Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section

Could someone please explain to Toa Nidhiki05 that this edit adding a wikilink is completely appropriate? ––FormalDude (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It's an inflammatory edit in line with the problematic additions above. Should be fairly obvious unless you're trying to make a pointy edit. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
What exactly is "inflammatory" about adding a link to an established Wikipedia article that is directly related to the content in that section? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
WTF is going on here? Just because an editor's political beliefs are offended does not justify political censorship. That is not allowed. NPOV tells us to leave those editorial POV behind when editing. It's a perfectly appropriate and on-topic link that should be restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
It's quite literally linking to a random, unrelated page and section. Toa Nidhiki05 01:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Now that is just patently false. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Incorrect. Toa Nidhiki05 02:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I guess you missed that both articles talk about the exact same topics using many of the same sources? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Inserting a link that implies the efforts are specifically voter suppression vs addressing gaps in the system to verify voters are eligible etc is a NPOV issue. Such claims require sourcing. While certainly it is possible to find sources that argue this is voter suppression, absent some effort to find sources that don't agree this becomes a NPOV issue. The link in the tag implies something in Wiki-voice that isn't supported in sourcing. Springee (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The Voting rights section is explicitly about the restriction of voting access by Republicans, and so is Voter suppression in the United States#Modern Examples. That it uses "suppression" instead of "restriction" is inconsequential and any NPOV concerns about the title of Voter suppression in the United States should be taken up at that article's talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The linked article section looks like a collection of cases where someone claims something is vote suppression, not much more than a list article. The problem here is there is a dispute between vote suppression and vote integrity as well as making sure voting laws are followed. For example, if a state's voting laws claim the legislative branch is solely responsible for voting rules, is it legal for the executive or judicial branch to change the rules? Is a law attempting to clarify this voter suppression? I suspect most would agree that there is some tradeoff between say how strictly residency is established vs voter integrity. At one far extreme might be anyone who claims to be a resident on a mail in ballot has a vote that counts. At the other extreme is some rule that requires say you prove you have lived at the address on your license for at least 5 years before you are allowed to vote and then only in person etc. These extremes illustrate a tradeoff between access and integrity. To describe things only in one term as if it were the only applicable concern is not NPOV. Springee (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It would be better to just link to the whole article and not the section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Or not link to the article at all since it caries an implication that is disputed. Springee (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no implication that is disputed. These articles talk about the exact same cases and even use some of the same sources. One just uses a synonym that you're for some reason not comfortable with. You need to take up that concern at Talk:Voter suppression in the United States, not here. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The amount of outright denial on this page is astounding and concerning. The GOP have been very public about their vocal support for voter suppression. To claim that this is just an opinion or an unintended "effect" of their polices is blatant misinformation. We have hundreds of examples. One of my favorites is from former Republican John Kavanagh of Arizona, who repeatedly told the media why Republicans didn’t want most people to vote.[1]. This isn’t an "effect", this is the GOP policy. The attorney for the Arizona Republican Party told the Supreme Court the same thing.[2]. They’ve passed hundreds of bills to prevent people from voting. Anything less than admitting this is a real policy position of the GOP, when they’ve repeatedly admitted it, is denial. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
We’re not here to listen to a political rant, Viriditas. Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
So when the majority of Republicans openly tell journalists why they don’t want most Americans to vote, and then help pass hundreds of voter suppression bills throughout the country based on the Koch-financed philosophy of economist James M. Buchanan who was against majority-based voting and advocated a constitutional amendment overturning one person one vote—you’re actually telling me that when the evidence is documented, historically demonstrable, and has dark money funding sources tied directly to the GOP donors, you’re going to sit there with a straight face and say "voter suppression is not the official policy of the GOP"? I’m sorry, but there is no higher standard of evidence. Voter suppression is the official policy position of the GOP. Those are the facts. Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Using magic buzzwords doesn’t make your ridiculous political tirades any more convincing. In fact, it makes it less convincing. Toa Nidhiki05 01:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Facts are not an "argument". Besides distraction and denial, what do you offer here? Don’t you have a Q drop to attend to? Tova Wang: "Contemporary Republicans have made [voter suppression] a central part of their election strategy…Republican advocacy for restriction has been widespread across the United States".Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
It's been a while since Toa has made a comment here with any substance. Their goal at this point seems to be detracting the discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2022 (
It’s another day that ends in -y. Read this background chapter from Wang’s book about Republicans and voter suppression. The full book is available as an online ebook from most libraries. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I could say the same about you. There's no point in having discussion with a brick wall that is dogmatically shouting partisan talking points like they are the be-all, end all of reality. Toa Nidhiki05 03:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Please challenge a single historical data point about the Republican Party and voter suppression highlighted by Tova Wang in the chapter linked above. All of your refutations consist of ad hominems, distractions, and denials. You can’t directly challenge anything Wang says about the relationship between voter suppression and the Republican Party because it is established, historical fact. All you can do is trot out the same old "she’s a mean old liberal who is funded by George Soros" BS. Other than that, you are out of ideas, just like the Republican Party. Just do everyone a favor and admit for once that voter suppression is the primary strategy of the GOP and we can move on to other things. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Let me know when you're going to drop the political talking points and maybe it will be possible to have a rational discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I take it this is your way of saying you agree with Tova Wang’s historical summary of Republican voter suppression as a primary political tactic? Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I take it you're imagining things again. Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for setting the record straight. Which specific parts of Wang's chapter on the history of Republican voter suppression do you disagree with? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I have better uses of my time than to try and justify why an opinion piece from a left-wing think tank isn't a reliable source to prove Republicans are racist. Toa Nidhiki05 23:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Another ad hominem. You can't participate in a talk page discussion about content that *you* dispute, so you continue to question not the content, but the claimant, while ignoring the material in question. Thank you for demonstrating the invincible ignorance fallacy. I suppose you will now be taking this talk page off of your watchlist? Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't link to the article at all. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC) UTC)

I agree with FormalDude, Viriditas, and Valjean inasmuch as the voter suppression story is a critical part of the history of the Republican party. A salient part of the history would discuss the Solid South and the impact of the Civil Rights movement, characters like Strom Thurmond, who left the Dixiecrats to become a Republican in 1964. You can then look at the Republican reactions and the current debates on voter suppression such as the Election Integrity Act of 2021, Fair Fight Action and Brian Kemp. Andre🚐 18:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The link is not only appropriate. We need such links to give context for our readers, who may not be familiar with it. We have all kinds of disturbing content on WP, but that's not a problem when it's necessary and appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this should not be included as it completely fails IMPARITAL. Springee (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you not understand about the only way this edit fails NPOV being if the title of Voter suppression in the United States is also not NPOV? ––FormalDude (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Springee, IMPARTIAL is about choices of tone in our prose. Not relevant here. Maybe there is some other link you had in mind? SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I just read Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States#Modern_examples. Except for two incidents (2004 tire slashing in Wisconsin and a 2008 Detroit incident involving the Black panthers) every modern example mentioned was a Republican effort. How is that a random, unrelated page and section? Also, why isn't the Republican_Party_(United_States)#Voting_rights section called "voting rights restrictions"? That seems to better reflect the content of the section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The Economist recently published an article which may be of some benefit here. It argues that irrespective of the motives of Republicans pushing stricter laws regarding voting procedures the impacts on turnout are negligible, and in the case of restrictions on early voting such laws may increase participation. It reads, in part, as follows:

"A study by Barry Burden of the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that early voting can actually decrease turnout when implemented without other measures, such as automatic voter registration. When voting becomes a private, homebound activity, people no longer have the reminder or sense of civic participation that comes with a common election day. Voter-id requirements, which determine what people need to prove their identity in order to cast a ballot, incite the most criticism from Democrats. Demands can be simple—a voter’s name and address, for instance. Or they can be more onerous: Texas, for example, accepts a concealed-handgun licence but not a student idfrom a state university. Even if id restrictions are a cynical attempt by Republicans to craft rules that give them an advantage, Democratic anxieties over widespread voter suppression appear unfounded. Such laws have a negligible impact on turnout or the parties’ respective vote share, according to a countrywide study published last year by Enrico Cantoni of the University of Bologna and Vincent Pons of Harvard Business School. Almost all registered voters who habitually vote have the requisite id, so the affected population is in fact quite small (one study estimated that 0.5% of registered voters in Texas lacked the id to comply with the state’s strict law)."

Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This will have to be balanced with the many articles and studies that find the opposite. Voter suppression can and does have a significant effect Andre🚐 13:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Thorpewilliam: Did you mean to comment this in the section above? Not seeing how it applies to the dispute here about adding the link. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude I didn't pay attention to anything other than the title of this thread. I'm not really interested in getting involved, though I thought this article had the potential to be of use to other editors. thorpewilliam (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. Didn't realise there was another discussion on voting rights above this one. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The article is paywalled but available here. Their cited study (you can read it here) was published in January 2014 and is based on data that’s 10 years old or older. Is that data still relevant today, having experienced a pandemic and a president, his supporters in Congress, and a mob trying to overturn election results? Also, if you add the "modest effects" of the restrictions to the built-in imbalances (electoral college, two Senators each representing e.g. a population of 579,000 in Wyoming and 39 million in California, local gerrymandering, etc.), modest effects might be all it takes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this practice in the US, limited to the Republican Party? GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What practice, voter suppression? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
In the past 20 years or more, yes (Brennan Center, ACLU). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The Brennan Center is, of course, a left-wing think tank, as is the ACLU. It's akin to using the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute to prove that Democrats are bad because they want to take private health insurance plans away from people. Toa Nidhiki05 17:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you have any sources for voter suppression by Democrats (later than Jim Crow era South)? Or unaffiliated voter suppression? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The Jimmy Dore Show, has mentioned the Democrats attempting to stop the Green Party from getting candidates onto state ballots. Is Dore a reliable source? I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
You're referring to the North Carolina Democratic Party's extreme efforts to keep the Green Party off the ballot, yes, including lawsuits, claims of signature fraud, and attempting to get signatures for the party to un-sign. Toa Nidhiki05 18:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
That is a state, not a national party thing. Andre🚐 18:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
If we're going to distinguish between state and federal policies, please identify the voter suppression laws the federal GOP supports. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
in 2022 the national and state GOP has directly brought nine lawsuits seeking to undermine voting rights and fair elections, two of which challenge Arizona’s no-excuse mail-in voting system that has been in place since 1991. Other lawsuits filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC) or GOP state parties similarly attack vote by mail in states like Massachusetts, Delaware, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. Notably, the RNC’s lawsuit in North Carolina attempts to undo a rule regulating the conduct of partisan poll watchers that’s been in place for six years — apparently this rule was fine for the past six years, but now threatens Republicans’ “life, liberty, or property.” https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/republican-anti-voting-lawsuits-pile-up-in-2022/ Andre🚐 15:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Democracy Docket is a left-wing media outlet and advocacy group run by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, and is funded by Democratic dark money group Hopewell Fund. Are you joking? Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I know who Marc Elias is. You can easily cross reference all of these lawsuits with reliable secondary sources. The point is that the RNC itself is deeply involved with voter suppression. Andre🚐 16:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
That source describes those efforts as allegations–quite different from the way Republican efforts are described. And it doesn't say "extreme" anywhere. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh my, egregious? It's off-topic here as it wouldn't have prevented a single person from voting or made it harder for anyone to vote. The North Carolina Board of Elections investigated the validity of the signatures the Green Party submitted to get on the ballot after "several county officials identified irregularities. [state board Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell] cited examples at a board meeting last month of petition sheets with nearly identical handwriting, incomplete personal information, duplicate names and deceased signatories." People would have still have been able to vote for Green Party candidates by writing them in instead of just checking a box. After the Board decided to have them put on the ballot, the NC Democrats sued in state and in federal court to take them off but the federal judge decided otherwise. Democracy at work, unlike the party in charge deciding that the 95-year old WWII vet who had been on the voter rolls since the 40s should be kicked off because he can't meet their new requirements. As for the NC Democrats, yeah, OK, bareknuckle, but they are up against Republican partisan redistricting. Good for the goose ... or something. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Jimmy Dore is not a reliable source. Andre🚐 18:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Commission on Presidential Debates (which is controlled by both major political parties), has made it nearly impossible for third parties to qualify for those debates. Can that be considered a form of voter suppression? GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No. Andre🚐 18:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Good Day, what theory could possibly qualify that as voter suppression. It's about as related to voter suppression as dog licensing is to the high school Christmas Pageant. Please state your basis for that question. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The CPD practice makes it more difficult for parties (like Libertarian & Green, to give two examples) to get their message out. If one is mostly hearing only the Democratic & Republican arguments, it's possible one will vote more likely for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. Limited options, could they be seen as a form of suppressing voters' knowledge of what options they have. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
OK. That is not the meaning of "voter suppression". Please ensure that you are using language within the confines of its defined and understood meanings. Otherwise post such issues at any other page on which it is demonstrably relevant. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The state of Delaware, which is controlled by Democrats, shouts the name of every voter before they vote, including their party affiliation in primary elections. Is this a form of voter suppression? Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Is that really true? It's voter intimidation and violates the rule that our voting preference is a private matter. If we wish to reveal it, that's okay, but no state or government has a right to reveal it without our consent. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Does there need to be an RFC about adding a wikilink to more information about voter laws and efforts at voter suppression, really? 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: What are your definitions of "consensus" and "trolling"? I count six editors supporting the wikilink, two opposed, and one whose stance I can't figure out. Looks like a consensus to include to me as I'm unaware of any requirement for unanimity. And you accused FormalDude of trolling because they believe there is a consensus. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

At least 3 editors have objected. There are also related concerns from the recent NPOVN discussion. Springee (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, what are you talking about here? The manner in which elections, including federal elections, are run are decided in the states. The Republican Party isn't the RNC, it's the 50 local GOPs (Indiana Republican Party, Florida Republican Party, New Jersey Republican Party, etc.). Kindly self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, reverting again, demanding that another editor discuss on the Talk page? You haven't bothered to respond when I took your first revert of the link to the Talk page (see edit above this one).Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of WP:BRD? Toa Nidhiki05 17:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, also of WP:BRD-NOT. Have you? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This very much seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Adding a wikilink to further information really shouldn't be such a big deal, under normal circumstances! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Should go to RFC

I recommend that this topic go to RFC. It's not good to have a small # of editors (in this case less then 10) deciding on what should or shouldn't be included on this page. PS - I'd recommend the same, if a similar discussion was occurring at the Democratic Party (United States)'s talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree! I'd also like to see a list of all the relevant sources folks are basing their arguments on before deciding how to !vote. Generalrelative (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if I deleted your edit. I'm not sure what happened. I had several editors open after an editing conflict and may have saved the same text twice, overwriting your edit or something. This discussion is just about adding a Wikilink to another Wikipedia article, or actually two Wikilinks to two articles now. You need to take a look at those articles and their cited sources to make up your mind whether the articles are relevant as further reading for the section in this one. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh course. Generalrelative (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
(ec) As just a preliminary, I googled "republican party voter suppression", and found this article which discusses this report from three organizations which describe themselves as "nonpartisan": States United Democracy Center, Law Forward, and Protect Democracy (only the latter has a WP page, but the info there does appear to bear out the "nonpartisan" label). Generalrelative (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe check out the book sources in the section above. Andre🚐 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I did. But I also assume what's been mentioned isn't exhaustive. Case in point, I didn't see anyone mention the study I linked above, and it looks like a useful source on the matter. Let's do an RfC, and let's compile a list of all the relevant sources so it's easy to access for those who are just joining the discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is it not good to have a small # of editors (in this case less then 10) deciding on what should or shouldn't be included on this page? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Because outsider input, will give a more solid consensus for either inclusion or exclusion of proposed edit(s). GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No Rfc is needed. This page has nearly 2000 page watchers so this discussion reflects the participation of one of the largest cohorts of any WP article. Attracting uninformed outsiders adds nothing except obstruction. RfCs on less-followed topics may benefit from the RfC notification, but not a page that is so widely followed by a large cross-section of editors of all stripes. SPECIFICO talk 16:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention, having an RfC for a change as small as this sets a ridiculous precedent for the level of consensus needed to make improvements to this article. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, but is there a consensus on this matter currently? If so, and if it sticks, that's fine by me. Here's another source, by the way, from FiveThirtyEight: "How The Republican Push To Restrict Voting Could Affect Our Elections". Generalrelative (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
If it's so small then why fight for the change? As a separate question but one that maybe should guide our discussions, how many of our sources are pre-2018 vs post-2018? 2020 saw unprecedented changes in how voting was done in the US. Are those changes a long term good or bad is not clear. We don't really have long term data to say how the 2020 changes will affect voter turnout. Historically non-in person voting was a small part of the overall number of votes cast. 2020 may have changed that. The fact that Trump was one of the 2020 candidates should otherwise invalidate almost any normal metric of voter interest. Many people who have pushed for at least some of these new laws are concerned about election integrity. Are there concerns legitimate? Well to some extent that many be hard to say. There simply hasn't been enough history to see. It's politically easy to say "suppressing the vote" but harder to prove and yet again harder to prove voting irregularities. For all these reasons we should be keeping the page impartial in presentation. Including links that imply the overall organization is involved with historical examples of voter suppression is anything but. Springee (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
We don't need any of what you're saying, we write what RS say. Andre🚐 17:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, though it would I think help with persuading others, especially those who are bound to stumble upon this debate (as I have) to list all the relevant sources together. That way Springee's question about "how many sources of type X" could easily be answered at a glance. Generalrelative (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
There is an abundance of relevant sources listed in the section above. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be helpful if nothing else since it allows editors to review the sources and decide which ones are based on good reasoning vs which are opinions, speculation etc. Springee (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
We don't require sources for {{see also}} links to relevant and established Wikipedia articles. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Andre, please be civil. I'm making a case why perhaps we need to be thinking about things like is this something recent or a long term trend. Note if this is a one time thing we need to treat it differently since this is a 150+ year old topic. Springee (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what about what I said was uncivil? Andre🚐 17:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I put effort into trying to help people understand why we might be seeing a lot of one type of information and why that may not be a good representation of the long term view of this topic. When you take such dialog that can help establish weight and say, "not needed" well, your opinion is not needed. Springee (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The level of "proof" you are asking for is not the standard for inclusion. That isn't uncivil. Accusing someone of incivility baselessly, though, is incivil. Andre🚐 17:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It was perhaps an impolite way of saying your comments were not needed because they weren't relevant to the matter at hand. Instead of reacting to that with "you disregard my comments, I disregard your comments", try to refocus your arguments. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
What possibly application does that have to adding a link about a similar topic? ––FormalDude (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Money quote: Republican efforts to pass new voter restrictions have been so aggressive and widespread that their effects are hard to predict. Elections, moreover, don’t run themselves; they’re run by people. And these new laws point to an even more troubling problem that threatens to undermine our democracy: the GOP’s eroding commitment to democratic values, like free and fair elections. In many ways, the most concerning change our elections face may not be any one law, but rather the GOP’s increased willingness to take such anti-democratic actions. This is a highly respected, rigorously nonpartisan website, and it's the analysis of an elections expert. Generalrelative (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. It's quite clear Andre🚐 17:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yep–I also quoted this source in the section above. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah, apologies. In any case, I think I have enough information now to make up my mind (at least until someone offers a compelling counterargument) that the edit in question is DUE and well supported by nonpartisan sources. Generalrelative (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
No need to apologize–great minds think alike. Or fools seldom differ. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Both true :P Generalrelative (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
That is certainly an opinion. Springee (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it's pretty much the consensus opinion by experts in RS. Andre🚐 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it's an opinion offered by a poling organization. It is not proof. Springee (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH Andre🚐 17:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I recall being involved in a recent debate with you. You were very certain you were correct. If I recall, and I could be wrong, a RfC didn't agree with your view. I made good faith comments above and you said they were "not needed". That's not good faith on your part. Springee (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
We follow what RS say. I have not been uncivil. We do not need more "proof" because there are plenty of RS. Andre🚐 17:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it's expert analysis. There is a difference and that difference is given by the source type (i.e. not your opinion on whether it's opinion). Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources supporting your opinion that measures taken or proposed by Republican state assemblies/governors are something else than restrictions? I.e., necessary measures to achieve "election integrity", a term I believe you used in the above discussion? Right now, your argument seems to be that you consider "restrictions" to be inflammatory and therefore we need to call it "tightening of regulations", and therefore linking to a WP page about voting restrictions is also non-neutral. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
An alternative question would be are there legitimate voting integrity gaps that these laws will close? Springee (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
No, the question is whether there are any reliable sources saying these laws will close legitimate voting integrity gaps. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The answer to that is an irrelevant conclusion. It is not applicable because sources are not needed for linking to an article on the same topic. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Springee, that's a very legitimate question and really the only legitimate motive. Because these efforts are based on a big "stolen election/voter fraud" lie (and the accompanying concerns for fixing an imaginary problem), their legitimacy is rightly questioned. So far, most GOP efforts don't seem to address real problem areas. Too many are directed at making it harder for minority voters, who are American citizens and registered voters, to vote, and that's not right. Are there problem areas/gaps? Possibly. What are they? Which efforts are directed very narrowly at resolving them? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that an RfC is warranted. Toa Nidhiki05 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
So start one instead of edit-warring. nableezy - 17:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The only people edit warring are the ones adding content that doesn't have consensus instead of discussing - a clear violation of WP:BRD. Toa Nidhiki05 17:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Lol no. You have 3 reverts in 25 hours. Edit-warring is the repeated reverting of others edits. WP:BRD is not policy, WP:EW is. Unless youre claiming one of the very limited exceptions to that policy, you are violating it. And being the R in BRD is not one of the exceptions. If you think that you can revert ad infinitum because you are "enforcing BRD" you will find yourself quickly disabused of that notion at AE. You are edit-warring, you need to stop, and if your change is disputed, in either direction of adding or removing, and you cannot reach a consensus on the talk page, you can either open a noticeboard thread at NPOV/N or an RFC here. Those are your options if you wish to remain an editor in this topic area or website. Yes, you are not the only user edit-warring, but you are most certainly edit-warring. nableezy - 17:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
There's no consensus for inclusion. Many users have objected to this, which makes it more concerning how dogmatic and unwilling to actually discuss in good faith some users are here. They want this on the page now - policy and debate be damned. Toa Nidhiki05 18:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Toa, you are being reverted by multiple very experienced editors. Are you really not getting the message? The center of the problem is YOUR actions. Drop it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Multiple editors - all of whom support the content - are falsely claiming a consensus that does not exist. Please identify the harm in following routine policy and waiting until a discussion and consensus have been reached to include it? Iddentify the relevant policy that favors including content that lacks consensus in the middle of a heated discussion - take as much time as you need. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty clear there's no consensus to include this, so it's upsetting to see users edit-warring over including this hyperlink rather than discussing it here. Per WP:BRD, disputed content should be discussed rather than rammed through without consensus - it's unfortunate some users here don't seem to care. I'm starting to question whether these users are even open to good faith discussion, so I'd strongly urge a self-revert from one of the offending parties. Toa Nidhiki05 17:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you please read, in their entirety, the first two sentences of WP:BRD? nableezy - 17:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you identify a universe in which it's okay to bypass debate and force contested content that lacks consensus into an article by brute force? While I can't deny such a universe exists, it's not this one. Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I dont believe that is what is happening here. When you are being reverted by multiple people it can mean one of several things. A. Consensus is against you (most likely). B. Opposing users represent only a local consensus, and you may find consensus in favor of your position if you attract wider input at a noticeboard or through an RFC (certainly possible). C. There is a vast conspiracy against you and the wider community has had the wool pulled over their eyes and only you can prevent the degradation of our article into some rank exercise in propaganda (least likely). Your options are to drop it or attract wider input. Thats the universe that Wikipedia exists in. nableezy - 18:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with nableezy. Andre🚐 18:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

And now tags have been deleted without explanation, despite policy being not to remove tags. This page needs to be protected and locked to the last stable version. Toa Nidhiki05 18:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ill add an inline tag to just the disputed bit, with the expectation you open an RFC and accept its result. But tag bombing two section wide tags over a single see also link is absurd. nableezy - 18:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, TN05 is misusing tags Andre🚐 18:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, cant add an inline tag to the template, it shows up after a line break. nableezy - 18:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I've requested a rollback to last stable version and temporary full protection to prevent edit warring while the dispute is ongoing. This should be unobjectionable to all editors. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:The wrong version? The idea that you can just decide WP:IDONTLIKEIT and keep out a "see also" link citing that there is no sourcing and then make spurious arguments is flawed. Andre🚐 18:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
The problem and edit warring would stop if Toa stopped edit warring and recognized they are up against multiple editors who favor doing what we have always done, and that is to link to relevant content elsewhere. When we can't do that, there is a huge problem, and Toa is creating an aburd situation by demanding we not be able to link to our own articles. THat is not the wiki way. An absurd situation. Toa, stop editing this topic and the problem stops. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
That's pretty rich coming from someone who abused rollback privileges to remove tags against policy Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Using rollback was a mistake. Your tagging was a pointy abuse of policy, as noted by others, and I should have used an edit summary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
You literally tagged my page, as a regular. Please get off your high horse. Toa Nidhiki05 19:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I think at this point, absent a RfC, consensus by numbers has been achieved. Unfortunately several editors jumped the gun which didn't help. I do think if a RfC is started that the change should be reversed pending the RfC closing. That is the typical correct thing to do. I'm not going to open the RfC. I do think the section neutrality tag was legitimate given concerns raised at NPOVN. I'm not going to restore that tag at this time. Springee (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Any of the editors involved (or not involved) in this content dispute, are free to open an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

In the context of everything that is on record here, that would be disruptive at this point. It would serve no purpose other than to prolong an edit-war against consensus, with well over 1000 editors watching without objection. SPECIFICO talk 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm leaving it up to others to decide on whether or not, to have one. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, a rough consensus appears to exist here. I withdraw my support for the RfC stated above. Generalrelative (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Good Day, to be blunt, if you're "leaving it to others" then why post here? It's a distraction, a waste of everyone's time to raise moot non-issues, and when I say waste of time I include your time as well as others'. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
If there's actually a consensus here, there's no need to change it right now. But I will be starting an RfC to get the informed opinion of everyone - it's incredibly ironic the people here wanting this link to voter suppression want to limit the input being given here. Toa Nidhiki05 23:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote. Andre🚐 23:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
That it isn't, but surely you notice the similarity. Toa Nidhiki05 23:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Not at all. Anyone who wants to can come to this page right now and weigh in on this discussion. Advertising it doesn't give more people a voice, and not advertising it doesn't suppress anyone's voice. Andre🚐 23:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It certainly can't hurt. I've never seen anyone argue against an RfC because it "doesn't give more people a voice", probably because that doesn't make a lot of sense. But hey, we'll see right? Toa Nidhiki05 23:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I was saying that your comparison to opposing a formal RFC and voter suppression is not apt. Andre🚐 23:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05. I'll keep an eye out, for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)/Archive_20&oldid=1126183288"