Talk:Todd Ames Hunter

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2022
{{subst:trim|1=

At the very least, change the title from "Role in post-2020 gerrymander" to "Role in 2021 Texas House Redistricting Process" as gerrymandering is a legal cause of action. The remaining changes are an effort to neutralize any non cited speculation, and accurately state the status of actions that have taken place since. All changes are cited in this version of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Ames_Hunter&oldid=1062907152)

Change "In 2021, Hunter rushed through a heavily pro-Republican gerrymandered redistricting map that he authored through his committee. He provided a minimum of 24 hours advance notice for testimony and allowed for no amendments." to "In 2021, Hunter managed a pro-Republican redistricting effort that he spearheaded through his committee. He provided a minimal notice for testimony and no amendments suggested from the public testimony were enacted."

Change "The map increased the number of seats where white are in the majority and reduced the number of seats where Hispanics or blacks are in the majority, even though non-whites were behind 95% of the population growth in Texas." to "Although non-whites were responsible for 95% of the population growth in Texas, the map increased the number of seats in largely white populations and reduced the number of seats in Hispanic and African American populated areas. {{Cite news|title=Most of Texas' new districts are majority white, diluting power of voters of color."}}

Add to end of section (reverted): "Multiple lawsuits challenging the new political maps and alleging intentional gerrymandering by the republican-controlled legislature have already been filed and are currently pending in federal and state courts."

EaziGH (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template. Hemantha (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ans= no The user is unresponsive. What recourse is available. I have asked for comments. Thank you.


 * The content should stick to what RS say. Your proposed text ("In 2021, Hunter managed a pro-Republican redistricting effort that he spearheaded through his committee. He provided a minimal notice for testimony and no amendments suggested from the public testimony were enacted.") is a whitewashed version devoid any substance. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If you have a WP:COI, you need to disclose it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate on what is meant by "whitewashing." Your original edits both deleted relevant information on previous legislative sessions, and expressed personal opinions. If you wish to use "gerrymander" to describe current redistricting maps, this would be at best extremely misleading. Please provide a RS that points to a court ruling supporting your opinions on the current maps. Otherwise, please allow necessary changes to be made, or feel free to undo or revert to more accurate versions of the page. EaziGH (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that we can't use the term gerrymandering in the absence of court rulings, but I do think we should be cautious in reaching for the term. We shouldn't use the term unless it is used by less partisan RSes. The WaPo article uses it twice, but in each case ascribes it to critics of the plan. That would allow us to say the redistricting has been called a gerrymander, but not call it that in wikivoice. I'd also like to know if EaziGH has a CoI. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk)


 * I dont think the edits change anything substantial. If the editors want to debate the specifics of the word usage, they may do so, but it does not seem that it will yield much fruit. If user:EaziGH has WP:RS that support his word usage, this may be done. If so, they must first present such WP:RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The Third Opinion request made regarding this matter has been removed (i.e. declined) for multiple reasons. First, though it stands little chance of surviving, there is a Request for Comments pending here and only one form of dispute resolution may be requested at one time. Second, there has been insufficient talk page discussion; 3O requires *thorough* discussion, which requires back and forth, and most editors here have only posted one time. Third, there are now three editors involved in the discussion and 3O only handles disputes with exactly two editors involved. Any one of those three reasons would have alone been sufficient to remove the request. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC) {{tooltip|2=This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.|(Not watching this page)|link=no|dotted=yes}}