This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Felony disenfranchisement was copied or moved into Disfranchisement. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It is requested that an image or photograph of Disfranchisement be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but there are currently two cases in the U.S. courts challenging disenfranchisement of felons: Locke v. Farrakhan in Washington State and Hayden v. Pataki in New York. The NAACP LDF is involved in both cases. Hope that's useful to someone. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
I think the above information is appropo to this article. Also, I believe there should be a history portion of disenfranchisement in the U.S. that would include white unlanded men, women, blacks and other minorities that have been disenfranchised either by federal or applicable state laws in the U.S. Additionally, one might want to add the disenfranchisement that occurs with modern immigration and those unable to establish residency. Stevenmitchell 19:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I also had to edit the part that said Puerto Rico is subject to "all U.S. laws" which it is not. I don't know if Puerto Rico is subject to the draft when it is implemented, but I do know that Puerto Rico pays no federal income tax (that may apply to other federal taxes) and that they are ineligible to receive certain government distributions. Stevenmitchell 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking more closely, I suspect that this edit, which I reverted, was not vandalism, though it was at least partially mistaken. The reason I thought it was vandalism was the following change "In 1348 U.S. states, persons convicted of a felony—that is, a crime punishable with a year's imprisonment or more—are denied the vote only while serving sentence in a state prison." Clearly, there are a lot more than two U.S. states that continue to deprive ex-felons of the vote after they've served their sentence. But I've now come to suspect that this anonymous editor just overlooked the word only in that sentence and was intending a correction. The other change was "FourTwo states—Maine, Massachusetts, Utah and Vermont—allow prison inmates to vote unless disfranchisement is meted out as a separate punishment." I now suspect that was correct. Neither the old version nor the new gave any citation, so it's hard to be sure, but [1], which looks like a reasonably credible source, bears out the change, so I will restore it with that citation. In general, the article needs citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that a lot of the U.S. material could be sourced from documents at [2] on the site of The Sentencing Project. Does someone want to take this on? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
IS THIS REALLY WHAT THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE ABOUT? Although I'm a newcomer, I feel as though the section on DC seems incredibly interest based and not necessarily a valid encyclopedic article as presented; I'm not sure that it's considered a particularly large issue given that there are municipal elections and they are not a state. Territories, commonwealths etc. have not by my understanding ever been allowed to vote in national elections. Moreover, I'm not sure that they were ever DISenfranchise as they were never franchise nationally to begin with.
Also, I'm sure there are many more examples of disenfranchisement in nations suffering from violent or ethnic conflict. I am pretty sure that currently in Sri Lanka the 300,000 IDPs are effectively disenfranchised as are probably the 10,000 imprisoned former LTTE as well as many current Tamils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.133.18 (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It is alleged in the widely available DVD "Bush Family Fortunes: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" that tens of thousands of Democratic Party members in Florida, most of them black, were intentionally disenfranchised because their names were similar to other people's names who had been criminally convicted. It is shown, for example, that some white guy in Ohio was convicted and, as a result, a black guy in Florida was deprived of his vote. In the close election of 2000, this had the effect of swinging the choice for president to the Governor of Florida's brother. ((unsigned|71.252.4.167|25 June 2006}
why is this called "disfranchisement"? certainly the form with -en- is far more common; i'd never even heard the non-"en" version, and google lists the -en- term as more than 10 times as common as the other. similarly, my dictionary (Webster's New World) has the -en- version as normal, and the other as a pointer to it.
Benwing 23:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If you Google "disfranchisement" and look at the first 5 results (ignoring Wikipedia) they are:
For "disenfranchisement" it's:
If you keep looking down the list, you will see that the academic sites pretty much all fall in the first camp; the NGOs are split down the middle; the big numbers for "disenfranchisement" probably come from more informal use. But the trend may now be in favor of the latter. FWIW, my 1904 Merriam-Webster (an interesting baseline to see how the language is evolving) lists both, but for "disenfranchise" it just says "To disfranchise. To deprive of the rights of a citizen", with the fuller definition at "To disfranchise". So you may be right about where the language is trending, and the academic uses may be more linguistically conservative in this respect. I find "disenfranchise" a little weird etymologically, since it has two prefixes that pretty much contradict each other.
All of that said, I won't scream if we move it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
While Disfranchisement is older of the two terms, disenfranchisement is the far more common use of the phrase and is significantly more recognizable of the two. Per WP:MOS it should therefore is should be disenfranchisement.
We had an edit request in Talk:Woodrow Wilson and I thought I'd crosspost over here FWIW:
Extended content
|
---|
"Disfranchise and disenfranchise mean the same: to deprive of rights or privileges. Disfranchise is the traditional form, but it has given way to disenfranchise over the last several decades, and the latter now prevails by a large margin. This is the case in all main varieties of English, and it is true despite the fact that several major dictionaries—including Oxford and American Heritage—still favor the shorter form. Etymology and logic rarely guide English usage, but it is worth noting that there is a sound basis for the shift from disfranchise to disenfranchise. Enfranchise is the verb meaning (1) to set free, or (2) to give rights or privileges. Franchise bore these senses long ago, and thorough dictionaries still list them, but the word was never commonly used this way, and it wholly gave way to enfranchise for these senses from the 17th century on. So while disfranchise might make sense when we consider its roots, disenfranchise makes sense in modern English because it is the opposite of enfranchise, not of franchise, which is now primarily a noun. There remain generations of living English speakers who grew up when disfranchise was more common, so disenfranchise still faces opposition. But the longer form has now all but pushed the shorter one out of the language (more completely in current searchable news and blog writing than in books, but books tend to lag a few years behind), so there’s no need to appease the few who continue to resist the change (except perhaps if you’re writing for a very old-fashioned professor or boss)." Source: http://grammarist.com/usage/disenfranchise-disfranchise/ |
Best, Sam Sailor Sing 06:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
According to Reference #1 "The form disenfranchisement has become much more common, but not in reliable sources.". Disenfranchisement appears in the Oxford, Cambridge and Longman dictionaries[1] [2] [3] and Disenfranchise is in The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, Collins as well as Merriam-Webster[4] [5] [6]. Those instances were enough for "but not in reliable sources" me to delete. See also Grammarphobia May 31, 2010[7]. Mcljlm (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
References
The author states that the conflict leading to American independence “is a good example of the intentional disenfranchisement of a group of people (British colonists in America) by the government in Britain”. This sounds like Hollywood history.
A more widely held view is that, insofar as there was disenfranchisement of the American colonists, it was an incidental or even accidental result of the transfer of power from the British King to Parliament that had taken place in the 1600s and 1700s beginning with the English Civil War in 1640. -- Kjb 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Editing the additional U.S. history and details is invited at Disfranchisement after the Civil War. Please don't link articles to that article until it is somewhat more polished. (SEWilco 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC))
Hiya, I'm trying to work on the article at Reform Act 1832, which uses both the words "disfranchise" and "disenfranchise". Is there a subtle difference between these two terms, or is it an American/UK thing? Or should we be consistent in word usage throughout the article? --Elonka 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Palestinians in the occupied territories not allowed to vote? Should that be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.105.179 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've pulled the section on 'handicap' (ugh!) out of the US section and replaced it with a larger section under the more widely acceptable Disability label and discussing the range of issues which may selectively disenfranchise disabled electors, which are much more wide-ranging than was previously addressed. However I've only been able to do this from a UK perspective and it needs expanding with input on the issues in other countries.
DWG77.96.255.55 (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Feedback encouraged. The article is woefully short of sources, given its many strong claims, and arguably fails WP:NPOV in conflating lack of representation with suffrage. Lfstevens (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for something else when I came upon this article. The impression it gives is that "disfranchisement" is something exclusive to democracies. As such, this article is extremely biased towards exonerating really corrupt governments or societies (by their lack of mention) and being critical of only governments in the western world. -- kosboot (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
While they may be related for the US, it seems the two reasons for disfranchisement are not necessarily related. Can we split the sections? --Krisrose (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Disfranchisement. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Disfranchisement. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/showDocument.aspx?documentId=2036When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
This was done per Talk:Felony disenfranchisement#Article needs re-naming; remove "Felony". The end result seems better than the previous overall state, but specific sections could certainly use some work. The UK Hirst stuff is pretty repetitive... perhaps worthy of an article of its own, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The grammar here definitely needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure exactly how to fix it while retaining the correct information. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
"Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote. Disfranchisement is also termed to the revocation of power or control of a particular individual, community or being to the natural amenity they are abound in; that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity."
1. literally this means that disfranchisement is:
a) the revocation of suffrage of a person or group of people
or
b) "through practices prevention of a person exercising the right to vote"
Is this supposed to be English?
Can't we simply say "...consists in either revoking someone's right to vote or preventing someone from voting by resorting to some technicality in the law"?
2. "Disfranchisement is also termed to the revocation of power" Termed TO? Revocation of control TO? Does one have control TO things?
"the natural amenity they are ABOUND IN" Again, which language is this? Please forgive me, I am not trying to be fastidious. I just wonder in which dictionary may one found "to be abound in"—and what it means. Here I have no suggestion, because I honesty can't see what on Earth Wikipedia is talking about.
3. "that is to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, of some privilege or inherent immunity." This is correct, and was enough; all the previous sentences were absolutely unnecessary.
80.104.16.10 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Someone had put all the following into a footnote in the article, after the word disenfranchisement, but it is better here. What matters is what the reliable sources say, and they prefer disfranchisement. Moonraker (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
When people don’t get the right to vote 108.35.237.78 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Since Disenfranchisement is now much more common than Disfranchisement[1] it would seem to be time to change the article's title {and then its opening, and replace disfranchisement with disenfranchisement elsewhere in the article}. In addition, since in several of the country sections the emphasis is on where prisoners can vote (I came to this article while looking for that subject) perhaps that should be taken into account as well. Mcljlm (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)