This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 2 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Republican efforts to make voting laws more restrictive following the 2020 presidential election to Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. The result of the discussion was moved. |
"Seat belt laws are part of an effort to regulate driving."
"Seat belt laws are part of an effort to restrict driving."
Obviously one of these will cause people without agendas to rightfully suspect bias. The title in its current state is not exactly good-to-go based on a number of wikipedia conventions. It's not a great situation for an otherwise properly researched and heavily-linked wikipedia article to dragged down to this current state due to a minority of bad actors controlling the article title. See WP:NPOVTITLE. -- ExtremeSquared ( talk) 19:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This is what RS is stating, not what some editor came up with on their own. Per WP:NPOVTITLE "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. DN ( talk) 03:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
"... the target article should be expanded to be more encompassing and retitled to something like Republican policies on voter rights. That is what you should be concentrating on, making the target article NPOV in all aspects, including its scope and title."The target article Nableezy is talking about, is this one, the Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. However, I also notice that this article is pretty lengthy on its own. So if an even broader article is created, with this content as a part of that, then I'm not sure what would happen, and this might end up being split off and turned back into its own article all over again, right? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Ohio Becomes The Latest State To Introduce A Major Voter Suppression Bill — HuffPost, May 6, 2021
There are
other
sources
too.
The House Bill appears to currently be in committee, and not enacted yet, but should it still be mentioned in this article? Right now there is not a section in the article about Ohio. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The article is titled "republican efforts to restrict voting..." but only mentions legislation pushed by republicans, which invites POV pushers to call for false neutrality. However republican efforts to restrict voting go far beyond laws that make it harder for disadvantaged demographics to vote. There have been widespread talks about armed far right militia groups near voting centers intimidating voters and staff alike, and many prestigious commentators have drawn parallels between what's happening now, and the Nazi party's rise to power prior to ww2. I think it's safe to say that any ambiguity as to wether the laws covered in this article are about "election integrity" as the republicans claim is out the window. 46.97.170.32 ( talk) 11:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Voter turnout has increased in Republican states such as Georgia which recently enacted more stringent voting integrity laws and measures, so saying that these efforts are meant to "restrict" voting is wrong and POV. They actually increase turnout, because voters have more confidence that the results are valid and in many cases it actually makes it easier to register and vote. 152.130.10.80 ( talk) 23:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
[1] Unless there are some new arguments and or evidence that creates a consensus to change the name, the consensus among RS is very clear on this subject and we need to drop the WP:STICK. I'm all for healthy debate, but looking at the archive, this has already been discussed at length. Please look through archive yourself and make sure we are not just going over the same arguments over and over again. DN ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
State election law changes following the 2020 presidential election
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 2 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Republican efforts to make voting laws more restrictive following the 2020 presidential election to Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. The result of the discussion was moved. |
"Seat belt laws are part of an effort to regulate driving."
"Seat belt laws are part of an effort to restrict driving."
Obviously one of these will cause people without agendas to rightfully suspect bias. The title in its current state is not exactly good-to-go based on a number of wikipedia conventions. It's not a great situation for an otherwise properly researched and heavily-linked wikipedia article to dragged down to this current state due to a minority of bad actors controlling the article title. See WP:NPOVTITLE. -- ExtremeSquared ( talk) 19:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This is what RS is stating, not what some editor came up with on their own. Per WP:NPOVTITLE "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. DN ( talk) 03:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
"... the target article should be expanded to be more encompassing and retitled to something like Republican policies on voter rights. That is what you should be concentrating on, making the target article NPOV in all aspects, including its scope and title."The target article Nableezy is talking about, is this one, the Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. However, I also notice that this article is pretty lengthy on its own. So if an even broader article is created, with this content as a part of that, then I'm not sure what would happen, and this might end up being split off and turned back into its own article all over again, right? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Ohio Becomes The Latest State To Introduce A Major Voter Suppression Bill — HuffPost, May 6, 2021
There are
other
sources
too.
The House Bill appears to currently be in committee, and not enacted yet, but should it still be mentioned in this article? Right now there is not a section in the article about Ohio. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 ( talk) 20:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The article is titled "republican efforts to restrict voting..." but only mentions legislation pushed by republicans, which invites POV pushers to call for false neutrality. However republican efforts to restrict voting go far beyond laws that make it harder for disadvantaged demographics to vote. There have been widespread talks about armed far right militia groups near voting centers intimidating voters and staff alike, and many prestigious commentators have drawn parallels between what's happening now, and the Nazi party's rise to power prior to ww2. I think it's safe to say that any ambiguity as to wether the laws covered in this article are about "election integrity" as the republicans claim is out the window. 46.97.170.32 ( talk) 11:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Voter turnout has increased in Republican states such as Georgia which recently enacted more stringent voting integrity laws and measures, so saying that these efforts are meant to "restrict" voting is wrong and POV. They actually increase turnout, because voters have more confidence that the results are valid and in many cases it actually makes it easier to register and vote. 152.130.10.80 ( talk) 23:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
[1] Unless there are some new arguments and or evidence that creates a consensus to change the name, the consensus among RS is very clear on this subject and we need to drop the WP:STICK. I'm all for healthy debate, but looking at the archive, this has already been discussed at length. Please look through archive yourself and make sure we are not just going over the same arguments over and over again. DN ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
State election law changes following the 2020 presidential election