Talk:Voter suppression in the United States

Questions about what should go under "Suffrage" vs. "Modern Examples"
I'm planning on working on the subsection "Use it or Lose it," which is currently under "Suffrage". However, it looks to me like it would fit better under "Modern Examples". Is there a set system for deciding where it and similar examples should go? Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance. Scientia06 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would check WP:MOS, but usually it's just a matter of consensus for editors that patrol and or frequent the article/talk pages. Once you have brought it up at "talk" you can either wait for a response or follow WP:BRD protocols. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I ended up making the change, but if anyone has any issues with it please let me know as I'm doing my best to learn about how best to edit and maintain these sorts of articles. Scientia06 (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit - I think suffrage should be limited to the right to vote and voter suppression to topics like 'use it or lose it'
 * I broke off the rest of the similar topics from suffrage into a section called 'Types of voter suppression' - is this a better way to organize this article, moving the examples underneath each section to help illustrate each type of voter suppression? Superb Owl (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Questions about neutral point of view and discussing Electoral integrity or other justifications for modern day voter suppression
In the past few decades, proponents of many restrictive voting laws have often justified them by pointing to concerns over Electoral integrity. I believe that this fact should be mentioned in this article, albeit briefly, as a part of the discussion of concerns about voter suppression in the 21st century (and indeed, if such a defense was used in the past as well, I believe we should include it). Xam2580 (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging ... Please use the talk page to attempt to gain a consensus for your desired change instead of just reverting. See 1st attempt and more recent 2nd attempt...Cheers. DN (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say the same to you. Please see the talk page I created immediately after you suggested it.
 * I am happy to discuss this issue, or, perhaps you could simply fold my edit into the broader article. I see no consensus about being prevented from briefly mentioning the justifications for these voter suppression laws, and I think it is important to discuss both sides of an issue whenever possible and reasonable to do so Xam2580 (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should clarify, I meant the article talk page here. I'm not sure which talk page you "created". I checked the page history and this is the first edit I've seen of yours here (article talk page). DN (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I created this section of the talk page: "Questions about neutral point of view and discussing Electoral integrity or other justifications for modern day voter suppression"
 * I am happy to discuss this edit here or elsewhere. I personally think that including the views of those proposing these bills is important to maintain neutrality. I am open to suggestions for better wording or more appropriate locations. In fact, I suggest an entire section discussing the reasoning behind voter suppression, whether it be racism, maintaining democratic majorities, concerns over electoral integrity, or anything else. Xam2580 (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see the "section" above. My main contention was that you had changed the word "restriction" to "alter". I see your most recent edit here, and it omits that change so it's much less of an issue for me. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All good. I simply object to the broad use of reversions for generally decent edits. Xam2580 (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * On a side note, many of the 361 bills cited by the brennan center are 1 never enacted and 2 represent minor changes to voting procedure. As such, I prefer the more neutral word "alter" rather than "restrict". Or perhaps we can qualify the word "restrict" by adding a phrase like "which the center/proponents say restrict..." Xam2580 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So 360+ voter restriction bills since 2013's Shelby V Holder comes out to an average of about 3 bills a month every month for the last 10 years despite their unpopularity and chances of passing. After all, you can't legalize voter suppression without legislation, can you? Regardless of how many bills have passed, the body of the article goes into details which give this aspect of the article WP:WEIGHT, hence it's prominence in the lead. If you would like to put together an WP:RfC to see if there is a consensus for adding a qualifier for the term "restrictive", I would not object. However, calling them "minor changes" instead, and or, omitting that term, for whatever reason, seems to constitute an NPOV violation, IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)