Talk:Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election

Regulate / Restrict and WP:POVNAMING

"Seat belt laws are part of an effort to regulate driving."

"Seat belt laws are part of an effort to restrict driving."

Obviously one of these will cause people without agendas to rightfully suspect bias. The title in its current state is not exactly good-to-go based on a number of wikipedia conventions. It's not a great situation for an otherwise properly researched and heavily-linked wikipedia article to dragged down to this current state due to a minority of bad actors controlling the article title. See WP:NPOVTITLE. -- ExtremeSquared (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This is what RS is stating, not what some editor came up with on their own. Per WP:NPOVTITLE "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors. DN (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree this title isn't neutral. Lawmakers have been regulating elections forever. Those laws may be characterized as restrictive by WP:RS in the article but to title the article that way is to take a position in a debate between two sides. Nemov (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Then how to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE? That's why we've got to pick a common name based on the sources. In a lengthy discussion over here, it was suggested by Nableezy that "... the target article should be expanded to be more encompassing and retitled to something like Republican policies on voter rights. That is what you should be concentrating on, making the target article NPOV in all aspects, including its scope and title." The target article Nableezy is talking about, is this one, the Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. However, I also notice that this article is pretty lengthy on its own. So if an even broader article is created, with this content as a part of that, then I'm not sure what would happen, and this might end up being split off and turned back into its own article all over again, right? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nemov: Also, checkout the Title change thread below. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There were a load of state changes to election laws before and after COVID. An article dedicated to those changes would make more sense to me. The article could discuss the specific changes by state and how it was characterized at the time. This will likely happen after the political fever from this period dies down, but it's exhausting to try to fix now. Nemov (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that even the thought of all that editing and research work is exhausting haha. :)  Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Ohio voting restrictions law proposed: HB294

Ohio Becomes The Latest State To Introduce A Major Voter Suppression Bill — HuffPost, May 6, 2021
There are other sources too.

The House Bill appears to currently be in committee, and not enacted yet, but should it still be mentioned in this article? Right now there is not a section in the article about Ohio. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Voter intimidation during the 2022 midterms

The article is titled "republican efforts to restrict voting..." but only mentions legislation pushed by republicans, which invites POV pushers to call for false neutrality. However republican efforts to restrict voting go far beyond laws that make it harder for disadvantaged demographics to vote. There have been widespread talks about armed far right militia groups near voting centers intimidating voters and staff alike, and many prestigious commentators have drawn parallels between what's happening now, and the Nazi party's rise to power prior to ww2. I think it's safe to say that any ambiguity as to wether the laws covered in this article are about "election integrity" as the republicans claim is out the window. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Needs NPOV tag

Voter turnout has increased in Republican states such as Georgia which recently enacted more stringent voting integrity laws and measures, so saying that these efforts are meant to "restrict" voting is wrong and POV. They actually increase turnout, because voters have more confidence that the results are valid and in many cases it actually makes it easier to register and vote. 152.130.10.80 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

You would need specific reliable sources to be able to make that claim. We can't do WP:ORIGINAL research and present that in wikivoice. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with both IPs. --Malerooster (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

POV tags added by Nemov

[1] Unless there are some new arguments and or evidence that creates a consensus to change the name, the consensus among RS is very clear on this subject and we need to drop the WP:STICK. I'm all for healthy debate, but looking at the archive, this has already been discussed at length. Please look through archive yourself and make sure we are not just going over the same arguments over and over again. DN (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of arguments above and I don't see a clear consensus. There just wasn't a consensus on what the change would be. The reason this keeps coming up is because the title isn't neutral. It's basically a political talking point. Election laws were changed before 2020 because of COVID and then they were changed again after 2020. One side characterized it as "voter restriction" and the other side said it was "rolling back the COVID changes." It's not our jobs to take sides.

It's very simple:

State election law changes following the 2020 presidential election

That's neutral is more logical since there were a myriad of changes throughout the country. The article can then summarize the arguments. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The title that you are suggesting may sound more neutral to you, but it is clearly a different subject. To switch them would almost certainly make the title of this subject less neutral, not more. You could write a separate article that is focused on that subject, but AFAIK that is still not a viable reason for a POV tag here. Regardless of whether anyone feels it is a "talking point", it is still backed up by a consensus of reliable sources containing verifiable facts in such volume as to give it WP:WEIGHT.

It doesn't much matter what one side says versus the other side compared to what the sources say. POV violation in this case would likely mean that the focus of the sources is on something other than "Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election", or something consistent among the RS that is clearly excluded in favor of the current focus. The previous RfCs show the editors did their best to remain neutral while following the rules of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA. So, at this point I think the tag still needs to be removed. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The consensus may be clear to you, but after reviewing this article and the history of the discussion it's not clear to me for the reasons I've already stated. Thanks for your input. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nemov, that still doesn't clarify why you claim this is a POV issue. I suggest you focus on that, otherwise the tag will eventually need to be removed. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Just because you disagree doesn't mean I need to continue to try to convince you. It's pretty clear what your position is on this issue and it's not changing. I'll wait for a broader discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nemov, please WP:AGF. This isn't about me, this is about your claim that there is a WP:POV issue, so I suggest we avoid making any further fallacious arguments towards each other moving forward. The core content of a POV issue has to do with WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, in case that helps clarify where your focus needs to be. I suggest you start there. Best of luck. DN (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I would also suggest WP:POVTITLE, since that seems to be the main focus of your reasoning for the tag. DN (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I would propose not only removing the wholly spurious tag from this article, but also Topic banning the person who added it (Nemov) from all political articles, since they seem to think posting obvious well known truths as “biased” when they are unsavory to their beloved conservative causes. Remember WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:90C5:8000:88BD:8683:3150:CD0D (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please remain civil to keep the discussion productive. DN (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Civility is desired, but if we can't maintain a certain clinical rigor about this (and any other article), then what are we doing here? Biased language is biased language, whether a "reliable source" prints it or not. You're rules-lawyering here in order to try to win. The danger is obviously that the title is going to turn off roughly half the users that read it; they will assume that all of WP is effectively useless and biased, especially if the community can't manage to understand the nature of neutral language. I'm not being contentious, either; the title is absolutely loaded language, and biased in its current format. The earlier talk is correct; there is no real consensus, only a consensus that it's not neutral. BinkyTheToaster (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article is absolutely loaded with nothing but talking points. Even "election integrity" is in quotes for crying out loud. That's blatant. BinkyTheToaster (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

tag removed due to no discussion

[2] In accordance with WP:MTR and citing [#2 & #3] I have removed the tag for now, so please WP:AGF and use the talk page before reverting or putting the tag back. There has yet to be any further discussion and Nemov still hasn't responded to my request for further explanation or pointed out any context in the reliable sources, currently used, that might indicate a POV issue or legitimized their claim via policy based explanation. They can still continue the discussion here, utilize Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, reach out to the tea-house or an admin for guidance as long as they avoid WP:CANVAS. DN (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Editor has ignored all arguments and continues to do whatever they want while telling others to "remain civil." It is an appalling attempt at arguing in good faith. I'm not interested in repeating the same arguments over and over. I'd rather come back in 10 years when the political dogma fades and makes it easier to discuss the obvious issues with this article and how it's framed. Nemov (talk)

keep repeating your Big lie Nemov without evidence, but it won’t make it true. You lack basic objectivity, your postings here are an embarrassment, and you have no business editing on any political article. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:88BD:8683:3150:CD0D (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Nemov's not wrong. This article is riddled with loaded language, almost as if it was written by the Washington Post. What are we? The Ministry of Truth? It clearly disregards out-of-hand the point of view of the opposing side, in obvious violation of Wikipedia:POV. Also, your request for censorship on the Talk page of a political WP article is entertaining. What, do you think, would happen should your political opponents gain a majority? Do you think they'd be civil and kind, or do you think the response would be "turnabout is fair play?" This isn't to be a referendum on such things, only that there are some social standards that require we all follow them to the sincerely best of our ability, else there would be chaos. I don't like chaos; nothing gets done, and everybody has a bad time. BinkyTheToaster (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM...Since they failed to explain how it is POV and there has been no further discussion to that point, the tag is inappropriate and unnecessary. Period. DN (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)