one bit of data out of the bunch is good encyclopedic practice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy is not just interesting choice,he is the leading republican in the house and the most notable Republican politican to whom people can compare her vote record to, like Biden is the most prominant Democratic politican to whom she can compare her vote record to. So they should bear equal notability. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we presume that we should compare Slotkin to a Republican, then McCarthy is the best choice. I don't see a reason to make such a presumption. 538 publishes a page specifically on comparison to the sitting president. I'm not aware of a source that focuses on comparison to the highest ranking party leader. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,after second thought it is not a should, I thought the comparasion should be "bipartisian" like most of the issues in US politics that we need to compare someone with both parties to grasp his/her ideaology. But that is not a Wikipedia policy but instead is a WP:OR. I concede on this. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMB, can you explain why you think it is relevant to compare Slotkin to someone of the opposing party? I feel like your argument is fairly tangential. Cpotisch (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, on a hunch I thought I should check, and, yeah, there are a couple of interesting things about @NelsonMandelaBarnes. First off, they created their account on July 27. You know what happened on July 26? A different user, @Thespeedoflightneverchanges was indeffed for competence and BLP issues that started with problematic edits to Slotkin's page, and which resulted on this page getting ECP. What I also noticed was that NMB's 502nd edit (i.e. one of the ones immediately after getting ECP rights) was to Slotkin's article. Anyone hearing quacking? Cpotisch (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"According to GovTrack, she was the 5th most political right Democrat in Congress till 2023.^[3][4]" is an odd inclusion -- Slotkin and any House Dem does not strike me as political [sic] right. The second citation provided doesn't even mention this ranking while the first lists out many rankings. Whoever added this made an editorial decision to highlight that GovTrack ranking over others. Thmymerc (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmymerc @Thmymerc I have reviewed the link,If you were not blind the second source did mention this ranking "Looking at the measures members have co-sponsored rather than votes, GovTrack, an independent congressional tracker, ranked Slotkin among the most conservative Democrats in Congress in 2019." in which the "Govtrack" word is directly linked to the score provided by [3], So this ranking is specially mentioned by other secondary source and is obvioisly notable.

@Cpositch @NelsonMandelaBarnes 47.218.111.38 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@47.218.111.38 @Firefanglesfeathers 47.218.111.38 (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that seemingly whenever @NelsonMandelaBarnes or @OrcaLord get into a disagreement on this page, this IP or another one immediately shows up to continue their argument in more abrasive terms? Thmymerc (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmymerc I don't know them, I just know you are lying to overturn something that already has conclusion on talk page like the inclusion of govtrack score by pretending to be blind abd neglect the secondary source that clearly mentioned the score. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, @OrcaLord is indeed part of the same bloc of Twitter users who swarmed Slotkin's page a few months ago. They haven't even hid it. Cpotisch (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, would remove both this and the 538 score. Or at the least, re-word the GovTrack score. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you accuse me of WP:DUCKI think I need to give an explaination on why I created this account.

I am a user of twitter who followed both User:Cpotisch and another account called "Progflippawi" who,based on his tweets,is likely to be the banned user. Seeing your tweets makes me curious about the wikipedia so I created this account. In the beginning I didn't know what to edit until I found the page 2012 United States presidential election 's result page lacked the second decimal data while all other president election result had, so I decide to add them when I have time. Recently I notice someone added the Fivethirtyeight score on this page which has been seen as joke on election twitter because even Sinema and Gottheimer, who notriously blocked most of Biden's agenda, have 100% Biden score on it. So I decided to finish the project about 2012 United States presidential election to get 500 edits so I can edit this page. But now it turns out my understanding of what is WP:OR and WP:N is flawed and that score should be kept here. Anyway I am okay with this version now and do not want to keep edit warring and vandalizing like who I guess is progflippawi did. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I reiterate the competence issues that Cpotisch has pointed out whether or not you are (as appears extremely likely) the same user. An ability to write without major issues in English is needed to be able to contribute well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcpoliticaljunkie: I've been hesitant to but do you think it might make sense to take this to ANI? Reviewing NMB's edits, there's just too much of a competency problem (both with respect to policy and grammar/spelling). I have too much on my plate at the moment to launch it myself, but let me know if you do as I'd be happy to voice my support. Cpotisch (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just logged in and saw you went ahead and created the report, thank you for that. Fun thing about editing Wikipedia here and there is all the notifications when you happen here to read an article! Looking forward to more harmonious editing to improve this page. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fivethirtyeight score only applies to the 117th congress. I'm fine with including that but it is very important that that context be given ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political Positions

I just made an edit entirely removing everything except the description of Slotkin as a moderate Democrat, removing both the (broken English) description of her as "the 5th most political right Democrat in Congress" and the FiveThirtyEight/Biden vote rating that I've previously advocated for including. I realize that (aside from @OrcaLord) most of the editors against inclusion of FiveThirtyEight/for inclusion of the most right-wing stat have been blocked, but I think this may be the least contentious path forward here. Anyway, I'm opening a new thread in case other editors have strong feelings since the last attempts at talk page discussions on this went a bit off the rails. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with removing the score. Yeah, by keeping it in, those editors are probably going to come back as new users or IPs and try to remove it, but whatever, they're probably going to do that anyway. Do you have a reason for removal other than to avoid contentiousness? Cpotisch (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not get a notification for this (or just didn't see it). I actually tend to sympathize with the blocked editors' criticism of the 100% score but not strongly so, if you and perhaps @Thmymerc strongly want to include it. It definitely should be included if we're including the "5th most right wing" thing as balance but neither is particularly useful in my opinion. (I think every Democrat votes 90+% of the time with Biden while being "right wing" is essentially reiterating that she's a moderate in the Dem Caucus in a more negative POV manner).

I think a far more useful descriptor is that she's known for bipartisanship. That's actually something that's interesting to readers, and isn't redundant with "moderate" since one can be moderate but not bipartisan (or bipartisan but quite conservative or liberal). I'll take a stab at this and definitely appreciate feedback from you and other editors on that. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that she’s known for bipartisanship is WP:SYNTH unless you can back it up with sourcing that explicitly says so. Do you have RS backing that up? Cpotisch (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "known for bipartisanship", but her being generally more bipartisan than many of her peers is supported by the same sources we're currently using for "5th most political right". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we’re including indexes as sources, This index rated her the 9th most bipartisan house member in 2021, Politifact called her a “bipartisan legislator” in 2020, and GovTrack.us in 2020 noted that she “got bipartisan cosponsors on the 2nd most bills compared to House Freshmen”. I probably wouldn’t include it in the lead, but it is certainly backed up by at least some sources. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back here because I saw that the descriptor "conservative" was added back in. I continue to think calling her a conservative is not supported by the sources. We have two articles -- one from the New York Times and one from Politico both describing her as moderate. Conservative seems to just be a descriptor some editors synthesize from the "politically right" GovTrack rank, and then there's a few paragraphs in the article fact-checking her bipartisanship from PolitiFact:

Congressional scholars often rely on what’s called the Nominate score, which measures a member’s ideology based on their voting record. The metric, developed by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the 1980s, provides a general sense of how liberal or conservative a member’s voting record is. UCLA’s Department of Political Science and Social Science Computing computes members' Nominate scores today.

Nominate scores fall along a scale of -1 to 1, with -1 being the most liberal end of the spectrum and 1 as the most conservative. Slotkin’s Nominate score is -0.308, making her voting record more conservative than 68% of Democrats in the House.

Slotkin’s Nominate score also shows she has staked out less liberal positions on votes than Pelosi.

Looking at the measures members have co-sponsored rather than votes, GovTrack, an independent congressional tracker, ranked Slotkin among the most conservative Democrats in Congress in 2019.

Seems to me that calling her conservative is picking and choosing from sources since PolitiFact only says that GovTrack ranked her as among the most conservative two paragraphs after saying she's more conservative than 68% of House Democrats (which is pretty much moderate in my reading). Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. "More conservative than 68% of House Democrats" does not equal "Conservative" unless there is a source that explicitly calls her that. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With The New York Times, Politico, and others all calling her a moderate, that's a pretty noncontroversial descriptor to use. No reason to add conservative without similarly notable sources stating that in their own voice. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite frankly unsure why that score is more contentious on this article than others but I am fine with the wording as it currently stands. Thmymerc (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, which other articles contain the score? ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch tagging for notification, forgot to do that -- my bad. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed quite a bit of action a couple weeks ago and just now seeing some of the tags of me by the previously banned editor. See some of the prior discussions have been removed as part of this so I'm explaining my most recent edit:

• I adjusted the sentence on fundraising to note that she's leading the whole not just the Dem primary as the Detroit News citation notes. I also cut the bit about where her donors are located as it seems editorial and unnecessary to me (I assume it's in the mlive article that's behind a paywall for me, but I would personally have included the total number of donors rather than focusing on that fact).
• I removed some of the commentary around the Build Back Better Act beyond the fact that she voted for it while adjusting citations back to articles specifically about her vote. A lot of votes/positions has been removed and I don't think one interview she gave about her vote is important enough to include while her other statements are cut. (Also since she also described the bill quite positively in other interviews which could also be presented if we wanted to discuss this further).
• I re-added the condemnation of Tlaib. Realize it was removed as part of a larger edit removing lots of run of the mill coverage but I think criticism of a member of your party from the same state delegation rises above that and is worth mentioning.

Realize that for whatever reason, any edit to this article seems to be quite controversial so I thought I'd provide a more complete explanation of my thinking here so others interested can provide feedback or pushback if I'm offbase Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, was just giving this article a readover and noticed some glaring typos that need an extended-confirmation to fix. If someone could change "Slotkin won reelected in 2020" to "Slotkin won reelection in 2020", that would be great. Will respond to this topic if I spot more.

Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Her family farm was part of Hygrade Meat Company, founded by her grandfather, Hugo Slotkin." is awkward phrasing and should probably be reworded to something along the lines of "This farm is the original location of Hygrade Meat, the meatpacking business founded by her grandfather, Hugo Slotkin." Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Slotkin was recruited into" should be "Slotkin was recruited by". Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Slotkin adapted to campaigning during the COVID-19 pandemic with virtual and socially distanced campaign events, contactless door canvassing, and running advertisements on gas pumps" should also be "Slotkin adapted to campaigning during the COVID-19 pandemic by holding campaign events both virtually and socially distanced, with contactless door canvassing, and by running advertisements on gas pumps Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Slotkin moved back to her family's farm in Holly, where she owned and operated Pinpoint Consulting" doesn't need a comma but I could be wrong. Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto "She is the first Democrat to represent Michigan's 8th district since 2001, when Debbie Stabenow gave up the seat to run for the U. S. Senate." Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto "In 2022, Slotkin co-sponsored the Ban Corporate PACs Act, which if enacted would prevent corporations from operating a political action committee." Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The owner of the condominium was a donor to Slotkin's campaign, although her campaign stated that the lease was at a fair market rate" should either be two sentences or should have the ", although" replaced with a semicolon.

"Slotkin moved out of the condominium back to her family farm in Holly, which is in Michigan's 9th congressional district" should be rephrased to "Slotkin moved back to her family farm in Michigan's 9th congressional district" Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"She voted for the Build Back Better Act. She also voted for the Inflation Reduction Act." isn't incorrect per se but should probably read "The other major bills she voted for were the Build Back Better Act and the Inflation Reduction Act." for clarity's sake Andrew.robbins (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

−

Her family farm was part of Hygrade Meat Company, founded by her grandfather, Hugo Slotkin. Hygrade was the original company behind [[Ball Park Franks]] which is now owned by [[Tyson Foods]].

+

This farm is the original location of Hygrade Meat, the meatpacking business founded by her grandfather, Hugo Slotkin. Hygrade was the original company behind [[Ball Park Franks]] which is now owned by [[Tyson Foods]].

−

Slotkin was recruited into the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] after graduate school.

+

Slotkin was recruited by the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] after graduate school.

−

Slotkin moved back to her family's farm in Holly, where she owned and operated Pinpoint Consulting

+

Slotkin moved back to her family's farm in Holly where she owned and operated Pinpoint Consulting

−

She is the first Democrat to represent Michigan's 8th district since 2001, when [[Debbie Stabenow]] gave up the seat to run for the U. S. Senate.

+

She is the first Democrat to represent Michigan's 8th district since 2001 when [[Debbie Stabenow]] gave up the seat to run for the U. S. Senate.

−

The owner of the condominium was a donor to Slotkin's campaign, although her campaign stated that the lease was at a fair market rate.

+

The owner of the condominium was a donor to Slotkin's campaign; her campaign stated that the lease was at a fair market rate.

−

Slotkin adapted to campaigning during the COVID-19 pandemic with virtual and socially distanced campaign events, contactless door canvassing, and running advertisements on gas pumps.

+

Slotkin adapted to campaigning during the COVID-19 pandemic by holding campaign events both virtually and socially distanced, with contactless door canvassing, and by running advertisements on gas pumps.

−

Slotkin won reelected in 2020

+

Slotkin won reelection in 2020

−

In 2022, Slotkin co-sponsored the Ban Corporate PACs Act, which if enacted would prevent corporations from operating a [[political action committee]].

+

In 2022, Slotkin co-sponsored the Ban Corporate PACs Act which if enacted would prevent corporations from operating a [[political action committee]].

−

She voted for the [[Build Back Better Act]]. She also voted for the [[Inflation Reduction Act]].

+

The other major bills she voted for were the [[Build Back Better Act]] and the [[Inflation Reduction Act]].

−

"Slotkin moved out of the condominium back to her family farm in [[Holly, Michigan|Holly]], which is in [[Michigan's 9th congressional district]]

+

Slotkin moved back to her family farm in [[Michigan's 9th congressional district]]

Andrew.robbins (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I fixed the CIA line, the covid virtual events line, the reelected typo, and rephrased the part about moving out of the condo.

The family farm change can't be made because the citation does not say this farm was the original location.

I agree that the Build Back Better/Inflation Reduction Act part was awkwardly worded, but thought it made more sense to reorganize the whole section. It is now sorted chronologically with all the covid-related bills grouped together.

I don't see a problem with the commas and think they help the flow of these sentences, so I left those alone.

Thanks for pointing all of this out. Jamedeus (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. The commas feel like comma splices to me but I am not at all sure about that, so I'll defer. The family farm bit should probably still be changed to present tense. Andrew.robbins (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today, when I searched about the United Auto Workers's statements about the 2024 United States Senate election in Michigan, I find those statements Elissa Slotkin made about the 2023 United Auto Workers strike:

1:https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/what-people-are-saying-about-us-auto-worker-strike-2023-09-15/

2:https://www.freep.com/videos/money/cars/detroit-auto-show/2023/09/15/u-s-rep-elissa-slotkin-talks-uaw-strike/8409229001/

3:https://www.wxyz.com/news/heres-what-local-national-leaders-are-saying-as-the-uaw-goes-on-strike

4:https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/09/15/congress/dems-uaw-strike-auto-workers-00116241

Since there are so many reliable secondary sources that covered those statements, are they needed to be covered by this page? If anyone think so, could you please add this section basd on those sources? I am not extended confirmed user so I can't edit this page. Subwaybsub (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]