Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Ohio Issue 1
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2024 Ohio Issue 1
- ... that the Republican-led Ohio Ballot Board was sued because its official summary for Ohio Issue 1, designed to improve redistricting, stated instead that the initiative would require gerrymandering?
- Source: the Board's summary "describes the amendment, which is specifically intended to prevent partisan gerrymandering, as specifically requiring it."
- ALT1: ... that advocates for Ohio Issue 1, an initiative to stop partisan gerrymandering, sued the Republican-led Ballot Board for a summary that claimed the 2024 initiative would require gerrymandering? Source: see above. On the parties to the lawsuit itself, see: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/ohio-group-garners-over-700000-signatures-for-ballot-initiative-to-end-gerrymandering/
- ALT2: ... that Ohio Issue 1 was created to end partisan gerrymandering after 5 redistricting maps by the Republican-led legislature were rejected by the Ohio Supreme Court -- and flawed maps were used in 2022? Source: "Courts rejected two congressional maps and five sets of Statehouse maps as gerrymandered. Amid the court disputes, Ohio’s elections were allowed to proceed last year under the flawed maps." https://apnews.com/article/ohio-redistricting-constitutional-amendment-attorney-general-e3e8759ceeabc9538dd4bd49b6c84b52
- ALT3: ... that in the lead-up to the election, the ballot summary for 2024 Ohio Issue 1 was a flashpoint for legal action? Source: "Ohio Supreme Court clears ballot language saying anti-gerrymandering measure calls for the opposite." https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/columbus/news/2024/09/17/ohio-supreme-court-issue-1-ballot-language
- Reviewed:
- Comment: I hope the hooks and article are carefully NPOV. Reliable sources usually mention that the legislature and ballot board are Republican-led, since gerrymandering is about partisanship. Fwiw, Issue 1 proponents are described in the press as bipartisan.
- Update: ALT3 added per suggestion below
ProfGray (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC).
WP:DYKELECT talks about "election candidates", but I think the spirt of the guideline also applies to ballot questions like this. I suggest holding this until after the election. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- No reason not to review it now; if it gets approved, it can be placed in the special occasion section set up for election hooks to run after the November election in the US. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Not a review, but not totally sure the hooks are that interesting. Andre🚐 22:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Starting review:
- As noted above, this should be held until after the upcoming elections
- That will in turn require updating wording like
to be voted upon in the November 2024 election
. It would be useful to mark this up with {{Update after}} reminders now, but I'll leave that for somebody else. - Obviously, if we run this after the election, it will need to be updated with the outcome and probably reactions.
- That will in turn require updating wording like
- New enough (created August 25, nominated the next day)
- Long enough
- QPQ exempt
- Earwig calls out lots of text duplication, but it's all properly attributed quotes, so no worries there.
- Since this is a controversial issue, I gave the sources a close look. For the most part, they appear to be WP:RS. I do see a few duplicated sources, which WP:REFILL can help fix, but that's not a DYK criterion.
- The Official arguments section does a good job of hewing to WP:NPOV.
- I am, however, somewhat concerned about the Support section. The large "Yes" box duplicates much of the preceding paragraph, is not balanced by a "No" box, probably violates MOS:EMBED, and is almost certainly incomplete today and at risk of going out of date at any point in the future. I'd drop it.
- I'm also unconvinced that the Polling section is useful and probably violates WP:NPOV since it only lists one poll.
- I pretty much agree with Andrevan about the hooks. Although they all get under the 200 character official limit, they're all excessively wordy, and not very interesting.
RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I agree with some of your concerns, mostly about edits since my DYK submission, eg the Yes box (blown up from a more selective prose text) and the Polling. If (or: since) the DYK can't be run at this stage, I will wait to edit and update until after the election, ok? Given the timing, does the "new enough" criterion still a pass? After the vote, perhaps an better DYK hook will be apparent. Thanks for your review and for everyone's input here. ProfGray (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the timing; as long as you get the nomination in on time, you're good. If we hold it up because of our rules, that's on us. RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- RoySmith, ProfGray, I'm not nearly so sanguine that this one won't be closed on October 25 or 26 when it hits two months. If it's approved and in the special occasion section for nominations waiting for the election to be over, then there isn't a problem. If it's still not approved at the end of the coming week, there probably will be. I would respectfully suggest that ProfGray do whatever is necessary to get the article and/or hooks into such shape that the nomination can be passed during the coming week; any post-election edits can be made per whatever new information is relevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- In response to points above -- the Polling section has been removed. The "Yes" support section has been balanced by a "No" opposition section. (I didn't happen to create this section, but I added a few opposing orgs and now it does seem balanced.) I adjusted some language to be more NPOV and I welcome any other concerns about the article. I will think about the hook, since it'd be great to run the DYK. I hadn't known about the two months conern.ProfGray (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, the article looks better now. The only thing left is to work on the hooks. In general, short snappy hooks are better than long complicated ones. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. It'd be great to get help with the hook. Personally, I find it interesting (fascinating, ironic, clever) that both the proponents and opponents claim to be against gerrymandering and both blame the other side for gerrymandering. The zany redistricting context is also interesting to me. But if these are not interesting, what would folks recommend for the hook? ProfGray (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would question whether a broad audience would know what gerrymandering was. Assuming it checks out, I suggest something less specific, like "that in the lead-up to the 2024 election, the summary of 2024 Ohio Issue 1 was a flashpoint for legal action".--Launchballer 12:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point. My first thought was, "No, that's dumb. Of course everybody knows what gerrymandering is". But then as I read a bit of Gerrymandering I realized it's only an issue in places which use an election system similar to what we have in the US. If you are electing people based on total vote count across the entire electorate, it's not a thing. I don't honestly know enough about election systems around the world to know how many places it is a thing. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, my concern was that knowing the word took knowing a fair bit about politics. (I have limited interest in the subject and only know the term because I was reading about Tesco, whose founder's daughter was behind the homes for votes scandal.)--Launchballer 15:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point. My first thought was, "No, that's dumb. Of course everybody knows what gerrymandering is". But then as I read a bit of Gerrymandering I realized it's only an issue in places which use an election system similar to what we have in the US. If you are electing people based on total vote count across the entire electorate, it's not a thing. I don't honestly know enough about election systems around the world to know how many places it is a thing. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would question whether a broad audience would know what gerrymandering was. Assuming it checks out, I suggest something less specific, like "that in the lead-up to the 2024 election, the summary of 2024 Ohio Issue 1 was a flashpoint for legal action".--Launchballer 12:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. It'd be great to get help with the hook. Personally, I find it interesting (fascinating, ironic, clever) that both the proponents and opponents claim to be against gerrymandering and both blame the other side for gerrymandering. The zany redistricting context is also interesting to me. But if these are not interesting, what would folks recommend for the hook? ProfGray (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- OK, the article looks better now. The only thing left is to work on the hooks. In general, short snappy hooks are better than long complicated ones. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- In response to points above -- the Polling section has been removed. The "Yes" support section has been balanced by a "No" opposition section. (I didn't happen to create this section, but I added a few opposing orgs and now it does seem balanced.) I adjusted some language to be more NPOV and I welcome any other concerns about the article. I will think about the hook, since it'd be great to run the DYK. I hadn't known about the two months conern.ProfGray (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- RoySmith, ProfGray, I'm not nearly so sanguine that this one won't be closed on October 25 or 26 when it hits two months. If it's approved and in the special occasion section for nominations waiting for the election to be over, then there isn't a problem. If it's still not approved at the end of the coming week, there probably will be. I would respectfully suggest that ProfGray do whatever is necessary to get the article and/or hooks into such shape that the nomination can be passed during the coming week; any post-election edits can be made per whatever new information is relevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the timing; as long as you get the nomination in on time, you're good. If we hold it up because of our rules, that's on us. RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I agree with some of your concerns, mostly about edits since my DYK submission, eg the Yes box (blown up from a more selective prose text) and the Polling. If (or: since) the DYK can't be run at this stage, I will wait to edit and update until after the election, ok? Given the timing, does the "new enough" criterion still a pass? After the vote, perhaps an better DYK hook will be apparent. Thanks for your review and for everyone's input here. ProfGray (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Could I ask that you assess my ALT3?--Launchballer 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- From a strictly copyediting point of view, how about shortening it to:
- ALT3a: ... the ballot summary for 2024 Ohio Issue 1 was a flashpoint for legal action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
- That's fine by me.--Launchballer 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- RoySmith, this nomination is getting seriously past its sell-by date. If you aren't willing to formally approve this nomination (ALT3a is just a shortening of an existing hook, and doesn't need a new reviewer), then it should probably be marked for closure. Thanks for deciding one way or the other with the appropriate icon at your earliest opportunity. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine by me.--Launchballer 19:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- ALT3a: ... the ballot summary for 2024 Ohio Issue 1 was a flashpoint for legal action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
