Talk:Winsome Sears

LIBERAL BIAS IN ARTICLE
Why have all the racist accusations from Democrat Party officials and talking heads been snatched out of this article? That stuff needs to be in the article for completeness. Examples of the racist slander was that she is a "Black mouth" of White supremacy" and "White Supremacy By Ventriloquist" by Democrat Michael Eric Dyson. Joy Reid's claimed she "legitimizes white supremacy" just because she thinks differently from Democrat Black people.  WTF?  PUT IT BACK!§


 * I'm one of the people who added some of those quotes, but my addition was reverted. Here's the diff which shows my content being removed:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winsome_Sears&type=revision&diff=1053772996&oldid=1053771984


 * And here's the content that I added, which was removed. I put this in the "Career" section, and I created a new sub-section called, "Accusations of being a white supremacist"


 * The Atlantic writer Jemele Hill said of Sears, "It’s not the messaging, folks. This country simply loves white supremacy."


 * Vanderbilt University Professor Michael Eric Dyson said of Sears, "The problem is, here, they want white supremacy by ventriloquist effect... There is a black mouth moving but a white idea running on the runway of the tongue of a figure who justifies and legitimates the white supremacist practices."


 * When I added the content, I commented, "Accusations of white supremacy. Both accusers are notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles, so I think these accusations are notable."


 * The person who removed it commented, "violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV"


 * I'm curious to heat what others think of this.


 * Baxter329 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I just added the content back in.

User:KidAd, the same person who had removed it before, removed it again, and commented: "absolutely not"

I am interested in hearing what others think.

Baxter329 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not have consensus for this content. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:NPOV. KidAd  •  SPEAK  21:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Addition inappropriately rejected
My addition to this article (included below) was rejected as "undue," without any specific reason given. Therefore, I'm forced to address every possible objection. Here goes:

-- "Neutrality requires that main space articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." My addition fairly represents a significant viewpoint (actually, it represents facts). The cited sources are reliable, including the Human Rights Campaign, the pre-eminent gay rights organization in the United States, and the Daily Press, the mainstream newspaper of record for the Tidewater, Virginia, region.

-- "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." My addition represents facts, not views. The "views" are not of a "tiny minority," but pertain to the entire gay population. To label it a "fringe" is, at best, not cognizant of modern-day concepts of a large, valid, high-profile, often-discriminated segment of the population."

-- The facts included in my addition are based primarily on writings of the subject of the biography HERSELF, not "fringe" critics.

-- "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery." My addition does not reflect undue weight in any of those regards.

-- "Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." Again, I presented facts, not opinions; they are not "minority views."

-- The person who is the subject of the biographical piece is a politician -- a very controversial one at that -- and her views on gay rights are absolutely relevant, as her official actions may arguably be affected by her personal viewpoints. Gay rights is NOT a fringe issue, and her views are not only fair to include in my addition, but SHOULD be included.

This is the addition I attempted to include:

Controversy over gay rights
Sears, accused by the Human Rights Campaign of running political campaigns based on “her staunch opposition to LGBTQ rights,” wrote a 2004 op-ed piece in the [], stating that she “emphatically” supported a constitutional amendment “preserving the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman.” In the piece, she added, “I also believe our society has gone immeasurably beyond almost all standards in accommodating the homosexual community over the last couple of decades.” During a 2004 political debate, she criticized comparisons of the gay civil rights movement to the Black civil rights movement, saying, “I and people who look like me can’t believe our movement is being hijacked.”

DavidMWalter (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)David Walter
 * I know that you're new here and and an WP:SPA, but rejected as "undue," without any specific reason given is nonsense. WP:UNDUE is Wikipedia policy. That means it is the specific reason given. Per WP:STRUCTURE, Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. This article would benefit from a neutrally-written "Political positions" section. I do not suggest that you attempt to create one. KidAd  •  SPEAK  23:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

KidAd: Thank you for the explanation. Below is my revised addition, proposed for inclusion under "2021 lieutenant gubernatorial election." Citations will be entered into the appropriate format upon overall content approval.

Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMWalter (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted proposed content revision from this talk page and published it to live page. DavidMWalter (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)DavidMWalter

Seeking consensus
Hello,

I made very substantial revisions in response to feedback on my originally proposed edits, but they were reverted, with no further specific feedback. The text of the reverted revision appears below. I seek consensus to have it added to the article, in the "2021 lieutenant gubernatorial election" section.

-

"The campaign and election of Sears, an evangelical Christian, were hailed by conservative outlets, including the Christian Broadcasting Network’s 700 Club, which praised her in an article headlined, “A Born Leader Hoping to Change the World.” The conservative The Washington Times said the election of Sears and Virginia attorney general candidate Jason Miyares “showcased the increasing diversity among Republicans and the party’s success in recruiting women and minority candidates to deliver a conservative message of freedom and opportunity.” However, Sears was criticized by liberals such as MSNBC host Joy Reid, who accused Republicans of “rolling out their latest can’t-call-it-racist card in the form of newly elected black lieutenant governor, former – the former national chair of Black Americans to Reelect Trump” and asserted that the Republican Party “stoke[s] white supremacism.” Sears responded, “[Reid] talks about white supremacy. Does she know that I ran against a white supremacist?”

Sears also lashed out against criticism of campaign materials that included a photograph of her holding a rifle. Among critics was Virginia Democratic Delegate and Army veteran Dan Helmer, who claimed, “The use of that iconography and imagery is meant to inspire feelings of militancy and separation instead of bringing use together at a time of deep divisiveness….” Sears countered, “I am a Marine. I’m very comfortable with weapons, and, by the way, we do have a Second Amendment right to have these weapons.”

The Human Rights Campaign accused sears of running political campaigns based on “her staunch opposition to LGBTQ rights,”. Sears wrote a 2004 op-ed piece in the Daily_Press_(Virginia), stating that she “emphatically” supported a constitutional amendment “preserving the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman.” In the piece, she added, “I also believe our society has gone immeasurably beyond almost all standards in accommodating the homosexual community over the last couple of decades.” During a 2004 political debate, she criticized comparisons of the gay civil rights movement to the Black civil rights movement, saying, “I and people who look like me can’t believe our movement is being hijacked.” In the same debate, she said, “I don’t try to impose my beliefs on anyone else, but my beliefs are who I am.”"

DavidMWalter (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)DavidMWalter


 * To my mind, the "undue" part was the sheer volume taken up in comparison to the rest of the article. It was extremely detailed compared to the treatment given other items in the article. It came across as almost an article in itself. Perhaps if the entire content were condensed to a paragraph. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Willondon. Toddst1 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Willondon. I understand the "undue" concept now, however, I think it does not apply in this instance. Sears rose from near-obscurity to national attention instantly upon her election. She has entered a new public arena in which the primary focus will be on her political beliefs, aspirations and performance. The comparative paucity of other information in her biography doesn't diminish the applicability of the three paragraphs I wrote. DavidMWalter (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)DavidMWalter
 * The feedback you've gotten (that you keep saying you haven't gotten) is that the material you're adding constitutes undue weight in the article. There seems to be strong consensus about that, with one editor who seems to have a WP:COI being an outlier, you.  Looking at your behavior here, it shows a few characteristics of WP:TIMESINK. Perhaps you should think about that. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your comment in multiple respects, however, in the interest of moving forward, I offer the following revision:

"The campaign and election of Sears were hailed by conservative outlets, including the Christian Broadcasting Network’s 700 Club and The Washington Times, which said the election of Sears and Virginia attorney general candidate Jason Miyares “showcased the increasing diversity among Republicans and the party’s success in recruiting women and minority candidates to deliver a conservative message of freedom and opportunity.” Liberals reacted critically. MSNBC host Joy Reid accused Republicans of “rolling out their latest can’t-call-it-racist card in the form of [the] newly elected black lieutenant governor.” The Human Rights Campaign claimed that Sears ran political campaigns based on “her staunch opposition to LGBTQ rights,” . Sears wrote in 2004 that she “emphatically” supported a constitutional amendment “preserving the institution of marriage to be between a man and a woman,” and during a debate that year, she criticized comparisons of the gay civil rights movement to the Black civil rights movement, saying, “I and people who look like me can’t believe our movement is being hijacked.”"


 * DavidMWalter (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)DavidMWalter
 * Of course you disagree. I'm thinking 2 sentences seems maybe about right. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You refer to the election as a prominent turning point in her career. Indeed it is, but I think that that is attested to in the article by the fact that it enjoys a separate subsection, header and all. The present detail given is accordant with the rest of the article. And we must also consider the dangers of presentism when deciding what weight to give it in the article. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Toddst1 Willondon OK, trying once again. Here's the content, reduced to two sentences:

The campaign and election of Sears were hailed by national conservative outlets, including the Christian Broadcasting Network’s 700 Club and The Washington Times. Prominent liberals, including MSNBC host Joy Reid,” and the LGBTQ-rights group the Human Rights Campaign denounced Sears’s campaign and election.

DavidMWalter (talk)
 * How about something less partisan and more encyclopedic and factual like:

"Sears' candidacy was supported by Christian Broadcasting Network’s 700 Club and The Washington Times, while opposed by the Human Rights Campaign."
 * The articles about those organizations <- are that way. Just present the facts. That's what we're here to do.  If I've over-trimmed the refs, please include them. More refs are better. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your further input, Toddst1. I think, though, that the final edit you proposed could be interpreted to mean that only two organizations supported Sears and only one organization opposed her. Also, I chose the words "hailed" and "denounced" for their precision in reflecting the polarization of opinions expressed about Sears; "supported" and "opposed" are insufficient. I appreciate your and Willondon's thoughts on this, but the condensing of my originally proposed edits to a single sentence strays too far from what I believe is warranted for this article. I'm going to open this up for additional input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMWalter (talk • contribs) 20:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Winsome Sears revision
Please see the "Seeking consensus" section above. What is the appropriate amount of content to include in the proposed revision? DavidMWalter (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See discussions above where DavidMWalter refuses to get the point of the consensus and drop the stick.  This RFC is WP:WIKILAWYERING at best and should be closed. Note that this disruptive editor is already blocked from editing the article because of other disruption.   Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe None - There appears to be a consensus against the inclusion.   Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with others above., from my personal experience I recommend you stop making proposals for the article for a while and just lurk around wikipedia and related articles to observe other instances of consensus process, the wiki style, and the WP:PAGs. It can be mighty helpful to learn that way how to do it.  A. C. Santacruz  &#8258;  Talk  05:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No change Editors, including myself, have attempted to treat with respect and patience because he is an inexperienced user. To reiterate the message I wrote on my talk page, it is in his best interest to stop editing Winsome Sears and pursue his other interests on this website. There is a lot to choose from.  KidAd  •  SPEAK  17:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No change It's fine as it is. The detail and content is consistent with the rest of the article. Willondon (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No change Fine as is. Eruditess (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Meta-discussion by OP
Toddst1, Robert McClenon, A. C. Santacruz, KidAd: Thank you for taking the time to respond to this RfC. I will leave it open for another few days in case others wish to respond, and then remove the tag. I am writing an essay about my experience here, for submission to a to-be-determined publication. Sometime after the holiday, I will include a list of observations/questions on my user page, and will welcome any comments/rebuttals you may have. I will include a notice here when the list is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMWalter (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)DavidMWalter (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should spend a little more time learning about how things work before jumping to conclusions. You're certainly not contributing like you understand the WP:5 Pillars of editing, especially WP:5P4 and the part about consensus.  Continuing to insist that you are right, with no new points like you have done here does not build consensus.  I think if you spend some time learning instead of charging ahead with your own point of view, you may develop a very different perspective. While our content is crowd-sourced, that doesn't mean you can write whatever you want and expect folks to accept it.
 * Seriously, take a look at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. It's pretty obvious that you've been exhibiting at least two of them but I can tell you would like to engage constructively.   Toddst1 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments, Toddst1. I think you'll find when you see my list of observations and questions, that I'm writing an essay to illuminate, not excoriate. That's why I'm taking my time coming up with the list. I have been reading the recommended articles -- and others as well -- and am spending quite a bit of time pondering the points made here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidMWalter (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC tag removed. DavidMWalter (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)DavidMWalter

I have included observations/questions on my talk page. All are welcome to respond. Thanks. DavidMWalter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Winsome Sears campaign photo.jpg

Section heading: "Gay rights" vs. "LGBTQ rights"
it's probably better to discuss this here than through edit summaries. I prefer titling the section "Gay rights" over "LGBTQ rights". Both labels are accurate, but I think the former is more helpful to readers because it's more specific. (For the same reason, I don't think we should rename the "Abortion" section to "Women's rights"). The only information I can find about Sears's views on LGBT rights are her views on gay marriage, and the gay rights movement more generally (e.g. the quote about going too far "accommodating the homosexual community", and her comments about the gay rights movement not being comparable to the civil rights movement). What do you think? Colin M (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's less helpful for readers because it's more specific. The HRC, arguably an authority on the matter, uses "LGBTQ". It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, however. :) Good either way. --Kbabej (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

HRC quote
An IP editor (who I unfortunately can't ping) has removed the following sentence from the "Gay rights" section a couple times:

Their stated rationale is that "HRC is an interest group not a reliable source... it's like putting the NRA opposes x or y Democrat, interests groups are never used authoritatively".

I'm actually leaning in favour of removing the sentence, mostly because I don't think it adds much to the reader's understanding of the topic. We've already established she strongly opposed gay marriage and has expressed a general aversion to the gay rights movement. Is it at all surprising that the HRC finds this problematic?

Analogously, in the "Abortion" section we establish that she's generally opposed to abortions, and would support legislation to strictly limit their availability. Would the section be improved by adding a sentence stating that EMILY's List has described her as "rabidly anti-abortion"? (per ) I'm inclined to think this would not be useful.

Thoughts? Colin M (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it adds context, and expands beyond simply gay issues. It's the first mention of LGBTQ issues as a whole, and it states she has "staunch opposition" to them. I'm in favor of inclusion. --Kbabej (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But does she actually oppose any LGBT rights that aren't gay rights? As I said above, I haven't found any evidence of her expressing views on trans rights. I think their enlargement of scope to "LGBTQ rights" obscures the matter more than it illuminates. Colin M (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The source directly states she does oppose LGBTQ rights. I don't see how that could possibly be confusing for anyone reading this article. --Kbabej (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've really engaged with my question above: does she actually oppose any LGBT rights that aren't gay rights? If not, then enlarging the scope of the statement to "LGBTQ rights" just confuses the issue. Colin M (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, the HRC is the largest lobbying and advocacy org in the US dealing with LGBTQ issues. It's an important org, regardless of one's political leanings. I think their analysis makes sense here. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to understand where you're coming from, what do you think about the abortion example I described above? Or what about adding a quote to the section about guns saying that the NRA has described Sears as "committed to protecting our fundamental right to keep and bear arms"? Would these improve the article? I would regard these as similar situations. Just as HRC is the largest lobbying LGBT lobbying group, Emily's List and the NRA are probably the largest groups in their advocacy areas. Colin M (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the gun and abortion sections are quite clear. The "gay rights" section (which you renamed) isn't as clear, since gay rights and LGBTQ rights are different things. LGBTQ rights include gay rights, but gay rights don't necessarily include LGBTQ rights. Does that make sense? --Kbabej (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with all of that; the first comment. If HRC is an opinion article and using it is somehow neutral then what stops us from just blasting interest groups as opinion articles on all Wikipedia pages? Can I just put this Democrat is running an anti-gun rights campaign according to the NRA? Or like you say this Republican is anti-abortion according to Planned Parenthood? I've never noticed this kind of opinion article on Wikipedia sourced like that. They normally state a second party source that interest group x or y says the they get an A score. Like, Smith received an A- from the NRA. (Source: Vote Smart) This deviates tremendously from the norm and is unnecessary and undue biased. It's a slippery slope if allowed. Although the HRC is certainly a powerful group for LGBT matters, the NRA is for guns but it's not sourced like that at present. To me this seems like an unnecessary attack with bad precedence. Completely slanted, particularly given article's size and scope. It's clearly an opinionated entry with undue bias on page. I hope this precedence doesn't stand. 107.77.241.57 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, the notion that the HRC source brings something new that's not already discussed on the article isn't really valid. The point was made with the current material. It's purpose is just to state opposition from an interest group. I don't see how that's neutral or balanced material. 107.77.241.57 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is not made with the current material, as (stated above) "gay rights and LGBTQ rights are different things. LGBTQ rights include gay rights, but gay rights don't necessarily include LGBTQ rights." The inclusion covers two topic matters under the subsection. --Kbabej (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't bring anything new to the article besides their stated opposition. For that point to even be valid it would have to note her opposition to other aspects of LGBT rights and it doesn't. It just notes their opposition to her campaign. Also, you haven't made a compelling point about why this should break precedence on sourcing. I've not found an analogous example on Wikipedia of a source used like this. 107.77.241.57 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you show me a WP policy that states this would violate sourcing requirements? Subject matter experts are routinely quoted on pages, including BLPs. --Kbabej (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently the HRC article is considered an opinion article and it should be used with deference to balance. The idea is not to use opinion articles as authoritative sources, thus you should consider balance when using them. It doesn't bring any new information besides HRC's opposition to her campaign so it brings undue balance to the page and should be removed. 107.77.241.57 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you show me a WP policy stating that? I also don't agree that it's an opinion article. It also does bring new info, as it states she is opposed to LGBTQ rights, not just gay rights. --Kbabej (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * it states she is opposed to LGBTQ rights, not just gay rights I think you're reading too far into it. Even if she is opposed to just gay rights, it's still accurate to say she's opposed to LGBT rights. Sometimes sources use an umbrella "LGBT" even if a more specific term applies. Analogy: source A says that Sally's Smoothies has opened three new locations in France. Source B says that Sally's Smoothies has expanded to Europe. We cannot logically infer that B provides new information, i.e. that the business has locations in Europe, not just France. Colin M (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I don't think you understand the difference between LGBTQ and gay. You're also wanting to go down the OR route. You can't assume you know the intent of the HRC by stating Sometimes sources use an umbrella "LGBT" even if a more specific term applies. As the arguable experts on the matter, I think they choose their language carefully. Even if they don't, it's still what was stated, and it's not for you or any other editor to interpret. --Kbabej (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It was flagged as an "opinion piece" by an administrator (and it clearly is since HRC is an organization with a clear agenda like the NRA) and it's a mix of reliable sources and undue so like WP:RS and WP:Undue. Thus, there should be a compelling reason for its inclusion and I don't see one. It doesn't state anything new besides their opposition to her campaign. Colin M and I broadly agree to exclude it. Why do you care so much about its inclusion? 107.77.241.57 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply put, you're trying to sanitize an article when the content is clearly DUE. I could also ask you why you care so much about its exclusion? I've made thousands of edits on WP. You've made less than 50. Proportionally, your edits are much more focused on one issue than mine are. Your IP is basically an SPA. --Kbabej (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I don't think these kinds of accusations are fair or helpful, nor do I see how their number of edits is relevant. Colin M (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Describing an IP as an SPA whose last six of seven contributions this year are focusing on removing info on a BLP is hardly unfair. —Kbabej (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You also accused them of "trying to sanitize" the article. That's an imputation of bad faith. Colin M (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I read both articles that were mentioned on the history section and I stand by my statements and I reread the policy I stated. You decided to be offensive. I never attacked you. And I won't continue this because you just want to insult. I care about the golden rule. I'm sure you wouldn't treat me like this in real life given my background. I made my point to its conclusion. Colin, I appreciate it and you know my stance. And finally never assume motivation, some of us don't fit into a box. I for one care about treating others with love not just stating this person opposes me or we oppose them. Stating policy or laws they oppose is generally neutral fact while interest groups have an agenda that needs to be balanced for accuracy, purpose, and scope. Not all people that the interest groups supposedly support actually agree with their agenda. It's opinion after all, not fact. 107.77.241.57 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)