|
I've seen jokes about election maps by increasingly irrelevant geographic divisions on Twitter recently, but "results by Catholic diocese" takes the cake. I don't think any value is added to this or any other US elections article by adding a map of results based on any divisions that don't have anything to do with elections. I'm not sure what the precedent here is, if any, but I propose that we remove the map that was added to the article for a Twitter shitpost. Stuart98 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, of course, some sort of consensus must be reached for maps that are appropriate to include in the infobox; but this very clearly is not one AveryTheComrade (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- While results by congressional/state legislative district are certainly debatable, I see no reason why results by diocese should be included as religion (and specifically Catholicism) played little to no role in the election. Dingers5Days (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've yet to see anyone provide a good reason for having a map for results by Catholic diocese. gobonobo + c 00:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I requested edit protection for the page, since those adding the maps aren't trying to even engage in the talk page after I suggested it. Dingers5Days (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps for research reasons? Such as seeing which way Catholics swing? 2603:8001:BD01:A01A:8506:23CA:4A18:3346 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person that created the map, yes this was the reason I created it. Along with being another way to present the data of the election. CharlottesMaps (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn’t a Twitter shit post. I put a good amount of effort into the map. I wanted to add new divisions to the page so people get better understand the results of these elections. It’s not monumental, but it’s a cool piece of information I believe. However I accept that not everyone agrees with that. CharlottesMaps (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, I also felt that as it was heavily reported that Biden was a catholic and this being his state of birth, that it would be interesting. CharlottesMaps (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You can justify any number of issues as pertinent to a given election; that doesn't mean they should be mapped out in the infobox. This content pretty clearly fails WP:REL. Stuart98 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly!!! Like what if we have maps by police districts/patrols? This election was heavily centered around police brutality and black lives, seeing how those swung would be handy! 2603:8001:BD01:A01A:8506:23CA:4A18:3346 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think most voters even know what police district or Catholic diocese they live in? These maps are just some combinations of the state's counties/municipalities that have absolutely nothing to do with the election. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s a cool way to represent the data. That’s the point of the website is it not? To store and grant easy access to all sorts of information and data? CharlottesMaps (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It represents absolutely no new information that cannot by inferred from the three normal maps already in the infobox, it has no relevance to the election, and dioceses are not even consistent along state borders AveryTheComrade (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I agree, at a certain point this is just needlessly excessive and doesn't have much if any encyclopedic value. I feel that Counties, Precincts, Municipalities, and Congressional Districts should be the absolute extent of the maps. Feel a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums on standards for this would be appropriate. Planetberaure (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted a section on the talk page for this purpose. Dingers5Days (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nahh this funny af 2601:2C3:881:2E20:11BF:2037:7F4F:247A (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean it wasn’t supposed to be a joke map CharlottesMaps (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think most people can even remember what district they precinct they are from, yet they are there. 2603:8001:BD01:A01A:C6F7:9416:BFA5:6A6C (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- These maps become rather arbitrary and will do nothing but create clutter. Where should the line be drawn on what maps should be created and included, if we are dividing results based on minor campaign issues like religion? Religion and specifically Catholicism was an issue of extremely minor importance in the 2020 election. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for 1960, if there was a consensus to add maps of that sort. Dingers5Days (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose then that we create a section maybe at the bottom of the page for such maps. It won’t clutter the top and more important stuff, but can allow people to view it if they really want to. CharlottesMaps (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think maps of an election by non-political divisions (diocese, patrol district) have any encyclopedic relevance, though, so they just shouldn't be in the article period. ElpisActual (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would concur with this, though it runs contrary to my other comment at the bottom of the page. Alexcs114 (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOR 沁水湾 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- CharlottesMaps is being intentionally disingenuous by saying that this isn't a joke map. See: https://twitter.com/Charlie__Brewer/status/1645963695862816774 , https://twitter.com/Charlie__Brewer/status/1646004763064950784 , https://twitter.com/Charlie__Brewer/status/1645974010629332995 ("this does not belong on wikipedia", OP says "yes"), and finally https://twitter.com/Charlie__Brewer/status/1645966783042539522 -- "It hurts no one and makes people like you seethe, so I think overall this was a success." This is nothing more than pointless drama started by someone thirsty for Twitter likes and attention (https://twitter.com/Charlie__Brewer/status/1645950151322656768), as well as to start a harassment campaign on Election Twitter (https://twitter.com/Charlie__Brewer/status/1645963695862816774, https://twitter.com/Charlie__Brewer/status/1646007305098371072). Etsaloto (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Very minor nitpick, I believe they tweet where they respond "yes" is meant to mean "yes it does" judging from context. Stuart98 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the map should be kept. It’s useful, relevant information. It is arguably more relevant than maps broken down by precinct, since the average Joe does not even know what precinct they vote in.
- Couldn't this info be put on a new separate wikipedia page?
- Obviously catholic diocese and state patrol maps isn't the most important info to know at the top of a wikipedia page, but there is still a good chance that somebody would like to see miscellaneous maps of some certain elections. Magenta + Bee (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- These maps could all be used for things like academic papers and thus are useful. These maps offer insights into patterns of religion or other areas when it comes to elections. Brayden1949 (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the results by catholic diocese. This information is very relevant, and certainly belongs on the infobox. The infobox is only for important, pressing things like this. GI Brown 1970 (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Catholic Diocese are a very important piece of a cultural landscape, particularly in a state like Pennsylvania. Just because people want to be ignorant to that fact doesn't make the post not relevant. The significant role played by religious demographics in shaping voting patterns and electoral outcomes, as well as the unique and nuanced nature of Pennsylvania's Catholic population. By visually representing the distribution of votes across Catholic dioceses, this map would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the election results and highlight the complex interplay between religious affiliation, political ideology, and regional identity. Moreover, given the high stakes and contentious nature of the 2020 election, any additional information that sheds light on the dynamics and nuances of the electoral process would be of great value to readers seeking a deeper understanding of this pivotal moment in American history. Brykl911 (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How important of an issue was religion in the 2020 election in Pennsylvania? How much coverage did it garner in local papers or in national coverage of the PA election, for instance? I just don't think it was a relevant issue in this election at all. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Religion? Not a relevant issue in Pennsylvania politics? Lol. Lmao, even. Biden made several explicit appeals to Catholics in PA, and Trump lost some ground with them, which undoubtedly contributed to the flipping of the state. Brykl911 (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that a clear consensus is being made that this is all relevant information to add. 174.20.170.168 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What "clear consensus"? There is a large amount of disagreement. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A map of results by Diocese is not relevant, there's definitely not a consensus being made. 97.100.33.87 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is by no means a clear consensus here. Planetberaure (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I would be surprised if there was more than one article discussing the role of religion in the 2020 PA presidential election. I'd like to see it. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure would be crazy if you could Google it. Brykl911 (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Search: “‘2020 election’ Pennsylvania’ ‘religion’ before:2020-11-03” on Google and see what comes up. I did and I couldn’t find anything other than a scant mention in a couple of articles. Dingers5Days (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing 'religion' with 'catholic' yields better results.
- Plus a bunch more articles about the Catholic vote that mention Pennsylvania but don't discuss specific ways either campaign is targeting them.
- I think this argument is a red herring. It's not about "was this somewhat relevant to the election". The question at hand is whether maps of non-administrative boundaries should go in infoboxes, or in the article at all. Stuart98 (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. At this stage the discussion here would be best held on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Dingers5Days (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said Apersonthatdoesthings (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument against religious districts like diocese is "the average person doesn't know which one they're in" then by that logic all maps should be removed, the average person doesn't know their precinct or township and a lot of them don't even know what county they live in. adding more maps allows users to view the elections of the USA with greater detail and to be honest they're tucked away in a drop menu so they take up zero clutter screen space. Matthew McMullin (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How boring of a life does one have to have to put meaningless maps on Wikipedia pages and call it "fun"? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think once a page is blocked for everyone but admins to edit because of repeated edit warring and vandalism you should really reconsider what you are doing here. This isn't a hill you'd want to die on I'd think. Planetberaure (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstood Liliana's comment; she's arguing that people arguing in favor of keeping the map because it's fun should... find something else to do for fun. Stuart98 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ding ding ding! You win a special prize. Unfortunately, I can't afford it, so you may or may not receive it. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yeah that would make more sense, apologies for the mix up! I agree with the original meaning regardless. Planetberaure (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the map was posted with good intentions but the vandalism was totally unnecessary. At the very least, there is some discussion being had on relevance. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person that added the map, I do not care whether it stays or goes. If that helps any. If it makes things orderly again, I’m fine with it being gone CharlottesMaps (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For someone who doesn't care whether it stays or goes, you certainly seem to take pleasure in violatingWikipedia:OWH. Stuart98 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you have that on hand is really sad. And I do stand by everything I said about you CharlottesMaps (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I again say that I don’t care if the map stays or goes CharlottesMaps (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, did you just say you stand by breaking Wikipedia policy? Planetberaure (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Lmao I ratioed him on twitter. That’s not exactly harassment. CharlottesMaps (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me quote you word for word:
OH WAIT, you're the little pussy ass bitch that took it down. God you need to get a life and remove that fuckign pole from your ass. If that ain't harrassment, then I don't know what is. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How boring of a life does one have to have to put meaningless maps on Wikipedia pages and call it "fun"? If that isn’t harassment, I don’t know what is. CharlottesMaps (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, as a user mentioned previously, the map by diocese appears to be a violation of WP:NOR. Dingers5Days (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m all for removing it then CharlottesMaps (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend refering this to Wikipedia:Harassment § Dealing with harassment. As this does seem like a rather clear violation of policy and should be handled via the proper channels. Planetberaure (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And so I did. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This is wikipedia. It’s not the end of the world if I get banned from editting CharlottesMaps (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Would like to note for those not familiar with Election Twitter that most of the voices who have commented so far (myself included) are election twitter members. Any meaningful consensus will include the (presumably large) group of non-election twitter election wikipedians Kavigupta (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy shit why is this section on the talk page so long lol OrcaLord (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume this got posted about on Twitter and we had an influx of users commenting. Planetberaure (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. Most likely started from members of Election Twitter joking about elections having too many maps. Dingers5Days (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're telling me this was some joke and someone decided to bring it into the actual page for Twitter likes? Heavens sake. Planetberaure (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the sequence of events leading up to the incident was:
- 1. Trend of Wikipedia election pages being updated with precinct maps.
- 2. Trend of Election Twitter users with too much spare time making maps of election results under increasingly weird and irrelevant geographic divisions (example)
- 3. Two days ago, a prominent election Twitter account made a joke tweet synthesizing the two trends.
- 4. Someone quote retweets that tweet extending the joke to including maps by catholic diocese.
- 5. User:CharlottesMaps takes the joke too far by making such a map, putting it on this page, and tweeting about it.
- 6. More, larger accounts notice this happened and tweet about it, piling on more views and leading to the vandalism of the page by other users. Stuart98 (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just point out that, in reference to your point 5, it seems that "CharlottesMaps" and "Charlie Brewer" are the same person? Master of Time (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's basically confirmed through their interactions on Twitter and this talk page. Stuart98 (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm clearly not on this side of Politics twitter enough because I saw that first joke map and then missed the rest of this until I came to this page to fact check something and saw it was semi protected. Excuse my language here, but what a shitshow. Planetberaure (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also my opinion on this whole situation is that only political subdivisions or commonly used ways to report election information, such as on the county level, precinct level, municipality level, congressional district level, and state legislative district level should be represented in maps on the wiki. Other maps are simply irrelevant and only exist as clutter. OrcaLord (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- My take is that it should be political divisions and media markets. but yeah, diocese make no sense Kavigupta (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- As a member of Election Twitter (ET) and a Wikipedia editor, I agree with you. The Catholic dioceses and police divisions are not political divisions and no media reports election results by either of those divisions. About the dioceses, Pennsylvania is only around 25% Catholic and those dioceses include the vote of mostly non-Catholics, and people would have a hard time telling how exactly Catholics in those dioceses voted. I think the election results of the Catholic dioceses and police divisions should be put on a different website that is meant for the users of ET instead. Aleknati (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, instead of people making countless different iterations of a perfectly satisfactory map, y'all go need maps that actually need making? Have you considered that? Prior to 2018, none of the "United States House of Representatives in Pennsylvania" articles have county maps for the results in each district - Why don't y'all who care about PA so much start there? Or how about going even deeper, back to the 1990s and before, where some of the statewide elected offices need maps?
- There is a chance to actually contribute and make a difference to races that haven't been mapped yet, but instead y'all waste time making the same map in countless different forms. Alexcs114 (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Literally, why are some kids focused on doing maps with subdivisions not related to the electoral purposes at all instead of doing maps for elections that truly need it? If you want to do further mapping there's a lot of countries worldwide and historical elections that would do great with a map. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the divine sense of humour from ET, me recognizing many of the people in this thread (hi! ^^), and I always stand by the more info the merrier, this is a bit too niche for the infobox. It could've been included elsewhere in the article, including a small part on Catholic voters in PA & Biden's Catholicism and any potential effect it had on the election, this shouldn't be in the infobox. If you want it for a joke, please use your user sandbox. If you seriously want it, it's consensus for only county/precinct races, as per @AveryTheComrade. You can also discuss on the talk page before making the change. The disrespect on Twitter definitely constitutes harassment, as per @LilianaUwU. It's evident that many of these people are, in fact, joking though. Reminds me of my chatroom trolling back in like, 2010. It's hard not to get mad, but that's what trolling is specifically designed to do. My two cents worth is we should leave it out the infobox, but if people really, seriously, want it, as is the result following some joke edits, it should be included later in the article. ^^ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 13:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I want to put forward my thoughts on this whole affair. First of all, this situation has escalated beyond what is at all reasonable, and some editors have engaged in edit warring or downright uncivil behavior, including some on this talk page. While that’s not really a matter for this page itself, it really does need to be said that using Wikipedia like this is not acceptable. Second, mapping statewide elections by Roman Catholic dioceses is clearly not relevant and entirely unsuitable for a Wikipedia infobox. Even if Roman Catholic voters were particularly important in the election, the dioceses are not. Especially since the map doesn’t show how Roman Catholic voters voted, but rather all voters regardless of religious affiliation. Third, the following edit warring was unwarranted. In a situation where there is a dispute over the infobox’s maps, it should be addressed on the talk page. It should not be addressed through the edit war seen on this page. Fourth, it should go without saying that adding further, even more irrelevant maps and images is unacceptable. Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be used for making jokes that you can then post to Twitter.
Finally, I want to come with my own views on maps that are used in infoboxes. I will note that there at the moment is no consensus on this topic in general. I think it would be useful to develop that at some point. Although infoboxes allow an arbitrary amount of election maps to be shown, there are practical reasons for not having more than about 2-3 in any infobox. Beyond that number, the infobox becomes very large on mobile devices and is harder to navigate. The purpose of showing these maps is not to provide a gallery of an arbitrary number of ways of showing the result. It's to provide an overview for viewers of the election depicted. In statewide elections, county maps are normally the form this is done. Not because county maps are perfect for showing the distribution of voters, but rather because that’s the administrative units at which election results are reported at in most states. That makes using counties as the basis for election maps the least arbitrary choice in most states. The same thing applies for municipalities in those states where statewide results are specifically reported on that level, and for precincts. On the other hand, using congressional or state legislative districts for election maps of a statewide election is usually not relevant, at least not for the infobox (except Alaska, where results are reported on that level). The reason for this is that they don’t have anything to do with the election itself. Including them risks being WP:OR. Finally, election maps of other geographical units, that are merely the sum of the county results that are already depicted, should not be shown in the infobox. This is especially the case for units that have no official status in the state nor federal government. Gust Justice (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible that someone (who knows how, unlike me) can call for an Admin or someone apparopriate to shut down this discussion? It's evident that the serious consensus is this edit must've never been made, and about how it was made over a silly joke. This has gone way too far and needs to be stopped, it's trending on Twitter and is attracting more trolls, fights, and negative attention. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 14:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- On the one hand the serious discussion has largely moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, I don't necessarily think that warrants closing this discussion though, the twitter discourse has mostly moved on and I think the risk of additional trolls from there coming here isn't that high. Stuart98 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair, fair. I'll keep an eye out in case it flare ups again, though. AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done Iseult Δx parlez moi 15:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
