This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethanpak. Peer reviewers: Beril gur, Rachelkmoy, Go23bears, Yenxle.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I am currently working on this article. Ethanpak ( talk) 00:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Evaluation : This article is thoroughly written and descriptive. The sources are credible and there are no bias constructed in this article. As I read through, I don't see anything else to critique. (User:Yenxle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenxle ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a section about the possible solutions to political polarization, as that is currently missing in the Wikipedia article. Additionally, I also would like to add the current political issues that are most polarizing in our country, for more context and real life application/examples of this polarization. The following is a list of sources I have compiled that I plan on using:
1. "What Are the Solutions to Political Polarization?". Greater Good. Retrieved 2020-09-30. Persily, Nathaniel (2015-04-27).
2. Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-08711-8. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media.
3. "Wide partisan gaps on climate change, environment, guns and stronger military". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2020-02-13).
4. "Environmental Protection Rises on the Public's Policy Agenda As Economic Concerns Recede". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30.Inc, Gallup (2019-12-05).
5. "The Impact of Increased Political Polarization". Gallup.com. Retrieved 2020-09-30. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2014-06-12).
6. "Political Polarization in the American Public". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30.
Ethanpak ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Multiple studies (some of which are cited in the body) show that the polarization is asymmetric. AFAIK, there is no research disputing that. The content should be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over this sentence:
I think the sentence should be changed to make it less conclusory;
Snooganssnoogans disagrees.
74.67.45.185 (
talk) 02:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello I would like to dispute the lead in the article. Here are a few articles that summarize that both parties have equally contributed to the divide. The lead stating it has been driven mostly by Republicans is incorrect and I would like to remove that part of the article. Thank you
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFerrell007 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
References
:12
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Social scientists have shown convincingly that since the 1970s, Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats have moved to the left
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
In recent years, scholarly research has delved into the issue of asymmetric polarization. This is the idea the Republican Party is more uniformly conservative than the Democratic Party is united by liberalism. This is appearing to be true at the mass level and, to a greater degree, among elected officials.
Hello! I’m Hermit7 and I recently made an edit on this post which helped bring balance to a sentence in the header, saying that political polarisation was mainly on the Republicans’ side. After finding more than one news source saying that the Democrats have contributed to this as well, as well as polls agreeing with this, I put this in - not a big edit by any means - but then it got reverted. The reason is cited as “a mixture of synthesis and poor references,” but this confuses me, as I thought more than one reference (Washington Post, for example) was a valid reference and nothing was against that. Please let me know what makes these references not good enough, as failure to do so would lead me to conclude this was nothing but bias. Thanks again, Hermit7 Hermit7 ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed a lot of slow-motion reverting on this article by Snooganssnoogans and JFerrell007. It appears that both of these editors are editing in circles with no end in sight. Would it be okay if I filed a report on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard?
For the record, I think this article is problematic in some ways. For example, the lead does not distinguish between political polarization between politicians and ordinary citizens. I have found information from Gallup and Pew that contradicts the lead. I also found a study that said Democratic voters have become more extreme than Republicans, but it is not a secondary source. JFerrell007 can help by providing studies that contradict this article. Until then, the article cannot change much.
I will not add these studies to the article because Snooganssnoogans has disputed their inclusion before, and I do not want to cause drama. I usually avoid complicated areas like this because I do not have time to become an expert on this topic. What should we do from here? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 04:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello I would like to dispute the lead in the article. Here are a few articles that summarize that both parties have equally contributed to the divide. The lead stating it has been driven mostly by Republicans is incorrect and I would like to remove that part of the article. Thank you
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/ - JFerrel007
What are you views on the pewresearch article?
It appears that the recent change to the lead was not enough. JFerell still objects to that sentence. To be honest, so do I. It seems unnecessary for one small aspect of the problem to take up that much of the lead. I have asked JFerell if he wants to attempt dispute resolution. I have also warned him more sternly after his recent edit. @ Crossroads:, what are your thoughts on this? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 22:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that 45 of the past 50 changes were made by one editor. Many of those edits add judgements that are statements of opinion, e.g. that the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and JFK were "infamous". There was nothing infamous as in shameful, notorious, or generally flawed about those debates. I read the talk page, and noted that the prior involved editors all seem to have departed, which is troubling .(I have disagreed with some or all of them in the past on content issues, but respect their competence as editors!) I found sentence fragments in the article lead, for example. I guess this is just a heads up to anyone who comes along that this article is growing enormously lengthy, very quickly, and some oversight might be in order. I am not sure what sort of oversight that might be, nor am I casting aspersions on anyone.-- FeralOink ( talk) 11:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Too many examples to list but here are some: -'Climate change' which is pure undiluted garbage -Gun show 'loophole' which is a proven non-issue (most illegally used firearms are stolen and illegally sold) -and the most nauseating example is the Wikipedia tongue-bath given to the political hack Anthony Fauci ('well known expert'? Please.) Wikipedia is one of THE most divisive entities on the planet. 2603:8001:C200:1637:352E:C676:5A65:40A1 ( talk) 21:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This Pew Research article seems to say what I have believed all along. Determining which party is most responsible for polarization depends on the metric. The polarization among politicians is definitely exclusively a Republican thing. However, among voters, Republicans are also more polarized, but Democrats have shown the greatest change since 1994. I will not include this in the a article, because I am not sure if the source is reliable enough. Also, Climate Change is almost entirely caused by humans. No scholarly source disputes that. Furthermore, the gun show loophole does have some truth to it, but it only applies to unlicensed sales. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 21:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It's shameful that an "encyclopedia" that purports not to hold political biases has nothing but anti-conservative rhetoric in the "Demonization" section. How about including something referencing the equal number of attacks from Democrats insinuating that conservatives are all -ists of one form or another, or in league with a Russian conspiracy. Alexandermoir ( talk) 16:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
It's absolutely ridiculous reading the 1960s section. No mention of the political violence and unrest of that period, which was arguably greater than what it is even today? And nothing of the Palmer Raids of the 1920s?
Also, to say that this graphic is garbage in both what and how it presents, would be an understatement. — THORNFIELD HALL ( Talk) 05:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I plan to update this articles in sections, as time allows. I think that some of the headings and subheadings could be clearer, and there are many citations to add. I just took a stab at the political violence section (pun intended). Libbykay ( talk) 17:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I just added a bit to the definition section. I included a brief overview of some of the psychology of us-them thinking, which I believe is important to understanding polarization. But I wonder if this is the best place in the article for this? Any feedback welcome and appreciated. Libbykay ( talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethanpak. Peer reviewers: Beril gur, Rachelkmoy, Go23bears, Yenxle.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 02:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I am currently working on this article. Ethanpak ( talk) 00:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Evaluation : This article is thoroughly written and descriptive. The sources are credible and there are no bias constructed in this article. As I read through, I don't see anything else to critique. (User:Yenxle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenxle ( talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a section about the possible solutions to political polarization, as that is currently missing in the Wikipedia article. Additionally, I also would like to add the current political issues that are most polarizing in our country, for more context and real life application/examples of this polarization. The following is a list of sources I have compiled that I plan on using:
1. "What Are the Solutions to Political Polarization?". Greater Good. Retrieved 2020-09-30. Persily, Nathaniel (2015-04-27).
2. Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-08711-8. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media.
3. "Wide partisan gaps on climate change, environment, guns and stronger military". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2020-02-13).
4. "Environmental Protection Rises on the Public's Policy Agenda As Economic Concerns Recede". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30.Inc, Gallup (2019-12-05).
5. "The Impact of Increased Political Polarization". Gallup.com. Retrieved 2020-09-30. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2014-06-12).
6. "Political Polarization in the American Public". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30.
Ethanpak ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Multiple studies (some of which are cited in the body) show that the polarization is asymmetric. AFAIK, there is no research disputing that. The content should be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over this sentence:
I think the sentence should be changed to make it less conclusory;
Snooganssnoogans disagrees.
74.67.45.185 (
talk) 02:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello I would like to dispute the lead in the article. Here are a few articles that summarize that both parties have equally contributed to the divide. The lead stating it has been driven mostly by Republicans is incorrect and I would like to remove that part of the article. Thank you
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFerrell007 ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
References
:12
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Social scientists have shown convincingly that since the 1970s, Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats have moved to the left
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
In recent years, scholarly research has delved into the issue of asymmetric polarization. This is the idea the Republican Party is more uniformly conservative than the Democratic Party is united by liberalism. This is appearing to be true at the mass level and, to a greater degree, among elected officials.
Hello! I’m Hermit7 and I recently made an edit on this post which helped bring balance to a sentence in the header, saying that political polarisation was mainly on the Republicans’ side. After finding more than one news source saying that the Democrats have contributed to this as well, as well as polls agreeing with this, I put this in - not a big edit by any means - but then it got reverted. The reason is cited as “a mixture of synthesis and poor references,” but this confuses me, as I thought more than one reference (Washington Post, for example) was a valid reference and nothing was against that. Please let me know what makes these references not good enough, as failure to do so would lead me to conclude this was nothing but bias. Thanks again, Hermit7 Hermit7 ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed a lot of slow-motion reverting on this article by Snooganssnoogans and JFerrell007. It appears that both of these editors are editing in circles with no end in sight. Would it be okay if I filed a report on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard?
For the record, I think this article is problematic in some ways. For example, the lead does not distinguish between political polarization between politicians and ordinary citizens. I have found information from Gallup and Pew that contradicts the lead. I also found a study that said Democratic voters have become more extreme than Republicans, but it is not a secondary source. JFerrell007 can help by providing studies that contradict this article. Until then, the article cannot change much.
I will not add these studies to the article because Snooganssnoogans has disputed their inclusion before, and I do not want to cause drama. I usually avoid complicated areas like this because I do not have time to become an expert on this topic. What should we do from here? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 04:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello I would like to dispute the lead in the article. Here are a few articles that summarize that both parties have equally contributed to the divide. The lead stating it has been driven mostly by Republicans is incorrect and I would like to remove that part of the article. Thank you
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/ - JFerrel007
What are you views on the pewresearch article?
It appears that the recent change to the lead was not enough. JFerell still objects to that sentence. To be honest, so do I. It seems unnecessary for one small aspect of the problem to take up that much of the lead. I have asked JFerell if he wants to attempt dispute resolution. I have also warned him more sternly after his recent edit. @ Crossroads:, what are your thoughts on this? Scorpions13256 ( talk) 22:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that 45 of the past 50 changes were made by one editor. Many of those edits add judgements that are statements of opinion, e.g. that the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and JFK were "infamous". There was nothing infamous as in shameful, notorious, or generally flawed about those debates. I read the talk page, and noted that the prior involved editors all seem to have departed, which is troubling .(I have disagreed with some or all of them in the past on content issues, but respect their competence as editors!) I found sentence fragments in the article lead, for example. I guess this is just a heads up to anyone who comes along that this article is growing enormously lengthy, very quickly, and some oversight might be in order. I am not sure what sort of oversight that might be, nor am I casting aspersions on anyone.-- FeralOink ( talk) 11:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Too many examples to list but here are some: -'Climate change' which is pure undiluted garbage -Gun show 'loophole' which is a proven non-issue (most illegally used firearms are stolen and illegally sold) -and the most nauseating example is the Wikipedia tongue-bath given to the political hack Anthony Fauci ('well known expert'? Please.) Wikipedia is one of THE most divisive entities on the planet. 2603:8001:C200:1637:352E:C676:5A65:40A1 ( talk) 21:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This Pew Research article seems to say what I have believed all along. Determining which party is most responsible for polarization depends on the metric. The polarization among politicians is definitely exclusively a Republican thing. However, among voters, Republicans are also more polarized, but Democrats have shown the greatest change since 1994. I will not include this in the a article, because I am not sure if the source is reliable enough. Also, Climate Change is almost entirely caused by humans. No scholarly source disputes that. Furthermore, the gun show loophole does have some truth to it, but it only applies to unlicensed sales. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 21:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It's shameful that an "encyclopedia" that purports not to hold political biases has nothing but anti-conservative rhetoric in the "Demonization" section. How about including something referencing the equal number of attacks from Democrats insinuating that conservatives are all -ists of one form or another, or in league with a Russian conspiracy. Alexandermoir ( talk) 16:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
It's absolutely ridiculous reading the 1960s section. No mention of the political violence and unrest of that period, which was arguably greater than what it is even today? And nothing of the Palmer Raids of the 1920s?
Also, to say that this graphic is garbage in both what and how it presents, would be an understatement. — THORNFIELD HALL ( Talk) 05:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I plan to update this articles in sections, as time allows. I think that some of the headings and subheadings could be clearer, and there are many citations to add. I just took a stab at the political violence section (pun intended). Libbykay ( talk) 17:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I just added a bit to the definition section. I included a brief overview of some of the psychology of us-them thinking, which I believe is important to understanding polarization. But I wonder if this is the best place in the article for this? Any feedback welcome and appreciated. Libbykay ( talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)