Talk:Disfranchisement

message: Not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but there are currently two cases in the U.S. courts challenging disenfranchisement of felons: Locke v. Farrakhan in Washington State and Hayden v. Pataki in New York. The NAACP LDF is involved in both cases. Hope that's useful to someone. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I think the above information is appropo to this article.  Also, I believe there should be a history portion of disenfranchisement in the U.S. that would include white unlanded men, women, blacks and other minorities that have been disenfranchised either by federal or applicable state laws in the U.S.  Additionally, one might want to add the disenfranchisement that occurs with modern immigration and those unable to establish residency.  Stevenmitchell 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 U.S. cases

message: Looking more closely, I suspect that this edit, which I reverted, was not vandalism, though it was at least partially mistaken. The reason I thought it was vandalism was the following change "In 1348 U.S. states, persons convicted of a felony—that is, a crime punishable with a year's imprisonment or more—are denied the vote only while serving sentence in a state prison." Clearly, there are a lot more than two U.S. states that continue to deprive ex-felons of the vote after they've served their sentence. But I've now come to suspect that this anonymous editor just overlooked the word only in that sentence and was intending a correction. The other change was "FourTwo states—Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont—allow prison inmates to vote unless disfranchisement is meted out as a separate punishment." I now suspect that was correct. Neither the old version nor the new gave any citation, so it's hard to be sure, but , which looks like a reasonably credible source, bears out the change, so I will restore it with that citation. In general, the article needs citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs sourcing 

message: IS THIS REALLY WHAT THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE ABOUT?
Although I'm a newcomer, I feel as though the section on DC seems incredibly interest based and not necessarily a valid encyclopedic article as presented; I'm not sure that it's considered a particularly large issue given that there are municipal elections and they are not a state. Territories, commonwealths etc. have not by my understanding ever been allowed to vote in national elections. Moreover, I'm not sure that they were ever DISenfranchise as they were never franchise nationally to begin with. 
Also, I'm sure there are many more examples of disenfranchisement in nations suffering from violent or ethnic conflict. I am pretty sure that currently in Sri Lanka the 300,000 IDPs are effectively disenfranchised as are probably the 10,000 imprisoned former LTTE as well as many current Tamils.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.133.18 (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight- District of Columbia

message: It is alleged in the widely available DVD "Bush Family Fortunes:  The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" that tens of thousands of Democratic Party members in Florida, most of them black, were intentionally disenfranchised because their names were similar to other people's names who had been criminally convicted.  It is shown, for example, that some white guy in Ohio was convicted and, as a result, a black guy in Florida was deprived of his vote.   In the close election of 2000, this had the effect of swinging the choice for president to the Governor of Florida's brother. {{unsigned|71.252.4.167|25 June 2006}
: The fiasco of Florida's effort to cleanse the voter rolls of felons has been much written about, certainly in sources more authoritative than a partisan DVD. See United States presidential election%2C 2000#Florida election results for discussion of this. I don't think that one particular incident would merit discussion in this article, but I could imagine a more general discussion of how people can be incorrectly "caught up" in category intended to be disfranchised. - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 Presidential Election 

message: why is this called "disfranchisement"?  certainly the form with -en- is far more common; i'd never even heard the non-"en" version, and google lists the -en- term as more than 10 times as common as the other.  similarly, my dictionary (Webster's New World) has the -en- version as normal, and the other as a pointer to it.
Benwing 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But please, let's keep the article title and the article text in line with one another. If we are going to change the wording, let's move the article. And if you wanted to open a discussion, you might have allowed more than 5 minutes (!) before you went and changed the article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that the Google counting ignores several grammatical and usage issues.  One is that the "dis-" prefix is affected by the word to which it is added.  Academic sites are likely to study the entire field or its history, using past tense and style guides such as .  Activist victim organizations are likely to be interested in present and future tense, for which "enfranchisement" is a shorter form than other phrases.  Complications include trying to avoid confusion with the business meaning of "franchise" during the past 40 years, and that trying to get the vote often has a different word: "suffrage".  (SEWilco 15:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's open to debate. I don't see why you are so adamant on your point. Sheesh. Both mean the same thing. As a legal term, the former is prefered in law, but the latter lay distortion appears to be gaining ground in general media.  Foofighter20x (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to disenfranchisement 

message: While Disfranchisement is older of the two terms, disenfranchisement is the far more common use of the phrase and is significantly more recognizable of the two. Per WP:MOS it should therefore is should be disenfranchisement.
:It's open to debate. I don't see why you are so adamant on your point. Sheesh. Both mean the same thing. As a legal term, the former is prefered in law, but the latter lay distortion appears to be gaining ground in general media.  Foofighter20x (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Usage

message: The author states that the conflict leading to American independence “is a good example of the intentional disenfranchisement of a group of people (British colonists in America) by the government in Britain”.  This sounds like Hollywood history.
A more widely held view is that, insofar as there was disenfranchisement of the American colonists, it was an incidental or even accidental result of the transfer of power from the British King to Parliament that had taken place in the 1600s and 1700s beginning with the English Civil War in 1640.
-- Kjb 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disenfranchisement of the American Colonists 

message: Editing the additional U.S. history and details is invited at :Disfranchisement after the Civil War.  Please don't link articles to that article until it is somewhat more polished.  (SEWilco 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disfranchisement after the Civil War 

message: Hiya, I'm trying to work on the article at Reform Act 1832, which uses both the words "disfranchise" and "disenfranchise".  Is there a subtle difference between these two terms, or is it an American/UK thing?  Or should we be consistent in word usage throughout the article? --Elonka 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a US/UK thing, but either of the words are used. If a person wants to be consistent in using just one of the words, it should be fine then. That-Vela-Fella 02:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being allowed to vote is the "franchise".  A "dis-" prefix means loss of the franchise.  The "en-" prefix indicates acquiring it, so technically "disenfranchise" means losing the gaining of it.  But "disenfranchise" has been used when losing the ability to vote is the intended meaning.  There's also the matter of whether a child born to someone who was enfranchised would upon losing the vote have been disfranchised or disenfranchised (because they were never enfranchised because they never were given the franchise due to having the franchise).   I've been using "disfranchise" except when a source had the improperly used term, but it's fine with me if that is corrected except in quotations.  (SEWilco 03:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Disfranchise" is correct and used in academic sources. "Disenfranchise" is being used but adds a syllable that is not necessary.Parkwells (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for assistance

message: Aren't Palestinians in the occupied territories not allowed to vote? Should that be included?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.105.179 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite sure they are allowed to in the local Palestinian elections, but not Israeli if they are not citizens of the state. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: I've pulled the section on 'handicap' (ugh!) out of the US section and replaced it with a larger section under the more widely acceptable Disability label and discussing the range of issues which may selectively disenfranchise disabled electors, which are much more wide-ranging than was previously addressed. However I've only been able to do this from a UK perspective and it needs expanding with input on the issues in other countries.
DWG77.96.255.55 (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective Disenfranchisement of Disabled Electors 

message: I was looking for something else when I came upon this article.  The impression it gives is that "disfranchisement" is something exclusive to democracies.  As such, this article is extremely biased towards exonerating really corrupt governments or societies (by their lack of mention) and being critical of only governments in the western world. -- kosboot (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but it may be difficult to cover the whole world in this article. Perhaps editors should take the topic to create articles related to those other nations, or ensure that nations' history articles include issues related to voting and disfranchisement. So many different issues are involved in each case.Parkwells (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Kosboot, Have come across an article about late 19th-century disfranchisement in the American South that poses interesting questions/issues about how resistance can be effective, but, more importantly, a new journal, Democratization, which started in 2001. It might include more articles about what you're interested in. See STEPHEN TUCK, "Democratization and the Disfranchisement of African Americans in the US South during the Late 19th Century" (pdf), Democratization, Vol. 14, No. 4, Aug. 2007, pp. 580-602. The journal is published by Taylor and Francis, and you can sign up for email alerts on articles at . There is also (on the right side of the page), a note from the editor discussing the journal.Parkwells (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a real look at the issue 

message: While they may be related for the US, it seems the two reasons for disfranchisement are not necessarily related. Can we split the sections? --Krisrose (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residency and Ethnicity are independent issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Disfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719094636/http://www.puertorico-herald.org:80/issues/vol4n41/PRSeekVote-en.html to http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol4n41/PRSeekVote-en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610225702/http://www.doi.gov:80/oia/Islandpages/prpage.htm to http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/prpage.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101212204810/http://www.pollsapart.org.uk/docs/reports/Polls%20Apart%20report%20final.pdf to http://www.pollsapart.org.uk/docs/reports/Polls%20Apart%20report%20final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150124000056/http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/federalcourts/pps/fedprob/2009-06/SenatorialElections.html to http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/federalcourts/pps/fedprob/2009-06/SenatorialElections.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224074559/http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/prisoner-voting-rights.pdf to http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/prisoner-voting-rights.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060130222922/http://www.africa.upenn.edu:80/afrfocus/afrfocus102604.html to http://www.africa.upenn.edu/afrfocus/afrfocus102604.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Disfranchisement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119133453/http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf to http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_statedisenfranchisement.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/showDocument.aspx?documentId=2036
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.africa.upenn.edu/afrfocus/afrfocus102604.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This was done per Talk:Felony disenfranchisement#Article needs re-naming; remove "Felony". The end result seems better than the previous overall state, but specific sections could certainly use some work. The UK Hirst stuff is pretty repetitive... perhaps worthy of an article of its own, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Felony disenfranchisement merge 

message: The grammar here definitely needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure exactly how to fix it while retaining the correct information. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentences of “Disenfranchisement” 

message: "Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement is also termed to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community or being to the natural amenity they are abound in; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity."
1. literally this means that disfranchisement is:
a) the revocation of suffrage of a person or group of people
or
b) "through practices prevention of a person exercising the right to vote" 
Is this supposed to be English? 
Can't we simply say "...consists in either revoking someone's right to vote or preventing someone from voting by resorting to some technicality in the law"?
2. "Disfranchisement is also termed to the revocation of power" 
Termed TO?
Revocation of control TO?  Does one have control TO things?
"the natural amenity they are ABOUND IN"
Again, which language is this? Please forgive me, I am not trying to be fastidious. 
I just wonder in which dictionary may one found "to be abound in"—and what it means.  
Here I have no suggestion, because I honesty can't see what on Earth Wikipedia is talking about.
3. "that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity."
This is correct, and was enough; all the previous sentences were absolutely unnecessary. 
80.104.16.10 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that all the comments you raised have been addressed in subsequent edits to the page. Seabass-labrax (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  English please 

message: When people don’t get the right to vote 108.35.237.78 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  When people don’t get the right to vote 

message: Since Disenfranchisement is now much more common than Disfranchisementhttps://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disfranchisement%2Cdisenfranchisement&year_start=1908&year_end=2008&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 it would seem to be time to change the article's title {and then its opening, and replace disfranchisement with disenfranchisement elsewhere in the article}.
In addition, since in several of the country sections the emphasis is on where prisoners can vote (I came to this article while looking for that subject) perhaps that should be taken into account as well. Mcljlm (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title