Wikipedia

Talk:2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Review: took the initiative
clean
 
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
{{Controversial3}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}}
 
{{Old XfD multi
This article was listed twice on [[WP:VFD|votes for deletion]]. [[User:Poccil|[[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]], [[User:Poccil/Automation.js|automation script]])]] 05:25, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
|result = '''Keep'''
 
|date = 20 April 2008
For a December 2004 deletion debate over this article see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]. For a November 2004 deletion debate over the deletion of this article see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy]].
|page = Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy
 
|result2 = '''Keep'''
----
|date2 = 5 December 2004
For archived discussion of this page, please see:
|page2 = Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
 
|result3 = '''Merge and redirect'''
* [[Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive1|Archive1]] - November 5 2004 - November 9 2004
|date3 = 20 April 2008
* [[Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive2|Archive2]] - November 9 2004 - November 12 2004
|page3 = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
* [[Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive3|Archive3]] - November 12 2004 - November 17 2004
}}
* [[Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive4|Archive4]] - November 18 2004 - December 13 2004
* [[Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive5|Archive5]] - November 18 2004 - December 13 2004 part 2
 
Anon IPs that have mildly trolled this talk page: 68.107.102.129 05:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
If stuff under new has been added please add "- Added" to the title", same with any current passages that have been removed, "- Removed" in the title.
 
Last thing we need to do, let us aim to archive all entries that already have been added both in New Passages and Possible Passages for Inclusion within the next few days, if you see something that is already on the page, please help out by putting " - Added" to the end of the title of the section. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 21:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 
== new breaking news/irregularity investigations article/split proposal ==
 
I think we should split, or be prepared to split, the in the news and future investiations info into a true election irregularity breaking news/fraud investigation/arrests article. When the House Judiciary committee hearing starts next wednesday things could start hitting the fan very rapidly. The current article would be too unweildy to handle in such a situation and too daunting for new people to parse. This new ", official irregulations investigations" article (we can come up with a better title) perhaps should only report on official election fraud investigations and include '''brief''' explanations of the investigation evidence but with links of course to all the other election controversy articles. The key point to the article would be to keep the most recent information at the top, keeping everyone up to date. What do people think? [[User:Zen-master|Zen Master]] 23:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:Yes, I can see the sense in that. Remember election night when there was an article on the actual election, plus a second article on the progress of the election as it came in? SOmething like that? [[User:FT2|FT2]] 17:33, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 
::I think that the "Official viewpoints, investigations and legal actions" and "In the news" sections are approaching "unweildly" status, and am for doing something about it. I give my consent to the leading option in this regard. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 19:57, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)
 
:I agree. I think these sections are causing the article to become unnecessarily bloated and unwieldy. I would support the creation of two new articles. [[User:Avenue|Avenue]] 00:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== NPOV header is ok ==
 
I am ok if the NPOV header stays, it's really not a big deal, it may restrain some vandals (on both sides_ from making impuslive edits when they know we've already flagged this article as a controversial/disputed subject. However, when the VfD header had beeon there for exactly 5 days in a few hours I expect a speedy removal of that one. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 02:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:I don't really care either way for similar reasons, but I'm not sure folks realize this is the second time the NPOV tag has been arbitrarily assigned by a 'non-editor', and discussed until it was removed... how many times does this happen before folks roll up their sleeves and contribute? If the existence of the article itself isn't NPOV (it isn't, it's factual), then the context of those facts and their presentation is the real issue - and that's up for everyone's input. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 05:54, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::I am fine with the NPOV tag being on the article, ''provided there is a (non-blanket) NPOV dispute on the corresponding talk page''. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 06:23, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 
An accurate header may reassure some, and deter hasty misguided editing. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 10:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 
The tag has not being "arbitrarily" assigned. The article, per the guidelines on the [[NPOV]] policy, can easily be shown to have POV problems simply from the fact that there are major complaints, as expressed in the VfD. Another obvious indication is that even though you ask for input, when it is given, people like [[User:Kevin baas]] respond by attacking another editor's intelligence instead of responding to the issue and others completely ignore other comments pointing out the bias. The chart at the top is biased in that it is made in such a way to indicate that these "problems" (which should be worded "alleged problems" to meet NPOV) were critical and had a huge impact, when running the numbers shows that even if every single allegation were true and ended up with a vote being taken from Kerry unfairly and given to Bush, the results of the election still would have been exactly the same. The length of the article (with daily "news" updates... this isn;t a blog, people, it's supposed to be an article) is way too long and needs to be condensed. Even the title of the article is biased. This article is a complete mess. Since the NPOV was added by myself as a result of the VfD last week, the article has not been improved in anyway. I'd take the time to make edits myself, but it seems clear from reactions on the discussion page and the history of the article that if I attempt to do so, the changes will just be reverted anyway. Those of you complaining that the NPOV tag should be taken off either need to make a good faith effort to improve the article in response to the frequent complaints or you need to agree to step away from it and let other people take a stab at it for a while without having to worry that a team of you will just undo all of it again right away. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 13:42, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 
:Which translates as "I'm not going to do anything except complaint and assume bad faith because 'I know' you'd delete what I do." Hmmmm......
 
:No, its not a blog. But if people find it hard to handle when every last item is sourced and shown, how much harder would it be to comprehend it was a genuine controversy if it was summarised into just a couple of paragraphs and soundbites? It can't be done both ways. The consensus seems to be, give it in full, and ''over time'' as matters come clear it will either be a valuable resource, or become condensed, of its own accord. Right now its all a confused mess, for wikipedians and the outside world alike. I take your point about the blog aspect, I think thats one of the things that will clean up over time. Right now its just best as nobody knows 100%, to do as we're doing and list whats known, which seems on balance to win a fair degree more approval than disapproval judging by both votes.
 
:As for "if every problem was a vote", the concern I think some people are seeing is that many sources out there, which include a huge range of people professionals and bodies, seem to feel the visible problems could be tiny compared to the invisible ones. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 15:06, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 
:Now that you made some specific POV complaints on the talk page, there should be a NPOV tag on the article. Oh, I see you already put one up! Good.
 
:Now let me respond to the issues:
:*Notice the map at the top says "''Reported'' election incidents", not just "election incidents". I think "allegedly reported election incidents" would be going a bit far, as would "reported alleged incidents". In any case, these incidents, whether they actually happened or not, were ''reported'' to the Election Incident Reported System (EIRS). Everyone can judge for themselves what proportion of these reports were fabricated, based on how often they think people lie about such things. The article states no opinion on the matter.
:*Notice also that it says "incidents", not "problems" on the map. "Reported incidents per 100,000 votes"
:*Nowhere in the article is it suggested that these or any problems were critical or had a "huge impact".
:*The most serious problems, as stated in the article, and can be reasonably inferred, are the ones that we ''don't'' know about, which, depending on the a priori probability one gives to noticing a problem, (be it, for instance, less than 505) may be more numerous than the ones we do. Indeed, in recounts for local elections were there ''no'' known problems, the recounted results sometimes differed from the initial counts by over a thousand votes.
:*The number of misallocated/uncounted/overcounted/fradulant/what have you votes cannot be assumed to be directly proportional to the number of reported incidents. That is, one incident may generate multiple vote errors, or vice-versa.
:*The map is intended to show the distribution of incidents, not the overall quantity. And indeed, the map shows that in the majority of states, everything went smoothly.
:**One thing the map shows you is that when Kenneth Blackwell said that Ohio elections went more smoothly than most other states, he was lying.
:*The subject of the article is "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities". What? Where? When? Why? How? Hence the map. What do you propose we put there? A map of where chicken farms are in the U.S.?
:*Again (we have said this so many times, please remember the answer and don't bring it up again. I promise you will get the exact same answer each time.), whether or not a recount would change the result of the election is ''completely irrelevant''. This subject of this article is not "whether or not a recount would change the result of the election", but "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities" which exist regardless of how people voted.
:Did I miss anything? [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 17:43, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 
:In my view, the tag has been arbitrarily assigned. It was put on once, then taken off after long debate, then as edits continued, it was placed back on, with NO correlation to alleged POV in the actual narrative, 'talk' page discussions to bring them to light, or good faith attempts to edit them. The existence of a VfD on an article doesn't warrant the addition of an NPOV tag. If the VfD is created due to allegations of violations of NPOV, but the tag has to be added to the page subsequently, then I think those bringing the VfD have circumvented the step most crucial to Wiki... participation in good faith as editors.
 
:So, adding the tag is arbitrary to me. Your feelings and opinions aren't arbitrary, you're welcome to them. But applying the tag in the current context was.
 
:As an example of the importance of adequately describing the context, Zogby's representative at the Congressional Forum admitted that there were 'unprecedented irregularities' in the election process this year. This is yet another organization which is at least acknowledging the scope and nature of the controversy of this election. Their statement was not 'only one in 30000 people complained about the poll errors'. The existence of irregularities is not diminished by the existence of other, smoothly-conducted votes.
 
:As to your interpretation of the chart. The chart lists only how many complaints per voter were reported and their ratio. Your own discomfort with the graph is evident in your own conclusion that it:
::''"is made in such a way as to indicate that these 'problems' were critical, a huge impact, when in fact [...] the results of the election still would have been exactly the same"''
:That is your own POV, not the chart's. The chart says nothing of the sort, and the outcome of the election is NOT THE ISSUE. The chart (modeled after a chart published in the Boston Globe and based on non-partisan election report data) is merely an indicator of how many issues were reported and the 'proportion of the varying kinds of issues within the total set of allegations'.
:And your protestations that people need to 'step away from it' and allow others, who have not even begun to participate as good faith editors, to take over, is counter to everything Wikipedia stands for. There is no reason we cannot edit it all together, especially as this issue is becoming more (not less) active in the media and governmental circles. I hope your edits are a shining example of NPOV, but I will agree with you that your edits may indeed be re-edited by others for POV (as is the Wiki way), based only on your 'chart' observation, as in that instance I'm not sure you fully recognized fact, narrative, POV and NPOV objectively. I'm probably wrong and I welcome you to contribute.
 
:Your own prejudice, not the article, causes the POV. You can change and improve the article, etc., to provide a different, more accurate, more complete impression, but blaming that graph as an example of POV merely illustrates my point. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 18:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::I was about to take Dreamguy's complaints seriously, but as Kevin dissected, DG's complaints don't seem to hold any water. However, I still think we should keep the NPOV tag on the page just because there are people that will fanatically believe the article is POV just because it exists, without reading it objectively. We should add that quotation and citation to the republican statistician/academic that agreed the exit polls were suspicious (he also hinted maybe the demos conspired to make the exit polls look bad for bush, a possibility everyone should consider). Compared to all other ''controversial'' articles on wikipedi the election controversies articles do a very good job at NPOV in my opinion. We should be on the lookout for anon IPs adding POV etc (from either side) editing the article just to make it seem like the pro-deleter's arguments that there are POV problems is valid, at least one of them (Netoholic) has seemingly used similar tactics previously. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 18:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:::[[WP:NPOVD]] "marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article..."
 
:::If no such contributions are made then I cant see that it can be justified in being left as it is. At the least it should be switched for a "controversial" header. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 
==Move day-by-day chronology to timeline article==
One factor that's causing the bloat in this article is the newsfeed aspect. This overemphasis on an extremely detailed chronology is most evident in the "In the news" section but shows up elsewhere as well. For example, the current content under [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities#Green Party]] includes a long chronology. I suggest that ''everything'' in "In the news", plus similar material elsewhere (like the Green Party chronology), should be moved to [[U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline]], which is the appropriate place for the day-by-day stuff. This article should summarize the key information. The summary would have to be updated as events occur, of course, but that doesn't mean using a chronological format. For example, with regard to the Volusia County lawsuit, whatever article reaches that level of detail (if any does) should just present the status: "A lawsuit that sought to overturn the results in Volusia County, Florida was dismissed as having been untimely filed." As it is, a reader who wants to know about that subject finds the suit mentioned in the separate chronology under "Blackboxvoting.ORG", then much later finds it mentioned again in the "In the news" listing for November 24, then finds the dismissal mentioned in the "In the news" listing for December 5. If this suit is worth reporting, which I'm inclined to doubt, then the information about it shouldn't be fragmented that way. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:I disagree with the split, '''but''' if there is something (or a lot of things) that are in the current timeline that are too specific or too verbose we should just remove it. The timeline in the parent/main article can be much much smaller, there is no need for 50-75% of that stuff, I agree. I think of it as place to put new info before we figure out where to put it in the rest of the article, once the info is no longer new we should trim the In the News section to be just significant events and/or just stuff from the last week or so. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 20:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::Remember there is ''no other source'' for an interested researcher to get a list of newspaper articles related to the election controversy. I am concerned about length, too. I just think that 10 years down the road this may be very useful to someone writting a report for their sociology course or something of the sorts. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 22:08, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 
:::If this timeline is incorporated into the main election timeline, it will lose probably 90% of it's content and all of it's value. I'm not against a split (I in fact recommended it way back when), but I disagree with integrating/demolishing this timeline against the main election timeline.The vast majority of these news articles are irrelevant to 99% of election readers, but relevant to nearly all election controversy readers... -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 22:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::::The article itself shouldn't be used as a temporary holding area for new information that someone hopes at some point to insert somewhere else. If the purpose is to assemble a bibliography, organized chronologically, of newspaper articles on this subject, for the benefit of researchers ten years from now, then it should all go into some new article like [[List of newspaper articles about 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy]]. Note also that these two rationales are inconsistent. If [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] gets around to removing "In the news" entries that are incorporated elsewhere in the article, then it won't be the comprehensive bibliography that [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] wants. Finally, I don't agree that this section has much value to the "election controversy readers". They'd be better served by a topical presentation, rather than, as we have now, a topical presentation with a day-by-day chronology attached. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 23:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:::::I am completely against another new article being created for the in the news section. Your points will be more valid after the {current} header is removed from the article in a few weeks. Until then an in progress current event article should certainly be allowed to include many different issues and aspects, shouldn't it? And I reject the notion it's all that different. Kevin and I certainly can disagree on what In the News should be without the "compromise" be move it to a new article, my suggestions were counter suggestions against your proposal. The in the news section is very relevant, it's the best way to find the most recent statistical analysis when new ones come out which includes research on debunking/reverse debunking. We can change the "In the news" section to a "Latest information and upcomming events" section or two, which would chronicle when data became available, when hearings were and will be held, when protests were and will be held, when the electoral college will meet, the inauguration date etc etc. The in the news section is relatively small, why do you want to create so many tiny daughter articles? We can perhaps start pruning stuff from November first if size is your main concern. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 01:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::::::I think me and zen-master are mostly in agreement. As regards trimming, I am not against it in principle. I have intentionally been a little ovrerzealous in the news updates: "better too much than too little", thinking that it can always be trimmed but it is much harder to go back and find old articles. (which is the research point) As time went on, I feel I got better at assessing news-worthiness and article uniqueness, so there should be more "fat" at the top than at the bottom. I just don't want any trimming to be overzealous.
 
::::::I am also in agreement with james that the news items would be well served by a topical presentation. It doesn't seem to me like the new info is really making it into the article. Perhaps we should make a list of relevant issues, this being one of them. I started a list below, listing everything as a question. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 20:31, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 
::::::I am actually not particularly concerned about the length of the main article so much as its readability. The news doesn't hamper the article's readability (it's well organized by date, and is concise at the item level). However, I do believe that lumping everything on one page is a poor way of organizing information when the wiki makes it so easy to seperate it out. I really don't see a problem with creating ''"yet another page"'', as long as there's a very obvious link somewhere near the top (right before/after the intro) of the main article telling you where you could go to for further developments. [[User:Noosphere|noosphere]] 09:50, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 
'''internal, reductive'''
*selective criteria for news?
*trimming of news?
'''internal, constructive'''
*separate article/section for upcoming (vs. past)?
*news should get topical presentation?
'''external'''
*separate article for news?
*main election timeline, incorporation of this news info into?
*involvement of [http://www.wikinews.org wikinews]?
'''qualitative'''
*what are the "purposes"/"benefits" of in the news; what is it there for?
*how does the "ongoing events" status factor in?
 
I've thought about a news article too. I know, "one more bloody page". But the news articles relate to all of the pages really. What about putting the news section on Wikinews though, with a permanent link from the articles to it for readers of wikipedia to catch their daily updates? Would that make sense? [[User:FT2|FT2]] 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 
==Clint Curtis, et. al.==
 
'''Link:''' [http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120604Madsen/120604madsen.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120604Madsen/120604madsen.html]
 
'''Description:''' White House-linked clandestine operation paid for "vote switching" software
 
'''Discussion'''
 
This one's a whopper... can anyone find the original affidavit or is this just BS? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 23:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 
:The affidavit can be found [http://www.rawstory.com/images/pdfs/CC_Affidavit_120604.pdf here] and the general story was broken [http://bradblogtoo.blogspot.com here]. Note that I'm not saying it's completely bogus, disinformation, nor valid. Exercise your own judgment, this is the U.S.A.! -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::Damn, this one looks pretty good so far. Anybody find out more information about Curtis please post it. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 04:27, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 
 
Its already in the journal. Madsen is generally not taken seriously by some sources but the story is. Its being investigated. Watch blackboxvoting for updates on this one. meantime its already in the pages with appropriate caveats as to potential question of trustworthiness and supportive views. Dont sweat over it, it would be nice but dont hold your breath, theres other activity too. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 04:38, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 
Did you spot this gem of unlikeliness...?
:"Feeney and other top brass at Yang Enterprises ... wanted the prototype '''written in Visual Basic 5 (VB.5) in Microsoft Windows''' and the end-product designed to be '''portable across different Unix-based''' vote tabulation systems"
Clue - VB5 for unix would be possibly the single LAST thing anyone would program in, its almost impossible to find a LESS suitable means.
 
:Er, I don't see the problem. VB is a perfectly good prototyping "language" (if you can call it that, probably RAD tool might be better), while the end product could have been written in something entirely different. What's so hard to get about that? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 12:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:As a computer programmer myself, I can corroborate this. First clue is that Microsoft and Unix are antithetical. But it's quite possible the client was a layman and didn't know this. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 20:01, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
 
::I'm not defending the veracity of the claim, but based on my knowledge of the capabilities of the VB5 IDE it's not implausible to imagine if, for whatever reason:
::*VB5 and Windows was the desired platform for ALL source code
::*flexibility to provide unix executables might be needed for some environments
::*open source was undesirable (due to many reasons)
::*and most importantly, that the source code never leave Windows.
 
::If I understand the VB5 IDE, that would fit the profile, as it can compile exec's to run under unix, but its' source code unavailable except in Windows VB5. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 20:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::: I interpret the sentence as meaning "building a workstation whose *output* is compatible with Unix-based..." Which is only good systems design, and therefore unworthy of mention, so maybe I'm wrong. -- [[User:Baylink|Baylink]] 22:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::::I think Madsen's full of shit, wasn't he the one who wrote about the Saudi financing and the $29 million pricetag on the election? However, I don't see any mention of VB5 or Unix or the quotation you provide in the actual affidavit...? Curtis and the affidavit seem pretty rock solid so far. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 02:19, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 
:'''Apologies guys - I'm taking back my comment on Visual Basic. After reading the RawStory article it seems this impression I had that Microsoft VB and Unix were not suited for each other, was flawed. Now more information is available, I've updated the article to reflect what now appears to be a more accurate version of what the sources have said.''' [[User:FT2|FT2]] 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 
== cleanup header inappropriate for the article ==
 
 
Please list general article comments, clean up possibilities and/or POV problems with the article here. The cleanup header is woefully inappropriate in my opinion, especially considering the fact there are few open talk page discussions and the article just ''overwhelmingly'' survived VfD with a vote of '''keep''' (was not a vote to keep only if cleaned up). [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 06:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== Disputed ==
 
Firstly, I think this article is great, and I've fought to keep it. So ''please'' don't attack me for asking questions! Anyway here they are:
 
===Many critics of electronic voting...===
 
"The 2004 election brought new attention to these issues. In particular, many critics of electronic voting machines pointed to widespread discrepancies between [[exit poll]]s conducted during Election Day and the officially reported results. They argued that the official results were more favorable to Bush than were the polls, and that these discrepancies were more likely to arise where electronic voting machines were in use and/or in [[swing states]]. They concluded that the exit polls showing a Kerry victory were probably correct and that the official totals from the machines were wrong. Expert opinion was divided concerning what implications should be drawn from the cited discrepancies."
 
* Which critics? Who argued these facts? We need to know so we can verify what they are saying.
* Expert opinion: why experts? I'd like to know!
 
:The entire section on 'exit polls' and the subsequent child article are the places where you can find these answers. Detailed there are various media and independent agencies associated with the exit polls, the researchers involved (the Caltech, Berkeley, Freeman, 'Wired' magazine studies, etc.) and the general chronology of the studies and their counters. Your question probably points to a need to address this in the main article narrative a little more clearly, however. Good one! -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 15:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== Embarrassing ==
Can someone please delete this page? It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed to even have wikipedia.org in my bookmarks, while this page is here. I can see how one or two pinkos couldn't handle the outcome of the election, but there is no excuse for an encyclopedia embarrassing itself this way. Not to mention all those blurbs in Current Events that no other respectable news source gives any attention to (irrespective of political orientation).
 
:copied from the top of this page:
 
::This article was listed twice on [[WP:VFD|votes for deletion]]. [[User:Poccil|[[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]], [[User:Poccil/Automation.js|automation :: script]])]] 05:25, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 
:: For a December 2004 deletion debate over this article see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities]]. For a November 2004 deletion debate over the deletion of this article see [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy]].
 
:What's embarrasing is the 2004 U.S. presidential election, as this article elucidates. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 22:52, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 
:three things that are certain in this world, death, taxes, and ignorance. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 23:03, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 
::: Look, there are hunderds of millions of voters in US. OF COURSE, there will be some black man who got run over by a truck on his way to the polling station. Just think of the number 100,000,000. Think of how big this number is. Shit happens. Black people tend not to vote to begin with. That doesn't make the election invalid. Kerry himself CONCEDED already, and had no second thoughts about it. Let it go. (As a side note, if you ask me Dems have only themselves to blame for nominating a loser candidate. All the money in the world couldn't get him elected. He didn't have charisma, clear platform, or the will to fight muslim terrorists. It was clear that he only went to Vietnam just so that he could betray his comrades and crap all over their sacrifices for political gain. People like that need to be court-martialed, not elected leaders of the free world. But I'm digressing. Just delete this page pinkos, you are embarrassing yourselves more than you are embarrassing the wikipedia community). ''This unsigned comment left by [[User:68.107.102.129|68.107.102.129]] 19:18, 12 Dec 2004, who also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities&diff=8375716&oldid=8375336 edited others' poor indents]''
 
:::: ''"Greatness means leading the way: No stream is large and copious of itself, but is fed and guided by so many tributary currents. So it is with all intellectual greatness: it is simply a matter of 'pointing the way' suggested by so many affluents, not whether one was richly or poorly gifted originally."'' -Fredrich Nietzsche [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 23:26, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)
 
:::: ''"Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good."'' - Vaclav Havel -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 02:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
 
: Maybe you should ask yourself just *why* it embarasses you. -- [[User:Schneelocke|Schneelocke]] (''[[User talk:Schneelocke|cheeks clone]]'') [[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:: You should ask yourself why no news organization is carrying this. Why is Comrade Baas forced to link to some PDF and a measly calendar entry on some racialists' web site.
 
 
::''Personal response:''
::I think you're under a misapprehension here, and its one that many Americans' ancestors sacrificed their lives for, so listen carefully. First off, those contributing are not "losers" or "pinkos" or any other [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]. They are by and large, people who think America is slightly more important than the politicians, and that democracy and doubt over votes isnt an "embarrassment" or "sore heads" but fundamental to your liberty and theirs. They are concerned that although there are issues in every election, this election has a floodgate of them, more than any election before - and that not one or two, or 50%, or even 70% of them seem to be one sided, but that almost '''all''' the big ones where theres evidenced questions are. They have said repeatedly, if there is evidence that these are minor issues, add it to the article, don't just complain about it, and you know what? Nobody has come up with sources saying that the issues raised by various investigations, experts and affidavits is untrue.
 
::The evidence (which you clearly haven't bothered thinking about) is in affidavits and House documents, official State documents and records, and public testimonials. About 40,000 of them at the last count. It's based upon the fact that Secretary of State in Ohio and election officers in Florida are dancing as hard as they can to avoid being made to testify. It's based upon the fact that not one and not two, but '''every''' computer specialist who examined the voting machines says they are childs play to hack and that there is strong computer evidence that they have been hacked during elections. Thats a little more than trivial.
 
::As for me, Im not affected by the election, so I don't give a rats **** if Bush wins or Kerry. What i do care about is that there is a lot of strong evidence that this vote was affected in an improper manner, and that your comment suggests you prefer a nice uncontroversial life to an honest one. Do you value America? Are you proud of its democracy and freedoms? Do you realise people died for the right to vote and have their votes count? This isn't about Bush or Kerry. This is about what those hard-won rights mean, and at the first hurdle, to say "Oh I dont want this discussed because its embarrassing" is a bit like having aids and not telling your partner because you might upset them. Its fatal, and wrong, no matter how hard. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 01:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 
 
Lets see. In a few posts we have:
* "pinkos"
* "Black people tend not to vote to begin with"
* "silly lefties"
* "lunatic radical racialist" (j. jackson)
* "losers"
 
I guess you didnt read [[WP:NPA]] yet. That's okay, but its noted. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 01:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 
:The article could use trimming, but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Anything that's been the subject of studies from MIT, Caltech and Berkeley has to be worth having an encyclopedia article on. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 07:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== In the spirit of the holidays ==
'''News'''
 
(copied from above)
 
The news articles relate to all of the pages really. To keep the main article tight, what about moving the news section on Wikinews, with a permanent link from the articles to it for readers of wikipedia to catch their daily updates? Would that make sense? Or a page on its own? [[User:FT2|FT2]] 06:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 
'''Cleaning up talk page.'''
If anyone else wants to help clean this page up, feel free. Either move sectins to daughter pages or to archive, preferably the former.
 
Also, FWIW, the main discussion topic right now is what to do regarding in the news, the talk page section being titled something like "day-by-day chronology...". [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 19:00, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
:We may be better served simply archiving most/all of the current talk page and starting discussions fresh, with concise clarity in mind. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 19:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
===News flash===
 
Cliff Arnebeck brough his case before ohio supreme court today, but i can't find an article specific enough. All I got are these two: [http://www.wtvo.com/Global/story.asp?S=2685942] [http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/special_packages/10406914.htm] [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 20:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
:Gotcha. Added. [http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=326111&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312]
 
::That's a copy of [http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/special_packages/10406914.htm]. What I mean is that there are only two different stories being circulated in the press. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 21:19, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
:::I thought you wanted corroboration of the piece being run, in this case on abcnews. I'll keep my eyes open. I'm sure we'll hear more about it if/when the Court responds, as well. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 21:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
==News==
We really need a topical chronology for this stuff. I think that should be the priority right now. A lot of significant stuff has happened and is going on that people need to read the news articles to get any clear idea of, including:
*many public hearings in ohio
*2 congressional forums in ohio
*2 recounts efforts in ohio
*lawsuit about provisional ballots
*lockdown of public records
*obstruction of Freedom of Information requests
*protest against electoral ballots being cast
*congressional requests for ohio not to cast electoral ballots
*electoral ballots cast whilst recount is ongoing
*evidence of attempt of fraud in recount
 
I really think these need write-ups in the article. A new section, "Chronology", until a better title can be found or solution worked out? [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 21:44, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
:Do we have an Ohio Recount page? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 
::We have an [[2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies%2C_Ohio|Ohio page]], which could use a better recount section. If the idea is "yet another page", i'd suggest a problems in ohio, and legal actions in ohio (including recount) page. Perhaps a "recount ohio page" could be written up as if it would be stand alone, and then put into the ohio page? The ohio page isn't yet linked to the main article. (BTW, the florida page should be deleted, IMHO, insufficient info.) [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 23:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
==Alert==
A radical keeps removing this from [[Current_events|ongoing events]]. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 23:28, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
News of recount fraud called "superfluous" and removed form current events by Carrp. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Current_events&curid=1231242&diff=0&oldid=0]
 
I'm on a (self-imposed) 2 revert per day per page limit, so someone else has to handle this. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 23:58, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
There's nothing to "handle" on the current events page. I realize this is a major issue for you, Kevin Bass, but it's isn't for the vast majority of the US, let alone the world. There's a link on the current events page to a story on the electors casting their votes. This is an ongoing story and deserves to be included. The other link was superfluous and was therefore removed. Please do not add it back. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] 00:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. I will not see that day. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 00:07, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 
In addition to that story being superfluous, it's also ridiculous. BreakForNews is about as credible a source as [[The Onion]]. It's a left-wing conspiracy theory site that should not be included as a serious source. The "evidence" is the hearsay of one anonymous informant. Perhaps this is why the mainstream media isn't interested in the story. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] 00:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:It's true the MSM (mainstream media) isn't really interested in the story. It's also true that lots of people aren't interested in the story. However, it's not true that the story is 'bs' or partisan. David Cobb said what he said and alleged what he alleged in a public hearing before members of Congress. It is noteworthy and a real event that's on the record, regardless whether the first link posted was from a 'left-wing' site or not. It just happened today, so further corroboration and links need to be, and have already been provided. However, I'm not going to go so far as to say it belongs on 'Current Events', much as I respect Kevin's passions and conviction. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 00:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:Just checked out 'Current Events' and yeah, it certainly isn't less important than the South Korea cannibal conviction. It currently reads:
:* [[2004 U.S. presidential election]]:
:**All members of the [[Ohio]] delegation of the [[Electoral College]] cast their ballots for [[George W. Bush]] while a legal recount is still ongoing. [http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=326111 (ABC)]
 
:Which is good for me. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 00:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
#The mainstream media consistently reports much more drastic claims on less evidence than this.
#I know little about the source, but political characterizations of a new source mean nothing to me, except that:
##it shows that the person making the characterization judges by prejudices, rather than reading comprehension and critical thinking
##it discredits the person making the characterizations
#you do not dispute that the event did indeed happen, so why do you question the "credibility", when you in fact believe the story whole-heartedly?
#Would you believe the U.S. government if it told you? Have you been listening? The U.S government has been listening and speaking. Let's test your reading comprehension, who hosted the forum? What were they investigating?
that's enough for now. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 00:29, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 
:It doesn't make any sense to me, and it never will: putting all bias, predispositions, and prejudice aside, i.e., taken at face value, is it not significant, in any circumstance, that:
 
::''[x presidential candidate] cited one case detailed by an --as yet anonymous-- informant, that a [x company] employee had told staff at the [x county] County Board of Elections office to inconspicuously'' '''note a prepared recount result, then report this data irrespective of the actual recount.''' ''The [x company] representative had also tampered with [voting equipment made by x company] in the offices.''
 
::''"This is going on, all over the state," [x presidential candidate] told the [congressional judicial] hearing.''
 
Maybe when I'm senile I'll understand. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 00:44, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 
:I think in a nutshell it's this - the process is unchanged. The hearings were held, and a suit was filed, but there has been no official impact on the process of the Election thus far. This is not to say itmay not be coming. It's also true that a bunch of people are pleased with this Election's result (what % varies based on who and what Republican-owned voting machine company you ask) and want nothing to do with any hint that 'their team' could have rigged it - to whatever conscious extent, the victory justifies the means. It's no more complex than that. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 00:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::I understand this. I understood it by myself; the explanation was unneccessary. Simplicity is no justification. The election results are not the issue. The election process is the issue. I know it is difficult for them to come to terms (read the liberal/conservative empathy link in the article), but that fact has no logical validity, and no place in a critical debate. The sooner they become disillusioned, the less painfull for them. Again, I understand the psychological impetus, and I think that the best way to deal with it is by drawing the borderlines where they ''should'' be and holding them there. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 01:13, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 
:::Thank you Rathergate, for cowing the media into not reporting anything highly controversial, and thus defining anyone who dares speak such blasphemy as a liberal whackjob... truly we thank you. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 10:15, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 
==Archiving==
possibly sections 1-12, and 14-21 can go? [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 23:46, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
 
:yes, with the possible exception of #1 (ask kizzle/james). Also, the archive should continue to be in time range terms, e.g.: Archvied discussion from date X to date Y (discussion that were inactive as of date Y). I can do it later perhaps. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 02:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::Zen master, thanks for mentioning me in connection with section 1, but my thoughts on that subject became section 19, [[#Need for a concise generalized summary article|Need for a concise generalized summary article]]. The summary article exists at [[2004 U.S. election voting controversies]]. As long as that article remains for readers who want an encyclopedic summary, I'm not going to press my disagreements with the way this long, detailed article is organized. Therefore, I don't object to the archiving of anything on this page. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 02:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:::Archivage completed per Kevin's proposal, archive 5 created, moved inactive discussions as of dec 13 2004 part 2. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] 05:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== Disappearing sources ==
 
With time many if not most of this article's links to external sources will break (sometimes due to a reorganization of the external web site, but often because the external articles are deleted). I know that there are copyright issues involved, but is there any way we could archive this external information so that the main article does not become gradually useless as its sources become unverifiable? [[User:Noosphere|noosphere]] 10:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 
:Pick sources more carefully. Reliable ones generally don't disappear for at least long enough to be indexed by the [[Wayback Machine]]. --[[User:Korath|Korath]][[User talk:Korath|<sup>&#20250;&#35441;</sup>]] 14:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:I would say 'a few, perhaps some', certainly not 'most'. Most of the sources cited are long-running established news organizations, and others can certainly be condensed as the editing continues. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 18:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
To save source articles that this page links to, use archiverProxy, at http://logicerror.com/archiverProxy . It is a proxy that you run on your local machine, which then archives every web page (and all versions of that webpage, time-stamped) you view, saved into a local archive which can be later viewed. The script may have a few bugs; test thoroughly before depending on it. Under Linux, I had to make some minor changes to get it to work; it may work as-is under Windows.
 
:Anonymous contributor, please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. In any event, this is no more useful than manually saving the page with your browser - ''you'' can still view it, but others cannot. Even if you then serve it to the net at large (a glance at archiverProxy seems to indicate it does not), the credibility of the source is compromised. --[[User:Korath|Korath]][[User talk:Korath|<sup>&#20250;&#35441;</sup>]] 08:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== relevant RFC listing ==
[[User:Carrp]] has been listed on [[WP:RFC]] [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Carrp|here]]. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 21:01, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 
==Cleanup Needed==
This article is in dire need of a cleanup. I'll list the major problems for now:
* [[wikipedia:page_size|Page size]]: The page is currently 126KB. Articles over 32KB should be reduced or split. It's quite difficult to read or navigate an article that's so large.
* News: It's great to have links to sources but this is overkill. Older links should be deleted if newer ones have more up to date information.
* POV issues: I know this a sensitive subject, but this is an encyclopedia article and should be as unbiased as possible. Some examples:
::*Introduction: "Unofficial results currently indicate a victory for George W. Bush over John Kerry." The electoral college voted for President Bush on December 13. The article should reflect this fact (as well as when they are certified on January 6th).
::*Controversial or irregular aspects of the 2004 election: "...that Bush's apparent win in Ohio was so narrow..." The Florida 2000 election was narrow. Ohio 2004 was not.
* Redundant information: There are already pages for exit polls and voting machines. There's no need to have so much information on this page. A short synopsis with a link to the sub-pages would suffice.
I understand that it will take some time to get this article in shape, but the time to begin is now. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] 23:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:Carrp... good stuff. And if these are the major problems, I consider this article in great shape! A question - is this a heads up/request, or are you gonna roll up your sleeves and join the unwashed ranks of the editors?
:*The first bullet I agree with. With 'External Links' and 'News' gone, the page size becomes around 70k, a much easier volume to get one's head around. It's important to note this because that ~70k is where the editing needs to be - the external links / news section is much more bibliographic.
:*The second I do not agree with (I believe removing old articles doesn't serve the historical function that section was created for) but I support intelligent placement on news elsewhere (news currently adds around ~300 links to the page total).
:*Yep, NPOV is crucial, and sometimes perceived POV arises from outdated info, like your first example, etc... The POV concerns you cited:
::*'unofficial' = I agree with your comments. I took a crack at it. What do folks think?
::*'so narrow' = 116,000 votes is narrower than many states, less so by far than others. You have a point - Done!
:*Redundant info - I agree it's dense, possibly redundant. Why not jump in and edit it? If you'd rather not because it involves moving content from one page to another, and you'd like your edits to be transparent, that's understandable. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
 
:I suggest the logical place for the news bullets should be (naturally!) on wikinews, listed as an ongoing item. This can then be sourced by any wikipedia articles referencing the election controversy. Not only it will save much space, but these things are in fact news, and ongoing, and wikinews is new. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 08:00, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
 
::Help me understand, will they appear as a consolidated list, or be scatted amongst other events? -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 15:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:I've edited the introduction to make it a lot tighter and less redundant. It contained way too much specific information. The article and sub-pages go much more in-depth, as they should. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] 19:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== News Souces / Data Mining ==
Excellent source!: [http://www.miamedia.com/votergate/index.html] [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 04:23, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 
== Watch the POV ==
Watch the POV Carrp. I, as the others, appreciate your efforts in cleaning up the article. However, ommitign things like "votes for kerry were registered as votes for bush", and adding "allegedly" to the statement about diebold knowing about the machines counting backwards for at least two years, when diebold has fully admitted that they knew and there is hard documentary evidence, and other such edits, are, and I hope you can see this - slanting to misrepresent the credibility and the severity of the irregularities, which by any measure cannot be considered NPOV. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 21:07, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
 
I'm sure there were also cases (reported or not) where Bush votes were registered as Kerry votes. The whole point of the voting machine section is to show that they are currently not very secure or reliable. Perhaps it can be restated as "The voting machines have, at times, registered votes for the wrong candidate."
As for the issue of adding "allegedly", it originally said "...manufacturer ES&S are said to have known about (but not rectified) this issue for two years..." The link was broken and it sounded very much like it was alleged, not proven, that ES&S knew of this issue. Please edit this sentence if this is not the case. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] 21:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:On the first issue you brought up: Quite right, carrp. There were 2 cases reported where Bush votes were "alledgedly" registered as Kerry votes. It will take some time to find the source for this again. Basically someeone took the time to go through all the records at voteprotect.org.
:On the second issue, I understand; I can see how it reads that way. I have some other issues i'm working on, but i'll get back to that if someone doesn't beat me to it. In the meantime, just be carefull, please. A lot of what's written is written by people who have read a lot about this, and the wording is specific. But we don't want this to become a clutter of citations, so it might not be cited. In any case, if it is cited, that's something to double-check edits against.
:Keep up the good work. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 21:30, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
::Caarp, here's the source for the 2 cases. As I said, 2 reports of a vote for bush going to kerry, info compiled from voteprotect.org (EIRS). [http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=126395&mesg_id=126395] [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]
 
== legal actions ==
Looks like we got a lot of catch-up work.
 
''Read about litigation in Ohio [http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/st-ohio-litigation.html here] and [http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/key-litigation.html here].
 
maybe this section warrants a daughter-article, so we can make this article smaller?
 
:On second look, some of that is pre-election or on election, and, although relevant, is disputable whether it warrants content. And in any case, 4 sub-articles would be pushing it. I'd be very reluctant to go beyond 4, and am reluctant to go to 4 in the first place. But the scroll bar on my browser is maxed out, so we probably do need to revisit this issue, whether in regards to in the news, official positions etc., or both.
 
:In the news is about a 1/4 of the page and is a subsection of "external links" which is 1 of 5 main topics, but constitutes roughly 2/5 of article, though promoting the "in the news" header would not be unreasonable and would make the ratios more proportional. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 06:27, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 
:Ya, Carrp's work is very helpful in making this article more concise, but we probably need to work with that as well. FT2 seems quite interested in WikiNews, and the reservations seem to be centered around the novelty (embryonic-ness) of WikiNews, partly because, and this has not been mentioned yet, last time I checked there wasn't an article for the controversy there, as there isn't a lot of articles there yet.
 
:A possible compromise would be to have this page still have a in the news section, but drastically cut down to include something between twice to five times as many events as have been or will be listed in current events, or to constitute some roughly fixed proportion of this article, and a link to a wikinews article, which would have a full list of events.
 
:A concievable alternative is, if we do make a new article regarding "remedies" (official positions, legal actions, etc.), we could split the news between the two as is relevant. Most of the new news would then be on the remedies article, and it could be effectively considered a remedies/in-the-news sub-article. Pending other suggestions, perhaps this is sufficient to have a survey? [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 06:44, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 
==Voting machine improprieties==
 
Carrp, some good edits today - but one issue caught my eye. You removed a very significant portion of the voting machines stuff (see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities&diff=0&oldid=8621892 diff]) - if it's because the source was 'commondreams' (a 'left-wing' website), removing it was too draconian. The examples raised have been corroborated in numerous sources, and exist throughout the article(s) themselves. And an outright removal of the content removed a good part of the value that section. Can we discuss these things on 'talk', so the article's hard-researched conclusions don't simply evaporate based on one editor's assessment of the 'validity' of the source? Thanks. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 20:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
Actually, the reason I deleted some of the section wasn't because I felt it was inaccurate or worthless but because it is already discussed in great depth on the specific voting machine sub-page. This article needs extensive pruning and it makes sense to have the main page discuss the major points while leaving the specifics to the sub-pages. A section that's too long can harm the value just as much as one that's too short. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] 00:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
:That is my mantra. "The best producer is a reducer". However, what was left did not communicate the value of what was taken away. Yet another issue with 'subpages'... the balance bet. parent article and child. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
== Review ==
 
I've left this article alone deliberately for a few days, to think about it and get some perspective. I think a look from 1st principles matters, if this article is to come under better quality and closer compliance to wiki standards.
 
When this article started, the subject was murky, undocumented. There had been no investigations, no affidavits, no media coverage except a large number of odd reports that together suggested there were "irregularities". In that climate, it was important to document everything, because the only rebuttal of claims of sore losership was to nail down the facts. There were irregularities, there was evidence, it was of wide interest, it did cover many interlocking areas. To an extent, it still is controversial of course, but I think now it's safe to say we are well past those days. The matter is now documented in more legal ways, more formal ways. Those interested are now political coallitions, house committees, and investigatory organisations.
 
Whilst everything in the article is accurate and valid as far as it goes, I would like to propose a complete reworking project on the side, of what needs to be said with regard to the entire election controversy situation, covering all 6 articles.
 
The aim of this will be:
* '''To re-think what belongs and what doesnt:''' Never mind what we have all written so far. What would a well designed article say now on these topics? That should be our standard
* '''Use and quantity of evidence:''' The articles have a lot of research material of value to everyone. But it is now no longer needed to cite it all in big paragraphs. It was before. Now we can summarise a whole issue in a few lines with references, and it will be credible.
* '''What can be assumed:''' To keep this article in a good state, what can we now assume is not so controversial, and therefore can be summarised or omitted in a shorter space?
* '''What articles are needed:''' We have 6 articles, I think. 7 if we split out news. Do we need these? Is this the best organisation?
* '''Types of issue:''' Since the election, some aspects of the issue are now more mainstream, and we are not under pressure to "justify" them as much. Nor are we a news page (as the "anti-bloggers rightly say) to list every blow by blow accouunt without summarising. Some issues can be stated sourced and done. Others, such as voting machine company ownership records and such, are less well known, and may still need to be included at more length, perhaps in an article called ''"2004 Election controversy (other issues)"'' or ''"(connected controversies)"''. So we need to think what aspects are given what space too.
* '''News:''' how and where news should go, to avoid article sprawl
* '''Duplication and omission:''' With multiple articles, sometimes an item is in one article that is relevant to another (eg a news item on voting machines in ohio should technically be noted on 3 articles. This hasnt't been well co-ordinated or managed so the articles have to an extent not served their full purpose as they could. Planning would help.
* '''Wikipedia guidelines:''' In what ways does the article not meet wiki standards? What do we plan to do? Which ones will we address now, which will we let time take care of so as not to remove information needed at this moment, and which are inapplicable to this article at present?
 
I would invite anyone interested to contribute to this review, those who have worked on this page and its connected articles and added so much, and those who watched in dismay as it grew. And especially, those who feel doubts in certain areas, perhaps we can find a way to address those to, if they are concisely stated.
 
The link for the review page is here [[TO BE ADDED]], and once a draft framework is set up, I'll add the link. Note that I am setting it up in my user space, but that doesn't mean I consider myself to "own" it. Its just a place we can thoroughly review this article and its fellows from scratch, what belongs, what doesn't, without everyday talk issues intruding. [[User:FT2|FT2]] 01:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 
:Doubleplusgood. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 03:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
::I took the initiative. As with FT2's proposal, so to this, in my namespace: [[User:Kevin_baas/2004_us_presidential_election_controversy_review]]. [[User:Kevin baas|Kevin Baas]] | [[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]] 23:28, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities"