Talk:Cindy Hyde-Smith

“falsely”
Please do not re-add the word falsely to this article in regards to her claims about a Bill proposed at the federal level. I believe that whether or not Her claim is true, would have been decided by a court, if anyone disagrees feel free to reply with the reason. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannolorosa (talk • contribs) 02:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Additionally the use of the term falsely is an opinion, as nobody has a crystal ball. Furthermore the article used to say the claim is false contains a misleading headline. The article also says “Mississippi Already Meets Most Requirements[ in the FTPA]” keyword most, and “Those changes would have little impact on Mississippi’s voter ID law” (little doesn’t mean none) Cannolorosa (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Relying on an unspecified future court case to determine the factuality of Hyde-Smith's claim is itself crystal-ball-looking.
 * As for the wording in the Mississippi Free Press article, you might be missing the forest for the trees. Hyde-Smith said: [S. 1] would nullify Mississippi’s successful voter ID law (emphasis mine). Which wasn't borne out by the evidence: Mississippi voters can already vote by sworn affidavit if they do not have a photo ID on Election Day, and their ballot will count so long as they present an accepted form of ID to their circuit clerk’s office within five business days.
 * I found an additional source that refutes the claim: The bill would not prohibit states from having voter identification laws and would not prohibit states from checking the IDs of in-person voters​. Shall that be used in addition to the Free Press? Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the CNN article makes no mention of Mississippi’s voter ID law. Secondly she didn’t say the bill would nullify ALL of Mississippi’s VID laws. and even by the article’s own admission, the bill would have an impact and an effect on some of those laws. If you can find a source that says the FTPA would have ZERO impact on mississippis VID laws then ill drop my objections. To say the claim was completely false is clearly not the right thing to do Cannolorosa (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, why would you readd the term falsely despite my talk page request that it not be readded until a consensus could be reached Cannolorosa (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The version that contains "falsely" predates the content dispute. Making a change and then requiring consensus that it be kept is putting the cart before the horse.
 * The substance of Hyde-Smith's claim is false. The bar you've set relies on an overly-strict interpretation of both Hyde-Smith's words and those of the Free Press. Even granting your point about the words "little" and "most": if a claim is 90% false, that doesn't make it not-false. The scenario Hyde-Smith described (Under S.1, in a federal election, an individual could walk into a polling place, register and vote on the spot, without ever showing any proof of identity or residency) isn't possible because both the FTPA and Mississippi's existing law consider a sworn affidavit sufficient proof of identity and residency. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a compromise measure I've added Template:Under discussion inline next to the sentence in question. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * but the article still says that a few(very few) law’s would no longer be in effect, so the word falsely in inaccurate Cannolorosa (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which laws? Where does it say that? Please be specific. Include direct quotes from the source where possible; there are examples upthread. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the article didn’t specify, but the fact that the law would be modified means some parts must be nullified Cannolorosa (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now we're just going in circles. I will seek a third opinion. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Question: When I read WP:RSP, which you quote above, I draw a different conclusion. RSP specifically states at WP:RSPMISSING, that "A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability has not been the subject of serious questioning yet." Since Mississippi Free Press is frequently quoted in the encyclopedia and has not been discussed at RSP, wouldn't that make it likely that it's reliability has not been challenged because it is in fact a highly reliable, perhaps even a stellar source? Jacona (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's only existed since 2020, so that could explain why it hasn't be questioned. Since this is a WP:BLP, I err on the side of "find more sourcing" if a question of inclusion is contentious. If this article is going to say in a wiki voice a person "falsely" said something the sourcing needs to be rock solid. Nemov (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a direct successor to the Jackson Free Press, in existence since 2002 and also not mentioned at RSP. The JFP has been around longer, and is the source of a greater number of references in the encyclopedia. It seems pretty solid to me. If their veracity is doubted, wouldn't it be better to discuss it at RSP then make a decision in an article talk page? I'm personally not convinced the word "falsely" should be included, but isn't it wrong to dismiss this source as unreliable without any reason other than it has not been discussed at RSP? In fact, isn't that the opposite of how RSP states it is supposed to work? It feels to me that calling the source unreliable without any evidence is sidetracking the discussion of whether the word "falsely" should be included. Shouldn't the discussion be about whether the statement is in fact true or false? Jacona (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Our opinions about what is truth are kind or irrelevant. What do reliable sources say? If we are going to use the wiki voice to call something false the source needs to be excellent. I'm not sure this source is unreliable, but I'm not sure it's reliable either. However, if this is going to be included it should be well sourced. So the easiest answer is find better sourcing, but you are right... there's other reasons to not include. Does this pass the ten year test, did this receive enough coverage to justify inclusion? If this is notable part of this person's biography it should be easy to find some more sources. Nemov (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This AP article briefly mentions the voter ID claim in the last paragraph, but is mostly about a different claim of hers (which is also covered). The MFP is the only one I found that explains why the voter ID claim is false. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)