Talk:Politics of the United States

message: :Copied from Talk:United States. EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of the lamer cherry-picked political talking points you've tried to insert into the article (unless you're not proposing that, and are just shooting the breeze).  First, it's not by "political preference", but state. A breakdown of health (or obesity, or many other metrics) by political affiliation would look a lot different. The leftist study authors assign political labels to the states. They claim that liberal states are "healthier" (according to subjective self reporting and average sick days taken) and assume this is because those state governments spend more money than "conservative" states.  The conclusion's absurdity is illustrated by a glance at your liberal blog's own pictures, which show a huge spread among "conservative" states, with ones like Utah and Wyoming among the healthiest in the country. Going by your blog and the portion of the study I bothered to read, they apparently gave no consideration to variables like race (huge metric disparities within every state, but very different racial population ratios in different states, especially between New England and the Deep South), immigration status, or cultural aspects like....say...regional diet (minor details, I know).  The "liberal" states only consist of New England and a couple of others, including New Mexico, which, geographically separated and ethnically different from the other liberal states, ranks much lower. I was amused to see states like Alaska and the Dakotas, which rank high in health, classified as "moderate". I was also amused to see states like California, which ranks relatively low, labeled "moderate". Nothing much to see here. VictorD7 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already corroborated, and the source starts with a literature review. The review in the popular science press by a noted authority in the field was professionally edited by a staff with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. EllenCT (talk) 01:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Which specific passage in the text are you referring to, in relation to the literature review WP:SECONDARY introduction, and which example CDC statistics do you have? EllenCT (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

text: No, for reasons given elsewhere when this proposal has been rejected. You should stop trying to insert low quality partisan blog fodder into articles, and you should reconsider your interpretation of Wikipedia's purpose. VictorD7 (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which reasons? EllenCT (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Ditto. The proposal is now even more obscure than the first statement. From "correct representation?" to a non-stated "summary" of a preliminary paper of something that has some tangential relevance to the article. What sort of summary? How would MotherJones be used?  – S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry that you do not understand my proposal. I will explain by editing. EllenCT (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Health care is obvioously not peripheral at present, and it hasn't been for some decades now. A summary of a complex study supported with a representation of how it is treated in mainstream media seems a very reasonable approach to me.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A partisan blog isn't "mainstream media", and even if it was not every half-assed activist "study" merits Wikipedia inclusion, especially when it amounts to overly niche detail for the article scope. On top of that the report's methodology has been blasted apart by numerous editors as being extremely shoddy and pointless, which may explain why it mostly received attention only on a few partisan blogs. I'll give you advice similar to that I gave Ellen, Ubikwit. If you're intent on "informing" voters with eye-grabbing material on issues you feel are important in hope of persuading them to adopt your political worldview, then there are countless other venues where you can do that. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, not a partisan talking point stuffing ground. Political crusaders should find this place dry and boring. VictorD7 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neither a "political crusader" or interested in misinforming readers of Wikipedia. My comments were on the conceptual level regarding the presentation of material. If your concerns are valid regarding that material, then fine, they should prevail. I haven't even examined the material yet. I'm waiting for EllecCT to post a trial version of the text here or in the article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health by political preference 

message: There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: 
*RfC re use of the term "assault weapon"
*RfC re use of the term "high-capacity magazine"
Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the RfCs are on the Talk:Politics page, hence the relationship (kissing cousins type) to this article.  – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Charmanfer 2.127.49.231 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of two related RfCs and request for participation 

message: re  what is your specific objection to the research depicted in the charts? EllenCT (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The material appears to be controversial and thus requires an actual consensus for inclusion at this point.  Did you fail to see anyone demurring about such additions to multiple articles? Collect (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Collect is right. The EllenCT text distorts the scholarly findings by relying on polemical commentary  and especially by omitting the caveats, such as Cassidy, who says: The evidence that Gilens and Page present needs careful intepretation. For example, the opinion surveys they rely on suggest that, on many issues, people of different incomes share similar opinions. To quote the paper: “Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government.” This does get reflected in policy outcomes. Proposals that are supported up and down the income spectrum have a better chance of being enacted than policies that do not have such support. To that extent, democracy is working. Rjensen (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, I see validity from the perspectives of EllenCT, Collect, and Rjensen, that these views are worthwhile and deserve inclusion. (Personally, my POV is that I see America moving towards oligarchy yet at the same time that democracy is still working, that elites have powerful political clout yet at the same time, systems continue to function.) So, my sense is it is mostly a matter of seeking the right tone and balance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I deeply appreciate the attempt to find a middle ground, but when major parties collude intentionally through gerrymandering and less intentionally through astroturf propaganda, sometimes the popular and reliable source viewpoint of 1+1=2 is obscured by the political parties' squabbles over whether 1+1=3 or 1+1=4 is more accurate. The sources corroborate and the secondary sources agree. EllenCT (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it appears you are using what you "know to be the truth" and not recognizing that editors are constrained by policy not to do that.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement of oligarchy 

message: My sense is the lede section focuses too much on the structure of US government (branches, federal arrangement, etc) but does not adequately reflect the main summary ideas about this subject, which is obviously Politics of the United States. Clearly information about the US government structure is relevant, but I was thinking the main ideas which should be covered in the lede are as follows (please feel free to add to this list or amend it.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't disagree with any of these points, but I have no idea what sort of edit you are proposing. How would you incorporate the controversial but well-corroborated findings at  and , which discussion at Talk:United States resolved should be included here? EllenCT (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My sense is the lede paragraph should emphasize the above points, that is, to provide a summary of the main points about the subject politics of the united states. Not sure about Mother Jones as a reliable source. Not sure about disagreement on the article United States as reflected in the talk page; it is a summary article of a complex subject, it might be best expanded in daughter articles like this one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede section

message: There is an RfC a Requested move in which the participation of editors/watchers of this article would be greatly appreciated: 
*Talk:Assault weapons legislation#Requested move
Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice and request for participation 

message: An editor tried adding a Tea Party "small government" section which was deleted -- but the topic is actually important historically, going back to the Federalist-Anti-Federalist debates, and so I left a commented-out skeleton in the article, and think it may be worthy of some sourced material about this debate. Collect (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of government 

message: Can we makes this a topic here?  I think this page needs to discuss somewhere the implications of lobbyists, corporate person-hood, unlimited campaign contributions, the creation of laws in secret trade deals, net neutrality, corporate bail-outs, and unnecessary corporate tax breaks.  These issues are all part of the same problem.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:C152:A70E:3BC5:9541 (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theory?  Unless reliable sources in the mainstream make such connections, we can't. Collect (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have repeatedly deleted such mainstream reliable sources in the past weeks. EllenCT (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK -- give me the reliable source which makes the connections asserted above  ( lobbyists, corporate person-hood, unlimited campaign contributions, the creation of laws in secret trade deals, net neutrality, corporate bail-outs, and unnecessary corporate tax breaks) as "fact.".  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

text:  Plutocracy in the United States is described in a separate article. There is a related article that discusses the effects of income inequality on democracy in the United States. Jarble (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasingly plutocratic leanings of the United States 

message: Two corroborating reports,  and , suggest that Republicans secured congressional victories in 2014 by adopting populist economic positions which, in my opinion, they would have dismissed as outright leftist just months earlier and for as long as four previous decades prior, in some cases. Similarly,  suggests that right-wing Democrats lost more than left-wing Democrats, who generally survived and even made some gains. I am interested in others' opinions on these reports. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Blue Dog Coalition membership went from 54 congressmen (2008) to 26 (2010) to 14 (2012) to 9 (2014).  TFD (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Republicans and Democrats veer left in 2014? 

message: I noticed this deletion from another article which would be appropriate here. EllenCT (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite agree.  It could use some copyediting, and it contradicts the previous section of this talk page, but it certainly seems well-documented.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The scatter plots in The Economist only go through the 112th Congress, so they don't contradict the analysis of the 114th's election. EllenCT (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polarization 

message: Politics_of_the_United_States#Concerns_about_the_rise_of_authoritarianism_in_the_United_States seems out of place here.  There has been concerns expressed in the media about previous presidents throughout history, but we don't have a section for any of them.  Why is this here?  Dream Focus 00:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The whole section is clearly POV against Trump.  There are all sorts of people who claimed that W. Bush and Obama were being 'authoritarian' (remember those who said Bush was committing war crimes?).  If we are going to put in quotes about Trump, we must include quotes about other presidents as well.68.99.22.86 (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about politics in the US, and information about the rise of authoritarianism and the disregard for basic institutions is well-referenced and relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is POV. The previous revision is not. This isn't a stumping ground for grievances about the election.  Anastrophe (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then fix the wording, but the basic idea -- that US politics is becoming more authoritarian, is well-referenced and relevant, and belongs in this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did in the edit you reverted. We don't add commentary to the lede that isn't already present/expanded upon within the body. Anastrophe (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed many references relevant to this subject -- that US politics is becoming more authoritarian, less democratic -- so keep the references but let's make the wording more neutral sounding.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're talking about different things - or at least I was. I was referring to the edit in the lede which inserted "won" - in quotes like that. As for the section, I removed redundant cites, most of which were self-referential - cite a study, then cite four articles that are about that study. Doesn't lend any greater weight to the material. Anastrophe (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the section dedicated to just negative press of one president 

message: The appointer of the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate is the "Electoral College," not "first-past-the-post voting." Vice President of the United States#Selection process
The appointer of the Speaker of the House is not "first-past-the-post voting," since they must receive a majority of votes.http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/memberfaq.aspx It is perhaps closest to Exhaustive ballot.
Would these be appropriate edits to make?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyS712 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested corrections from a new user 

message: The article currently says center right but until today that section of the lead text included a link to right wing politics. I adjusted the link to center right accordingly, but which political affiliation is correct? Arguably, the Republican Party has long included a wide range of viewpoints. --Comment by  Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, BOTH parties include wide ranges of viewpoints, so the two links should be consistent. Either they should both link to the Centre-left politics and Centre-right politics, or both link to the more general Left-wing politics and Right-wing politics articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but my opinion is more so to phrase it as per the current party affiliation. Though the Democrats are pretty conservative relative to the rest of the world, they are the more liberal of the two parties. Maybe it would be better to phrase the democrats as a center-left while the GOP is the right, but I'm neutral on that stance. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Republican Party center right or right wing 

message: The opening sentence of this section - "Unlike the United Kingdom and other similar parliamentary systems, Americans vote for a specific candidate instead of directly selecting a particular political party." - is just plain wrong. --Jacksoncowes (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Elections

message: "Democracy" is not a system but a term used to define various systems. United States has a representative federal election system, which isn't what "Democracy" is but self-defined as a Liberal democracy, that most of the developed Capitalist countries have but US differentiates with them. Defining capitalist countries with liberal "democratic" systems as simply "Democracy" is not a neutral definition. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Democracy" 

message: Hello! I am considering making contributions about political representation in the US. Specifically, I am planning to provide information about disparities related to racial and ethnic representation, gender representation, and LGBTQ representation, as well as how descriptive and substantive representation tend to be viewed. I have more information about this topic and my starting sources on my user page. Bgreaves18 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again! I will be adding a new section about political representation that focuses on current disparities. Along with a broad overview, I plan on including detailed subsections about race/ethnicity, gender, and LGBTQ representation. I will have drafts and a more detailed outline, as well as a list of sources, in my sandbox: User:Bgreaves18/sandbox. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns! Bgreaves18 (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political representation disparities 

message: I was really impressed by the added sub-section of Concerns about Political Representation. This topic seems timely and vital to understand politics in the US. This section is a precise, well-informed and clear contribution. I really appreciate the general overview of context and the aim to further develop this topic by sub-dividing the section into specific groups. I look forward to seeing the finished contribution! 
I suggest giving some more background about the causes behind the underrepresentation of minorities in the US and perhaps adding a list of minority representatives for reference. 
Excellent job!
Ennis Architect (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also really liked what you have done with this section! The only real suggestion I have is seeing if you could include a few more sources within the African-American section to see if you could flesh it out by showing a variety of scholars support the same points. Overall, it’s very well written and neutral, and I’m sure the final contribution will be excellent! Akandru (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on "Concerns about Political Representation" 

message: Hello again! In the "Gender and political representation" subsection, I added additional citations from other sources, so now no one source comprises more than 50% of the citations in that subsection. I believe that this should warrant removing the "One source" box, but I would appreciate getting the perspective of another editor prior to removal. Thank you! Bgreaves18 (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Bgreaves18, I had a chance to review the section you mentioned. I believe we can remove the box as I counted three independent sources within the "Gender and political representation" subsection. Ideally we would have more, but I believe what you added is sufficient to remove the box and I support this action. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your input and for reviewing the subsection! I have removed the box. Bgreaves18 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "one source" box 

message: I edited the page not long ago to add a single missing colon towards the beginning, assuming it was just a one-off mistake. However, upon continuing to read, I was appalled. The formatting is awful, the wording poor, and the grammar really leaves something to be desired. The worst offenders were parts whose contents count as opinions (none are quotes) or are worded as such that it can easily be miscontrued as opinions upon first reading it. Many of the problematic parts do not have citations, and a lot are written like it's a quotation without being a quotation. There are numerous other problems, but those are smaller and not consequential enough to warrant a debate at this stage.
In the interest of a decent article, the clear neutrality Wikipedia requires, and an iota of logical writing and design, I personally recommend an overhaul that uses the current page as a flexible outline to write a far superior article. This is the Wikipedia equivalent to a superfund site. I firmly believe that no amount of editing could possibly save Pripyat over here.
Opinions? General Kipicus (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: why don't you start off by making edits yourself Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 11:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible need for overhaul 

message: Everything from the Other Norms section onwards gets progressively more biased and badly written. It's blatantly trying to push a certain agenda and falls victim to a number of basic grammar and spelling mistakes. There is a way to go about writing about suggested reforms, but this is unprofessional and needs to be overhauled ASAP. Avereo (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: do try making a rewritten version then Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last couple sections of this article are appallingly bad 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :United States/Government and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 5#United States/Government until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs)  10:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "United States/Government" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: This edit : included an image of San Francisco Town Hall with the red/blue color lights.
This was a very clear example of a Bold edit, and so please continue a discussion below regarding the merits of having an image overshadow the infobox before that image is permanently posted.
Until then, that image has been removed to retain Status Quo. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  image in the lead