Talk:Touré/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Death of father before he was born?

I'm curious about the mention that his father died before Touré was born. In his book, Who's afraid of post-blackness, Touré writes repeatedly of interactions he had with both his parents. That would contradict the claim that his father died before he was born. Is there a citation for this claim?

Cmcguinness (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems to have been added with this edit. No source and possibly wrong, so go ahead and take it out. Fnordware (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've removed that. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Autobiography

The bulk of this article reads like an autobiography, especially the Career section. Indeed, many of the edits were made by User:Toure and the article was created by User:General Kizza whose contributions are mainly the Toure article. Many of the references are primary sources, including all the links to articles written by the subject used to cite a comment that the subject has written articles. Here is how I would reboot the Career section using independent, reliable sources:

(Add to Early Life)

While a student at Emory University, Touré founded the black student newspaper, The Fire This Time.

Career

Touré began his career as a music journalist, contributing articles to Rolling Stone, The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Playboy, The Village Voice, Vibe, and Essence magazine. He has written five books, including Who's Afraid of Post-Blackness?, a collection of interviews, and I Would Die 4 U: Why Prince Became an Icon, a Prince biography.

Touré has appeared on television as a pop culture correspondent for CNN, MSNBC, Black Entertainment Television and other networks. He currently hosts The Cycle on MSNBC.

Controversies

On March 29, 2012, Touré criticized Piers Morgan's interview of Robert Zimmerman regarding his brother George's shooting of Trayvon Martin on Morgan's CNN talk show, Piers Morgan Tonight, stating that Morgan failed to ask Zimmerman challenging questions, and provided a platform for mendacity on Zimmerman's part. Appearing on next day's episode of Piers Morgan Tonight the two continued their hostilities, with Morgan calling into question Touré's journalistic professionalism and Touré arguing that because Morgan was not originally from the United States and had only been working in the U.S. for a decade or so, he was incapable of "understanding America". The two continued to feud on Twitter after the show's taping. Toure later apologized for his conduct during the interview, saying that he got sidetracked into personal exchanges with Morgan, instead of focusing on justice for Martin.

On August 16, 2012, on The Cycle, Touré caused a controversy by stating that by calling President Barack Obama "angry," Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was engaging in the "niggerization" of the president. He apologized for using the word the next day.

Fnordware (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

comments

I agree the career section is a bit wordy and could be cleaned up, but I find your suggested "Career" section a bit too thin. But otherwise, it reads better. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to edit what I've put above. I just got rid of everything that didn't have a third-party reliable source. Perhaps there are more sources out there now we could add. But I think there aren't many sources because Touré just hasn't had whole lot of noteworthy events in his career so far. His co-host Steve Kornacki has a short article for the same reason. BTW, I'd also add that the Piers Morgan paragraph could probably be paired down to prevent undue weight, especially in light of shortening everything else. Fnordware (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I made the edit, prompted by what I believe are WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:WEIGHT violations with extensive references to this article in The Daily Caller. I left it in as a citation, so readers are free to check it out and decide for themselves. I think the career section could be filled in a little more, but everything added should have reliable third-party sources as per WP:BLP. Fnordware (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I made the "reboot" edit that I had previously discussed here, but it has been reverted by Nightscream. Can we reach consensus here as to which version we should use? Fnordware (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I'd like to apologize to Fnordware for incorrectly stating that you did not start a discussion prior to removing the content in your recent edits. I looked for something recent explaining the rationale for removing the content you removed, and didn't find it; I should've looked more closely at the top of the talk page.

Regarding the edits in question, you state at the top of this discussion that the bulk of the article reads like an autobiography, especially the Career section, and that many of the references are primary sources. But you removed entire paragraphs of material that have nothing to do with this. For example, the recently-added material on criticism directed at the Emory newspaper that Touré founded, The Fire This Time. Such material A. is not the sort of material one would expect from an autobiography, and B. is sourced to The Daily Caller and Yahoo! News, neither of which is a primary source.

You removed the passage that states that Touré dropped out of college in 1992, became an intern at Rolling Stone magazine, was fired after a few months and rehired weeks later. The source cited for that is a Rolling Stone article. That link is dead (keep in mind that removal is not the procedure for dead links, mind you), so I don't know if it's one of Touré's articles, or an article or profile on Touré, so it's unclear if it's a primary or secondary source. Do you happen to recall what that article was?

Moreoever, even if it turns out that it was an article written by Touré, and is therefore a primary source, that means that we should limit which information from it is in the article. It does not mean that we should remove it. We should not use primary sources for information that is contested, controversial, self-aggrandizing, self-serving or promotional. But there is nothing wrong with using a primary source for information on things like the fact that Touré's father died before he was born.

Why was the section on the books he has written removed? Works such as movies, books, etc. are their own primary sources for their existence and their content. There was no reason to remove that.

Why was the section on his television appearances gutted?

Hell, why was the photograph of him with DJ Spooky removed??? None of this appear to have anything to do with the concerns you raised above.

Also, a minor point, but the first citation of a source should be the one that carries the full publication information, but you placed the publication info on the second citation of it. Was this an error? Nightscream (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

My rationale is/was that the Career section has virtually no reliable sources. Much of it cites this biography on bigcitypix.com, but this is not a reliable, neutral, secondary source. Many of the other references are worthless, such as his appearance on the A&E Biography episode about Eminem which just links to the Wikipedia article about the show. And again, references pointing to articles he has written is not a good source for saying that he has written articles because that constitutes a original research using a primary source. We need to find an article about his articles, such as the Harvard Crimson one.

So what I suggested we do is pare down the article to only what we have reliable sources for and then build it up from there, which meant deleting most of the article. I think the result is in line with Touré's level of notability. Everything else that was there may be true, but it is not verifiable and there is no need to include it. As more reliable sources appear the article should be expanded as Touré's notability will have increased.

Many of the other sections I pared down, such as the Piers Morgan paragraph, due to undue weight considerations given how much shorter I had made the career section. I don't think it need to be so detailed. People looking for more information can click on to the sources.

Finally, I think the stuff you added about the Daily Caller article should not be in there, at least until after there has been discussion. In its current form it strikes me as undue weight, and gets dangerously close to breaking WP:NPOV and other WP:BLP issues. The Daily Caller is a conservative website (i.e. not neutral) and you can't insert so many of their statements into the article and still stay neutral. That material is certainly contentious and should be discussed here first. Fnordware (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Career section has virtually no reliable sources. The Career section cites nine sources. Not "virtually none". Of those nine, you mentioned reasons for disputing two of them, but none of the others. As for those you did mention:

You removed the Big City Pictures citation from the list of publications that Touré is indicated to have written for, but you replaced it with the Harvard Crimson cite, even though that story makes no mention of those publications. Why is this? I have removed the Big City citations from most of the passages (keeping it by the passages about his schooling and his father), but added {{issue}} tags to where those various magazines are mentioned.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but your understanding of the Neutrality policy is a bit off. That policy requires material to not exhibit the point of view of the editor who adds the material, or an apparent point of view of Wikipedia itself. It does not however, mean that we cannot include relevant opinions attributed to reliable sources. If it did, we wouldn't be able to include the opinions of film critics in articles about movies. The Daily Caller is conservative? So what? Of course political sources have their own bent. Can you name a source for sociopolitical criticism that doesn't? Editors to be neutral in their wording. Articles have to exhibit neutrality so as to not express an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. That does not mean that sources need to be neutral, which is ridiculous, and just plain impossible. But if you can name an example of a "neutral source" that can be cited in matters related to controversial sociopolitical issues, please do so. You also did not explain why the Yahoo! News source was unacceptable, even though I mentioned it above.

So what I suggested we do is pare down the article to only what we have reliable sources for and then build it up from there, which meant deleting most of the article. I think the result is in line with Touré's level of notability.  ?????? Source reliability and notability have nothing to do with one another. Notability is the test for whether a given topic merits its own article. Reliability is entirely different matter.

As for the rest, in considering your paring down of the books paragraph and the Piers Morgan paragraph, I think maybe you were right to do so, so I restored the pared-down versions of those paragraphs. Nightscream (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this article, Nightscream.

Re: Neutrality, you'll notice that articles about movies maintain neutrality by having different review sources, some positive, some negative. If you only reference reviews one direction or the other you have made the article non-neutral, perhaps inadvertently. Of course you are accurately and neutrally writing about what was said by The Daily Caller. Anyway, I find it to be undue weight more than anything. I think it should simply say "While a student at Emory University, Touré founded the black student newspaper, The Fire This Time. The Daily Caller criticized the publication, saying it 'lavished praise on famous anti-Semites, black supremacists, and conspiracy theorists', but Touré defended it as 'as an important media voice in the ecology." I still cringe at leaving the anti-Semitic accusation unanswered in a BLP though. Another problem with having such a long article about someone not notable enough to have their rebuttal published.

I don't see why it needs to be mentioned that he appeared in The Best American Sports Writing, but at least there is a citation. The entire paragraph describing his television career (before the controversies) is lacking any good citations (it does have the single bad one). This is the part that really feels like an autobiography. I used sources in my two-sentence version.

BTW, the "his father died before he was born" part is inaccurate. The bigcitypix.com bio says it was Toure's grandfather that died before Touré's father was born. I'd just delete it as a unnecessary detail myself.

I don't think we're really that far apart on this. Delete the un-sourced television paragraph and trim the Daily Caller paragraph and I'm happy. Fnordware (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality, you'll notice that articles about movies maintain neutrality by having different review sources, some positive, some negative. If you only reference reviews one direction or the other you have made the article non-neutral, perhaps inadvertently. Yes, but that's not what you were saying above. You were saying above that singular sources had to be neutral in themselves, which as I said above, is impossible, since the mere act of expressing an opinion is the opposite of neutrality. If you wanted to talk about equal weight via multiple sources, then you should have said so. But I'm not one to focus on split hairs. Yes, we cite multiple sources in movie articles precisely because (at least in the case of highly visibile movies) there are generally many critics from which to cull information, and we can just cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which pretty much o this for us. But that's not always the case with some controversial flap like the charges of anti-whiteness/anti-Semitism leveled at Toure's newspaper. For one thing, there aren't always that many sources that weigh in on a given matter. For another, you can't just assume that even if there were, that it would guarantee dissenting opinions. Do you think there's any credible sources out there who think the statements and practices on Toure's part were not anti-Semitic? If you can, then add them to the article. But if you can't find any, you can't just conclude "Well, we can't find any that defend Toure, therefore, we can't include the two that criticize him." That would imply that there is some type of arbitrary quota system that requires every criticism or opinion represented in Wikipedia to balanced by an opposite view, even when we can't find one. That is not reasonable.

Sorry I messed up on the father/grandfather bit. I removed that.

The only portion of the television paragraph that requires a citation and lacks one is the part where he is mentioned to have been CNN's first pop culture correspondent. I removed that passage. Everything else does not require a citation, because all it says is which TV shows he was on. Works such as books, movies, TV shows, etc. are their own primary sources for their existence and their content (plot and credits) (See WP:TVPLOT and WP:FILMPLOT). At best, it might be more helpful to know which episodes he was on in some of those cases, so I added a couple of {{episode}} tags to some spots in that paragraph. But there is no justification for removing the paragraph.

I also trimmed the paragraph on the Fire this Time paragraph a bit. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I re-read the Daily Caller article and I think it's important to make it clear that it doesn't actually accuse Touré or the paper of being anti-Semetic itself, but that it "lavished praise on famous anti-Semites, black supremacists, and conspiracy theorists". I think that's an important distinction to avoid guilt by association. It's also important to mention that The Daily Caller appears to be the only criticizer at this point, while we currently imply that there could be others as well. The Daily Caller article does, in the title and elsewhere, accuse the paper of being anti-white. But as you might expect, the people it accuses of being anti-Semetic deny that they are. Do you not think that Touré would deny that he or the paper were anti-Semetic? Again, for NPOV I think it's important to include Touré quote defending it as "an important media voice in the ecology" (whatever that means). I'm sure Touré would have more to say if someone were to interview him about this article, but apparently it is not as big a deal as we are making it and there doesn't appear to be any such interview, at least not yet.

But all that aside, the real problem I have with that paragraph is undue weight. It is longer then the text describing the entire rest of his writing career. I still think it should be shortened to my suggestion and then the reader can click on to the Daily Caller article themselves.

My main problem with the Television paragraph is that it is written like an autobiography, a résumé padded with what WP:AUTO calls "promotional intent." And we know Touré has edited his own article. WP:TVPLOT and WP:FILMPLOT say nothing about the credits being a reliable source (although I agree they would be), but do we give everyone with a film credit a Wikipedia page? Does an actor's biography text mention each and every film credit? If Touré reaches the level of notability to warrant an article of this length, then there will be articles about him mentioning the highlights of his career and we will have our reliable sources. Fnordware (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with the tags, "volume & issue needed". What these claims need is not primary verification (which would turn the references into a resume) but rather secondary sources, in agreement with WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. I understand that giving a link to an article is evidence that he wrote the article, but the point is that facts really aren't encyclopedically relevant unless they're referenced with secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Both the Daily Caller and Yahoo! News stories say that the paper itself was a "militant, anti-white" newspaper. I removed the reference to it being called anti-Semitic, but left in the part where it mentions Toure inviting noted anti-Semites to the school.

I do not think that being longer than other paragraphs constitutes "undue weight", since it merely gives a summary of the relevant info. However, if we were to shorten it further, what portions of it do you think could go, that are not relevant or valid for inclusion?

I didn't say that credits were a reliable source. I said that those guidelines point out that works such as books, films, TV episodes, etc, are their own primary sources for their existence and content, and mentioned plot and credits as the two obvious examples of such content. When we add synopsis sections to the articles of films or books that have been released, we don't have to include a citation, because it is presumed that that information comes from the work in question. (By contrast, synopses of works yet to be released are a different story, and require citations.)

Yes, I'm aware that Toure edited this article. I don't know if that particular paragraph was added by him, but even if it was, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have encyclopedic value. An editor with the sole intent of improving the article and an article subject with the sole intent of padding the article can both conceivably add the same material because that material may be information in which those two disparate motives intersect. Whoever added that material may or may not have had proper policy/guideline in mind, but the material may still be valid for other reasons. I personally think it's valid, so long as it can be sourced with reference to either specific episodes, or other sources. It's far better, I think, then the quite subjective "If Touré reaches the level of notability...." idea, since again, notability is not about comparative stature between two article subjects, and assessing such a thing is fraught with problems of subjectivity.

Does an actor's biography text mention each and every film credit? As a matter of fact, not only do well-developed articles of actors include entire Filmography sections, but when large enough, those sections are split off into their own articles. Ditto for the written works sections of writers. See Tom Cruise filmography, Adam Sandler filmography, Peter David bibliography, Stephen King bibliography, etc.

Magazine issue tags and volumes: Either would be better than nothing, though secondaries would be preferable.

Btw, Drmies, I moved your post up here because it was part of this conversation. Nightscream (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If it were up to me, the Daily Caller paragraph would simply say, "While a student at Emory University, Touré founded the black student newspaper, The Fire This Time. The Daily Caller later criticized the publication, saying it 'lavished praise on famous anti-Semites, black supremacists, and conspiracy theorists', but Touré defended it as 'as an important media voice in the ecology.'"

No, an actor's biography text does not generally mention every credit. They may be listed in a Filmography, but not in the bio text. See someone like Bob Hope who's filmography includes about 65 movies but only about 10 are mentioned in the Film section of his article. Wikipedia's job is not to be as comprehensive as you would be if you mentioned each film in the bio text. I agree with Drmies that they don't even need to be mentioned if you don't have a secondary source. In the case of Bob Hope, somewhere in newspaper archives and books written about him there exists secondary sources for each film, and even then they don't all need to be mentioned.

WP:TVPLOT and WP:FILMPLOT say that a film is its own source for its plot only. WP:FILMNOT says that just existing is not enough for a film to be notable. Not notable enough for own article doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in another article, but to me that is a key regulator for everything on Wikipedia. Not everything mentioned in an article somewhere should be written about in Wikipedia, but here we are writing about something not mentioned in an article. To me that is original research. Fnordware (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Fire This Time: I missed the bit about Toure's response, but I have just added it in now. I think the paragraph is fine the way it is. It does not require any further trim, as WP:WEIGHT does not emphasize mere size or space as the central, relevant criterion.

Point taken about the distinction between the Filmography sections and the body text. I've trimmed the TV career section to mention only the things that are supported with secondary sources. It is just slightly larger than the version you suggested above, because I kept in mention of the show he hosted on the Tennis Channel, since that is supported by a secondary.

WP:FILMNOT says that just existing is not enough for a film to be notable. One more time: We're not talking notability. Why do you bringing up notability? Notability is the test for whether a subject MERITS A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. We're not talking about whether those works merit their own articles, so why do you keep bringing this up? Moreover, I never said nor implied that existing makes something notable. Can you point to where I said or implied such a thing? I said that guidelines like WP:TVPLOT and WP:FILMPLOT note that such works are their own primary sources for their content, such as plot and credits, which is why mention of their contents does not require a secondary citation beyond a mention of that work (though episode or serialized works such as TV shows or comics should specify the episode or issue in question).

Not everything mentioned in an article somewhere should be written about in Wikipedia, but here we are writing about something not mentioned in an article. To me that is original research. Sigh. No, that's not what original research is. Again, you need to familiarize yourself more closely with these policies, especially since these are core policies we're talking about. Original Research refers to material added to article that is derived from an editor's personal knowledge, rather than from a cited source. It does not refer to something "not mentioned in an article". Again, do you think the synopses and credits from every article on a films, TV shows, comics, books, etc., be removed because they lack inline citations, or because they're not mentioned in external articles?

In any event, hopefully this is moot, since I trimmed back the TV section, as mentioned above. Let me know what you think. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article, Nightscream. I am happy with this compromise.

I think you will see above that I acknowledge that notability rules are concerned with the existence of an article, but I think the spirit of the rule applies to the content as well. Should every piece of verifiable information about a subject be in the article? If not, how do you decide what stays in? To me, the measurement is notability.

By "not mentioned in an article" I meant a newspaper article, i.e. a source. Sorry, that was a little confusing in the context of a Wikipedia article. I stand by what I said when read that way, but yes it's moot now because you've trimmed the unsourced stuff. Thanks again. Fnordware (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Re Senate gerrymandering quote

At some point, an editor had added this material:

On November 14, 2013, Touré mistakenly remarked that United States Senate seats were influenced by gerrymandering.

and it's ref'd here: Pavlich, Katie (2013-11-15). "MSNBC Host Explains the Non-Existent Gerrymandering of Senate Seats". Townhall.com. Retrieved 2013-11-17. An anon IP removed it (quite properly in my view), but another editor restored it, so here we are.

Can we not do this? This is frankly ridiculous. The man made a trivial misstatement. The article is on Townhall.com which I've never heard of and which I doubt is a highly reliable source; the article starts off "MSNBC's genius of a host" which indicates an attack piece, which is their right to do and maybe they're right but does not improve my inclination to view them as a highly reliable neutral source able and willing to report the quote properly and in context. Maybe he just said "Senate" when he meant "House", who knows. I know I don't trust Townhall.com to give him a reasonable break if that's what happened.

Its derogatory trivia and the only reason to include the material is to make the subject look stupid. I'm entirely agnostic on the matter of whether he is stupid or not (I know very little about him), but even if he is it's not our job to push points like this. This is a BLP violation so I've reverted again on those grounds. Editors who want to include the material are invite to make their case here. Herostratus (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

¡Hola Herostratus! If you look at the revision history for Touré you'll note my edit of Nov. 17 has the history of "added source for removed bit - but it might be a tad trivial (but, I've seen similar things on other pages)." So I'm fine with your removal of the sentence and its source. I think it is far more a violation of WP:NOTRIVIA than WP:BLP. I mean, flattering or not, he did say it, and it was incorrect. So I agree when you call it "trivia," but I disagree when you call it "derogatory trivia" and "a BLP violation." (Mere derogatoriness—if I may coin a word—doesn't violate BLP.)

But what I find much more disconcerting is your attitude and you're reasoning. Now, don't get me wrong, I think what you're doing is in good faith, but your condescension: "Can we not do this?" Or your POV judgment: "This is frankly ridiculous." Your dismissal of an error: "The man made a trivial misstatement." (You justify by asking: "Maybe he just said 'Senate' when he meant 'House'" tells me you didn't even look at what he said, because he meant Senate.) I ask, do you (and our fellow editors) jump to give the benefit of the doubt to Sarah Palin or George W. Bush or Glenn Beck when they "misspeak"? (I doubt it.) Their pages and subpages are riddled with references to such "trivial misstatement[s]." Then, the fact you've never heard of Townhall.com ("a web-based publication and a print magazine with a conservative viewpoint") is discomfiting. I'm a conservative, but I've heard of ThinkProgress, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Media Matters, and the like. Articles and entries from these opinion sites are usually considered reliable sources, while similar citations to conservative sites like Townhall.com, Breitbart.com, or Media Research Center are usually attacked and removed. (For instance, Media Matters and the Media Research Center both do essentially the same thing, critique media coverage, from the left and the right respectively. Guess which one is mentioned more and cited on Wikipedia....)

So, kudos for removing the offending sentence. Leave it out. But your condescension, derisiveness, and dismissive attitude I think we can do without. (And, yes, yes, I freely admit my statements here are the perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black... I plead guilty. And, I promise this isn't an attack on you, it's pent up mental torment that Wikipedia, an institution I love, has an inherent institutional bias towards liberalism. I try so hard to see all sides of issues—and edit accordingly—and it pains me when I believe others don't.) TuckerResearch (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and PS: (1) I remember your name from the "should we mention Touré's real name" battle royale! And (2) I've never seen Example text before. Thanks for showing me a new one. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he said it. Maybe he didn't. Who knows? If he did say it, the characterization is debatable.

We do live in a gerrymandered world. Nationwide, Democratic candidates for the House of Representitives candidates got more votes than Republican candidates, in total. If we didn't live in a gerrymandered world the position of Democratic Senators would be very much different. Maybe that's what he meant.

I assume that Townhall.com chose to cherry-pick a quote and spin it they way they did -- assuming they even reported correctly, which is probably but not necessarily true -- in order to fit in into their "genius of a host" paradigm. So it's not very useful for our purposes, and we can't use it in a BLP. We need to not be putting stuff like this in BLPs. As long as it's not in, though, it doesn't matter what the reason is. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to go with Herostratus on this. It appears that the guy made an isolated misstatement during a live interview. It's a little bit of gotcha that doesn't really add anything useful to this biography. (Honestly, is this the sort of trivia that we want to archive forever in an encyclopedia? It would only be noteworthy if - and my tongue is firmly in cheek, here - it were in the context of a statement like, "On November 14, 2013, Touré made his only publicly-recorded error, bringing to an end decades of perfection." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh you guys. First, User:Herostratus, I don't think the neutral statement "On November 14, 2013, Touré mistakenly remarked that United States Senate seats were influenced by gerrymandering" is a "characterization." It's a fact. I still think it's trivial and is fine being removed. Second, true, in raw vote numbers, Democrats got more votes for the House and Republicans got more seats. (I can tell you are indeed influenced by those lefty sites and blogs.) But (1) it is more an indication of higher than normal Democrat turnout in urban districts, and (2) it still has NO influence on Senate races, which are statewide. I could gerrymander every district in Texas to get nothing but Democrats elected to the House, but it would have no effect on the statewide election for a senator. Again, why you and your fellow editors are willing to go out of your way to give Mr. Touré and other leftists a break, but we have whole sections of articles dedicated to the public perceptions that Palin and W. Bush are dumb, irks me. It is this willingness of Wikipedia editors to give one side the benefit of the doubt and cite HuffPo but not NRO that staggers many editors and readers of a right-wing bent. But, again, I'm digressing, and this is not the forum. Good day! TuckerResearch (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)