Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Andre🚐22:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi JohnAdams1800! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Democratic Party (United States) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You've been marking nearly all of your edits as minor. Although it's true that the edits you've been making aren't huge, sweeping changes, they do substantially change the meaning of the prose you're editing, and therefore should not be marked as minor. Thanks, — SamX [talk·contribs· he/him] 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of misconduct by George Santos until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi John, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. While I have no doubt that you are contributing in good faith for the better of the encyclopedia, I am concerned that based on some of your recent edit summaries, some of which is bordering on WP:Stonewalling. Around the beginning of 2023, especially in years articles, we have had quite a few issues with regard to some editors' compliance with the stonewalling guidelines and one even being TBanned from Years entirely.
Some of your edits and comments do seem to imply that you wish we reinstate the old International Notability standards, the subject of an essay I wrote against implementing. If you wish to bring these standards back, it's going to be most beneficial for your cause that you propose them directly and not act as if a consensus existed. I understand that I may be fear-mongering, but I would like to give you a gentle reminder so we avoid a situation similar to Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., which we already had on ANI with regard to years. Thanks, and happy editing! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Heya John. I noticed that despite some pings on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years inviting you to discuss on practices, I haven't seen your opinion. These discussions have a pretty big impact on years, and consider this a formal invitation to join us especially considering how frequently you contribute to the Years articles. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I replied to your top comment on "Was there ever a clearly-discussed consensus that Main Year Articles are to be international only?" Thank you for formally inviting me. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Graduate unemployment into Draft:Graduate unemployment in China. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2024 in public domain into Draft:2024 in American public domain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
You said here that there was a consensus to not include the content which you reverted. Could you direct to me where that consensus is? As far as my knowledge goes, a talk page discussion was just opened. 33ABGirl (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @33ABGirl I just want to add some context as to why the inclusion of this event is so contentious. Editors in years have previously taken strong stances on transportation disasters where they feel domestic flights and those with low death tolls don't belong in main year articles. For instance, Tara Air Flight 197 a flight that killed 22 people in 2022 is not in the main year article for 2022 as it was considered domestic, and I personally found myself fighting for inclusion of a deadlier air disaster that same year.
I think editors who frequently work on year articles, including myself, have been working on an unwritten consensus as to what warrants inclusion while not doing a good enough job explaining why. Hopefully the talkpage entry can better allow everyone to reach a consensus, even if it isn't something these users agree with. PaulRKil (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@PaulRKil Thank you for providing this clarification. I have no objections to inclusion based on documented consensus. My issue here is that the content was removed with the edit summary there is a consensus that.....didn't merit an entry in this article, when there was clearly no discussion on the content beforehand. This was a straightforwardly untrue statement, so I wanted an explanation for it. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page 2024 has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. As there has been no further response from you to the previous discussion, please consider this a formal warning against using false edit summaries in the future.33ABGirl (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Economic history of the United Kingdom into Protectionism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, you recently added the line about Frederick the Great's sexuality. I have no problem with the statement although I'm not sure that it's germane to the topic. If you leave it in, please add the five sources for footnote 20 that are now raising no-target errors. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Educational attainment in the United States into Higher education bubble in the United States. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I did not add original research--the dogs in Animal Farm represent the secret police of the USSR (i.e. Cheka, NKVD, KGB, etc.) that were used to suppress dissent and conduct purges in the Soviet Union.
Similarly Stalin's liquidation of the kulaks, or smallholder peasants, was part of his Five Year Plans and purges in the 1930s. The hens represent the kulaks because they are part of the animals (the proletariat), and were forced to surrender their eggs (land) to Napoleon (Stalin).
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, JohnAdams1800. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Graduate unemployment in China, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Just a reminder that if you nominate another article for an AFD discussion, you should sign your nomination statement so that editors do not have to look at the page history to see which editor launched this deletion nomination. Basically, all statements on Talk pages and Project noticeboards should have a signature. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!00:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northeastern United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Coast.
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi John; I would liketo invite you to the discussion happening on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years about my proposal to deprecate Americentrism arguments. I noticed that you have not responded yet despite the initial ping; while I am unaware of any real life situations involving you which may impede your ability to contribute to the project, i still would like to extend this invitation to you since much of the editing I notice from you seems to be in this topic area. For consistency, traceability, and to ensure your opinion is heard, I recommend that you leave your thoughts there and not reply directly to me on your talk page. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which article are you referring to? If you're referring to the Cotton Belt, Arkansas is mentioned. If you're referring to the Deep South, Arkansas is sometimes considered to have territory in the Cotton Belt--the Arkansas Delta in Eastern Arkansas--but Arkansas as a whole is not considered a Cotton state.
At the time of the Civil War, 25.5% of Arkansas' population was African American slaves, which was the second-lowest of the 11 Confederate states, ahead of 24.8% in Tennessee. In particular, the Ozarks region of Arkansas is considered part of the Upland South, as is much of Northwestern Arkansas. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! When updating articles like Joe Biden, can you please also update the citations? That would avoid having a citation that can't support the sentence it's attached to in edits like this. Thank you. Ed[talk][OMT]18:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (4th request)
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It appears that you copied or moved text from 2024 United States presidential election in Iowa to 2022 Iowa elections. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Repeated violations of Wikipedia's attribution requirements may result in the loss of editing privileges. DanCherek (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 10 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Your latest post repeats points you have made earlier so I am replying on your talk page.
When you post on a talk page, you should begin by explicitly stating what changes you want made. The talk page says, "This is thetalk pagefor discussing improvements to theDemocratic Party (United States)article....This isnot a forumfor general discussion of the article's subject."
You keep coming back to the same point, in this case in an article by Jamelle Bouie, who has a BA in journalism and is not an expert. His views reflect the position of the Democratic Party leadership which has abandoned progressive economic policies and hopes to replace working class supporters with suburban Republicans. As Chuck Shumer said, “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
You need to use expert sources, i.e., polisci textbooks and articles by qualified experts. The consensus is the party leadership opposes progressive economic policies and have looked for ways to replace voters they are ceding to Republicans. Working people are not becoming more conservative btw. They were more coservative when William Jennings Bryan, FDR, JFK, Carter and Bill Clinton won their votes. TFD (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I used other sources too--Ronald Brownstein and Ed Kilgore. What I was trying to get to the bottom of was why White voters w/o college degrees vote for the Republican Party so strongly. My question is was it for Trump particularly due to his persona and/or policies, or in general due to ideology/partisanship. There's plenty of election data over the years, but the 2024 NC governor race w/ Mark Robinson as the nominee was an extreme and useful case.
The nominee was Black, so if it's racism in a Southern state, that would have decreased his support even more among Whites. But it was White voters who stuck with Robinson the most.
The nominee was on the ballot with Trump, and underperformed Trump by 18%. But I needed to see who in particular still voted for Robinson.
Using the data, as well as the sources, a clear picture emerges. White voters without college degrees are more likely to live in rural areas and are simply so ideologically conservative that they would stick to voting for Robinson no matter what. This is not for people without college degrees in general--African Americans supported Stein 85-8%, even though Stein is White.
Hispanics were mixed, supporting Stein 53-39% that mirrors the results at-large, with a large gender gap. This suggests a standard ideological split, as well as differing reactions by gender to Robinson's controversies. Most Hispanics don't have college degrees.
Note: The same analysis could be applied to the support Biden would've gotten if he had stayed in the race, losing 42-49 to Trump. Biden is extremely unpopular and perceived as too old, being a similarly bad candidate.[1] This suggests that the most extreme floors for both parties are about 40% support even with the worst possible candidates. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is consensus that educated people are more liberal, the only question being why. (A recent study showed that people who became better educated were liberal to begin with.[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/04/education-links-liberal-views-contain-degree-chicken-and-egg]) In the U.S., that means that better educated voters will favor Democrats.
Robinson lost because he was a bad candidate. Even Trump and Vance refused to be with him. Alternatively, using Duverger's model, Stein was close to the center of the state's voting population, while Robinson was at an extreme end. However, as you say, party loyalty provides a floor. The old expression in the South was that you could run a yellow dog as a Democcrat and people would still vote for him'
The Democrats could win back some working-class voters by offering them policies that would benefit them, although they would lose middle class voters they took from the Republicans. But the main reason they don't do this is ideological. TFD (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Northeast and West Coast have always been more ideologically liberal, while the Southern United States has always been more ideologically conservative. This can be seen in religiosity, views on social and economic issues, etc. These predate 21st century politics.
I'm coming to a consensus that viewing American politics is best done by the regions each party represents first, and then specific demographics. African Americans are simply almost entirely ideologically liberal, and White evangelicals (mainly in the South) are similarly almost entirely ideologically conservative.
In some Southern states, Whites vote almost as Republican as African Americans. In 2024, a bad year for Democrats, Harris only won the states where White voters supported Biden, with the only exception being Virginia. The same was true for educational attainment in the states, with New Mexico being the only exception.
That's probably because Virginia is the only Southern state where White voters aren't overwhelmingly Republican thanks to Northern Virginia, and Virginia is about 20% Black. And New Mexico is about half-Hispanic, and even though most Hispanics don't have college degrees, they vote about as Democratic as Whites with college degrees.
Latest comment: 8 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
California voted for Reagan, Massachusetts voted for Coolidge and the South voted for William Jennings Bryan. They were and are subject to the same variables as today.
If region were a variable, there would be regional parties competing with the major parties.
It's not about African Americans feeling "oppressed." It's peer pressure from African Americans to vote Democratic. This is confirmed both by the book Steadfast Democrats by Ismail K. White and Chryl N. Laird (Author); and social psychology, such as Jonah Berger's Invisible Influence. If you want to understand how people behave, look at who they surround themselves with--Homophily.
It may seem obvious, but how an individual's friends and family vote is hugely influential to how an individual votes. And among African Americans, there is very strong peer pressure to vote Democratic. The reason the South took so long to become Republican was due to similar social pressure among White "Yellow Dog Democrats," who used to reflexively vote Democratic.
Take Joe Manchin: "His fealty to the Democrats comes from growing up in what used to be coal country, watching a New Deal ethic sustain the citizens of Farmington, who were mostly all Democrats. “Everybody I knew that worked was a Democrat,” Manchin says. “Everybody that I knew that helped somebody was a Democrat. Everybody that I knew that was a Boy Scout leader was a Democrat. Little League? Democrat. Everything. I never knew a Republican growing up in that little town.” Becoming a Republican would be as alien to Manchin as moving to Pennsylvania."[2]
There is no such social pressure among Hispanics and Asian Americans: those groups are much more heterogenous (i.e. country of origin/ethnicity) and have much higher interracial marriage rates for example. There were huge swings to Trump among Hispanics and Asians this year, but negligible swings among African Americans.
White and Laird say that African American "support for the Democratic Party is a well-understood behavioral norm with roots in black liberation politics." (p. 3) IOW, they feel oppressed. While they go on to say that peer pressure increases the level of black support, it merely strengthens a pre-existing proclivity to vote Democratic.
Comparison with Hispanic voters is problematic, because it is not monolithic. However, strong support for Democrats by various ethnic groups has fallen apart as they became integrated into American society. Irish Americans for example were a reliable Democratic voting block.
In any case, it does not matter why ethnicity can be a predictive variable for voting, since your point was about class and education levels not being important. TFD (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I got the information in my last paragraph wrong. I think your claim was that the income variable to predict white voting had reversed so that the working class now voted right and high income earners voted left. The accepted view however is that it has merely weakened globally for center-left parties that have abandoned their appeal to the working class, so that other factors, particularly education levels, have become a better predictor. Since there is a correlation between income and education, this may give the false appearance that the effect of income has reversed. TFD (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Gallup's November 2024 data was useful--more education and higher income are positively correlated with being unionized. In particular, just 3% of employees in the Southern United States are unionized, compared to 15% in the Northeast, 9% in the Midwest, and 12% in the West.
The claim that the "working class" is more unionized is simply incorrect these days, provided one categorizes the working class as being less educated and/or lower income. Instead those with higher income and higher education are more likely to be unionized. Just 6% of private sector employees and unionized, compared to 28% of government workers.
Considering that Trump won every Southern state outside of Virginia, it appears that Trump's strongest voters are nationally lower income White Southerners but also higher income than African Americans.
Yes, racism plays a part, but it's also ideology. Socially conservative White evangelicals (i.e. Bible Belt) are almost entirely in the Southern United States, and Trump won more than 80% of them. Trump won every Bible Belt state except for Virginia.
For lack of a better explanation, it appears that the Democratic Party's non-Black base isn't low-income, because its policies--particularly promoting education--help people make high incomes. Instead of a Communist Revolution, the Democratic Party has had an education revolution, which allows higher incomes.
Hi JohnAdams1800! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Democratic Party (United States) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. You've been marking nearly all of your edits as minor. Although it's true that the edits you've been making aren't huge, sweeping changes, they do substantially change the meaning of the prose you're editing, and therefore should not be marked as minor. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello JohnAdams1800! Your additions to Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2024 in public domain into Draft:2024 in American public domain. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., 
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Animal Farm. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
located above the edit window.
; see Talk:Solid South for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Solid South at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
