Talk:2016 United States presidential election in New Jersey
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
POV pushing with these county colors again[edit]
This habit of adding victory colors to counties for no good reason than "all the other articles do it" has got to stop. It is not an objective fact. There are no "winners" of counties. Counties are an arbitrary grouping of votes. You can group a state's votes in many different ways, such as by congressional district, precinct, zip code, census bloc, and more. You could color them in with the "winner" and make any argument you want about the election. Such arguments are not neutral. They are opinions, and the represent a point of view. With the 2016 election in particular, the concept of winning a lot of counties, and a lot of empty space, as become a partisan talking point. See: [1][2][3]. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Should we also then eliminate the colored county map by the same standard? Why not the county results section in its entirety? As elections in the United States are ultimately conducted at the county level by county clerks / boards of election, it seems quite relevant to include coloring for easy identification of county-level results.
- I'd also like to note that my edit was reverted three times. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think those maps are also a problem. The maps are actually worse, because the level of emphasis is dependent on the area of the county, rather than the number of votes. It gives more weight to counties that are physically larger, rather than those with the most votes. That visual impression is even more misleading than adding false victory colors to the results table.
Saying we should do it to be the same as other articles is a non-argument. Saying that the maps are also bad is a non-argument. There is no evidence that adding victory colors to the results table is a good thing. This keeps coming up, and every time, nobody can give a reason why these colors are helpful, factual, or neutral. The arguments are always about something else. Other articles. Maps. Conformity. Not very convincing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I think those maps are also a problem. The maps are actually worse, because the level of emphasis is dependent on the area of the county, rather than the number of votes. It gives more weight to counties that are physically larger, rather than those with the most votes. That visual impression is even more misleading than adding false victory colors to the results table.
- Here's the reasoning, specifically based on counties: elections in New Jersey (and just about every state for that matter) are conducted at the county level by county clerks and boards of election. Election results are reported, at their genesis, by counties. And in NJ specifically, the primary unit of political organization is the county, as evidenced by the power of county-level political bosses to direct elections. For those reasons, county-level election results are a matter of interest to political observers, and the easy reference of color helps demonstrate the breakdown of votes at that level in a visual way. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Great! Anyone who wants to see a table of county-level results gets a table of county level results. Every single county. How many votes each candidate got. And, in case they don't want to do any math, the percentage too. And! In case they're not sure if 60,924 is greater than 52,690, the larger one is in bold font. It's all there!
What are the colors for? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Great! Anyone who wants to see a table of county-level results gets a table of county level results. Every single county. How many votes each candidate got. And, in case they don't want to do any math, the percentage too. And! In case they're not sure if 60,924 is greater than 52,690, the larger one is in bold font. It's all there!
- Here's the reasoning, specifically based on counties: elections in New Jersey (and just about every state for that matter) are conducted at the county level by county clerks and boards of election. Election results are reported, at their genesis, by counties. And in NJ specifically, the primary unit of political organization is the county, as evidenced by the power of county-level political bosses to direct elections. For those reasons, county-level election results are a matter of interest to political observers, and the easy reference of color helps demonstrate the breakdown of votes at that level in a visual way. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is any easy visual reference, the same reason that each candidate is underscored with their party's color in the infobox despite the party name being right below them. I would be in favor of eliminating the bold text for the colors to stay. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because the fact that 60,924 is greater than 52,690 is not sufficient to tell us who won Atlantic county. And the fact that 51.0% is greater than 44.1%. And the fact that 60,924 is in bold. And the fact that 51.0% is also in bold. In addition to telling the reader, let's see.. three times? FOUR times? We haven't told the reader enough times who "won" each county. In addition to these four different ways the reader can see who "won" [sic] each county, we need an "easy visual reference"? All that other stuff is not easy enough. Are we writing an encyclopedia articles for blind people here? Illiterates? Beating people over the head with the same fact over and over makes you look like you have an agenda.
The effect is obvious: you create a strong visual presentation with large swaths of color. The color makes a strong impression which is disproportionate with the actual numbers. Clinton won NJ by 15 points, but the colors make it seem like a tossup. Pick any state and coloring the counties almost always creates a misleading impression. Color in every county in the USA and you get a compounded misleading impression.
If you want to describe the opinions of a reputable election annalist or pundit who breaks down NJ by county and makes some kind of argument based on that, that's fine. Cite it, and attribute it by name to that person, and put it in the Analysis section. But the results should be just the facts, and neutral. Next we can talk about getting rid of those horrible maps. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because the fact that 60,924 is greater than 52,690 is not sufficient to tell us who won Atlantic county. And the fact that 51.0% is greater than 44.1%. And the fact that 60,924 is in bold. And the fact that 51.0% is also in bold. In addition to telling the reader, let's see.. three times? FOUR times? We haven't told the reader enough times who "won" each county. In addition to these four different ways the reader can see who "won" [sic] each county, we need an "easy visual reference"? All that other stuff is not easy enough. Are we writing an encyclopedia articles for blind people here? Illiterates? Beating people over the head with the same fact over and over makes you look like you have an agenda.
- It is any easy visual reference, the same reason that each candidate is underscored with their party's color in the infobox despite the party name being right below them. I would be in favor of eliminating the bold text for the colors to stay. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- First, if you want to get rid of the maps, why are they still there?
- Second, I'm not sure where you're going with the neutrality implications. I added the same formatting to both the 1964 page (when the Democrats won every county) and the 1972 page (where the Republicans won every county).
- Third, the personal attacks are unnerving. As I don't seem to be the first to have added these colors, it seems there seem to be quite a few people who find them helpful. I don't think calling anyone blind or illiterate is going to get you anywhere - nor would the colors be helpful to a blind person.
- As I said, I'd be in favor of eliminating the bold in the table to keep the colors. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- We're back to other stuff exists. Red herrings about "personal attacks". This happens every time anybody talks about these colors. They keep changing the subject because the justification is somewhere between thin and nonexistent. We've got all the information we need. The table is accurate and clear, and it has a sober, serious encyclopedic tone. We don't need to jazz it up with a lot of loud color like a tabloid or a political ad. It's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I think I gave very clear reasoning on why the colors are relevant. Elections in New Jersey (and just about every state for that matter) are conducted at the county level by county clerks and boards of election. Election results are reported, at their genesis, by counties. And in NJ specifically, the primary unit of political organization is the county, as evidenced by the power of county-level political bosses to direct elections. For those reasons, county-level election results are a matter of interest to political observers, and the easy reference of color helps demonstrate the breakdown of votes at that level in a visual way.
- I believe I also proposed a compromise that you have yet to address. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- We're back to other stuff exists. Red herrings about "personal attacks". This happens every time anybody talks about these colors. They keep changing the subject because the justification is somewhere between thin and nonexistent. We've got all the information we need. The table is accurate and clear, and it has a sober, serious encyclopedic tone. We don't need to jazz it up with a lot of loud color like a tabloid or a political ad. It's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Historical analysis and statistical analysis on counties is most certainly a thing; it's also how they know which states to call on election nights. I have no solid opinion on the matter of the colors in the tables, but the maps should most certainly stay. – Nihlus (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- At this point, I think it's best to wait for the outcome of the administrative noticeboard report. My arguments obviously aren't convincing the other user, nor do I find theirs at all convincing. Unfortunately, regardless of which way the decision goes, I don't think I'll be continuing here. I'd been excited about using my experience in the political realm to contribute to Wikipedia's elections-related articles, but if something as small as this is going to be as painful as it is, I don't have any interest in continuing. Just not worth my time. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The 3RR noticeboard hands out blocks for editors who have made four reverts in 24 hours. You've reported me for making three. The outcome is going to be nothing. Even if any action were going to be taken over there, it has no relevance to a discussion of content here. Speaking of red herrings, see WP:IQUIT. It is very frustrating to edit Wikipedia if you assume you will get your way every single time.
I don't think removing the bold from the table is a good compromise. I prefer having the victory colors on the county table if it meant we could dump the choropleth maps, but that's probably a non-starter. I will probably not get my way as far as that goes. The current table has all the information necessary for county-level historical analysis, so it's not necessary to doll them up with bright colors for that purpose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Have fun deleting all of those across all articles. While I did not expect to "get my way everytime" (or even realize that was a thing here), it is not worth my time to continue here if disputes are going to arise over such minor things. There are other websites that are much more viable, and Wikia may be the place to go for this kind of thing anyway. 74.102.98.6 (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- The 3RR noticeboard hands out blocks for editors who have made four reverts in 24 hours. You've reported me for making three. The outcome is going to be nothing. Even if any action were going to be taken over there, it has no relevance to a discussion of content here. Speaking of red herrings, see WP:IQUIT. It is very frustrating to edit Wikipedia if you assume you will get your way every single time.