Talk:Wesley Bell

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Wesley Bell_2014_-_edit2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 2, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-02-02. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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)