Knowledge (XXG)

Template:Did you know nominations/Democratic backsliding in the United States

Source đź“ť

338: 561: 330: 308: 288: 277: 248: 237: 362: 565:
statement, including both legal and academic statements, so I'm happy that the statement is accurate. Szmenderowiecki's statement is valid though, so I have added several cites to the passage in question. I see no other concerns above, and I think ALT0 is punchy enough on its own, so I see no reason to hold this up further.
424:
HI Skdb, thanks for reviewing the article. However, I'm not sure about ALT2 and ALT3. For ALT2, the sources would support "cause" more than "vector". The reason why Huq identifies the Supreme Court as a vector rather than a cause if voting rights (eg) were consistently upheld on the state level than
506:
is an omission. We may find sources to find out whether Democrats have been gerrymandering to get unfair advantage alone or as a reaction to the Republicans' gerrymandering (which was definitely made on a larger scale), fearing an imbalance in the representation of the federal House, but Democrats
446:
Comment: IMHO subjective topics be attributed to some one/ source in the sentence itself or have some system of star mark and @ end of main page DYK mention likely hood of subjectivity and suggestion to refer to related attributions in the article. I am not limiting my suggestion for this article
564:
After 15 days, I see no new suggestions for alternate hooks. I share the concern about the more politically charged ones, although I'm sure they would improve viewership - but it seems ALT0 will do just fine on its own. Assuming ALT0, I did a bit of poking about and found ample support for the
93: 365:
Within the spirit of the 7-day newness rule. Very well-sourced to academic literature, which is good given the controversial topic. No copyright concerns. I think we could justifiably explore some other possible hooks, such as:
425:
federal protections might not be necessary to prevent democratic backsliding. In terms of ALT3, the studies measure support for democratic/authoritarian norms rather than democratic backsliding per se. (
518:
I also feel that, if possible, it's better to supplement the "has been cited" with more than one author. The nom has done a good job assembling sources but I think we need more of these in order to link
538:
and probably elsewhere. As for partisan gerrymandering, if there is any RS that covers Democratic gerrymandering as a form of backsliding it could be included but I'm not aware of any such source. (
193: 523:
in general with democratic backsliding, or the Supreme Court specifically. This shouldn't be really a hard task given that criticism of the Supreme Court is on the rise.
36: 40: 88: 585: 399: 383: 179: 164: 535: 488: 534:
It is not just Huq making this argument with regard to the hook fact, a similar argument is made by Kaufman & Haggard 2018 and also
503: 159: 17: 294: 378: 498:
A few notes about the article: when speaking of "partisan gerrymandering of electoral districts", I think that not mentioning
302: 499: 44: 543: 463: 430: 271: 484: 479:
For a claim that seems bound to spark outrage, the name of the cited scholar should probably be attributed inline.
143: 570: 528: 324: 242: 231: 83: 298: 113: 509: 480: 118: 566: 524: 177:: ... that the United States has only been a democracy since the mid-twentieth century, and is now 520: 374: 103: 282: 539: 459: 452: 426: 207: 394: 65: 579: 492: 98: 29:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
458:
I wouldn't call it subjective because there are objective measures of democracy (
548: 468: 449: Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' 448: 435: 203: 560: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
361: 409: 123: 61: 47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. 397:
with high levels of racial prejudice are more likely to support
264:
Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
148: 257: 217: 108: 194:Template:Did you know nominations/Judita Nagyová ‎ 513:is also in order wrt Roberts Court jurisprudence. 507:aren't blameless in that respect. A mention of 210:). Self-nominated at 04:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC). 8: 49:No further edits should be made to this page 384:democratic backsliding in the United States 165:democratic backsliding in the United States 135:Democratic backsliding in the United States 71: 74: 224:Article is new enough and long enough 7: 586:Passed DYK nominations from May 2022 24: 185:Source: Jardina & Mickey 2022 45:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Did you know 18:Template:Did you know nominations 559: 360: 336: 328: 306: 286: 275: 246: 235: 68:) 14:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC) 381:have been cited as a vector of 32:Please do not modify this page. 162:has been cited as a vector of 1: 573:) 12:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC) 531:) 09:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC) 455:) 08:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 343: 37:this nomination's talk page 602: 495:) 07:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC) 373:... that the white-ethnic 119:Find sources (notability) 94:Earwig's Copyvio Detector 554:18:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC) 474:16:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 441:19:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC) 421:19:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC) 41:the article's talk page 400:democratic backsliding 510:Rucho v. Common Cause 379:U.S. Republican Party 109:A Simple Word Counter 89:Reviewer instructions 295:copyright violations 114:Reviewers' template 500:Maryland, New York 303:close paraphrasing 521:judicial activism 419: 407: 375:identity politics 354: 353: 319:Hook eligibility: 316: 315: 272:Adequate sourcing 256: 255: 211: 186: 171: 132: 131: 593: 563: 551: 481:theleekycauldron 471: 438: 420: 417: 416: 414: 405: 364: 344: 340: 339: 332: 331: 310: 309: 290: 289: 279: 278: 258: 250: 249: 239: 238: 218: 201: 184: 170:Source: Huq 2022 169: 72: 56:The result was: 34: 601: 600: 596: 595: 594: 592: 591: 590: 576: 575: 574: 567:Maury Markowitz 549: 525:Szmenderowiecki 469: 436: 410: 408: 404: 395:white Americans 337: 329: 307: 287: 276: 247: 236: 155: 153: 149:Article history 137: 128: 104:Character count 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 599: 597: 589: 588: 578: 577: 558: 557: 556: 555: 515: 514: 496: 477: 476: 475: 443: 442: 422: 406:{{u| 388: 352: 351: 342: 341: 333: 314: 313: 312: 311: 291: 280: 266: 265: 254: 253: 252: 251: 240: 226: 225: 216: 215: 199: 198: 197: 196: 187: 152: 151: 146: 144:Back to T:TDYK 140: 138: 136: 133: 130: 129: 127: 126: 121: 116: 111: 106: 101: 96: 91: 86: 80: 77: 76: 54: 53: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 598: 587: 584: 583: 581: 572: 568: 562: 553: 552: 545: 541: 537: 533: 532: 530: 526: 522: 517: 516: 512: 511: 505: 501: 497: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 473: 472: 465: 461: 457: 456: 454: 450: 445: 444: 440: 439: 432: 428: 423: 415: 413: 402: 401: 396: 392: 389: 386: 385: 380: 376: 372: 369: 368: 367: 363: 358: 349: 346: 345: 335:Interesting: 334: 326: 323: 322: 321: 320: 304: 300: 296: 292: 284: 281: 273: 270: 269: 268: 267: 263: 260: 259: 244: 241: 233: 230: 229: 228: 227: 223: 220: 219: 214: 213: 212: 209: 205: 195: 191: 188: 182: 181: 176: 173: 172: 167: 166: 161: 160:Supreme Court 158:... that the 157: 156: 150: 147: 145: 142: 141: 134: 125: 122: 120: 117: 115: 112: 110: 107: 105: 102: 100: 97: 95: 92: 90: 87: 85: 82: 81: 79: 78: 73: 70: 67: 63: 59: 52: 50: 46: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 547: 508: 467: 434: 411: 398: 390: 382: 370: 356: 355: 347: 318: 317: 261: 221: 200: 189: 178: 174: 163: 57: 55: 48: 31: 28: 243:Long enough 202:Created by 180:backsliding 124:Hook length 75:DYK toolbox 299:plagiarism 232:New enough 393:... that 99:QPQ check 84:DYK check 580:Category 504:Illinois 489:contribs 350:: Done. 293:Free of 222:General: 190:Reviewed 58:promoted 542:· 491:) (she/ 462:· 447:only 429:· 418:}} 377:of the 357:Overall 283:Neutral 262:Policy: 550:buidhe 470:buidhe 437:buidhe 301:, and 204:Buidhe 325:Cited 16:< 571:talk 536:here 529:talk 493:they 485:talk 453:talk 412:Sdkb 391:ALT3 371:ALT2 208:talk 175:ALT1 66:talk 62:SL93 502:or 348:QPQ 60:by 43:or 582:: 546:) 487:• 466:) 433:) 403:? 359:: 327:: 305:: 297:, 285:: 274:: 245:: 234:: 192:: 183:? 168:? 139:( 39:, 569:( 544:c 540:t 527:( 483:( 464:c 460:t 451:( 431:c 427:t 387:? 206:( 154:) 64:( 51:.

Index

Template:Did you know nominations
this nomination's talk page
the article's talk page
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Did you know
SL93
talk
DYK check
Reviewer instructions
Earwig's Copyvio Detector
QPQ check
Character count
A Simple Word Counter
Reviewers' template
Find sources (notability)
Hook length
Back to T:TDYK
Article history
Supreme Court
democratic backsliding in the United States
backsliding
Template:Did you know nominations/Judita Nagyová ‎
Buidhe
talk
New enough
Long enough
Adequate sourcing
Neutral
copyright violations
plagiarism
close paraphrasing

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑