Talk:Elissa Slotkin

Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW strike
I think it still makes sense to discuss whether her comments should be mentioned and if not, why not. A certain user evading blocks does not change that there was significant coverage in reliable sources.

Including the sources linked by said user and removed here for the sake of convenience:

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

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

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

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2023/09/15/congress/dems-uaw-strike-auto-workers-00116241 andrew.robbins (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It was removed by Drmies here. I re-added the Tlaib comments from there (as explained in a previous section) and, to be frank, would prioritize other info over routine UAW strike comments. Democrat supports striking workers isn't exactly breaking news. I wouldn't object to a short summary stating that she supported the workers in the strike however if others feel strongly. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * “I’m looking forward to joining our auto workers on the picket line this weekend. For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived. As someone who used to negotiate international agreements, I know that no one should let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is not exactly what I'd call supporting the workers without a gigantic caveat. andrew.robbins (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * She joined the workers on the picket line and hoped the parties would be able to resolve their differences quickly. I'd describe that as support. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "It's bad for michigan, it's bad for the country" is the language of strikebreakers. Simply showing up and wanting a quick resolution doesn't mean unqualified support. Compare her language to that of Shawn Fain. "As long as it takes, we'll hold that line". https://twitter.com/ShawnFainUAW/status/1713185379501687078 andrew.robbins (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting be added? Fwiw - Politico describes the statement you first provided as an example of Michigan Democrats making statements of support for the striking workers and local news also describes her going to the picket line as support. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that describe the same line as backhanded or use scare quotes. While I wouldn't cite these two directly, I do think that the definition of support here is contentious enough among various outlets to warrant simply putting the quote in directly rather than opining one way or the other per WP:BLPSTYLE.
 * Maybe put something along the lines of "She supported the workers at the picket line of the UAW strike with < >." andrew.robbins (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding full quotes would be undue weight in my opinion. We should stick to adding a summary of what reliable sources say if we deem the topic to be beyond routine coverage: That she supported the striking workers. That's what Politico and other mainstream, reliable sources say. Opinions/commentary from Jacobin and Common Dreams is not a counter to reporting from national and local political reporters. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded, I think this should be included Seamusfleming92 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a section about her remarks on UAW Strike and it should be based on her original speech. There is enough coverage about her attitude towards the strike from sources that are listed as reliable on WP:RSPSS and her statement is different enough from other democrats that deserve specific coverage so it should be covered. As to how to cover it as User:Andrew.robbins said above there is disagreement on whether her statement itself is support or oppose the strike, so as required by WP:BLPSTYLE we should let her words itself say and add nothing else. If you are confident about her speech means support to the strike you should be confident that the readers will see it as "support" of the strike after reading her own words. OrcaLord (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting treating Jacobin/Common Dreams as if they were equal reliable sources to Politico, Detroit News, and others who described her statement as support. There's no disagreement within mainstream sources and Wikipedia isn't the place to promote a fringe theory. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What is considered a reliable source is not decided by you, but by WP:RSPSS, which lists Jacobin as reliable source. OrcaLord (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, it lists it as a biased source. "There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'. The reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable."
 * Adhering to NPOV would be to list what mainstream, normal sources say not impeaching it with a fringe perspective from a socialist magazine. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But we are not discussing covering it as what Jacobin said, which is where the NPOV problem applies, but to show what she did is not only seen support, as long as it is reliable. And in order to make your theory to be covered instead of her own speech, you need to show a majority of sources to just say it is support instead of covering her own original speech. But in reality only a minority of reliable sources here said so but all of them covered her own speech, by NPOV theory that speech itself, instead of the interpretation to it by a minority of sources, should be included. Also the Politico source also has bias concern on WP:RSPSS and the other source you provided is not even on the reliable list. OrcaLord (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Local news is presumed reliable. So is Politico. Jacobin's a fringe source. If we add something about UAW, let's stick to what reliable mainstream sources say: "she made a statement supporting the workers." Going into further detail about this would be undue on this article. Frankly, I tend to see even that as too run of the mill to include. If you want something else, then you need consensus per onus. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Jacobin is listed as reliable source by WP:RSPSS, which judges what is reliable and what is not. Secondly, as listed above there is not a majority of reliable sources who said her statement is support, but all of them quoted her speech: "For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived. As someone who used to negotiate international agreements, I know that no one should let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Undue is not the reason to skew what the source said and use words that the source does not agree on. Finally, I am trying to reach a consensus, that is the point of talk page discussion. But "consensus" does not mean everyone, including a single dissenter with no supporter, (You may say the admin deleted it first but at that time there were not sufficient sources, especially no source listed as reliable on WP:RSPSS, so the case is totally different.) should agree to be consensus, as WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS said: "The result might be an agreement that may NOT satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the OVERALL concurrence of the group". Anyway, what you are doing does not meet what you claim to believe. If you do believe that her original speech, as quoted by all of the sources above, is in support of the strike, then you should be confident that readers will interpret it as support when we "let facts alone do the talking" like what WP:BLPSTYLE requires. If you do not believe what she said is in support but want to hide it to make readers believe so, it is deliberately misleading. OrcaLord (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't need to include full quotes in the article, just what reliable sources have summarized. Jacobin is a biased reliable source per consensus.
 * Let's leave this alone and see if other experienced editors want to chime in one way or the other to establish a consensus since it's just the two of us minus the meatpuppetry which cannot establish a consensus. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, only some of the source summary says it as support while the majority of sources do not. Also, Jacobin is still reliable, the bias means in line attribution is needed when we need to add something with it being the only source, which is not the case here. Secondly, meatpuppetry is just your claim (a claim which has no support of official ruling), and you can't just treat your claim as fact. OrcaLord (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The only semi-RS you have that doesn't call it support is Jacobin, which is biased. If you want to go beyond the "support" that Politico and other RS indicate, let's allow other experienced editors to weigh in and form a consensus -- the two of us are unlikely to come to agreement here and this talk page is now limited to ECP following the meatpuppetry. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there are 4 notable/reliable sources from reliable sources that do not mention "support" at all: Reuters, ABC News Detroit, Jacobin and the interview of Detroit free press, while you only have 2 notable sources to say it is support. Also, Michigan Advance doesn't even have its own wiki page. Stop lying about what the source said. Secondly, other than your claim (which lacks proof), there is no confirmation of meatpuppetry and no note that the ECP is about the meatpuppetry. Stop treating your own claim as the confirmed rule of Wikipedia OrcaLord (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right that the Reuters, WXYZ, and Detroit Free Press links originally listed only provide the quote. Meanwhile, Politico (provided by your buddy ProgFlip) calls her statement "support". These all also report support. Let's allow a consensus to build with other editors to add anything per onus given the lack of agreement. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to just list medias, I can list more from even more notable medias that do not see her speech as support like https://ca.style.yahoo.com/quotes-people-saying-us-auto-050158930.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABj1Vdn6_etbmcQKrmR9dXPuKybHOorQj-y9mWR6D5Mfkw2bNL4tJRGuYbBnOY6RA-csY1Q6Pfs151TH4PCticrBXnPmbpWYyYb0T-E2lWJwx1A9ZtjlAdD1Y4rpas-AfleAdqCvRrW81Ct1WYs1YEDpdwKNsRLSD_vRoVhKiHhq https://www.audacy.com/wwjnewsradio/news/local/gov-leaders-weigh-in-as-uaw-strikes-detroit-automakers https://www.wilx.com/2023/09/25/politics-behind-uaw-strike/ and so on. Also, the last article you listed from the Detroit free press only said there are politicians that flock to Michigan to show support for the strike with Slotkin on the line, but does not conclude Slotkin's visit is in support. Additionally, the http://wlns.com source even shows the strike workers want to strike for as long as it takes to get a good deal, which is directly opposed by Slotkin's speech ("end strike as quickly as possible"). Anyway, per WP:BLPSTYLE "Do not label people with terms that LACK PRECISION, unless a person is COMMONLY described that way in reliable sources." There are already enough sources that are generally from more notable sources than you provided so the COMMONLY standard can't be met. Any editor who understands policy will point this out to you. Finally, stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you on this talk page and then treating your accusation as fact even if they are not supported by the final decision. You are NOT the one who has that power and the talk page is NOT the place to do this. Let the admin on the notice board rule. OrcaLord (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Our goal here should be to improve the article; your all-caps and attacks are really quite unnecessary and not helpful towards that goal. I'd ask that you remain civil and back away from this battleground mentality.
 * I'd note that of the 3 articles you linked, the first (Yahoo link) is simply the same Reuters list of statements previously provided. The second (WWJ) is the same. Neither provides a characterization of the remark.
 * The third (WILX), however, describes Slotkin as supporting the workers so thank you for that additional link.
 * "Politicians such as Slotkin have been visiting UAW picket lines, to show support for the union."
 * "In Delta Township at GM’S Customer Care and Aftersales facility, the workers are welcoming any and all support. Whether it’s politicians, other union members, or people from the community, they say they want as many people as they can get out there, to show solidarity."
 * "“County commissioner, state house rep, you know we value any support from any of our politicians to come, you know we did a lot to help Biden get elected,” said Scott Zuckschwerdt, with the UAW Region 1D."
 * It is clear that sources commonly describe her position on the strike as "support" including one of the three links that you provided. The only source you've provided that goes against that is Jacobin, which is fringe.
 * Again, I don't think it's productive for us to have this back and forth. Let's just allow other experienced editors to weigh in. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it is you who brought your claimed attack to this talk page without any confirmation from the admin, not the other way around. I just pointed this out. Secondly, your sources from WLNS and Wilx are also just copying from the Detroit Free News, they are truly copying from each other since they are not direct quotes but written reports. Finally, the standard of "commonly" means it has to be used universally from notable, reliable sources. Despite this, there are at least Jacobin, Reuters, ABC News, and Yahoo that are not using support, and even if you exclude Jacobin (which is listed as reliable by WP:RSPSS regardless of what you say), the other 3 are all marked as reliable and notable on WP:RSPSS, so it can't fit the standard of "commonly" that is required by WP:BLPSTYLE when using the term that likes precision like "support" instead of the original speech itself that is covered by all of the notable, reliable sources here that are on the list of reliable source on WP:RSPSS. Anyway, I agree that it is not useful to talk this back and forth, I believe the other experienced editors should, and will, edit based on the Wikipedia policies, which are not judged by either you, or me, but by the written policies of Wikipedia. OrcaLord (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm tired of going back and forth here. What you're doing is called original research and trying to push your analysis of her statement into the article. Here's what the mainstream RS we've discussed here describe her position as: The only ones who don't it describe as support are fringe and/or unreliable publications like Jacobin and Common Dreams.

As I've said before, I don't think it's necessary to have anything about UAW in the article, if we do include a line about it it should strictly reflect what RS say with something like "Slotkin supported workers during the 2023 UAW strike joining them on the picket line." We should not be making an editorial judgement about which of her statements, and which portion, to include and the full quote would be undue. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I can't understand what you mean by "original research," I just pointed out that by your same standard your sources also can be seen as not independent. And my request does not want to add anything original, just the quote of her words itself. Second, there are sources that, when quoting the speech, quote it as "support"; if the sources who you claim are "just quoting" do hold the opinion that it is support, they could have added "support," but they don't. Third, as to Jacobin and Common Dreams, only you subjectively claim they are "unreliable" and "fringe" while in reality WP:RSPSS lists Jacobin as reliable. Lastly, as I said above there are many sources who do not use support, so by WP:BLPSTYLE you can't use this term that lacks precision as what the RS said. And the part of quote that is commonly covered in all of the notable RS is not long: "For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived. As someone who used to negotiate international agreements, I know that no one should let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Including it is definitely not undue. OrcaLord (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Jacobin, as said at RSP, is a heavily biased source and special care should be taken with attributing their statements and avoiding undue weight in favour of them. I'm not sure what I'd call WP:UNDUE if it's not the sole reliable source out of 9 that's characterizing a statement in one way. Maybe I just haven't had the right Twitter user tell me how to think about it though. XeCyranium (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But there is no one who seeks to simply adopt Jacobin's claim that it is opposed, and without Jacobin, there are still enough reliable, unbiased, and notable sources like Reuters and ABC News who do not simply characterize the speech as support. So per WP:BLPSTYLE the statement that lacks precision "support" which is not used unanimously, should not replace the part of speech itself that is covered by all the reliable sources here under the spirit of "let the facts alone do the talking." Again, please notice the WP:BLPSTYLE says only when someone is "commonly described that way" can we use terms that lack of precision to replace the fact itself. Besides, the WP:RSPSS does not say Jacobin is heavily biased, it only say it is biased but not to the extent that it is unreliable or can't be used. You can compare how it is covered on WP:RSPSS to how truly super biased sources like Fox News and the Federalist are covered here. OrcaLord (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If Jacobin is the sole reliable source saying that it wasn't a statement of support and is known to be biased on these topics, while every other reliable source which opines on it describes it as a gesture/statement of support, I don't see how you can argue Jacobin's disagreement can outweigh the unanimity of the other sources. I mean this also seems somewhat absurd, does there really need to be an argument over whether a person visiting a strike to say "I support this strike" can be classified as showing support for the strike? XeCyranium (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is there is no common agreement to just call what she said as support. Lots of reliable sources either don't draw conclusions or say it is oppose, and based on WP:BLPSTYLE when using the terms that "lack precision" instead of the original words there must be a universal agreement to use that term, which is not the case here. And if you do think that when she said "For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived. As someone who used to negotiate international agreements, I know that no one should let the perfect be the enemy of the good." is undisputable support, you have no reason to object to using it. If you don't believe that her speech is support but want to claim it is, you are deliberately misleading readers. OrcaLord (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Listen, this is transparent. You're cherry-picking the sole part of the quote that hopes the strike is resolved quickly while cutting out every prior sentence that refers to her support. Assuming good faith doesn't mean dealing with blatant sea-lioning. Every reputable neutral source describes it the same way. If you can't understand why "I stand with the men and women of the UAW who are doing the most American thing you can do(...)" is supportive I'd question your competency to be editing Wikipedia. XeCyranium (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I only listed that part of speech because it is the only part of her speech that is covered by ALL of the reliable sources here since Politico only covered this part instead of the full speech. If you think this is cherrypicking, blame it and question Politico's reliability and neutrality on WP:RSPSS instead, don't blame me. I personally support putting the whole speech here but Politico thinks only that part is notable. OrcaLord (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. You just want to accurately reflect Politico in quoting only the small snippet they quote, contrary to the other sources, but not include their characterization of the statement, which is shared by the other sources. Because describing things in line with the majority of sources is undue, but only a single source should be relied on for decisions on how to truncate a quote. Please excuse my sarcasm. XeCyranium (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Due to the controversial nature of BLP of politicians who are active post-1992, generally, we should only cover what all the notable/reliable sources universally cover.  Of the original speech only that part is universally covered because Politico neglected other parts, but the "support", though is a characterization adopted by Politico, and is not adopted by other notable reliable sources on WP:RSPSS like Reuters or ABC News or Yahoo news. So according to WP:BLPSTYLE, a lack of precision characterization that is not universally used should not be used to replace the part of the speech itself that is universally covered. Anyway, I personally support using a more complete quote of the full speech itself, but the fact that some notable/reliable sources choose to omit something does suggest dispute in notability, so I am not sure using the full speech fits Wikipedia policy. OrcaLord (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you should WP:DROPTHESTICK, no policy requires unanimity in sources' coverage of a topic. Copy pasting her entire speech is unnecessary, because we have sources which summarize it for us very helpfully into a small little bite-sized sentence of "she went out to support the strike". XeCyranium (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLPSTYLE, this page is a biography of a living person, so only when it is used COMMONLY can we use a term that lacks precision like "She support the strike" instead of the original speech itself (unless you think you don't need to obey Wikipedia policy). Also, WP:DROPTHESTICK ONLY applies to ENDED discussion, this discussion obviously DOES NOT apply. OrcaLord (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree with @XeCyranium that it's time to drop the stick here. We have multiple reliable sources saying she supported the strike. We don't need to make an editorial decision to pick and choose a portion of her quote to include when multiple reliable sources have helpfully summarized for us satisfying the need for something to be commonly described as such. Nobody except fringe sources like Jacobin disagree with that characterization, so there's no need for original research to suggest anything else. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How about we take this to dispute resolution rather than claiming that a discussion is over when it very clearly is not?
 * Mapping out viewpoints by sources is not original research. Perhaps engaging with it would be more productive. andrew.robbins (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RSPSS Jacobin is not fringe, but overall a reliable source. There are many other sources like Reuters, ABC News and Yahoo News who do not use your suggested term that lack of precision, so per WP:BLPSTYLE the term that lacks precision should NOT be used here, and instead we should leave the original quote as it is (and the original quote itself obviously is not original research). OrcaLord (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Including her full quote on this topic would be WP:UNDUE. We don't do that for any other issue she made and this routine coverage is not due that level of detail (frankly, as @Drmies noted when removing it, including it at all is questionable).
 * If we include only part of the quote, then that becomes an editorial judgement that inserts POV.
 * If we characterize the quote, then we should include the summary that reliable publications that chose to summarize her position used: she supported striking workers. The fact that other publications did not characterize her position does not impeach that she supported the striking workers.
 * And again, as @XeCyranium and I have both pointed out, Jacobin is a biased source for opinion even if it is overall unlikely to make stuff up. If you disagree with that, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. And if you want to take it to dispute resolution, feel free, although per ONUS there's no consensus to include anything about this on the page. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:UNDUE first, it only talks about not giving overdue coverage to the MINORITY view, but the quote of what she said is covered by almost all of the sources here including multiple reliable sources; it is NOT minority opinion that applies to WP:UNDUE, and any editorial judgement done by a certain user may insert POV. Thus, we can choose to only include the intersection of all the quotes from sources that are both reliable and notable enough instead of picking a term that is only adopted by SOME of the sources that do have POV concern and violate WP:BLPSTYLE. Also, your claim about Jacobin was that it is just unreliable, which goes against what WP:RSPSS says. It does say it is biased but that means need of in line attribution, since no one asks to directly adopt its opinion on the main page, this point moots. Anyway, WP:ONUS does not apply to the situation that has no consensus yet, which is the case here; the case here needs dispute resolution instead. OrcaLord (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This is what all this is about? And the longer I look, the sillier it gets. User:Andrew.robbins believes that the "scare quotes" in an opinionated piece in the Jacobin (which is NOT to be taken as gospel truth, but as opinion) and a clearly marked opinion piece on a "progressive" website somehow should help us decide whether someone supported a strike or not? No wonder we're going to be here a while. User:Dcpoliticaljunkie, next time start an RfC. We get a vote, OK a !vote, there are editors with some real Wikipedia experience, the silliness gets voted down, we're done. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No one is suggesting adding what Jacobin said here, me and User:Andrew.robbins support covering the original quote of her speech about the strike that is covered by Reuters, Politico, and many other reliable sources as it is. If you believe what she said about the strike obviously means support, you should also support covering the speech since you believe it clearly means support. Also, different from what you deleted then, there are many more NOTABLE and RELIABLE sources such as Reuters, ABC News, and Politico that are listed as neutral and reliable on WP:RSPSS, so the notability is totally different. OrcaLord (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Look up and see what Andrew.robbins said; it's from him that I got the links for Jacobin and Common Whatever. And no, I don't have to support blah blah blah because I believe that reliable sources said she supported the strike. So here I am, complaining about the enormous amount of ant fucking, and you just add to it. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But this is just a fraction of the numerous sources he provided, on the top of this section robbins provided sources from Reuters, ABC News, and so on, which are notable, reliable, and unbiased sources. OrcaLord (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well then I suggest you write a 5,000 word summary of each of those articles and combine them into a 10,000 word section on what someone said one time about some strike. Are you familiar at all with WP:NOTNEWS? Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Or we could just include the full quote and be done with it and let people interpret it as they will. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @LegalSmeagolian: It would be undue to include her full quote on this issue, we don't include quotes or that much detail for any of her other positions. That's beyond the issue of editorial judgement of which quote to include which could create bias. I question whether run-of-the-mill support from a Democrat for striking workers even should be included, however, it certainly shouldn't be included in such a form that gives "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". A statement supporting striking workers should not be covered disproportionately to everything else Slotkin has done in office meaning anything more than a sentence stating she supported them would be undue. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are making the assessment that it is a run of the mill statement. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is how all the RS we've covered describe it. Why do you think this statement should be included in full when we don't give other statements from her this treatment? Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not all the RS call her speech as support, Reuters and Yahoo News and ABC News all do not say her statement is in support, and Jacobin, which is still described as RS on WP:RSPSS, describes it as oppose. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, your term that lacks precision and is not commonly USED by notable RS should not be adopted. OrcaLord (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How many times are you going to repeat the same thing in this discussion? At some point, you should recognize that you have made your contribution, and that if other people don't agree with you, it's not because they haven't read what you've written. --JBL (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Many reliable sources utilize the full quote and don't characterize it as a run of the mill statement, that's why they include the full quote. Even if . I don't see why saying 'Slotkin has expressed support for autoworkers, and during the 2023 UAW strike stated "I’m looking forward to joining our auto workers on the picket line this weekend. For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived.'
 * I'm not even saying that we can't characterize it as a statement of support in wikivoice, but to not include any of the quote when most RS include an expanded quote seems to overly simplify her position. I am also confused on why the Jacobin is being characterized as unreliable - it's a reliable source but due to its political tilt attribution would be used. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would we pick that portion of the quote? If we're going to include a portion of the quote, what about the first bit?
 * Slotkin supported striking autoworkers during the 2023 UAW strike stating "I stand with the men and women of the UAW who are doing the most American thing you can do: fighting to make sure a hard day’s work means a good life for you and your family."
 * I still think including this topic is not necessary and if we do include it, we only need the first portion. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The first part of the quote is no as frequently reported on compared to the part I highlighted - but again that is why I prefer the full quote. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, the "first part" you asked for, "Slotkin support striking workers", is a term that lacks precision and is not used by MOST of the sources here that are listed as reliable on WP:RSPSS since Reuters, ABC News, Yahoo News, and Jacobin all do not use "support," but WP:BLPSTYLE does not allow using term that lacks precision without commonly agreement. So you can only use the quote itself unless you want to break Wikipedia policy. OrcaLord (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:MINORASPECT means something that lacks enough notable sources should not be covered too much, but there are 6 sources listed as notable and reliable on WP:RSPSS that covered it. There was a reason why it got so much coverage: It Is notable enough, more notable than even most of the other points on this page that deserve more coverage. OrcaLord (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:LegalSmeagolian here, all those notable sources covered the same quote, just done with it, include it, let the people interpret it when they read it. OrcaLord (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is basically never a time when "[I think that people who read the quote will arrive at a subtextual conclusion that is not supported explicitly by the sources, therefore] LET THE PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS" is not a stupid argument. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Very good job at staying WP:CIVIL (this is polite sarcasm). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Take it up with the BLP standards people. andrew.robbins (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree in full with Drmies. --JBL (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment?
At this point I think we have reached an impass and should just open an RfC. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I support this. OrcaLord (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconded.(Thirded?) andrew.robbins (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussions on whether or not the language used by Elissa Slotkin should be used in the article when she said: "'For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived. As someone who used to negotiate international agreements, I know that no one should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I hope the UAW and the Big Three continue to negotiate in good faith to reach a fair agreement as quickly as possible.'" There has been a lot of contention over the meaning of this quote, with many saying it is anti-union and some saying it is pro-union or mundane. There has also been a debate over many of the sources that have been used quoting her as being anti-union, many of which are deemed reputable by Wikipedia (although there are debates over biases). Considering this, should this quote be characterized or partially included on the article? OrcaLord (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose this mal-formed RfC which does not present all of the options discussed in the conversation above on procedural grounds. Also oppose this addition on substance. This is just the latest attempt by an editor who was banned from editing this page for three months for disruptive editing to reintroduce content that originates from a permanently banned editor's sock. Editorializing a portion of the quote to push a POV is inappropriate. This is a run-of-the-mill statement that should simply be described as reliable sources have described it: She supported the workers. There's no reason to include quotes here when we don't do so for any of her other positions. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of short quote such as 'Slotkin has expressed support for autoworkers, and during the 2023 UAW strike stated "I’m looking forward to joining our auto workers on the picket line this weekend. For the sake of Michigan’s economy and our working families, I hope this strike is short-lived.' - LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of partial quote without characterization as the implications of this particular quote are clearly contentious in a way that her other positions are not (see: heated arguments on both sides of the aisle above). Politico's choice of snippet seems correct as it is the smallest phrase included in all RS. I do not oppose including more of it, but that may get clunky. Using common RS phrasing is not editorializing, it is in fact the opposite.
 * As an aside, can we please keep this to the merits? The question is whether this should be included or not and if so, how. Some third party trying to pov-push several months ago shouldn't change that calculus. Edit-warring several months ago does not change that this is the appropriate way to handle things. Please assume good faith. andrew.robbins (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The statement seems both ambiguous and mundane in only a way that politicians can manage. I really can't see the value of including it in the article. A read of the sources that Dcpoliticaljunkie provided above indicates she is characterised as supportive of workers and I think it is sufficient to state as much without need of this quote or any part of it. TarnishedPathtalk 12:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As an uninvolved person just learning about the contention: have alternative wordings been proposed? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been four proposals: the status quo (no quote, characterize as support), a short quote along the lines of "she supported the workers by saying ", simply using the snippet that Politico uses (smallest common denominator), or using the whole quote. andrew.robbins (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically status quo is not mentioning anything about the UAW or labor. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah-right. So that's five options in total, I suppose. andrew.robbins (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2024
The article should include the fact that Slotkin supported Krysten Sinema when she was censured and Joe Manchin.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/slotkin-to-other-democrats-don-t-question-the-motives-of-manchin-sinema-131496005852 108.32.85.16 (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Add a section under positions with the title "Sinema support" with the information "Following Senator Krysten Sinema's censure, Slotkin publicly supported Sinema and Senator Manchin who were blocking President Joe Biden's agenda saying their motives shouldn't be questioned." 71.61.144.8 (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A similar section was removed after discussion resulted in consensus against it. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Some latest news that I think should be added to this page:
Second one: 128.194.2.76 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What I think should be changed (format using textdiff):Two things: First: I think "Impeachment" section should be changed into "Impeachment and Guilty Verdict of Trump" and include her statement of Trump's indictment: "U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Holly Democrat running for the U.S. Senate, said the verdict marked an "unprecedented" and "sad" day for the country. "Presidents should be leaders we look up to; now, one of them is a convicted felon, found guilty by a jury of his peers," Slotkin said on social media. "That’s nothing to celebrate. The only good news is that our justice system worked, even under enormous pressure."". Second: About "she voted for the Build Back Better Act." A new source from Yahoo News is needed and I suggest change the words here to fit its content:"Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., voted in favor but said in a statement, “There are things that I would have preferred to be taken out of the bill, and that I believe the Senate will now slim down.”Slotkin also noted that she would have preferred the immigration section to be in a separate bill." properly..
 * Why it should be changed: Following Trump being indicted as guilty, this section should be extended to include her statement on the latest progress of Trump indictment. Also as to BBB part it lacks notable source which made someone claim it should be deleted, but I find it is covered by a source that is both reliable and notable enough that is listed as "reliable" on WP:RSPSS so using it as the main source is better and the content should reflect what it said, especially consider the two preexisting source also covered the same contents.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): First one :


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)