Talk:Political polarization in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ethanpak. Peer reviewers: Beril gur, Rachelkmoy, Go23bears, Yenxle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I am currently working on this article. Ethanpak (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation : This article is thoroughly written and descriptive. The sources are credible and there are no bias constructed in this article. As I read through, I don't see anything else to critique. (User:Yenxle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yenxle (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding a section about the possible solutions to political polarization, as that is currently missing in the Wikipedia article. Additionally, I also would like to add the current political issues that are most polarizing in our country, for more context and real life application/examples of this polarization. The following is a list of sources I have compiled that I plan on using:

1. "What Are the Solutions to Political Polarization?". Greater Good. Retrieved 2020-09-30. Persily, Nathaniel (2015-04-27).

2. Solutions to Political Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-08711-8. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media.

3. "Wide partisan gaps on climate change, environment, guns and stronger military". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2020-02-13).

4. "Environmental Protection Rises on the Public's Policy Agenda As Economic Concerns Recede". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30.Inc, Gallup (2019-12-05).

5. "The Impact of Increased Political Polarization". Gallup.com. Retrieved 2020-09-30. NW, 1615 L. St; Suite 800Washington; Inquiries, DC 20036USA202-419-4300 | Main202-857-8562 | Fax202-419-4372 | Media (2014-06-12).

6. "Political Polarization in the American Public". Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. Retrieved 2020-09-30.

Ethanpak (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead should clarify that the polarization is asymmetric

Multiple studies (some of which are cited in the body) show that the polarization is asymmetric. AFAIK, there is no research disputing that. The content should be in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But there is only one sentence on this in an article that contains six sections and 15 subsections of text. Isn't it WP:UNDUE to put it in the lead? 74.67.45.185 (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It's intrinsic to the subject of the article to clarify the nature of the polarization. Per research, it's asymmetric as it's primarily been driven by the rightward shift of one party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Unless I’m wrong, if the subject of the article was “rightward shift,” this would make more sense, but the subject of the article is not that, but simply political polarization. This whole debate has been on the nature of the polarization, and assuming the other person is wrong based on assumptions seems a bit far away from guidelines. Am I missing something crucial here?Hermit7 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement

There is a disagreement over this sentence:

Polarization in U.S. politics is asymmetric, as it has primarily been driven by a substantial rightward shift among congressional Republicans.

I think the sentence should be changed to make it less conclusory; Snooganssnoogans disagrees. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple studies are cited. Why should this be presented as an attributed POV? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence changing to be less conclusive would resolve the dispute. I explained this in my post, but I believe reverting my edit was a case of bias and will stand by that until it is explained why my references were bad.Hermit7 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello I would like to dispute the lead in the article. Here are a few articles that summarize that both parties have equally contributed to the divide. The lead stating it has been driven mostly by Republicans is incorrect and I would like to remove that part of the article. Thank you

https://www.facinghistory.org/educator-resources/current-events/explainer/political-polarization-united-states

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFerrell007 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Dispution of reverted edit

Hello! I’m Hermit7 and I recently made an edit on this post which helped bring balance to a sentence in the header, saying that political polarisation was mainly on the Republicans’ side. After finding more than one news source saying that the Democrats have contributed to this as well, as well as polls agreeing with this, I put this in - not a big edit by any means - but then it got reverted. The reason is cited as “a mixture of synthesis and poor references,” but this confuses me, as I thought more than one reference (Washington Post, for example) was a valid reference and nothing was against that. Please let me know what makes these references not good enough, as failure to do so would lead me to conclude this was nothing but bias. Thanks again, Hermit7 Hermit7 (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The existing text already says the polarization is asymmetric, as it's "primarily" driven by a rightward shift among Republicans. Emphasizing that Democrats have mildly shifted to the left under a "However, Democrats have shifted too!" framing is false balance and undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So you’re saying that attempting to bring balance to an article and attempt to improve it is false balance and undue...Please explain to me why, if improving articles is undue, why you are “improving” the article and reverting the edits if such an action is (unless I’m wrong) false balance and undue. Hermit7 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply put, Wikipedia considers liberal sources to be "reliable", while conservative sources are considered "unreliable". This results in a liberal bias in Wikipedia. SimpsonDG (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Major dispute

I have noticed a lot of slow-motion reverting on this article by Snooganssnoogans and JFerrell007. It appears that both of these editors are editing in circles with no end in sight. Would it be okay if I filed a report on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard?

For the record, I think this article is problematic in some ways. For example, the lead does not distinguish between political polarization between politicians and ordinary citizens. I have found information from Gallup and Pew that contradicts the lead. I also found a study that said Democratic voters have become more extreme than Republicans, but it is not a secondary source. JFerrell007 can help by providing studies that contradict this article. Until then, the article cannot change much.

I will not add these studies to the article because Snooganssnoogans has disputed their inclusion before, and I do not want to cause drama. I usually avoid complicated areas like this because I do not have time to become an expert on this topic. What should we do from here? Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that I have opened a 3RR case concerning JFerrel007 at WP:AN, following 6 consecutive reverts. Casspedia (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll what and see how this turns out. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello I would like to dispute the lead in the article. Here are a few articles that summarize that both parties have equally contributed to the divide. The lead stating it has been driven mostly by Republicans is incorrect and I would like to remove that part of the article. Thank you

https://www.facinghistory.org/educator-resources/current-events/explainer/political-polarization-united-states

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/ - JFerrel007

Your editing and behavior is extremely tiring. In addition to edit-warring, you just dump random sources, regardless of their merit and with no attention to their content. Last time, you linked to an essay by a high school student published in an obvious non-rs. Now, you link to facinghistory.org, which is not a RS. Peer-reviewed academic research characterizes the polarization as asymmetric. Stop edit-warring the content and the citations out of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Snooganssnoogans that facinghistory.org is not a reliable source, but I have no comment on the Pew Research Center survey. I have a link to a study right here that reaches a less firm conclusion, but it is not a secondary source. Keep in mind that this was the first study I found. This does say that Democrats have shifted left faster on many issues, addressing my concern with this article. [1] Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The disputed text in the lead is not about polarization in public opinion but among legislators. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Per this statement, I have therefore made that clear. [2] The statement previously made it sound like it was across the board. We need to not conflate legislators and the general public, and likewise distinguish when studies consider only the two major parties as whole, versus when they consider factions within each party or include people who are, say, left of the Democrats. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

What are you views on the pewresearch article?

(Edit conflict) I understand now. Perhaps the text in the lead can be reworded to reflect that? When I read the lead for the first time earlier this year, I was under the impression that Republicans were more responsible for all kinds of polarization. I do not want to get involved with AP2 because this is not my area of expertise. I just felt I had to get involved with this one incident because I had SOME knowledge of polarization from reading polls and the occasional study. Either way, JFerrell needs to stop edit warring. They also need to press four tildes to sign their posts. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Update

It appears that the recent change to the lead was not enough. JFerell still objects to that sentence. To be honest, so do I. It seems unnecessary for one small aspect of the problem to take up that much of the lead. I have asked JFerell if he wants to attempt dispute resolution. I have also warned him more sternly after his recent edit. @Crossroads:, what are your thoughts on this? Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Update. It appears that this was a pretty reasonable compromise. I was going to make my own changes where I added a few sentences on voters. However, the sourcing is too WP:PRIMARY, scarce, and recent. I am still going to add a few sentences about how the asymmetric polarization among congressional Republicans started around 1977. I may also add a section on the intense polarization of the late 19th century and the recent decline of split-ticket voting. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree it seems a certain user has hijacked this page and has made it into his or her personal page to project his or her political opinions. There is nothing wrong with moving the claims of Republicans being at fault for polarization to a section where all opinions on the subject are mentioned. This has become so one-sided it’s sick. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger had recently complained about bias in Wikipedia articles and he is right.Bjohns81 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Lots of changes by one editor recently

I noticed that 45 of the past 50 changes were made by one editor. Many of those edits add judgements that are statements of opinion, e.g. that the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and JFK were "infamous". There was nothing infamous as in shameful, notorious, or generally flawed about those debates. I read the talk page, and noted that the prior involved editors all seem to have departed, which is troubling .(I have disagreed with some or all of them in the past on content issues, but respect their competence as editors!) I found sentence fragments in the article lead, for example. I guess this is just a heads up to anyone who comes along that this article is growing enormously lengthy, very quickly, and some oversight might be in order. I am not sure what sort of oversight that might be, nor am I casting aspersions on anyone.--FeralOink (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ANES feeling thermometer 1980 through 2016.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The liberal bias of this tripe is frankly sickening.

Too many examples to list but here are some: -'Climate change' which is pure undiluted garbage -Gun show 'loophole' which is a proven non-issue (most illegally used firearms are stolen and illegally sold) -and the most nauseating example is the Wikipedia tongue-bath given to the political hack Anthony Fauci ('well known expert'? Please.) Wikipedia is one of THE most divisive entities on the planet. 2603:8001:C200:1637:352E:C676:5A65:40A1 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/which-party-is-more-to-blame-for-political-polarization-it-depends-on-the-measure/

This Pew Research article seems to say what I have believed all along. Determining which party is most responsible for polarization depends on the metric. The polarization among politicians is definitely exclusively a Republican thing. However, among voters, Republicans are also more polarized, but Democrats have shown the greatest change since 1994. I will not include this in the a article, because I am not sure if the source is reliable enough. Also, Climate Change is almost entirely caused by humans. No scholarly source disputes that. Furthermore, the gun show loophole does have some truth to it, but it only applies to unlicensed sales. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Demonization section is disgustingly skewed

It's shameful that an "encyclopedia" that purports not to hold political biases has nothing but anti-conservative rhetoric in the "Demonization" section. How about including something referencing the equal number of attacks from Democrats insinuating that conservatives are all -ists of one form or another, or in league with a Russian conspiracy. Alexandermoir (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is still very biased and slanted. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not liberalpedia.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Shortcomings

It's absolutely ridiculous reading the 1960s section. No mention of the political violence and unrest of that period, which was arguably greater than what it is even today? And nothing of the Palmer Raids of the 1920s?

Also, to say that this graphic is garbage in both what and how it presents, would be an understatement. — THORNFIELD HALL ^(Talk) 05:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)