This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The title of the article includes 116th Congress, but the bill was also reintroduced in the 117th Congress. Should the title include 116th Congress, if that does not apply to both bills, and only the originally introduced bill? Greshthegreat ( talk)
The name of the article was actually titled "For the People Act" before user FeralOink changed it to it's current title, H.R. 1 (116th Congress) without discussing changing the title with other editors first. Should the article be reverted back to it's old title? Or would a different title be more fitting? What do you guys think? I don't want to make any changes to the title without discussing this first, only if other editors think it should be changed and what we agree the new title should be if it will be changed. Greshthegreat ( talk)
KristofferR This is a bill, not an act. See, for instance, Bill (United States Congress) versus Act of Congress. By naming the article an act, you are suggesting that it is an act, not merely a proposal for an act, and by doing so, grossly misleading the reader. Please amend the title and text to mirror reality. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That is the official short title included in the bill itself, but you're right, it's misleading. I've clarified that it is a proposed act. ( KristofferR ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
One of the principal obstacles of proposals to turn congressional redistricting over to commissions is the argument that doing so is unconstitutional. This edit removed the background on that issue, including the question as to how the Supreme Court might respond. Does such an edit improve the reader’s understanding of this proposal? It is not “synthesis” given that the exact question is discussed in the sources provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This edit said that the short definition of gerrymandering that was supplied was “questionable” and suggested that the reader just refer to the linked Wikipedia article. The removed definition, however, was taken from that very article (but used the term “unfair advantage” instead of “political advantage”). Was this a useful edit? Swood100 ( talk) 16:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(i'm sure we all have our favored ways to describe mcconnell, but this description was taken directly from the cited source, so please don't modify and euphemize it;
Here’s your original quote:
“a consistent opponent of campaign-finance reform legislation and federal oversight of election integrity.”
I cannot find this in the cited source. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/us/politics/house-democrats-ethics-voting-rights.html Actually, this is the quote I found in that source: “But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, called much of it “probably” unconstitutional. He has been one of the Senate’s fiercest opponents of tightening campaign finance laws and forcing donor disclosures, and has generally opposed federal intervention in elections.”
Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I've substantially shortened the FEC section, which read almost like a parody of POV-pushing. It violates our neutrality and due-weight policy, as it is essentially a lengthy exposition of the position of an obscure conservative think tank, and it includes extensive original synthesis as well. MastCell Talk 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
MastCell: your complaint is that "the "con" arguments are either blatant editorial synthesis or come from blogs and an obscure right-wing think tank)."
An obscure right-wing think tank is a reliable source for the right-wing point of view. It’s an opinion. Who’s going to give the right wing point of view other than the right-wing source? It says in WP:BIASED that “Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” If a right-wing source gives a reason why the proposed legislation is a bad idea what is the risk? Certainly not that it’s biased. That’s why it was chosen – to give the POV of the right-wing. Are you claiming that the right-wing opinion can only come from the mainstream source?
Which specific claim do you object to? That the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) complains that the legislation allows an independent who is really allied with one of the major parties to be chosen as the fifth commissioner? That the IFS believes that the President would have no trouble finding an “independent” with views favorable to his or her party’s position? Since the IFS is an obscure right-wing think tank we have some doubt as to whether it is to be trusted to give the right-wing objections to the legislation? What exactly is your objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is it coatracking to include the complaint against Hillary? Do you think that mentioning it suggests that it is true? Does it introduce a bias? Am I suggesting that but for the 3 – 3 split Hillary would be found guilty? My actual purpose in including it was to show how political these questions are. Do you think that there has to be also mentioned a complaint against Trump, because there is no shortage of those to include. Swood100 ( talk) 21:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Rusf10: I'm wondering if you'd support adding back the wording mentioning voting rights, since (unless I'm mistaken) the Act does prohibit felony disenfranchisement once someone completes their sentence. You're right that it's unknown whether the bill would accomplish its goals, but if it's couched in "with the goal of x, y, z" I think it'd be a valuable thing to have in the lede. Thanks for lending insight! Polymath03 ( talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@ AlsoWukai: I don't understand the rationale for your edit of 2021-01-23T21:42:45 deleting "(R- TX- 2)" from the comment that, "Representative Dan Crenshaw (R- TX- 2) tweeted a false claim about the act in March." That seems like POV whitewashing to me. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I have challenged part of this edit, changing content (that has been longstanding in some form) to (1) change the phrase in the lead to "expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders" to "change voter registration and campaign finance laws, require states to use independent commissions for redistricting, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders"; and (2) change the section header "voting rights" to "voter registration."
Neither edit is an improvement. First, the sources are very clear that the bill is a voting rights bill. That's supported by all the cited sources. PolitiFact: "As their first bill in the new Congress, House Democrats have introduced major legislation to expand voting rights." USA Today: "House passes a broad anti-corruption and voting rights bill." The RS are equally clear that the bill aims to reduce money in politics: "The bill attempts to curtail the power of special interests and large donors..." If you have a problem with these characterizations, then your issue is with a reliable sources, which we follow.
Second, the change of the section header is even more baffling. As the section explains, the voting provisions in the bill go far beyond registration: the bill would also make Election Day a federal holiday, require a certain minimum for early voting, make provisions regarding postal voting, etc. Neutrality talk 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The bill does not restrict superPACs or dark money, although it's been widely reported that it does. In fact, it does the reverse by eliminating the limits on private spending when receiving public money. It raises the donation limit from $5,000 to $100 million, sop it literally does nothing to overturn Citizens United, nor restrict victory funds. In short, it further entrenches the power of the two major parties and their stranglehold on the government. The claim about restricting dark money, while sourced, is false and needs to be removed. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk)!
I just reverted all but one of the edits made in attempt to remove "prejudicial language." The language that was removed by this user was not prejudicial but based in fact. Congressional Republicans nearly all oppose the bill, while Congressional Democrats nearly all support it. In particular, the removal of "falsely" in "Crenshaw falsely claimed" takes away an important piece of information. My reading of WP:YESPOV leads me to believe that "Crenshaw claimed ____... his claim has been described as false by _____" is the best way to go about phrasing the sentence, so that's what I've done. Polymath03 ( talk) 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
One argument made by at least one opponent of the bill is that it restricts the freedom of speech by broadly defining what is campaign speech and then burdening such speech with complicated paperwork. (David Keating at https://www.detroitnews.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.detroitnews.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2F2021%2F03%2F05%2Fopinion-for-people-act-gives-politicians-power-curtails-speech%2F6920517002%2F, https://ho1.us/2021/03/hr1-for-the-people-or-for-the-politicians-david-keating-on-how-hr1-curtails-free-speech/, and more extensively on 'American Thought Leaders.') Kdammers ( talk) 01:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
In any case, here are some more sources for the claim that the act restricts freedom of speech (This isn't my area of specialty, so I don't know the first of these sites, so I don't know if it is acceptable): https://www.rstreet.org/hr1/ (used as a source in a number of Wik articles and the Institute behind it has a Wik article that does not seem to indicate it is a bad source), https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/the-facts-about-hr-1-the-the-people-act-2021 (the Heritage Foundation is already cited in the opposition section, but with no mention of this area of contention), and https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/nancy-pelosi-for-the-people-act-threatens-free-speech/ (This article by R. Lowry might be an opinion piece, but all support or opposition is opinion. The NR is obviously a reputable source.). According to this 'fact-checking site,' both the ACLU and the RNC chair maintain that the bill restricts freedom of speech ( https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/01/ronna-mcdaniel/yes-aclu-has-criticized-hr-1-heres-why/). Kdammers ( talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Who are the people who actually wrote it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.140.83 ( talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, a self-admitted progressive think tank like "Data for Progress" is not an accurate measure of public opinion of the American public as a whole, and cannot be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's own policy! 2601:646:8A01:B180:AC4D:98E1:E9C6:5269 ( talk) 03:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I am challenging, and have removed, certain new content cited to an op-ed by C. Boyden Gray. I believe this (lengthy) content is undue weight and also lacks context. The existing text already makes clear that Republican commentators/lawyers/former officials oppose this bill, and I believe it is unnecessary to have the specific link to Gray's op-ed in Newsweek. Per WP:ONUS, this must stay out unless and until a consensus forms for inclusion. As a compromise, if Gray absolutely must be included, I would accept something like this. If anyone has an alternate proposal, then I'm happy to consider it, but I ask that proposals be brought here for discussion first. Neutrality talk 21:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The title of the article includes 116th Congress, but the bill was also reintroduced in the 117th Congress. Should the title include 116th Congress, if that does not apply to both bills, and only the originally introduced bill? Greshthegreat ( talk)
The name of the article was actually titled "For the People Act" before user FeralOink changed it to it's current title, H.R. 1 (116th Congress) without discussing changing the title with other editors first. Should the article be reverted back to it's old title? Or would a different title be more fitting? What do you guys think? I don't want to make any changes to the title without discussing this first, only if other editors think it should be changed and what we agree the new title should be if it will be changed. Greshthegreat ( talk)
KristofferR This is a bill, not an act. See, for instance, Bill (United States Congress) versus Act of Congress. By naming the article an act, you are suggesting that it is an act, not merely a proposal for an act, and by doing so, grossly misleading the reader. Please amend the title and text to mirror reality. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 23:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
That is the official short title included in the bill itself, but you're right, it's misleading. I've clarified that it is a proposed act. ( KristofferR ( talk) 23:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC))
One of the principal obstacles of proposals to turn congressional redistricting over to commissions is the argument that doing so is unconstitutional. This edit removed the background on that issue, including the question as to how the Supreme Court might respond. Does such an edit improve the reader’s understanding of this proposal? It is not “synthesis” given that the exact question is discussed in the sources provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
This edit said that the short definition of gerrymandering that was supplied was “questionable” and suggested that the reader just refer to the linked Wikipedia article. The removed definition, however, was taken from that very article (but used the term “unfair advantage” instead of “political advantage”). Was this a useful edit? Swood100 ( talk) 16:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
(i'm sure we all have our favored ways to describe mcconnell, but this description was taken directly from the cited source, so please don't modify and euphemize it;
Here’s your original quote:
“a consistent opponent of campaign-finance reform legislation and federal oversight of election integrity.”
I cannot find this in the cited source. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/us/politics/house-democrats-ethics-voting-rights.html Actually, this is the quote I found in that source: “But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, called much of it “probably” unconstitutional. He has been one of the Senate’s fiercest opponents of tightening campaign finance laws and forcing donor disclosures, and has generally opposed federal intervention in elections.”
Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I've substantially shortened the FEC section, which read almost like a parody of POV-pushing. It violates our neutrality and due-weight policy, as it is essentially a lengthy exposition of the position of an obscure conservative think tank, and it includes extensive original synthesis as well. MastCell Talk 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
MastCell: your complaint is that "the "con" arguments are either blatant editorial synthesis or come from blogs and an obscure right-wing think tank)."
An obscure right-wing think tank is a reliable source for the right-wing point of view. It’s an opinion. Who’s going to give the right wing point of view other than the right-wing source? It says in WP:BIASED that “Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.” If a right-wing source gives a reason why the proposed legislation is a bad idea what is the risk? Certainly not that it’s biased. That’s why it was chosen – to give the POV of the right-wing. Are you claiming that the right-wing opinion can only come from the mainstream source?
Which specific claim do you object to? That the Institute for Free Speech (IFS) complains that the legislation allows an independent who is really allied with one of the major parties to be chosen as the fifth commissioner? That the IFS believes that the President would have no trouble finding an “independent” with views favorable to his or her party’s position? Since the IFS is an obscure right-wing think tank we have some doubt as to whether it is to be trusted to give the right-wing objections to the legislation? What exactly is your objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swood100 ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Why is it coatracking to include the complaint against Hillary? Do you think that mentioning it suggests that it is true? Does it introduce a bias? Am I suggesting that but for the 3 – 3 split Hillary would be found guilty? My actual purpose in including it was to show how political these questions are. Do you think that there has to be also mentioned a complaint against Trump, because there is no shortage of those to include. Swood100 ( talk) 21:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Rusf10: I'm wondering if you'd support adding back the wording mentioning voting rights, since (unless I'm mistaken) the Act does prohibit felony disenfranchisement once someone completes their sentence. You're right that it's unknown whether the bill would accomplish its goals, but if it's couched in "with the goal of x, y, z" I think it'd be a valuable thing to have in the lede. Thanks for lending insight! Polymath03 ( talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@ AlsoWukai: I don't understand the rationale for your edit of 2021-01-23T21:42:45 deleting "(R- TX- 2)" from the comment that, "Representative Dan Crenshaw (R- TX- 2) tweeted a false claim about the act in March." That seems like POV whitewashing to me. Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I have challenged part of this edit, changing content (that has been longstanding in some form) to (1) change the phrase in the lead to "expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders" to "change voter registration and campaign finance laws, require states to use independent commissions for redistricting, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders"; and (2) change the section header "voting rights" to "voter registration."
Neither edit is an improvement. First, the sources are very clear that the bill is a voting rights bill. That's supported by all the cited sources. PolitiFact: "As their first bill in the new Congress, House Democrats have introduced major legislation to expand voting rights." USA Today: "House passes a broad anti-corruption and voting rights bill." The RS are equally clear that the bill aims to reduce money in politics: "The bill attempts to curtail the power of special interests and large donors..." If you have a problem with these characterizations, then your issue is with a reliable sources, which we follow.
Second, the change of the section header is even more baffling. As the section explains, the voting provisions in the bill go far beyond registration: the bill would also make Election Day a federal holiday, require a certain minimum for early voting, make provisions regarding postal voting, etc. Neutrality talk 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The bill does not restrict superPACs or dark money, although it's been widely reported that it does. In fact, it does the reverse by eliminating the limits on private spending when receiving public money. It raises the donation limit from $5,000 to $100 million, sop it literally does nothing to overturn Citizens United, nor restrict victory funds. In short, it further entrenches the power of the two major parties and their stranglehold on the government. The claim about restricting dark money, while sourced, is false and needs to be removed. -- Scottandrewhutchins ( talk)!
I just reverted all but one of the edits made in attempt to remove "prejudicial language." The language that was removed by this user was not prejudicial but based in fact. Congressional Republicans nearly all oppose the bill, while Congressional Democrats nearly all support it. In particular, the removal of "falsely" in "Crenshaw falsely claimed" takes away an important piece of information. My reading of WP:YESPOV leads me to believe that "Crenshaw claimed ____... his claim has been described as false by _____" is the best way to go about phrasing the sentence, so that's what I've done. Polymath03 ( talk) 21:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
One argument made by at least one opponent of the bill is that it restricts the freedom of speech by broadly defining what is campaign speech and then burdening such speech with complicated paperwork. (David Keating at https://www.detroitnews.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.detroitnews.com%2Fstory%2Fopinion%2F2021%2F03%2F05%2Fopinion-for-people-act-gives-politicians-power-curtails-speech%2F6920517002%2F, https://ho1.us/2021/03/hr1-for-the-people-or-for-the-politicians-david-keating-on-how-hr1-curtails-free-speech/, and more extensively on 'American Thought Leaders.') Kdammers ( talk) 01:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
In any case, here are some more sources for the claim that the act restricts freedom of speech (This isn't my area of specialty, so I don't know the first of these sites, so I don't know if it is acceptable): https://www.rstreet.org/hr1/ (used as a source in a number of Wik articles and the Institute behind it has a Wik article that does not seem to indicate it is a bad source), https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/the-facts-about-hr-1-the-the-people-act-2021 (the Heritage Foundation is already cited in the opposition section, but with no mention of this area of contention), and https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/nancy-pelosi-for-the-people-act-threatens-free-speech/ (This article by R. Lowry might be an opinion piece, but all support or opposition is opinion. The NR is obviously a reputable source.). According to this 'fact-checking site,' both the ACLU and the RNC chair maintain that the bill restricts freedom of speech ( https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/01/ronna-mcdaniel/yes-aclu-has-criticized-hr-1-heres-why/). Kdammers ( talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Who are the people who actually wrote it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.140.83 ( talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, a self-admitted progressive think tank like "Data for Progress" is not an accurate measure of public opinion of the American public as a whole, and cannot be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia's own policy! 2601:646:8A01:B180:AC4D:98E1:E9C6:5269 ( talk) 03:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I am challenging, and have removed, certain new content cited to an op-ed by C. Boyden Gray. I believe this (lengthy) content is undue weight and also lacks context. The existing text already makes clear that Republican commentators/lawyers/former officials oppose this bill, and I believe it is unnecessary to have the specific link to Gray's op-ed in Newsweek. Per WP:ONUS, this must stay out unless and until a consensus forms for inclusion. As a compromise, if Gray absolutely must be included, I would accept something like this. If anyone has an alternate proposal, then I'm happy to consider it, but I ask that proposals be brought here for discussion first. Neutrality talk 21:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)