Thenightaway (talk | contribs) |
Guitarguy2323 (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
See here: https://twitter.com/ryan_dane/status/1333614785670344704. There is updated data and a thorough list of which states have what kinds of redistricting, as well as the criteria they use for redistricting. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 03:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |
See here: https://twitter.com/ryan_dane/status/1333614785670344704. There is updated data and a thorough list of which states have what kinds of redistricting, as well as the criteria they use for redistricting. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 03:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
==Add examples of Democrats doing gerrymandering== |
|||
At least try to be neutral. [[User:Guitarguy2323|Guitarguy2323]] ([[User talk:Guitarguy2323|talk]]) 05:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:10, 5 December 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MorrisAshford (article contribs).
"Negative Racial Gerrymandering" is a made up term
I'm getting fairly sick of overzealous contributors at wikipedia trying to invent terms out of whole cloth just to see if it takes. There are ***6*** google results for the term, and one of them is wikipedia itself.
Unless a more sensible reference is conjured up, I am going to delete that reference entirely.Tgm1024 (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's a term in the redistricting literature, and it refers to a discrete concept. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gerrymandering in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208155829/http://projects.palmbeachpost.com/yourvote/ballot_question/florida/2010/amendment-5-and-6-2010/ to http://projects.palmbeachpost.com/yourvote/ballot_question/florida/2010/amendment-5-and-6-2010/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://riredistricting.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Violations of WP:POV
I have removed an excellent illustration from the article for its blatant violation of WP:POV. This article should never use the word "steal" to describe gerrymandering, because there are a great many people that consider it to be perfectly acceptable political gamemanship. But then, on top of that, the diagram (which was really well done; much like one I created for my own classroom) showed two parties, Blue and Red (gee, I wonder what parties those colors could represent), and showed that Blue had a majority of voters yet Red "stole" the election and got a majority of the seats. Yes, this is how gerrymandering works. But, despite the current Republican superiority in successfully implementing gerrymandering, the practice has a long and sordid past conducted equally by both parties, and the Democrats have just as often abused their majorities in state legislatures to do this as have Republicans. Yet we have the aforementioned diagram showing Republicans using Gerrymandering, another example from a Republican-created map in North Carolina showing gerrymandering, and a Republican-created map from Texas showing gerrymandering. It would not be too big a surprise if a casual reader came away from this article thinking that gerrymandering is a Republican created monster, despite the fact that Democrats have been gerrymandering since before the Republican Party even existed. Unschool 03:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- "This article should never use the word 'steal' to describe gerrymandering, because there are a great many people that consider it to be perfectly acceptable political gamemanship." You will need some citations to back that up. Have you considered looking up Gerrymandering on Wikipedia? Be sure to make a note of the image being used. In the meantime, I will simply recommend that you self-revert. The image is WP:DUE. Also, if it is just an issue of color for you (pun), I can tell you this has already been discussed in previous Talk Pages here. There is already a different color version on wiki-commons, ready to go. Either way, I'd ask that you do some research. DN (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please explain how WP:DUE is pertinent here. I'm no longer an active editor, but IIRC, WP:DUE is concerned with the unnecessary inclusion of fringe points of view. Are you saying that the Republican Party (which is being maligned by the choice of illustrations) is "fringe"? You can disagree with it all you want (as do I) but it's hardly "fringe".
- If you don't believe that gerrymandering is "acceptable" to some, ask yourself why the Supreme Court has never banned the practice. Yes, it has restricted it, and is likely to do so even more this year. But both parties practice it, so both parties apparently consider it acceptable. I taught a college-level course on American government back in the 1980s and while bemoaning gerrymandering was as common then as it is today, few out-and-out said it should be banned. Of course, the movement to stop gerrymandering is certainly gaining steam, but not (this is just my opinion) out of principle, but because of the fact that one party has simply gotten too good at it. If the Democrats had pulled off over the past 20 years what the GOP has done, the Republicans would be as enthusiastic about ending the practice as Democrats are now.
- I do not have a dog in this fight. I am not a Republican; I am an independent who votes for both parties as the occasion merits (or neither, as last November merited) So let me ask you, can you not at least acknowledge that the use of "steal" is a violation of WP:POV? Stealing is illegal, gerrymandering is not. I will not self-revert, if for that reason alone. If, as you say, there is an alternative map available, I would like the name of the file so that I can view it and proffer my opinion in this discussion. Unschool 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I have added the alternate image back into the article. Your issue with "the color" is now resolved. As far as your opinion on whether or not the use of the word "steal" is "appropriate", I will direct you to WP:SUBJECTIVE "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia...". Obviously this image is not in Wikipedia's voice, but in it's publisher's. It is WP:RS. Do some more research, and please stop trying to bring political opinions into the discussion. No one asked about your personal political knowledge, ideology or affiliation etc... That stuff is entirely irrelevant here. DN (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- I appreciate the gesture, though I am puzzled by your handling of the word color. You once noted that there was a pun involved in my complaint about color (Also, if it is just an issue of color for you (pun)); I know of no one who loves puns as much as I do, but I do not see the pun here. Because this statement of yours makes no sense to me, it makes me wonder if you understand my position. Similar is your use of what are commonly called scare quotes (Your issue with "the color" is now resolved.); what on earth was the reason for placing that in quotes? Again, I wonder if we're speaking the same language here.
- Anyway, while I do appreciate that you've changed this to the neutral green-yellow color scheme, I hasten to remind you that I said my primary concern was with the use of the word "steal". Stealing is an illegal activity. Gerrymandering is not. The gerrymandering diagram would be just as effective without the title "How to Steal an Election"; in fact, it would be more effective as one would not be distracted by the unnecessary POV of the word "steal".
- You write, As far as your opinion on whether or not the use of the word "steal" is "appropriate", I will direct you to WP:SUBJECTIVE"There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia.". Who ever suggested that there were "forbidden words on Wikipedia"? I did not say that, but your statement implies falsely that I did. Of course there are no forbidden words. But we are nonetheless prohibited from using words in certain contexts. If I was to add to the article on a given movie star that "he is a completely incompetent actor, and ugly besides", would that statement be allowed to stand because, as you say, there are "no forbidden words"? Of course it would not be allowed, because it would need the support of some seriously reliable sources. What about this diagram? You write above, "this image is not in Wikipedia's voice, but in it's publisher's. It is WP:RS." Really? And what reliable source is this? This image was created by someone using a Wikimedia user account named Stevenass. So it's not, as you claim, from a "publisher". It's from a Wikimedia user, an editor who had made exactly ONE edit, that edit being the creation of the image (see [1]). And who exactly is this Stevenass? Who the heck knows? Linkedin lists at least ten persons named Steve Nass [2]. The White Pages lists over 100 ([3]) persons named Steve Nass. Interestingly, while Steve Nass has only one edit to his entire history, you have at least three edits based upon derivations of this map. So you certainly appear to have a vested interest on the use of this diagram.
- You have provided, what appears to me to be, a weak case for including this diagram as currently constituted. You claim it meets WP:RS, but it clearly does not. You claim there are "no forbidden words" on Wikipedia, which no one is contesting. But if your interpretation of "no forbidden words" were to actually hold true, it would render both WP:BLP and WP:POV null and void. (Hey, after all, if there are "no forbidden words", then someone can write about a United States Senator and allege that he eats horse feces for breakfast. No forbidden words!) So in the interest of not starting an edit war, I am going to leave your current version in place, for the moment. If you can come up with a version of the diagram that does not have that title (and really, with captions available, why is a title necessary at all?), then I will let this go. Otherwise, we will bring in other people to examine your interesting ideas about Wikipedia policies. Either way, I'd ask that you do some research. Unschool 05:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Here is a file that I uploaded for the Gerrymandering article. I'll happily edit it to make it better:
- I think DN's green/yellow color scheme shows up much better.
- The fonts aren't rendering nicely in my browser in the thumb.
- I think I'd change the label on the top two diagrams to be
Disproportionate Outcomes: “Gerrymandering”
- I like what you've got there. I do agree with you that DN's yellow-green color scheme is superior. but your labels are more acceptable. I'd say go ahead and do it, but we should wait to hear what others have to say. One question is, do we need all the maps? I'd say yes; it explains more, but I'd also be okay with the three maps that the article has currently. Unschool 06:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- This POV claim of yours still makes no sense. "because there are a great many people that consider it to be perfectly acceptable political gamemanship."...And? I guess that's why it's so popular, oh wait, no it isn't. How is your search for citations to back that up, going? Have you read the first paragraph in the lead of the Gerrymandering article? It says, "The term gerrymandering has negative connotations.". While that may not constitute "stealing" it certainly doesn't help your case. DN (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- I concede that I spoke too broadly when making that statement (about a 'great many people'). You're right, on the whole, gerrymandering has negative connotations, despite the fact that both parties have practiced it without being stopped by the Supreme Court for over 200 years. So, yes, a large majority of typical Americans would agree that it's a sucko practice. But that has nothing to do with whether or not this violates WP:POV. POV violations are not determined by the number of people whose ox is being gored. Most people think that Richard Nixon was a bad president and a crooked politician. There's a bigger consensus on that that on gerrymandering, I'd wager. But that doesn't mean that you can write in Richard Nixon that "Nixon had the ugliest face of any 20th century President". It's an opinion (one that I'd agree with) that has not been substantiated by any WP:RS. And taking a picture of Nixon, submitting it to Wikimedia Commons with a title, "Ugliest 20th Century President" does not constitute the publication of a reliable source.
- But let's take something closer to the example at hand. The 2000 Presidential election is a case where, like gerrymandering, many people would use "stealing an election" to describe what happened. Yet in Bush v. Gore, an article of over 5000 words, and United States presidential election, 2000, an article of around 9000 words, there is not a single appearance of the word "steal", "stole", or "stolen". You know why? Because that would violate WP:NPOV.
- So having conceded that irrelevant point to you, might I point out that you used that post to dodge the issues that I had laid out in my previous posts?
- Your argument about "no forbidden words" holds no water.
- Your attempt to apply WP:DUE is not material here (unless you consider the state legislatures and the Supreme Court to be insignificant fringe sources).
- And, most importantly, your attempt to say that the diagram in question constitutes a reliable source is nonsense, as it is the original work of an unknown editor who has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia or the Commons.
- So having conceded that irrelevant point to you, might I point out that you used that post to dodge the issues that I had laid out in my previous posts?
- A reminder, the the policy reads:
- All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
- Labeling a perfectly legal (if distasteful) practice as "stealing" is clearly prejudicial and loaded with editorial bias. All I'm asking now is for the label to be changed to something genuinely neutral, and for the life of me, I cannot understand why you are so determined to fight that modest request. Unschool 04:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Politifact
Maybe useful:NC GOP: a gerrymander is 'a strange looking monster drawing' Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Arrangement of headings: Sorry about that!
Thank you Prototime (talk · contribs) for accepting my revision. I garbled the edit summaries something fierce, which I think created confusion. Explaining it on the talk page would have been better. M.boli (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Map - U.S. congressional districts covering Travis County, Texas (outlined in red)
Hi
This map is very confusing.
The red outline is explained, but NOT the orange-brown region, the sandy coloured region, or why the yellow bit shrank so much!
I really tried to understand how this was restructured, but without any idea of what the colours mean, it is not possible.
Can someone PLEASE put some info explaining it, or something to point to where it is explained in the body of the article?
Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Misleading (or wrong) description of proportional voting systems
Some of the paragraph about proportional voting systems is misleading or even wrong. "[N]o districts are present" and "break the strong constituency link" don't consider systems like the one used for example in Germany; see Mixed-member proportional representation.
Maybe something like "In these systems, the party that gets, for example, 30 percent of the votes gets roughly 30 percent of the seats in the legislature. Although it is common for European states to have more than two parties, the American two-party system could be maintained by implementing a sufficiently high election threshold. A strong constituency link through district-based voting is a cornerstone of current American politics. While some proportional voting systems break this link by eliminating the dependency of individual representatives on a concrete electorate, others maintain the link by combining district-based voting with a proportional element."
Not sure how to go about editing... this is my first edit. I'm putting this out here for a bit for feedback before actually editing the page.
--Ge375 (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ge375, thanks for the comment! I put mention of this in this section but you're welcome to rephrase it as you think would improve organization here! So many possibilities it's hard to adequately describe them! Reywas92Talk 22:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Is this more than a personal opinion?
A recent edit added this sentence:
> Democrats have been masters of gerrymandering since the beginning of The United States.
It comes without source and to me sounds like nothing more than an opinion. Should this be reverted?
Ge375 (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Without a reliable source, and likely without inline attribution of that source, yes it is, and should be reverted. That's both OR and NPOV without the sourcing. --Masem (t) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral? Unbiased?
...and yet no mention of the KKK, Democrat party usage against African Americans, and the enabling of Jim Crow laws. This is why I never contribute to Wikipedia, never trust it, and actively counter-reference it. If you allow political advocacy for one party, then you have no integrity really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.148.216 (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Your point being? How about you suggest some well-sourced edits? If you never contribute, how can you expect that things you know are represented? --Ge375 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
That's not how it works, but I'm happy to put you on the right path. Start with reading Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines, while using Wikipedia:Manual of Style. DN (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Data to update the "Redistricting commissions" section with
See here: https://twitter.com/ryan_dane/status/1333614785670344704. There is updated data and a thorough list of which states have what kinds of redistricting, as well as the criteria they use for redistricting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Add examples of Democrats doing gerrymandering
At least try to be neutral. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)