RfC on questionable claim of show’s political affiliation

edit

Added inline flag on a part of sentence that claims the show has political affiliation. It is within the synopsis section. This section contains zero citations, though I understand a tv show synopsis may not need a ton (or should this section have citations?). However, a claim is made within this section regarding the “hinting” of political affiliation with one party. I respectfully ask for some sort of verifiable evidence of this claim, especially considering that it is widely reported that the show avoids party affiliation. Input here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Informationageuser (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure why this has been escalated to an RfC? You requested a source, reasonably enough, and started a discussion here, which is a great idea though not a necessary one. If no source is provided within a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed. If the need for a source is disputed, the easiest option is usually to provide one, but statements such as "It is hinted that..." sound like original research to me. Is there a dispute about this? If not, no need for an RfC and I'd recommend withdrawing that. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

It appears an editor has since removed the latter part of the sentence which contained the questionable claim. Thanks all. Informationageuser (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Withdrawing/ending this RfC per above recommendation. Summary: Unsupported claim in question was removed during an edit by another editor without dispute. Thanks to all for input and contributions. Informationageuser (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

President resigning doesn’t make Selina running a moot point

edit

When President Hughes resigns, he had already decided not to run for reelection. Him resigning makes her president, but does not change the fact that Selina is still running. Topic discusser (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply