Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Andre🚐22:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi JohnAdams1800! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Democratic Party (United States) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You've been marking nearly all of your edits as minor. Although it's true that the edits you've been making aren't huge, sweeping changes, they do substantially change the meaning of the prose you're editing, and therefore should not be marked as minor. Thanks, — SamX [talk· contribs · he/him] 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of misconduct by George Santos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi John, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. While I have no doubt that you are contributing in good faith for the better of the encyclopedia, I am concerned that based on some of your recent edit summaries, some of which is bordering on WP:Stonewalling. Around the beginning of 2023, especially in years articles, we have had quite a few issues with regard to some editors' compliance with the stonewalling guidelines and one even being TBanned from Years entirely.
Some of your edits and comments do seem to imply that you wish we reinstate the old International Notability standards, the subject of an essay I wrote against implementing. If you wish to bring these standards back, it's going to be most beneficial for your cause that you propose them directly and not act as if a consensus existed. I understand that I may be fear-mongering, but I would like to give you a gentle reminder so we avoid a situation similar to Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., which we already had on ANI with regard to years. Thanks, and happy editing! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heya John. I noticed that despite some pings on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years inviting you to discuss on practices, I haven't seen your opinion. These discussions have a pretty big impact on years, and consider this a formal invitation to join us especially considering how frequently you contribute to the Years articles. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your top comment on "Was there ever a clearly-discussed consensus that Main Year Articles are to be international only?" Thank you for formally inviting me. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Graduate unemployment into Draft:Graduate unemployment in China. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2024 in public domain into Draft:2024 in American public domain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
You said here that there was a consensus to not include the content which you reverted. Could you direct to me where that consensus is? As far as my knowledge goes, a talk page discussion was just opened. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @33ABGirl I just want to add some context as to why the inclusion of this event is so contentious. Editors in years have previously taken strong stances on transportation disasters where they feel domestic flights and those with low death tolls don't belong in main year articles. For instance, Tara Air Flight 197 a flight that killed 22 people in 2022 is not in the main year article for 2022 as it was considered domestic, and I personally found myself fighting for inclusion of a deadlier air disaster that same year.
I think editors who frequently work on year articles, including myself, have been working on an unwritten consensus as to what warrants inclusion while not doing a good enough job explaining why. Hopefully the talkpage entry can better allow everyone to reach a consensus, even if it isn't something these users agree with. PaulRKil (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulRKil Thank you for providing this clarification. I have no objections to inclusion based on documented consensus. My issue here is that the content was removed with the edit summary there is a consensus that.....didn't merit an entry in this article, when there was clearly no discussion on the content beforehand. This was a straightforwardly untrue statement, so I wanted an explanation for it. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
January 2024
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page 2024 has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. As there has been no further response from you to the previous discussion, please consider this a formal warning against using false edit summaries in the future.33ABGirl (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Economic history of the United Kingdom into Protectionism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hi, you recently added the line about Frederick the Great's sexuality. I have no problem with the statement although I'm not sure that it's germane to the topic. If you leave it in, please add the five sources for footnote 20 that are now raising no-target errors. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (third request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Educational attainment in the United States into Higher education bubble in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add original research--the dogs in Animal Farm represent the secret police of the USSR (i.e. Cheka, NKVD, KGB, etc.) that were used to suppress dissent and conduct purges in the Soviet Union.
Similarly Stalin's liquidation of the kulaks, or smallholder peasants, was part of his Five Year Plans and purges in the 1930s. The hens represent the kulaks because they are part of the animals (the proletariat), and were forced to surrender their eggs (land) to Napoleon (Stalin).
Hello, JohnAdams1800. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Graduate unemployment in China, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
So I see that you're already aware of the CTOP designation, so let's skip that. NPOV disagreements are not exempt from 1RR. Only what is listed in WP:3RRNO and edits to enforce WP:ECR are exempt. Do not edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Signature
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Just a reminder that if you nominate another article for an AFD discussion, you should sign your nomination statement so that editors do not have to look at the page history to see which editor launched this deletion nomination. Basically, all statements on Talk pages and Project noticeboards should have a signature. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!00:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northeastern United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Coast.
Hi John; I would liketo invite you to the discussion happening on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years about my proposal to deprecate Americentrism arguments. I noticed that you have not responded yet despite the initial ping; while I am unaware of any real life situations involving you which may impede your ability to contribute to the project, i still would like to extend this invitation to you since much of the editing I notice from you seems to be in this topic area. For consistency, traceability, and to ensure your opinion is heard, I recommend that you leave your thoughts there and not reply directly to me on your talk page. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Solid South, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Wall.
Which article are you referring to? If you're referring to the Cotton Belt, Arkansas is mentioned. If you're referring to the Deep South, Arkansas is sometimes considered to have territory in the Cotton Belt--the Arkansas Delta in Eastern Arkansas--but Arkansas as a whole is not considered a Cotton state.
At the time of the Civil War, 25.5% of Arkansas' population was African American slaves, which was the second-lowest of the 11 Confederate states, ahead of 24.8% in Tennessee. In particular, the Ozarks region of Arkansas is considered part of the Upland South, as is much of Northwestern Arkansas. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can, the bigger problem is the lack of an over-arching narrative for some sections, so instead they become timelines and daily update logs. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please update citations
Hello! When updating articles like Joe Biden, can you please also update the citations? That would avoid having a citation that can't support the sentence it's attached to in edits like this. Thank you. Ed[talk][OMT]18:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (4th request)
It appears that you copied or moved text from 2024 United States presidential election in Iowa to 2022 Iowa elections. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Repeated violations of Wikipedia's attribution requirements may result in the loss of editing privileges. DanCherek (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your latest post repeats points you have made earlier so I am replying on your talk page.
When you post on a talk page, you should begin by explicitly stating what changes you want made. The talk page says, "This is thetalk pagefor discussing improvements to theDemocratic Party (United States)article....This isnot a forumfor general discussion of the article's subject."
You keep coming back to the same point, in this case in an article by Jamelle Bouie, who has a BA in journalism and is not an expert. His views reflect the position of the Democratic Party leadership which has abandoned progressive economic policies and hopes to replace working class supporters with suburban Republicans. As Chuck Shumer said, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
You need to use expert sources, i.e., polisci textbooks and articles by qualified experts. The consensus is the party leadership opposes progressive economic policies and have looked for ways to replace voters they are ceding to Republicans. Working people are not becoming more conservative btw. They were more coservative when William Jennings Bryan, FDR, JFK, Carter and Bill Clinton won their votes. TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used other sources too--Ronald Brownstein and Ed Kilgore. What I was trying to get to the bottom of was why White voters w/o college degrees vote for the Republican Party so strongly. My question is was it for Trump particularly due to his persona and/or policies, or in general due to ideology/partisanship. There's plenty of election data over the years, but the 2024 NC governor race w/ Mark Robinson as the nominee was an extreme and useful case.
The nominee was Black, so if it's racism in a Southern state, that would have decreased his support even more among Whites. But it was White voters who stuck with Robinson the most.
The nominee was on the ballot with Trump, and underperformed Trump by 18%. But I needed to see who in particular still voted for Robinson.
Using the data, as well as the sources, a clear picture emerges. White voters without college degrees are more likely to live in rural areas and are simply so ideologically conservative that they would stick to voting for Robinson no matter what. This is not for people without college degrees in general--African Americans supported Stein 85-8%, even though Stein is White.
Hispanics were mixed, supporting Stein 53-39% that mirrors the results at-large, with a large gender gap. This suggests a standard ideological split, as well as differing reactions by gender to Robinson's controversies. Most Hispanics don't have college degrees.
Note: The same analysis could be applied to the support Biden would've gotten if he had stayed in the race, losing 42-49 to Trump. Biden is extremely unpopular and perceived as too old, being a similarly bad candidate.[1] This suggests that the most extreme floors for both parties are about 40% support even with the worst possible candidates. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus that educated people are more liberal, the only question being why. (A recent study showed that people who became better educated were liberal to begin with.[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/04/education-links-liberal-views-contain-degree-chicken-and-egg]) In the U.S., that means that better educated voters will favor Democrats.
Robinson lost because he was a bad candidate. Even Trump and Vance refused to be with him. Alternatively, using Duverger's model, Stein was close to the center of the state's voting population, while Robinson was at an extreme end. However, as you say, party loyalty provides a floor. The old expression in the South was that you could run a yellow dog as a Democcrat and people would still vote for him'
The Democrats could win back some working-class voters by offering them policies that would benefit them, although they would lose middle class voters they took from the Republicans. But the main reason they don't do this is ideological. TFD (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Northeast and West Coast have always been more ideologically liberal, while the Southern United States has always been more ideologically conservative. This can be seen in religiosity, views on social and economic issues, etc. These predate 21st century politics.
I'm coming to a consensus that viewing American politics is best done by the regions each party represents first, and then specific demographics. African Americans are simply almost entirely ideologically liberal, and White evangelicals (mainly in the South) are similarly almost entirely ideologically conservative.
In some Southern states, Whites vote almost as Republican as African Americans. In 2024, a bad year for Democrats, Harris only won the states where White voters supported Biden, with the only exception being Virginia. The same was true for educational attainment in the states, with New Mexico being the only exception.
That's probably because Virginia is the only Southern state where White voters aren't overwhelmingly Republican thanks to Northern Virginia, and Virginia is about 20% Black. And New Mexico is about half-Hispanic, and even though most Hispanics don't have college degrees, they vote about as Democratic as Whites with college degrees.
Honestly it was just the 2021-2023 inflation surge, and Biden's age. Also it fails to account for how Biden's gains in 2020 were almost entirely just with White voters with college degrees, though of course Biden held racial minorities and avoided losing support among Whites votes without college degrees.
Objectively, Biden misread his mandate and misunderstood why he won in 2020. He wasn't elected in a landslide and Democrats won only narrow majorities in Congress. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic Party (II)
California voted for Reagan, Massachusetts voted for Coolidge and the South voted for William Jennings Bryan. They were and are subject to the same variables as today.
If region were a variable, there would be regional parties competing with the major parties.
It's not about African Americans feeling "oppressed." It's peer pressure from African Americans to vote Democratic. This is confirmed both by the book Steadfast Democrats by Ismail K. White and Chryl N. Laird (Author); and social psychology, such as Jonah Berger's Invisible Influence. If you want to understand how people behave, look at who they surround themselves with--Homophily.
It may seem obvious, but how an individual's friends and family vote is hugely influential to how an individual votes. And among African Americans, there is very strong peer pressure to vote Democratic. The reason the South took so long to become Republican was due to similar social pressure among White "Yellow Dog Democrats," who used to reflexively vote Democratic.
Take Joe Manchin: "His fealty to the Democrats comes from growing up in what used to be coal country, watching a New Deal ethic sustain the citizens of Farmington, who were mostly all Democrats. “Everybody I knew that worked was a Democrat,” Manchin says. “Everybody that I knew that helped somebody was a Democrat. Everybody that I knew that was a Boy Scout leader was a Democrat. Little League? Democrat. Everything. I never knew a Republican growing up in that little town.” Becoming a Republican would be as alien to Manchin as moving to Pennsylvania."[2]
There is no such social pressure among Hispanics and Asian Americans: those groups are much more heterogenous (i.e. country of origin/ethnicity) and have much higher interracial marriage rates for example. There were huge swings to Trump among Hispanics and Asians this year, but negligible swings among African Americans.
White and Laird say that African American "support for the Democratic Party is a well-understood behavioral norm with roots in black liberation politics." (p. 3) IOW, they feel oppressed. While they go on to say that peer pressure increases the level of black support, it merely strengthens a pre-existing proclivity to vote Democratic.
Comparison with Hispanic voters is problematic, because it is not monolithic. However, strong support for Democrats by various ethnic groups has fallen apart as they became integrated into American society. Irish Americans for example were a reliable Democratic voting block.
In any case, it does not matter why ethnicity can be a predictive variable for voting, since your point was about class and education levels not being important. TFD (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I got the information in my last paragraph wrong. I think your claim was that the income variable to predict white voting had reversed so that the working class now voted right and high income earners voted left. The accepted view however is that it has merely weakened globally for center-left parties that have abandoned their appeal to the working class, so that other factors, particularly education levels, have become a better predictor. Since there is a correlation between income and education, this may give the false appearance that the effect of income has reversed. TFD (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gallup's November 2024 data was useful--more education and higher income are positively correlated with being unionized. In particular, just 3% of employees in the Southern United States are unionized, compared to 15% in the Northeast, 9% in the Midwest, and 12% in the West.
The claim that the "working class" is more unionized is simply incorrect these days, provided one categorizes the working class as being less educated and/or lower income. Instead those with higher income and higher education are more likely to be unionized. Just 6% of private sector employees and unionized, compared to 28% of government workers.
Considering that Trump won every Southern state outside of Virginia, it appears that Trump's strongest voters are nationally lower income White Southerners but also higher income than African Americans.
Yes, racism plays a part, but it's also ideology. Socially conservative White evangelicals (i.e. Bible Belt) are almost entirely in the Southern United States, and Trump won more than 80% of them. Trump won every Bible Belt state except for Virginia.
For lack of a better explanation, it appears that the Democratic Party's non-Black base isn't low-income, because its policies--particularly promoting education--help people make high incomes. Instead of a Communist Revolution, the Democratic Party has had an education revolution, which allows higher incomes.
Wikipedia does not formally care what Americans think
In Republican Party (United States) you frequently make appeals to voter choices and associated demography. This is WP:OR. Wikipedia doesn't care what the American electorate thinks because the American electorate, as a body, is not a WP:RS. We are an encyclopedia. The place for debating whether the republicans should be called far-right on the basis of voter demography or whether getting latino votes absolves the Republican party of its historic racism is probably Reddit. Here we should be guided by what reliable sources say. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist on RS, we can use statistical analysis. In particular, I have an RS on White voters, if you wish to analyze racism and voting.[1] This is a relevant map on the White vote in 2020. Kamala Harris lost every state where Joe Biden lost the White vote, except for the state of Virginia.
I have done in-depth statistical analysis, using both RS and educational attainment statistics, on White voters. See the maps of the White vote by education (college and non-college) on the two party pages. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's still OR. You are interpreting the statistics and making claims on their basis. Spamming the same map into every conversation that comes here telling you that you need to stop engaging in WP:OR doesn't make it less OR. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The data comes from the AP VoteCast’s 2020 statewide estimates, per the source. I don't want to spend the time compiling the statistics when Split Ticket did it. Split Ticket is no different than other nonpartisan electoral analyst websites like The Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball.
Because "political enthusiasts" aren't trained to interpret statistics. We need academics for that. So it isn't objective. It's fandom. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I just came to this talk page to say the same thing as @Simonm223:
Why do you insist on using only academic sources, and not objective statistical analysis
We can use those statistics when they are contained in WP:RS-passing sources. Actually doing any statistical analysis directly isn't acceptable on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations), and spamming these images in the talk pages is breaking how they funtion; I've had to hat your contributions twice now just to make the page work as intended. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ11:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we do have to understand that Wikipedia has certain policy limits and restrictions. Frankly if I were writing about this issue for a magazine or a journal I'd be much more likely to talk about the biopolitical implications of counting demographic groups and how this leads to the construction of specific subjectivities. However, absent digging through a bunch of post-Foucauldian political philosophy it's not likely that I would find many sources that would treat this issue so specifically and, absent such a specific source, I'd have to engage in original research which is disallowed by Wikipedia. Wikipedia also does not allow us to put together two different sources and say A+B=C. This is called WP:SYNTH. We can say, A=A and we can say B=B but unless a reliable source takes it a step further and says A+B=C we cannot. Even if it looks obvious. These can be frustrating restrictions, especially if you come from a background where you are expected to conduct original research - as I suspect you are. This is just as frustrating for me at times. I do quite a lot of original research on the philosophy of art and of politics. I've written extensively about thematic issues surrounding popular video game franchises and have produced well-respected work on the philosophy of science fiction.
I can use none of it in Wikipedia. Maybe I'll get lucky and some other editor will read one of my articles and put it on a page some day. But I cannot. So please understand you aren't alone here nor are the things people telling you necessarily politicized at all; nor are we saying these things to be difficult, to give you a hard time or, as at WP:RS/N to make you jump through unnecessary hoops. This is just... how Wikipedia is. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense. My background is in mathematics and statistics, where doing this kind of analysis is expected.
I am going to keep using Split Ticket's maps, but will stop doing original research on Wikipedia.
If you want to know why I analyze racial voting demographics, my favorite and best article to have edited is Solid South. It's on the history of the politics of the Southern United States from Reconstruction to the present.
Are you having difficulty, understanding how to sign your posts, properly? I've noticed you've again started putting your moniker 'under' (rather than 'after) your posts. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've notice that you're kind of constantly coming out of left field with some of these discussions, like constantly dropping in demographics data or discussions of global political trends outside of any context where the argument logically follows. It's clear you're trying to improve the articles, but you're also adding a ton of challenging to follow arguments all over the Republican and Democratic party talk pages, as well as occasionally editing in somewhat tangential information to the articles. Can I ask you to more seriously consider WP:OR, as has been asked of you a few times? You seem to be missing the issue with original research that we can't draw our own conclusions from more general sourcing, and this leads to your posts generally getting ignored in the talk pages. Considering you often have good suggestions and seem to be on top of it with sourcing for the most part, can I suggest you try a different strategy than infodumping stats into unrelated discussions? Both @GoodDay and I seem unable to follow your point at the new discussion topics at both the Republican and Democrat articles. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ13:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion for a place to copy links and draft content, where potentially other editors can see it, for the two pages? I use the talk pages because they seem like the best place to do this. I write and source a lot of Wikipedia content, and it takes time and multiple revisions to get it right. Sometimes I'll forget about sources (i.e. website links) unless I make a note of them. I also want other editors to see my ideas, because they can help. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, a lot of it seems to have WP:NOTFORUM issues, but I'm not entirely sure if that's true since half the time I can't even figure out the context of why these discussions suddenly pop up in the middle of other discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I locked that post on Kamala Harris' talk page. I just wrote it as a note to other editors and myself to not count Harris as retired or consigned to the history books for now. Because the same was de facto assumed for Trump after he lost in 2020, and now he's back as POTUS. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this is a pretty prime example of you replying in a way where the relationship to what you're replying to is mostly inscrutable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it inscrutable? Here (my user talk page) or my locked post at Talk:Kamala Harris?
Regarding at Kamala Harris' talk page, I sometimes get annoyed when the results of a single election are portrayed as deciding a politicians fate. After 2020 it was assumed Trump was done, with additional evidence after 2022 (Republicans had a disappointing midterm), only for Trump to win in 2024.
Except that this: This isn't original research, just writing from experience on how times can wildly change political circumstances. raises three problems. One is WP:NOTFORUM, the other is it's still WP:OR despite the first four words, and WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to this general argument in a WP:NOTFORUM context. You've started saying This isn't original research in response to @GoodDay, @Simonm223, and myself calling you out for WP:OR, but haven't changed the content that's getting you gently called out for it. It's definitely not bad, but it is getting to the point of being disruptive when you come in to ongoing discussions and infodump unrelated statistics and your interpretations of them.
After 2020 it was assumed Trump was done, with additional evidence after 2022 (Republicans had a disappointing midterm), only for Trump to win in 2024.
We can only address this retroactively. I get you're frustrated, and it's not reasonable for editors to predict that someone's political career is wholly over without them saying so (WP:CRYSTALBALL applies there, too) but you're doing this on a lot of pages simultaneously and it doesn't appear to work very well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I locked that post. I haven't added content about not counting a politician out for anyone except Kamala Harris' talk page, because of the nature of her loss and former high-profile status.
I haven't added such content to any other talk pages, including for example Joe Biden's talk page.
SO I think there's a disconnect here. You are absolutely correct that claiming Harris' career is over would fall under WP:CRYSTAL but... We try to keep article talk conversations narrow in focus and centered around edits to the article under discussion. As such the only context under which you should have raised the WP:CRYSTAL concern is in direct connection to an edit you either wanted to add or wanted to remove.
So, for instance, if someone said, "Kamala Harris has left politics," on the article you might delete that comment and then go to article talk and say, "I deleted that line because it violated WP:CRYSTAL and had no citations.
But to say, without referencing anything in the article, "remember that everybody counted Trump out and now he's back and therefore we shouldn't say Harris is done," absent a related edit is forum-like in structure.
Unless my brain is fogged up, I'm finding your posts difficult to understand. I honestly think we might be dealing with WP:CIR issues. Perhaps, you just don't fully understand the purpose of talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think we might be dealing with WP:CIR issues This has been my read, but I think JohnAdams1800 is sincerely trying and also adding a lot of good content in parallel, so I figured this posting here was a little less blunt. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - but there's really 2 types of CIR editors: those who could become competent in navigating Wikipedia and those who will not. I strongly believe that JohnAdams1800 is in the former category. They do seem to care about neutrality, reliable sourcing and other such topics. So I think trying to educate them to WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is a reasonable use of time. I know it can be challenging to enter the project and be told to be more narrow in scope, to avoid interpreting sources, like for a lot of people in academia this is counter-intuitive. But it is how Wikipedia, as a collaborative encyclopedia project, was designed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. @JohnAdams1800, I think you should consider that the reason there's a WP:CIR conversation happening directly on your talk page is that multiple editors are seeing this issue, but everyone involved doesn't see this as intractable or a sanction-worthy issue. Rather it's more "Hey, you may want to reconsider your approach here". I think all of us respect your contributions and the time you're putting in to articles while struggling to follow your talk page content. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ15:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the problem is I shouldn't use talk pages to discuss sources, add unrelated content, or discuss proposals for new content per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
My prior goal, as I mentioned earlier, was to be able to discuss sources for adding new content. I have now discovered the , and can use that (I don't want to clog my own user page) for drafting and discussing content, even with myself. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you just want me to stop using the talk pages for both parties--I'm one of the main editors of both party articles. For the Democratic Party's talk page, almost nobody uses it for discussion or planning content except me. I've committed to stop using the Republican Party's talk page to draft content (i.e. RS analysis or OR), given it disrupts discussions. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's what anyone wants. But I think what would help is to consider that a talk page should, under ideal circumstances, have very predictable possible statements.
I made this change because (RS / Policy).
I support this change because (RS / Policy).
I oppose this change because (RS / Policy).
If you start from the perspective of those three openers then consider whether what you are saying directly supports one of those three options for a discussed change and if so whether it is directly derived from one or more reliable sources or specific and nameable Wikipedia policies. Simonm223 (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't you using the talk page to draft content, the problem is that you frequently propose extra-policy solutions which require WP:OR approaches or start publishing giant discussions on statistics out of the blue. It's not that people want you to stop editing, and clearly you're doing a lot of good, it's that your commentary is often disruptive in how much of a non-sequitur it is, and when you're lobbing votes on RfCs which include completely whole-cloth invented justifications that fly in the face of Wikipedia policies.
What @Simonm223 said is right, you need to be rooting your advocacy (as in what you want, not WP:ADVOCACY) in policy and sourcing, not what you believe it should be, because it's not helpful to have to explain nearly a half dozen times that WP:RS is the standard for inclusion of phrasing, as opposed to some unique interpretation of electoral outcomes.
I've committed to stop using the Republican Party's talk page to draft content
And note that there is a place to discuss changing Wikipedia policy if you really want to WP:VPP. I'd just suggest that if you do go there to propose a policy change that you read on past proposals related to that policy first. I'm not as much of a regular at VPP as some other noticeboards here but I do know that regulars generally get annoyed about keen newcomers who want to propose a novel design for the wheel. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I commit not to use any talk pages to draft content, instead sticking to my sandbox. Can I ask, given you and other editors in this discussion are also prolific editors (i.e. over 10,000 edits in total), what do you all use to help draft content? It's not easy to write content, and I thought (won't in the future) the talk page would be a could place to show my work and what content I'm working on.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? It's not glamorous: I use notepad. Like literally I pull up the notepad app on my desktop and any necessary drafting, copy-pasting, etc. there. Once I have it drafted I either put it into article body or, if it needs consensus for inclusion, I'll go to the appropriate conversation and just ask, "how about this text: (proposed text)". Personally I insert <nowiki> tags around citations when I do this so that citation details in-line are very easy to identify and review. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I rewrote Shungite I just did it in the visual editor with an open copy of notepad. Your own sandbox would work just as well, and you're always free to invite editors to help draft an article on a sandbox page with you (as I think you've done before). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ16:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Solid South, when I'm not quoting academic sources with appropriate licensing, I have to obey copyright and fair use. That part of the quote was unnecessary, because I already mentioned that Elliott County had always voted Democratic from 1869 to 2012, until 2016. What I needed the quote to show was how Elliott County was both an example of why much of the South was Democratic even past the Civil Rights Movement (i.e. for economic reasons they supported Democrats) and how this was in decline, but it took much longer than people realized. Trump winning Elliott County was expected but also marked the end of the rural White South being willing to vote Democratic in presidential elections.
There were some other counties in the rural South that had voted Democratic much longer than people realize. Places like Floyd County, Kentucky until 2008; Foard County, Texas until 2000; etc. One of the biggest harbingers of this was in 2008, Obama lost ground in Appalachia and the Upland South even as he gained in most of the country.
Please see Editing others' comments: "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." You have frequently deleted my comments on article talk page(s) and my talk page including here and here.
My comments you deleted were in reply to your questions. After deleting my replies, you then asked the sames questions I had already answered. This is particularly annoying when you ask for a source, delete my reply, then ask again for a source.
Hi JohnAdams1800! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Democratic Party (United States) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You've been marking nearly all of your edits as minor. Although it's true that the edits you've been making aren't huge, sweeping changes, they do substantially change the meaning of the prose you're editing, and therefore should not be marked as minor. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello JohnAdams1800! Your additions to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2024 in public domain into Draft:2024 in American public domain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
Please stop your disruptive editing.
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Animal Farm. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
located above the edit window.
; see Talk:Solid South for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Solid South at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sunweb52 -- Sunweb52 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.