Talk:2024 North Carolina gubernatorial election

Formatting for the lead

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: Your argument for your formatting of the lead falls under WP:OTHERCONTENT. Saying an article should be written one way because other articles are written that way is not a valid argument, as this policy demonstrates, because there are too many different articles written by different editors who have their own writing preferences. You claim there is a "clear consensus", but provide no actual evidence of a consensus, making this argument also invalid. "Every other page doing it like this" is not evidence of a consensus; it only demonstrates how some editors prefer to edit these articles, which again, falls under WP:OTHERCONTENT. You cannot edit articles based on how you think other articles are written. Edit them based on what is the most informative and the best-written. Bluerules (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd also like to add the three other gubernatorial articles you cited to justify your formatting are not comparable to this article because no candidates have been nominated in those elections. Less information is available about the New Hampshire, Missouri, and Washington gubernational elections this year, so the lead has to be written differently. The major candidates in this election have been nominated and since this election is centered on them, they should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Bluerules (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 North Dakota gubernatorial election, 2024 Indiana gubernatorial election, 2024 Puerto Rico gubernatorial election, and 2024 Utah gubernatorial election all follow the format that this article did before you changed it @Bluerules.

Additionally, a single person does not make consensus and you are abusing this faux consensus, combined with an objective misinterpretation/understanding of WP policy to push an unwarranted edit to the page and threatening users who undo said edit with reports to administrators. Additionally, per your own cited policy, the edit before your intial change is the one to be reverted to in the event of a dispute. It is on you to find consensus for your edit, and if there is then the change is to be made, if there isn't then you leave it be. Instead you engage in consistent edit warring with other users who are following WP policies. Talthiel (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Talthiel: Once again, that is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument. It is not valid argument for formatting an article. Please explain how omitting major party nominees from the lead, as all but the Puerto Rico article do, is beneficial to those articles. Please explain how mentioning the candidates at the center of the election, the subject of this article, at the beginning of the lead is "unwarranted".

I followed WP policy by creating a talk page section to discuss the dispute. I showed leniency instead of outright filing a report. You and BottleOfChocolateMilk disregarded WP policy by ignoring this discussion and continuing to edit war. The issue had been resolved for a week when you needlessly reignited it because of an objective misinterpretation/understanding of WP policy. Not only did I make my change before BottleOfChocolateMilk made his, my edit was in place for a week without controversy, establishing a new STATUSQUO. You claim I'm abusing a "faux consensus" when BottleOfChocolateMilk's formatting argument was based on a faux consensus he had no evidence for. There is no consensus here and you both chose to edit war instead of working with me towards one. And if your only argument is "other articles do it too!", then you're not making a valid argument for your preferred formatting. I'm sorry that sounds harsh, but it's true. Bluerules (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Sept. 19th Calls to Drop Out

All, I think given the fluid nature of this moment it would be worth waiting 48-72 hours (say till Sept. 22nd) before making any changes to the page regarding this current controversy and the contents of it. See WP:BLPRS as this is about a living person and allegations being made that will, almost certainly, be rebutted once they are made fully public. LoneOmega (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Since this has now been officially reported by CNN and the seemingly reliable News & Observer, I've added it; it would be a bit strange to hold off updating it for multiple days. There may be other sources reporting as well, but for now this is at least enough to satisfy WP:BLPRS. AviationFreak💬 20:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

My point, which I guess is poorly described, is just that we should use tentative language regarding allegations for the foreseeable future. So long as Robinson denies them, they are just that—allegations. Again, the goal is to satisfy WP:BLPRS which I think you’ve done adding the “suspected” qualifier. I did a poor job in my encouragement of caution, but will maintain my encouragement of caution. LoneOmega (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)