Talk:Ohio's 6th congressional district

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

United States: Ohio Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) place(s).

Change to lead

Jjgoatin Please quote the exact text in the source you are using for "The district's boundaries changed in 2012 when the state lost two congressional seats. It became much more Republican." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find it?

Jjgoatin No, please answer my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redistricting

Sources such as the Daily Kos are sources with a clear partisan agenda, in this case, the Daily Kos' purpose is to further Democratic Party and otherwise liberal agenda, and is a blog, not a news source. Additionally, the other source used in the 'gerrymandering' sentence is from a Washington Post blog, and a blog is not a news source, it is opinion. Therefore, this edit 23:56, July 22, 2015‎ which I made, using the one credible news source, should stand. Mentioning gerrymandering in favor of the Republicans cannot be sourced from credible news and analysis sources, and is blatantly partisan. It is opinion that the district was gerrymandered, but without credible sourcing, such cannot be included in this article. Spartan7W § 00:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing seems fine to me. A blog isn't necessarily opinion, and the WP blog is impressive: no way it's not a reliable source. The Cleveland.com source seems fine as well. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The information has already been covered in the history section. The tone of that sentence he has added isn't wholly neutral. Spartan7W § 03:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted myself, following NeilN's question, above--but I think what you're saying is that you were wrong about the sources. Please don't shoot from the hip. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - His initial source was the Daily Kos. That doesn't count as a source. However my relevant objection is to the agenda of his edits. Districting history doesn't belong in the lead, and there is no empirical evidence to support the district's change to more republican, as they elected a Republican before the redistricting. Spartan7W § 03:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I reverted myself because of those issues. There is, it seems to me, at least some valid content in those references though what they prove is not immediately clear to me: I'll leave that to the politicos. But note also that when the sock reinstated the edits they changed the wording some, and by the time I got to it there were two very acceptable sources. Drmies (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Census and Redistricting

The topic of the 2010 census and the redistricting of Ohio's congressional apportionment as a result has been covered in the history section, and is not appropriate for placement in the lead section. Furthermore, a Republican was elected to represent Ohio's 6th in 2010, prior to redistricting, thus, allegations of gerrymandering cannot, and have not bee substantiated by credible, verifiable, non-biased sources. Any attempts to add politically-charged allegations to the lead will be removed. Spartan7W § 22:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ohio's 6th congressional district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100423082228/http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp to http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]