Talk:New York's 8th congressional district

Redistricting nonsense

OK, maybe someone can figure this out. According to the Congressional bioguide, Nadler was elected in a special election to succeed Weiss who died. According to United States Congressional Delegations from New York, Weiss served in the 17th district. How, if @ all should the be noted, or should Nadler be listed as following Scheuer? 68.39.174.238 09:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think (for practical purposes and to keep uniformity with other such articles in Wikipedia)we should keep the listings to officers who actually served in office, and note such special details and circumstances as the aforementioned in footnotes. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In other words, let's keep the listing ordered by what the district numbers were at the time, and note that redistricting changed these numbers. If we choose to organize a table by district number, as in the comprehensive delegations article, we would want to keep all of the Representatives who served a 17th district together, for flow and charting purposes. However, since Weiss and Nadler effectively both represented the same district, succession would show Nadler following Weiss and not Scheuer. Any succession boxes/templates we make should propbably try to link people by the constituents they represented, if possible. Perhaps the article should note in a dedicated section that this district was once the 17th - does anyone know how redistricting is treated in other such articles? ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 20:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, keep it the way it is on U.S. Cong. Del. from NY (above)? 68.39.174.238 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Linking people by what constituents they represent would be practically impossible for large states that experience constant redistricting. The #th district of a state is the #th district of a state throughout the course of history regardless of what particular area it represents. - Bjoel5785

Neutrality of Geography section

The change from the previous language to the current changed the meaning nearly 180 degrees. While we could quote notable individuals who say that the district is gerrymandered, it is most definitely not Wikipedia's place to be making these judgements. --Ashanda (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it has been a week and nobody has said anything. If after another day nobody has objected, I'm going to revert the section back to the previous neutral version. --Ashanda (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit as you see fit. Please keep in mind that gerrymandering is common knowledge, and that the shape of the district is rather peculiar. If info is lost, somebody might add it again... Kraxler (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. How do the modifications I just made strike you?--Ashanda (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's ok with me, maybe somebody likes to elaborate on this. (I'm now doing research on the early 19th century congressional elections...) Kraxler (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm jumping in now. An explanation of why the redistricting happened would be great, or even an article about it.--A21sauce (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

.01% rural

What is the source for that determination? Is it population based? Ie implying .01% of residents in the district are living in a rural setting? 100.33.241.138 (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's from the Census Bureau's website that's on the article's first reference. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)