Talk:2018 United States elections

Wave election
One editor RS content on a "wave election" from the article with edit summary "Not objective". The edit summary is absurd and the RS content should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though it's abundantly clear in the weeks since Nov 8 that this was by any standard a wave election, content is still being removed saying so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor FloridaArmy is eager to edit-war content into the article claiming that only "some" characterized the third-largest gain in House seats since Watergate as a "wave election" (despite the fact that dozens of RS can be found to substantiate this), and keeps adding a misleading quote claiming that sources described the election as a "split decision". The "split decision" wording here refers to the mundane fact that Dems won control of the House and Republicans strengthened control of the Senate. Furthermore, the sources using the term "split decision" did so before a large number of House races and several Senate races had been called (nearly all these close races, settled many days later, ended up in Dems' favor). This was all pointed out to the editor, yet the editor re-inserted the content with the edit summary, "No. The headline is absolitrly clear "Election Results Give Split Decision: Democrats Win House & GOP Keeps Senate". And the Telegraoh simmarizes news coverage and supports a variance in tales on the outcome." As for the Telegraph piece summarizing newspaper coverage, it's from before many of the races were called and the only source dismissing a "blue wave" was an editorial by the far-right fringe folks on the WSJ editorial board. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article includes Washington Post, Daily News, and other sources noting, as you have, that it was a split decision. The NPR article says the same thing. I left in every one of your cherry picked CNN and Guardian sources as well as their claim that it was a Blue Wave. we cover the Democrat gains extensively. But per NPOV we can't ignore that the outcome was mixed and coverage was mixed. You should correct your claim about the WSJ because it was on the cover and not an editorial. I also don't appreciate your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Let's stick to the facts and what the best sources say. There should be need to lie and act unpleasantly. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Lie"? This is what the Telegraph says about WSJ and a "blue wave": "The Wall Street Journal called it a "Split decision", with the paper's editorial concluding: "America’s deep political divisions revealed themselves again on Tuesday, as Democrats regained control of the U.S. House while Republicans picked up seats in the Senate. Add their gains in the statehouses, and it was a better night overall for the Democrats, if less than the “blue wave” they advertised." You should carefully read the sources that you yourself bring to bear. And again, you're not responding substantively to the points I'm making. It is absurd to rebut reports of a blue wave with reporting from before a large number of races (both in the House and Senate) had been called. And the sources aren't even rebutting a notion of a blue wave (???). They're mundanely noting that Democrats won the House and Republicans kept control of the Senate. That's what they mean by a split decision. Yet the way you wrote it up is to suggest that there wasn't a blue wave or that this is somehow under dispute by RS. What's next: should we add half-time punditry to sport events to dispute the full-time results? "Barcelona defeated Chelsea 5-2 in what was characterized as master-class performance[sourced to full-time results]. Others said that the game was tight.[sourced to pundits at half-time when the game was at 2-2]" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Here's the article. People can read for themselves what it says, how newspaper coverage looked and was characterized, and what the WSJ coverage looked like. It's right therr in black and white. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Non-response noted. Here's a summary of the dispute and the sources that FloridaArmy has brought to bear: (1) "Split decision" from NPR, WSJ, and NY Daily News on election night does not dispute "blue wave". Refers to divided control. (2) Reporting all from election night before a large number of races were called, which nearly all ended in Dems' favor. (3) Only text specifically disputing "blue wave" is from the far-right fringe folks on the WSJ editorial board. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted all of your edits Snooganssnoogans, because your edits removed all opinions that did not line up with your own opinion that this was a "blue wave." Orser67 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) You did not just revert to an older version regarding a "blue wave". The lede for example now lists a random bunch of policy issues that were alleged hot-button issues in the campaign (they weren't - see the 'Advertisements and issues' section), yet these issues are not at all covered in the body of the article. (2) You've now restored a large number of random-ass op-eds (including by the editorial board of the Washington Examiner and clowns like Chris Cillizza), and removed upwards to a dozen straight-up straight-news reliable sources and expert assessments. The Wikipedia article now grossly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Your revert is an absolute disaster. (3) Looking back at the history of the article, I see that you've intently tried to insert your POV on this issue without any consensus, see for example this edit on 5 December where you remove RS content on a blue wave. Here you randomly pick one issue that you personally feel wasn't important and use a deceptive edit summary to justify the removal (nearly all the issues in the lede are not covered in the body yet you only chose to remove that one) - now you've restored a lede full of content that is not covered in the body. This is the largest mess of an edit in the entire article - where you randomly pick a bunch of op-eds from pundits and politicians to create a misleading 'people disagree about a blue wave' narrative in gross violation of NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reversion by Orser67. I was just about to suggest exactly this action, except that we need citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what precisely you agree with? Should the article cite opinions of the editorial board of the Washington Examiner rather than straight-news reporting by NPR? Should the lede be full of random cherrypicked positions that have not been covered anywhere in the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Different versions
A - The "People disagree whether it was a blue wave" version:


 * Lede: Pundits, journalists and political leaders differed in their assessment of the 2018 elections—some saw the elections as a major victory for Democrats, while others argued that Democratic gains were noteworthy but modest compared to historical mid-term election results.
 * Body: Analysts, journalist and pundits differed in their assessments of Democratic gains in the election. It was considered a blue (Democratic) tsunami by a Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona, and a blue wave by Republican pollster, Glen Bolger. The editorial board of The Washington Examiner argued that Republicans had suffered smaller-than-average losses for a mid-term election and Damon Young of The Root stated his belief that the election "should have been a disaster for [the Republican Party] [...] but it wasn't". John Cassidy of The New Yorker argued that the election "represented a significant rebuke to Trump". James Pinkerton of The American Conservative wrote that the election showed that voters prefer divided control of the federal government. Tara Golshan of Vox argued that the election constituted a "massive victory" for Democrats, but argued that gerrymandering and voter suppression prevented larger gains for the party. Colby Itkowitz of The Washington Post wrote that the election may have constituted a "blue wave", but added that "the massive repudiation of Trump that Democrats hoped for simply didn’t happen". Nathaniel Rakich of FiveThirtyEight stated that the election was "by any historical standard, a blue wave". Chris Cillizza of CNN wrote: "Was it an A+ for [the Democratic Party]? No. But it was a hell of a lot better than a C".

B - "It was a blue wave" version:


 * Lede: The election was widely characterized as a "blue wave" election.
 * Body: The election was widely characterized as a "blue wave" election.       It was third-largest midterm change of seats for either party in the House in the post-Watergate era, and the largest Democratic House gain since 1974. Gerrymandering and voting restrictions prevented larger gains for the Democratic Party.  In two of the most heavily gerrymandered states, Ohio and North Carolina, Democrats failed to pick up a single seat, despite winning close to half the vote. Despite almost winning half the vote in Ohio, Democrats only controlled a quarter of House seats in Ohio. Democrats made among the largest gains in House seats in Pennsylvania where the state Supreme Court had struck down a heavily gerrymandered map that favored Republicans. Nathaniel Rakich of FiveThirtyEight stated that the election was "by any historical standard, a blue wave". Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight wrote in late November 2018, "There shouldn’t be much question about whether 2018 was a wave election. Of course it was a wave."

The first version is sourced to a mish-mash of op-eds and RS to falsely suggest that there is a disagreement in reliable sources about whether there was a blue wave: note that all the sources disputing a "blue wave" are op-eds and "analysis" pieces. These sources are also all from election night or the next few days - which is before a large number of House and Senate races were called. It's akin to assessing the outcome of a sports event before it's finished - here's BBC News (in late November) explicitly saying that assessments from election night are vastly different than those made later. Furthermore, the lede laughably captures the opinion that the third-largest mid-term House swing since the Watergate era is "modest compared to historical mid-term election results." The second version captures the RS assessment that it was a blue wave and actually thoroughly sources this claim - note that a million additional sources can be easily found to support this version (unlike the first version which has to go to a former Mike Huckabee advisor and the editorial board of the Washington Examiner to substantiate the text). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You are clearly a POV pusher, as you are attempting to include only the sources that agree with your viewpoint. On Wikipedia, at least, you can't just dismiss sources because they come from the opposite side of the political spectrum as you or come to conclusions different to your own. I personally believe that this was a mid-sized wave, but lots of sources came to the reasonable conclusion that it wasn't truly a wave because the GOP picked up net gains in the Senate and won important gubernatorial races in places like FL and GA. Democrats did do really well after election night (which the article mentions) but that doesn't change the fact that Republicans won a lot of really important races and accomplished the historically unusual feat of making a net gain in the Senate during a midterm where they held the presidency. Orser67 (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "On Wikipedia, at least, you can't just dismiss sources because they come from the opposite side of the political spectrum as you or come to conclusions different to your own." Which is why I explicitly identified those sources as op-eds (non-WP:RS) and deleted those sources regardless of whether the punditry was by Democrats or Republicans. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RS doesn't ban the inclusion of op-eds, but states that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Whether or not this election qualifies as a "wave" is inherently a matter of opinion, and the opinion pieces are included to show the opinions of prominent pundits, newspapers, etc. They are no less valid in this context than, for example, Nate Silver's declaration that the election was a wave. Orser67 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Silver is a recognized expert on the subject (and publishes it on 538 which is clearly a strong source for analysis of this sort), unlike the random pundits and partisan strategists that you cited to craft your own favored narrative. Furthermore, Silver is cited at the end after a million straight-news sources were cited. If we follow your "let's just cite pundits' guideline, then every single issue would be summarized as "people disagree", which is absurd. And thanks to your WP:NPOV-violating cobbling together of op-eds and mass-removal of RS content, the lede now claims that the third-biggest House swing since 1974 was "modest compared to historical mid-term election results". It can't be overstated just how absurd that is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What can't be overstated is how much you are mispresenting things. The house elections were just one component of these elections. The underwhelming gains refers to the fact that Democrats lost seats in the Senate and didn't perform particularly strongly in the state elections. In 2010, the most recent midterm in which one party controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans picked up 60+ seats in the House, 7 seats in the Senate, and flipped control of 20 legislative chambers. By contrast, in 2018, Democrats picked up 40 seats in the House, flipped control of seven chambers, and lost 2 seats in the Senate. Orser67 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Red/blue coloring in graph of seat gain/vote margin
Thank you User:Orser67 for this useful/relevant graph. I found the red/blue coloring of the lines confusing due to the frequent association of Red+Republican and Blue+Democrats in American politics. The lines represent the seats gained and popular vote margin of the party not holding the presidency, and I think the graph would be improved by changing the color of both lines to something more neutral - to black/green or dotted/straight or anything else. I am hoping User:Orser67 could help do this if appropriate, and I will do so myself (using this dataset) if there are no objections and I don't hear from the OP in a few day. Thank you, Krb19 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, done. Orser67 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What do the dark black lines in the states of Minnesota and Mississippi represent? Should it be explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.208.10 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

definition of "racially-tinged"
What is the meaning of the term "racially-tinged rhetoric on immigration and race" in the lede? First of all it sounds redundant since race is mentioned twice, and secondly "racially-tinged" seems like it is just a roundabout way of saying "racist". I propose this be changed either to "racist rhetoric on immigration" or "racist rhetoric on crime and immigration". This change may be viewed as controversial, but the dictionary definition of "racist" is "showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races", which seems to be precisely what the term "racially-tinged" was attempting to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8300:D04F:71D0:3FF7:904:8F58 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be better to simply remove the adjective per WP:NPOV. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the disputed the term, and made it consistent with the body and RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC: "It was a blue wave" vs "Pundits disagree whether it was a blue wave"
This is a RfC on two different versions of content in the lede and body regarding whether 2018 was a blue wave election. Here are the two versions:

A - The "Pundits disagree whether it was a blue wave" version:


 * Lede: Pundits, journalists and political leaders differed in their assessment of the 2018 elections—some saw the elections as a major victory for Democrats, while others argued that Democratic gains were noteworthy but modest compared to historical mid-term election results.
 * Body: Analysts, journalist and pundits differed in their assessments of Democratic gains in the election. It was considered a blue (Democratic) tsunami by a Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona, and a blue wave by Republican pollster, Glen Bolger. The editorial board of The Washington Examiner argued that Republicans had suffered smaller-than-average losses for a mid-term election and Damon Young of The Root stated his belief that the election "should have been a disaster for [the Republican Party] [...] but it wasn't". John Cassidy of The New Yorker argued that the election "represented a significant rebuke to Trump". James Pinkerton of The American Conservative wrote that the election showed that voters prefer divided control of the federal government. Tara Golshan of Vox argued that the election constituted a "massive victory" for Democrats, but argued that gerrymandering and voter suppression prevented larger gains for the party. Colby Itkowitz of The Washington Post wrote that the election may have constituted a "blue wave", but added that "the massive repudiation of Trump that Democrats hoped for simply didn’t happen". Nathaniel Rakich of FiveThirtyEight stated that the election was "by any historical standard, a blue wave". Chris Cillizza of CNN wrote: "Was it an A+ for [the Democratic Party]? No. But it was a hell of a lot better than a C".

B - "It was a blue wave" version:


 * Lede: The election was widely characterized as a "blue wave" election.
 * Body: The election was widely characterized as a "blue wave" election.       At the end of election night, Democratic gains in the House appeared modest and the Democratic candidates trailed in Senate races in Arizona and Montana and looked set to make a net loss of as many as four Senate seats, leading some news outlets to characterize the election as a "split decision" whereas other outlets described it as a "blue wave".  However, over the next days and weeks, Democrats won several seats in the House and won the Arizona and Montana Senate elections, leading to a re-evaluation of the initial election night analyses.  One week after the election, Nathaniel Rakich of FiveThirtyEight stated that the election was "by any historical standard, a blue wave". Two weeks after the election, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight wrote, "There shouldn’t be much question about whether 2018 was a wave election. Of course it was a wave." It was third-largest midterm change of seats for either party in the House in the post-Watergate era, and the largest Democratic House gain since 1974. Gerrymandering and voting restrictions prevented larger gains for the Democratic Party.  In two of the most heavily gerrymandered states, Ohio and North Carolina, Democrats failed to pick up a single seat, despite winning close to half the vote. Despite almost winning half the vote in Ohio, Democrats only controlled a quarter of House seats in Ohio. Democrats made among the largest gains in House seats in Pennsylvania where the state Supreme Court had struck down a heavily gerrymandered map that favored Republicans.

Please indicate whether you support version A, version B, neither, or some combination of both versions, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Version B. The first version is sourced to a mish-mash of op-eds (this includes a random former Mike Huckabee advisor and the editorial board of the Washington Examiner) and RS to falsely suggest that there is a broad disagreement in reliable sources about whether there was a blue wave: most of the sources disputing a "blue wave" are op-eds and "analysis" pieces. These sources are also most from election night or the next few days - which is before a large number of House and Senate races were called. It's akin to assessing the outcome of a sports event before it's finished - here's BBC News (in late November) explicitly saying that assessments from election night are vastly different than those made later. Furthermore, the lede in version A captures the opinion that the third-largest mid-term House swing since the Watergate era is "modest compared to historical mid-term election results" - which is a bizarre fringe opinion. The B version captures the RS assessment that it was a blue wave and thoroughly sources this claim (as well as provides context for why the first round of election night analyses changed). Far more RS can be found to substantiate this version if more sources are needed. Opinion pieces can also be found to substantiate this version, but I opted not to add any such sources because the straight-up straight-news sources were sufficient (and the citations are already excessive). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A: Version B only includes a narrow range of opinions from writers that happen to agree with User:Snooganssnoogans, whereas Version A includes opinions from a wide array of sources. Also, while the 2018 elections were clearly great for Democrats in the House of Representatives, Republicans actually gained seats in the Senate, which is an unusual occurrence for the president's party in a midterm (it has happened in just 4 of 19 midterm elections since WW2). For both of those reasons, it would simply be incorrect to say that election "was widely characterized as a 'blue wave' election." Version A does a better job of showing that, while some sources viewed the election as a big victory for Democrats, others thought that it was somewhat underwhelming compared to previous midterm elections. Orser67 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I cited a dozen reliable sources for the "blue wave" description from the likes of AP, NPR, FT, Politico, NY Times, CBS, Bloomberg and CNN - it's bizarre to refer to these strong RS as a "narrow range of opinions". Of the 12 sources, only three could be categorized as opinion and those are two 538 sources and one NY Mag source (but that's only because these outlets skirt opinion and traditional news reporting - and 538 could reasonably be categorized as an expert source in the realm of election analysis). As for the gains in the Senate, the Senate map was widely characterized as extremely unfavorable to Democrats, as Democrats were defending 26 seats (ten in states won by Donald Trump in 2016) while Republicans were defending nine (one seat in a state won by Hillary Clinton in 2016). According to FiveThirtyEight, Democrats faced the most unfavorable Senate map in 2018 that any party has ever faced. Despite a historically and uniquely bad Senate map, Democrats only made a net loss of two seats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You completed excluded right-wing pundits and you removed centrist and left-wing pundits that disagree with your opinion. That does indeed constitute a narrow range of opinion. You also removed Chris Cillizza because (and I quote) he's a "clown." Orser67 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In my version, there are no pundits at all. (Unless 538 are considered punditry rather than news / expert analysis). I explained the reason for this above: Opinion pieces can also be found to substantiate this version, but I opted not to add any such sources because the straight-up straight-news sources were sufficient (and the citations are already excessive). And yes, I didn't include Cillizza's punditry and I would never do so under any circumstances. I wouldn't add Ja Rule's commentary either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you've taken it upon yourself to exclude certain sources that don't agree with your views. Orser67 (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that many of the opinions that you seek to exclude aren't directly linked to, but rather are included in the article because they are mentioned in a New York Times article that surveys how various sources reacted to the race. So you may not find how the Washington Examiner (or, for that matter, Damon Young of the Root and James Pinkerton of the American Conservative) reacted to be notable, but the New York Times did. Orser67 (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Version A – There is indeed widespread disagreement among sources, largely depending on their political positioning. Both "camps" look at the same set of facts and decide to qualify them differently. The usual. Think back to the 2016 presidential election, which was hailed as a knock-down by Trump supporters (he won the "Blue Wall" states and a decisive margin in the Electoral College), while simultaneously deemed illegitimate by Clinton supporters (she won the popular vote, and would be president if it weren't for Comey and Russia). — JFG talk 19:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources characterizing it as a blue wave include AP, CNN, The Guardian, Financial Times, NPR, the New York Times, and The Economist. These are not sources generally considered WP:BIASED by any measure.  If you want to argue that this is a dispute between two equal "camps", you must find equally-mainstream, high-quality sources arguing the opposite position, which version A clearly does not - it is absurd to argue that The Washington Examiner, The Root, and The American Conservative can be given weight equal to the reliable sources listed for version B, or that we could ever look at a disagreement that lopsided and say "oh, it's just two equivalent camps in disagreement."  The sources describing it as a blue wave are neutral, mainstream, high-quality reliable sources suitable for establishing uncontested fact; the ones that disagree with them are a bare smattering of editorials from WP:BIASED sources.  We can note their disagreement from the consensus of reliable sources somewhere, but it would be a severe WP:DUE violation to try and weight them equally as version A does. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be ok with that proposal. Snooganssnoogan created a false dichotomy here; my objection wasn't that he changed the lead, but rather that he completely removed all sources that disagreed with him/her. Orser67 (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Version B - Per the number and quality of sources. The Washington Examiner, The Root, The American Conservative are not the types of sources that one would look to when attempting to summarize what actually happened in this election.- MrX 🖋 20:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Version B. More sourcing, higher-quality sourcing.  This isn't something we should be sourcing to op-eds when better sources are available - and even in version A, which accepts such low-quality sourcing, the "not a blue wave" sources are very skimpy and generally avoid that term.  Version A literally only cites two or three sources that seem to disagree with that, and one of them is The Washington Examiner, a clearly WP:BIASED source inappropriate for making broad judgments of weight and focus.  In comparison, the sources calling it a blue wave are high-quality, comparatively mainstream and impartial.  Trying to weigh sources like these equally is clearly giving WP:UNDUE to the very marginal position that it was not a blue wave.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A isn't based off op-eds, but rather on a mix of RS and RS coverage of op-eds. And while I wouldn't base factual assertions in this article off of right or left wing outlets, I see no reason why their opinions should be completely excluded in a section titled "aftermath and reactions." Orser67 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Version A relies on op-eds from relatively low-quality, WP:BIASED sources to say that there is disagreement over whether it was a blue wave or not; the WP:RS mainstream sources all say it was a blue wave. We can include reactions from a wide range of sources, but when making factual statements (including broad statements about how something was received) we should rely on summaries from non-opinion pieces when they are available, rather than trying to perform WP:OR and WP:SYNTH by evaluating the reception ourselves.  In this case, we have that sort of summary, and it is completely clear that it says that that is a blue wave.  This makes the tiny number of opinion pieces you've found saying otherwise comparatively WP:FRINGE - we can note their existence, but we cannot present it as a mere dispute between two equally-supported opinions when essentially all mainstream reliable, non-opinion sources are reaching a unified conclusion in one direction. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B – Overall the sources cited and what's said better captures the outcome in a better way than some of the more spin-oriented commentary in Version A. That said, there is room to add some of the disent to the body (I still don't believe it belongs in the lede). Perhaps after "It was third-largest midterm change of seats for either party in the House in the post-Watergate era,[*] and the largest Democratic House gain since 1974.[*]" add "Not all commentators agreed, however, on the reach of the Democratic gains. For example, James Pinkerton of The American Conservative wrote that the election showed that voters prefer divided control of the federal government.[*] Simiarly, Colby Itkowitz of The Washington Post wrote that the election may have constituted a "blue wave", but added that "the massive repudiation of Trump that Democrats hoped for simply didn't happen".[*] Tara Golshan of Vox argued that the election constituted a "massive victory" for Democrats, but argued that gerrymandering and voter suppression prevented larger gains for the party.[*]" That would then lead into the Version B discussion of gerrymandering. Carter (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans's deletion of all contrary opinions in the body is what really bothers me. That and his inclusion of an extended and unnecessary discussion about the impact of gerrymandering in a one-sided manner that seemingly seeks only to explain why Democrats's gains weren't bigger. Orser67 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment If this is going to be linked to the WP article on wave elections with the unqualified claim that this was a "blue wave", the problem is defining the term. Our list of wave elections defines a wave election as "one party gained twenty or more seats in the House, picked up at least one seat in the Senate, and did not lose a Presidential election." The Democrats lost seats in the Senate, so this definition and list would need to be changed based on WP:RS, unless overwhelming sources are cited to support the definition at Wave elections in the United States. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The definition in that Wikipedia article should certainly be changed. The definition looks to have largely been decided by a few Wikipedia editors involved in that article (in particular the most vociferous proponent for Version A in this RfC), and was not derived from RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is that there is no widely agreed upon definition for a wave election, which is why it is unclear whether or not this election qualifies as a wave election. Orser67 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jack N. Stock, thank you for pointing this out. SunCrow (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Neither, but Version A is much less objectionable than Version B. Does the encyclopedia need to say anything about whether or not a wave election has taken place? In my opinion, the answer is no. First, the term itself is vague and amorphous, and there does not appear to be an authoritative source to look to for clarification. Second, it does not appear that the term is used on other Wikipedia pages relating to election results. For example, I looked at the Wikipedia pages for the 2010 U.S. Senate elections, the 2010 U.S. elections, and the 2010 U.S. House elections; none of those pages says anything about the wave election concept even though the prevailing party won 63 House seats, six Senate seats, and 680+/- state legislative races that year. The Wikipedia page for the 2006 U.S. elections does not mention the wave election term, either. So why the need to address it here? I would recommend that we either (a) say nothing at all about whether 2018 was a wave election; or (b) include a sentence or two in the body that briefly summarize reliably sourced perspectives pro and con. Version A is quite wordy, but otherwise is not too bad. Version B contains dubious and slanted assertions regarding the alleged impact of gerrymandering that are unencyclopedic and unacceptable. Also, Version B ignores out of existence the disagreement about whether 2018 really was a wave election (whatever that term means).SunCrow (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Version B is the more accurate perception. Kyrsten Sinema anyone? But we can do without thr citation overkill. Though grown men were crying on cable news that the Democrats didn’t take the whole entire Congress as people set the expectation as, history was made in many ways, especially when people actually took the time to count votes (as they should). I mean, it made Taylor Swift break her political silence—trivial, but it counts for something—her endorsement increased youth voting in Tennessee by 664%. It was a blue wave not a blue tsunami. Trillfendi (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Version B appears to better reflect what the sources are saying. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Version A (or somewhere in between A and B). Sources have quite clearly been questioning how much the pre-election expected blue wave was actually a wave (as evidenced by 538 running "Yes, It Was A Blue Wave" (while other analysts on 538 waffled)). I think A is a bit too strong on the disagreement - it's more of a question of a between a "blue whimper" and a "blue wave" - the blue gains in congress were significant, losing 2 seats in the senate (when pre-election the forecasts were for parity with a possibility of a Democratic flip) - make this less "wavey". Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * B, per WP:WEIGHT based on review of available sources. But suggest losing the overcite for the 1st sentence. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Combine and condense: The "round of quotes" style of prose writing is not the best style and this RfC illustrates why: no matter what quotes you choose, people will be unhappy. There is no need to spend a paragraph collecting soundbites from any sources. Both versions can essentially be condensed into something like: "A majority of mainstream media characterized it as a 'blue wave' election, although some commentators disagreed", with a bundled cite to some representative top-quality RSes (NYT and WSJ should really provide all that's needed). Rather than quoting all these sources, the column-inches (and the reader's attention) would be better spent giving the facts about the election: turnout, seats gained, popular vote, impact of gerrymandering, etc. Frankly the stats show the blue wave far better than the pundits tell it. (Oops, my bias is showing.) But count my !vote as neither or something in between, but with a preference for fewer quotes, less attribution and less name-dropping of sources. "Most but not all called it a 'blue wave'" is really all that's needed; it's not the label that's important, it's the facts underpinning it. Levivich ? ! 07:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede summary of important election issues
The lede currently says:


 * During the campaign, Democrats focused on health care, in particular defending the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and keeping in place protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. Republican messaging focused on taxes (in particular, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), as well as fear-mongering over immigration and race.

These two sentences summarize the content in this section, and reflect RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I reverted the language on fear-mongering, but Snooganssnoogans restored it. This is an unfortunate example of the shortcomings of the encyclopedia. This kind of an unprovable, subjective, partisan characterization does not belong in the lede of a Wikipedia page or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. It is blatant POV. We shouldn't have to be having this conversation. I am now re-editing the sentence so that it reads like an encyclopedia, as follows:


 * During the campaign, Democrats focused on health care, in particular defending the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) and keeping in place protections for individuals with preexisting conditions. Republican messaging focused on taxes (in particular, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017) and immigration.


 * SunCrow (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "This kind of an unprovable, subjective, partisan characterization". This is the characterization by multiple reliable sources (not to mention Republicans themselves). Simply saying that Republicans focused on immigration omits the lies and fearmongering, which was per RS a core aspect of Republicans' closing message. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no defense for what you're doing here, Snooganssnoogans. Stop insulting our intelligence. SunCrow (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * "Fear-mongering" is a loaded word, and I agree with the current, less slanted wording in the lede. I think it's possible to sufficiently address the fear-mongering aspect in the body while still remaining NPOV overall; this Guardian article is a good example of that, in my opinion. Examples from the article: Lede-style: Republicans, led by Trump, zeroed in on immigration in the closing weeks of the campaign. Body-style: While stumping for Republicans across the country, the president repeatedly stoked fears over a caravan of migrants headed toward the US-Mexico border from Central America. (Trump has not mentioned the caravan since the midterms.) The strategy was unmistakably centered on boosting turnout within the Republican base, but did little to draw support from independents, who swung toward Democrats. It also appeared to turn off suburban women, who increasingly disapprove of the president and proved decisive in the Democratic party’s success. (also, happy UTC new year, ya nerds) -- Ununseti (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ununseti. I support your proposed language except for the parenthetical, which could become inaccurate the next time the President goes on Twitter. Your language is accurate and fair. SunCrow (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments above that labeling a political issue as fearmongering is not appropriate wording for an NPOV encyclopedia. Let's stick to the facts. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Zeroed-in" fails to reflect what RS are actually saying about the GOP's anti-immigration rhetoric. A normal Republican candidate a few years ago might have "zeroed in" on immigration; Republicans in 2018 did not just "zero in" on immigration. Even the Guardian source which is cited there as a good example of neutral writing refers to Trump "stoking fears" (this was literally the subject and precise wording of NYT and WaPo stories about Republicans' closing message). It's not NPOV for us to whitewash what RS are saying just to be politically correct. "Fear-mongering" is a loaded term but it's the accurate term for a campaign based on brazen falsehoods intended to arouse public fear about imminent hordes of dangerous immigrants and the treasonous Democrats who support MS-13 and immigrant cop killers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, your words are dripping with hatred and contempt for those who do not share your political views. Sadly, this is not unusual for you. If you honestly believe it is accurate and fair to use a loaded term like fear-mongering in the lede of an article on an entire election cycle--broadbrushing 30-some-odd Republican gubernatorial candidates, 30-some-odd Republican U.S. Senate candidates, 400 or so Republican U.S. House candidates, and hundreds of Republican state legislative candidates--you have truly lost perspective. In all sincerity, you might want to consider taking a break from the encyclopedia. SunCrow (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)00:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Issues and advertisements
The section on issues and advertisements has been tagged as POV, unbalanced, and in need of expansion. The first paragraph of the section is straightforward and on topic, but the second and third paragraphs consist of negative characterizations of Republican messaging during the 2018 election cycle. These characterizations may be relevant, but they should not form the majority of the section and should not be presented on their own without any balance or any attempt to include multiple perspectives. Furthermore, these characterizations are part of a problematic pattern of Wikipedia editing. It goes like this: (a) Find an attack line against Republicans or some other group that is disfavored on the political left; (b) find mainstream media sources or research that parrot the attack line; (c) edit Wikipedia to include the attack line and the sources, presenting the attack line as if it is a fact rather than an opinion; (d) refrain from including other perspectives on the issue in question, leaving the encyclopedia unbalanced and skewed; and (e) defend the attack line against justified POV accusations by pointing to the sources. This sequence is getting really old. The encyclopedia is not intended to be a bunch of partisan hit pieces. Anyone who wants to make it into a bunch of partisan hit pieces should not be editing here. In addition to being bad for the encyclopedia and a waste of other editors time, this kind of editing is just cowardly. If you want to write hit pieces, go work on a campaign. Knock yourself out. SunCrow (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The "partisan hit pieces" in question which just parrot some "attack line" that I and the "political left" "cowardly" steamrolled into this article:
 * New York Times: "Trump and G.O.P. Candidates Escalate Race and Fear as Election Ploys"
 * The Washington Post: "Trump and Republicans settle on fear — and falsehoods — as a midterm strategy" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed both pieces and stand by my comments. The article in the Post is focused on the President; it does not give examples of any 2018 candidate for office using the type of rhetoric you describe. The Times, to its credit, gives four or five examples (some more persuasive than others). I say again: These characterizations may be relevant, but they should not form the majority of the section and should not be presented on their own without any balance or any attempt to include multiple perspectives. SunCrow (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your complaint seems to basically amount to saying that you have your own preconceived notion of what a hypothetical neutral or accurate article will look like, and will reject anything that doesn't reflect that as a "hit piece." If you feel we're giving those articles undue weight, you can try and find others from comparably mainstream, reliable sources to balance them out; but those sources clearly pass WP:RS, don't seem to be opinion pieces, and are therefore reasonable to use for a factual summary.  If you disagree, you can take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you'll get anywhere. Also, please remember to assume good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my concern. I simply believe that Wikipedia articles should comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. As to assuming good faith, please know that it is my practice to do so with every other editor on Wikipedia unless and until my assumption is proven wrong. SunCrow (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence that those two sources, or the section in this article, are not balanced, not neutral or not factual? As to the second paragraph, who is saying that Republican messaging is not one of fear? That strikes me as an objectively accurate description of Republican campaign ads. As to the third paragraph, I think there could be some copyediting for wording–and I don't think that CNN quote is DUE (any more than quoting Fox News about Democrats)–but fundamentally, it's true that there were candidates that claimed to be in favor of ACA provisions who voted against the ACA and/or to repeal the ACA and/or to "gut" the ACA, etc. I'm all about balance and neutrality, but I don't see RSes on "the other side" of these two paragraphs. That said, there is no reason more RSes couldn't be brought in, either to provide additional perspectives on Republican campaign tactics, or to provide perspectives on Democratic campaign tactics. Levivich (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich, there is nothing factual about the use of the word fear-mongering. Unless someone outright admits to fear-mongering, the question of whether someone is fear-mongering is a matter of opinion, not of fact. If that opinion is to be included, it should be treated as an opinion, not as a fact. As to the ACA issue, the problem is a lack of specificity. The source that accuses vulnerable Republican incumbents of falsehoods about pre-existing conditions mentions only one such vulnerable Republican incumbent (Dean Heller). It is an awfully thin thread to hang a generalization like that on. I agree with you about the potential for additional sources. SunCrow (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made some attempts to edit the following sentence:
 * Vulnerable Republican candidates who voted in favor of the American Health Care Act of 2017—which repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act—sought to defend their votes with what CNN described as "falsehoods and obfuscations".
 * The problem with this sentence is that it overgeneralizes. The broad characterization is pulled from a CNN article that--as I have stated above--makes a broad generalization while mentioning only one vulnerable Republican incumbent that is guilty of using falsehoods and obfuscations. More sources would be needed to support this broad claim. I propose that the sentence be removed unless additional sources can be found and added. I am tagging the sentence as dubious. SunCrow (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The source mentions the falsehoods by Hawley, McSally and Heller. The Washington Post also mirrors CNN's description here: "President Trump and Republicans repeatedly say that they are protecting Americans with preexisting medical conditions. It’s a false claim that flies in the face of the reality of the past eight years." This NY Times piece also mirrors this language. Please stop adding tags to articles, sections and sentences just because you personally disagree with what reliable sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, as you well know, neither Hawley nor McSally was an incumbent; they each ran for new offices last year. So their words and actions do not bear upon the challenged sentence, which relates to vulnerable incumbents. I say again: The CNN article makes a broad generalization while mentioning only one vulnerable Republican incumbent that engaged in the behavior it generalizes about. If you want to include information on Hawley and McSally, edit the sentence accordingly. Also, as I made perfectly clear above, my objection to the sentence has nothing to do with personal disagreement with a reliable source and everything to do with accuracy and neutrality. Stop mischaracterizing my objections. SunCrow (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Republicans in competitive races who voted in favor of the American Health Care Act of 2017—which repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act— or participated in a lawsuit to roll back the Affordable Care Act sought to defend their repeal efforts with what CNN described as "falsehoods and obfuscations" should do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Snooganssnoogans, that sentence will not do. It is too vague, and it makes it appear that all Republicans in competitive races who had voted for the AHCA used falsehoods and obfuscations in their campaigns. SunCrow (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The multiple RS that have been cited do not qualify the number of Republicans. Neither should we. If there was a Republican in a competitive race somewhere who owned his/her record on the Affordable Care Act, good for him/her. That can go into his/her Wikipedia article if there was such a Republican. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If the news stories that have been cited are so sloppy (or so biased) that they contain broadbrush characterizations of entire political parties without giving specifics to support those characterizations, perhaps the sources responsible for those stories should not be regarded as reliable in the first place. SunCrow (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your tagging of that section generally. My thoughts on the issues you've raised:
 * "Fear-mongering": putting aside whether you and I agree that it's an objective or subjective label, I think there is ample support in the RSes that "fear-mongering" is a term applied by the media to the GOP's messaging strategy: CNN, Wapo, NYT, and I'm sure there are dozens more that have used that phrase. Now, as a matter of neutrality, we can write "has been described as 'fear-mongering'" or something like that; I'm not suggesting we need to say "fear-mongering" in WP's voice.
 * "Vulnerable Republicans..." sentence: I agree it should be deleted, and I think I did so yesterday. Yes, CNN is considered by the community to be a reliable source, but that's not the end of the analysis. I don't understand why we need to quote CNN, but we don't, for example, quote Fox News (and I consider their reliability to be equal, though I don't think the community agrees with me). Also, this sentence, to me, adds nothing when compared with the immediately previous sentence ("A number of Republicans..."), and that sentence has four sources, one of which is CNN (though I disagree with using Business Insider as an RS, or Vox in this instance, but I'm not gonna fight about it). So I also feel the "Vulnerable..." sentence is duplicative, as well as undue weight.
 * For the same reasons as above, I think the quotes from WaPo and NYT in the 2nd paragraph should be removed. They also add nothing beyond what the first sentence ("In October 2018...") states. Generally speaking I think it's bad writing to write an article like: "This newspaper said, 'Trump is great.' That newspaper wrote, 'Trump is terrible.'" It's better to summarize the landscape, rather than just cherry-pick quotes. It's also easier to achieve neutrality through summarizing rather than trying to "balance" quotes (which will be cherrypicked on both sides).
 * I suggest collapsing the entire 2nd paragraph into one sentence that talks about immigration and race, cited to WaPo, NYT, and Toronto Star. Then, the first sentence of the third paragraph should follow ("A number of Republicans..."), regarding ACA and health care, cited as it is now. The final sentence ("Vulnerable..") should be deleted.
 * Additional sources will help neutrality and also give a broader, more comprehensive view. There are WSJ articles that analyze 2018 campaign ads that we could cite, but I don't have a subscription, so I can't read the full articles. There are Fox News articles as well, but I haven't put them in because I don't have it in me to fight with anyone about whether we can use FN as a source in this case. I'm sure Wash. Times did a story on campaign ads as well. There must be others. The sources are definitely out there. Levivich (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree with nearly everything you said. SunCrow (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich, about the second paragraph: Your idea works for me. Alternatively, what if we just kept the first sentence (In October 2018, The New York Times and The Washington Post characterized Republicans' 2018 campaign messaging as being chiefly focused on fear-mongering about immigration and race) and removed the rest? SunCrow (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich, about the second paragraph: Your idea works for me. Alternatively, what if we just kept the first sentence (In October 2018, The New York Times and The Washington Post characterized Republicans' 2018 campaign messaging as being chiefly focused on fear-mongering about immigration and race) and removed the rest? SunCrow (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, too. I see what you're getting at, and I would agree in the sense that I wouldn't object, but I don't think it's the best solution, because it's incomplete (although my suggestion above was also incomplete). I think the key points in the current 2nd and 3rd paragraphs can all be condensed into one sentence, with quotes in the refs instead of the body, looking something like this:

The Republican Party's 2018 campaign advertisements were criticized by the media for "fear-mongering" on immigration and crime, and hypocritically supporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted against.


 * That one sentence would then be followed with others about other 2018 ads topics, besides criticism of the GOP ("fear-mongering and hypocrisy"), such as: health care v. jobs and taxes, women not running on women's issues, immigration ad spending up, outside group ad spending up. Unfortunately, I don't have time to mine these sources, but here are some that might be useful for this section: (from ),, , , , . Levivich (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Levivich, how about this? Several Republican campaign advertisements were criticized in the media for "fear-mongering" on immigration and crime, and others were criticized for hypocritically supporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted to repeal. I don't like referring generally to the media, but I cannot think of a better alternative. SunCrow (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) That looks good to me. I hate "the media", too, how about: Several Republican campaign advertisements received media criticism for "fear-mongering" on immigration and crime, and others were criticized for hypocritically supporting provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted to repeal. or, alternatively, Media outlets criticized several Republican campaign advertisements for...? Levivich (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That text is not sufficient. Nobody was "criticized" for anything. Reliable sources "reported" something. Nobody "criticized" Republicans for "hypocrisy" - that's just straight-up WP:OR. What RS "reported" was that Republicans were lying and obfuscating about their past and present opposition to the Affordable Care Act and its protections for preexisting conditions. What RS "reported" was that Republicans' closing message was a "racially charged" fear-mongering campaign full of brazen falsehoods. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "I am just observing you are a liar, I am not criticizing you" is not a real argument; that's a semantic game. No one would interpret "liar", "fear-mongering", or "racist" as neutral, objectively factual observations or "reporting". Such charges are always opinion. They may be true, but they're true opinion, not true fact. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we say that Adolf Hitler was an "anti-Semite" and pusher of "anti-Jewish conspiracy theories" or should we say he was "criticized for "anti-Semitism""? On Wikipedia, we just say he was an "anti-Semite" because we adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:RS policy where we represent what reliable sources report. We don't whitewash the language or use WP:WEASEL terms just because the bluntness offends someone's feelings or out of a strange desire to achieve WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, this year it was 14 days before I saw Godwin–that's pretty late in the year. Though Hitler makes for a great analogy in many conversations, this is not one of them. Hitler is an individual; "Republicans" are a group of individuals. And, since we're already in Godwin territory anyway, if you were to replace "Hitler" with "Nazi", there is still the problem of both Hitler and Nazis being called "anti-semitic" because it was their declared, written policy to be anti-semitic, whereas neither the Republicans nor Trump have published books or articles saying "we stand for fear-mongering, lies, and hypocrisy." That's why we can say in WP's voice that Hitler and the Nazis are anti-semitic, but we cannot say in WP's voice that Trump and the Republicans are fear-mongering, lying hypocrites, no matter how much you or I may believe that. What we can say, though, is that the media called them those things. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did Hitler and the Nazis explicitly say they were anti-Semitic? Did they ever say they were "fear-mongering"? If not, does that mean that we can't say that the Nazis fear-mongered about Jews? This is getting tiring and it's clear that a discussion about postmodernist takes on reality are not going anywhere. The point is that your text violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies and is nothing more than your own WP:OR, WP:WEASEL and WP:FALSEBALANCE. You're in effect advocating that we should disregard what sources say or rephrase it in a WP:WEASEL manner just because you personally disagree with what they say. You're OK with using "racist" and "fear-mongering" when you agree with the content of RS, but not when you disagree with the content of RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did Hitler and the Nazis explicitly say they were anti-Semitic? Mein Kampf, Posen speeches, and the 1939 Reichstag speech are a few of the more famous examples. I do agree with you that this is tiring. Levivich (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans: First, you are twisting Levivich's words. Second, Levivich is correct in distinguishing between opinions and facts. Third, your Hitler analogy is off-the-chart ridiculous. SunCrow (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich, how about this? Several Republican campaign advertisements expressed support for provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted to repeal, while others were described by various media outlets as having engaged in "fear-mongering" on immigration and crime. SunCrow (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Levivich (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Levivich. I have made the edit. SunCrow (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This version does not reflect what sources say. (1) It makes it seem as if some Republicans were simply pro-ACA whereas in the past other Republicans voted to repeal the ACA. This is not at all what sources say. Sources clearly say that Republicans who sought to undermine the ACA were lying and obfuscating about their record. (2) Sources clearly describe the fear-mongering on immigration and race as the closing message, and the text fails to clarify how exactly they fear-mongered. To achieve your postmodernist take on objective reality, you scrubbed out descriptions from the papers of record. (3) After you made this edit, Levivich added a "this section needs expansion" tag, which is bizarre to say the least. After scrubbing RS text on two of the three issues that mattered the most in this election (health care, taxes and immigration/race per all RS), you have the audacity to say that the section needs expansion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, I refuse to waste any more time arguing with you about this. In my experience, it is always your way or the highway. SunCrow (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Two different versions
These are the two different versions that are being debated:

Version A:

* During the final stretch of the campaign, The New York Times and The Washington Post'' characterized Republicans' 2018 campaign messaging as being chiefly focused on fear-mongering about immigration and race. According to The Washington Post, President Trump "settled on a strategy of fear – laced with falsehoods and racially tinged rhetoric – to help lift his party to victory in the coming midterms, part of a broader effort to energize Republican voters". The New York Times wrote that "Mr. Trump and other Republicans are insistently seeking to tie Democrats to unfettered immigration and violent crime, and in some instances this summer and fall they have attacked minority candidates in nakedly racial terms". Toronto Star wrote that as the mid-term elections approached, Trump resorted to "a blizzard of fear-mongering and lies, many of them about darker-skinned foreigners". ''

''* On the campaign trail, numerous Republican candidates claimed to support provisions of the Affordable Care Act, such as protections for preexisting conditions, even though they voted for or supported efforts that either weakened or eliminated those provisions. Republican candidates in competitive races who voted in favor of the American Health Care Act of 2017—which repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act— or supported other efforts to roll back the Affordable Care Act sought to defend their positions with what the Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN characterized as falsehoods and obfuscations. ''

Version B:

''* Several Republican campaign advertisements expressed support for provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted to repeal,  while others were described by various media outlets as having engaged in "fear-mongering" on immigration and crime. ''

Of these two versions, A clearly mirrors what the reliable sources say. B's text is misleading on ACA, as it suggests that some pro-ACA Republicans supported aspects of the ACA that other Republicans had sought to repeal, which is 100% not what the cited sources say. The text on the fear-mongering attributes the description to "various media outlets" (which is AFAIK considered bad writing on Wikipedia), and fails to clarify what this fear-mongering entailed. A has long-term encyclopedic value and strictly adheres to the cited sources. B is both misleading and uninformative. If there is a flaw in A it's that it opts to attribute statements that should be stated uncontroversially in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * One thing you seem to be missing about Version B is that the subject of the sentence isn't "Republicans," it's "advertisements." The sentence says "Several...advertisements [supported ACA provisions Republicans had voted to repeal], while others [other advertisements, not other Republicans] were described...as having engaged in 'fear-mongering' on immigration and crime." We don't need clarity on what "fear mongering" consists of, that's why the word is used: it's shorthand for making fake or exaggerated claims intended to scare people into agreeing with you. Also, if you look at the above thread, you have not even attempted to address any of my concerns, nor have you suggested any language changes whatsoever. You continue to play the man and stubbornly cling to the original version. You are the only person who has expressed this opinion here. In a conversation with 3 people, when 2 of them agree, that's consensus, or at least local consensus. If you don't like the sentence as written, I'm all for any suggestions you have to change it. But I've explained why I oppose the original language, as does at least one other editor, and you will need to address that rather than just reverting. Please start playing the ball and not the man, as they say. Pinging who commented earlier in this thread, to see if they have thoughts to share on the new language or anything else in this thread. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * re your edit summary: I don't see it as content being "deleted" because the content and the sources are still there, simply reworded or condensed in phrasing (but I think all the main points are still there, unless I'm missing something). I would appreciate your thoughts on the subject of whether to quote the sources (what I call "he said/she said" writing, see my comments above), as opposed to summarizing the sources. My issue throughout isn't with the content, it's with giving WaPo, NYT, and CNN full-sentence quotations in the body, and expressing their views that way, rather than summarizing the views of those three plus many other media outlets. I think Version B handles the summary of Version A well. But Version A is poorly written as it just parrots three sources. We should write an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotations. I'm all for copyediting until we get something everyone is happy with. What I hate is when people don't engage in a discussion, others do and come to an agreement, and then we just revert. Please join the discussion. Levivich (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is clearly not the case. I challenge the removal of the older version in favour of this "condensed" one as it seems like a POV attempt to downplay the coverage of Republican use of racist ideas in campaign advertising. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, with respect, you are mistaken. This is NOT a POV attempt to downplay anything. Please take a look through the extensive discussion above. You will see that Levivich and I are working on making this section balanced and accurate. If you disagree with the result, please work with us on improving the content. That is my goal, and I feel confident in stating that that is the goal of Levivich as well. SunCrow (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your justification for the changes is that RS language can't be used for descriptions that you personally disagree with. It's impossible to meet the demands of a Wikipedia editor who flatly rejects Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:NPOV policies in favor of WP:OR. We cannot write up a version of text that is detached from what RS say - that's not how Wikipedia works. Aquillion clearly described SunCrow's criticisms of the content as spurious. It's absurd to refer to a 2v2 content dispute as a consensus and to edit-war out the long-standing version of the text. (ec) Now, Simonm223 backs up the long-standing version, so there's a 3v2 split on the content (note that I'd never go so far as to describe this as a consensus). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ask for input on the NPOV board or start a RfC about the two versions above if you feel that this discussion is not going anywhere. Just don't edit-war out long-standing content when there is no consensus for it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a POV issue. It's a quality-of-prose issue. I'm not sure how to get you to focus on that. If you feel it's important that "racist" be said, it can easily be added to the sentence, like this: Several Republican campaign advertisements expressed support for provisions of the Affordable Care Act that Republicans had recently voted to repeal, while others were described by various media outlets as having engaged in racist "fear-mongering" on immigration and crime. Just one example. I don't understand why you won't engage on the issue of quoting vs. summarizing. I also don't understand why AGF doesn't seem important to you. Levivich (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Levivich is right. SunCrow (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that several days ago, FloridaArmy commented above that the term fear-mongering was inappropriate. SunCrow (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Revised language proposed
The purpose of this proposed change is to say the same thing with fewer words by condensing quotes into prose in Wikipedia's voice. The references are the same in both versions.

Version A (current):

Version B (proposed):

Any objections to this change? How can the language be changed to address the objection(s)? Thanks to all in advance for their input. Levivich  03:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of these two versions, A clearly mirrors what the reliable sources say. B's text is misleading on ACA, as it suggests that some pro-ACA Republicans supported aspects of the ACA that other Republicans had sought to repeal, which is 100% not what the cited sources say. The text on the fear-mongering attributes the description to the media, and fails to clarify what this fear-mongering entailed. A has long-term encyclopedic value and strictly adheres to the cited sources. B is both misleading and uninformative. If there is a flaw in A it's that it opts to attribute statements that should be stated uncontroversially in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It was worth a try, Levivich . SunCrow (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not giving up just yet, . A clearly mirrors what the reliable sources say because it's a QUOTEFARM. B says "...that most Republicans had recently voted to repeal", which was a change intended to address the "some"/"other" objection. Is "they" better? As for the second clause, I literally cannot see any aspect of what the fear mongering entailed that is stated in one of the quotes currently used that is not stated in the second clause of B ("racial", "fear", "crime", and "immigration" are included, so what's missing?). As for the media-focus, would you consent to this revision:


 * Levivich  05:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. SunCrow (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Second call: Any objections then to the new, new revised version, above? If so, please state. If not, I'll make the change tomorrow. Thanks. Levivich  22:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already explained why your version is bad, and it's not particularly different from the other version that you tried to force into the article by inaccurately claiming a consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , hey thanks for that super friendly and cooperative response! The new version was specifically changed to address your objections, as the previous version was specifically changed to address your previous objections, as was the one before that, and so forth. WP:QUOTEFARM is the problem here, I'm trying to solve that by condensing quotes into prose in Wikipedia's voice. I've tried many different words to make you happy, please suggest some words of your own that we can use, in Wikipedia's voice, to reduce the quotefarm. Thanks. Levivich  23:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You've reverted me and, and I respect you and your reverts, but the next step in BRD is discuss, and accusing me of having POV isn't discussion. If you're going to revert, I think you should attempt in good faith to offer suggested language that addresses my concerns (quotefarm), just as I have offered suggested language (several versions) that addresses your concerns (retaining the content/meaning of the original). Meet me halfway here. If you ignore my concerns, all that'll happen is we'll end up writing to each other at a different text file, which I think is stupid, when we can just solve this here. Thanks. Levivich  23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already told you more than once that I prefer the extant version. I am under NO requirement to "meet you half way". Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , indeed, in a collaborative encyclopedia, there is no requirement that you work with others.
 * So that's two editors who like it the way it is and don't want to make any changes, and two editors who would like to change the quotes into prose in Wikipedia's voice. Any other editors have an opinion? Thanks all. Levivich  15:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So that's two editors who like it the way it is and don't want to make any changes, and two editors who would like to change the quotes into prose in Wikipedia's voice. Any other editors have an opinion? Thanks all. Levivich  15:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Should historical milestones be covered in the lede?
Of course they should. They have long-lasting encyclopedic value. One editor has been edit-warring to remove the specific milestones from the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The lead should summarize the body. Historical milestones should be summarized in the lead, but listing each one is not summarizing, it is excessive verbiage for the lead. "Many historical firsts, including [#1 most important], [#2 most important] and others" would be a better summary, in my opinion. Levivich 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, as per your usual custom, you have posed your question in a misleading way. My edits did not remove all mention of historical milestones from the lede. They simply removed the full list of those milestones. The full list of demographic-related milestones is covered in the body of the article (as it should be) and does not need to be in the lede. As Levivich accurately stated, the lede should summarize the body of the article. I am not sure you know what it means to summarize something. You typically load up lede sections with far too much detail, making them wordy and not very readable. This lede is much longer and more specific than it needs to be, which is why I have been attempting to trim it.


 * While I prefer my version of the sentence in question, I would be willing to accept the compromise proposed above by Levivich .  SunCrow (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The lede already summarizes the body. The body covers the firsts at greater length. No reason at all has been presented for why Muslim, Native American and female historic milestones should in particular be scrubbed from the lede. It certainly does not "summarize" anything to just scrub things. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Snooganssnoogans, I have reinstated the compromise language that you reverted. Unsurprisingly, your edit summary and your comment above are both misleading ("no reason at all has been presented, etc."), as I explained the reasons for my position quite clearly. As usual, you are completely unwilling to work toward consensus. Your "warning" was absurd, as you engage in more edit-warring than any other Wikipedia editor I can think of. Physician, heal thyself. SunCrow (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Immediate attempts to delete RfC consensus text
One editor immediately sought to remove text that reflected the consensus in a recently closed RfC. As for the substance of the editor's edit summary ("a play-by-play of commentary about the blue wave will not help the reader understand this election"), it's clearly false given that lots of people (including several editors on this very page) are unaware that RS generally characterized it as a blue wave election and are unaware of the reasons why it was not characterized as a blue wave on election night. It obviously relevant context that assessments of a blue wave increased and strengthened as more election results came in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , when posting on the talk page about one of my edits, I'd ask that you ping me, rather than refer to me as "one editor". I don't think text becomes "untouchable" just because it's coming out of an RfC. The portions that I removed are, in my view, superfluous. I don't see what "necessary context" they add to the statement "widely considered a blue wave". Finally, it's another WP:QUOTEFARM, and I'm really confused about your insistence on stringing together sentence-long quotes from certain sources instead of writing in prose using Wikipedia's voice. Levivich 17:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, I would remind you that when the RfC was closed, the admin stated that the issues raised by Levivich should be noted and that more discussion was warranted. SunCrow (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

First Native American governor
The current version of the page says Kevin Stitt is the first Native American governor in the nation, without a source. I looked at the Kevin Stitt page a moment ago and noticed that he's not even the first Native American governor of Oklahoma - that would be Johnston Murray. I think that section might have to be partially rewritten. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of a source, I don't object to you removing that line. However, from a Google search, I do see some sources that call him the first Native American governor. Here, here, and here for example. Could anyone shed light on this issue re:Stitt and Johnston Murray? Orser67 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * AP issued at least once a correction about referring to Stitt as the first Native American governor (here). It's clear that Murray was an enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation (source) and should hold that "first Native American governor" title. Carter (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the AP reference! Airbornemihir (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)