- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (approved in IRC by Raul654). Non admin closure. Whsitchy 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason GTTofAK 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into the long story of events surounding this lets keep it short and simple.
In October of 2004 "journalist" Greg Palast of the BBC accused members of the Bush 2004 Flordia election campaign of engaging in voter fraud based on e-mails he acquired from GeorgeWBush.org. These e-mails reportedly contained a list of names and the word caging. Palast claimed that caging was a form of voter fraud. His story was rejected by almost all major news serviced because none of them could verify his claim that caging meant what he said, see this October 27 2004 Salon.com article. Hours after Palast was rejected by most all major news services due to their inability to verify this definition of caging someone came to wiki and created a this page to back up Palast claim.
It is clear that this article does not meet Wiki standards. All the links are from within the Palast circle mainly his original BBC claim and GeorgeWBush.org. It is clear that this article is a blatant attempt misuse wikipedia and create evidence to support a false claim. Unless some real evidence outside of Palast's circle and be supplied to bolster this definition of Caging it should be deleted. Wikipedia should not be abused in this way.
Might I remind the admins that this article is being used all over the internet to accuse real people of real crimes.
- Delete These allegations were made by one partisan journalist and though endlessly repeated on conspiracy websites they were not covered by reputable sources, nor were they supported by the BBC, which is never shy of knocking republicans. As no credible evidence for this scam was ever produced and it wasn't sourced in multiple sources it shouldn't be here. Nick mallory 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AfD isn't cleanup. However, the article probably needs to be split into Caging (direct mail) and Caging (politics). The first article is a Keep as the term is certainly widely in use in the direct mail industries and is sourced in the article. If the term is being falsely used in its spread into the political arena then the second article doesn't need to exist, but the Palast episode appears to have fixed the term into a shorthand for a type of electoral fraud. Even if the allegations against the Bush administration are false, they have been written about by a lot of WP:RS, notably the BBC (even if the BBC didn't support them, as Nick mallory says) - the article only needs to point out that they are allegations, not fact. As long as the article is NPOV then Wikipedia isn't being abused. EliminatorJR Talk 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. --Nricardo 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Bad faith nom. Monica Goodling admitted to this tactic under oath in congressional testimony. Google news search: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Infrangible 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodling didn't admit that the practice existed only that the accusation had been made. She defined her understanding of the term in the true sense of the word. "it's a direct-mail term, that people who do direct mail, when, when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad"
That is not the same thing as this.
"Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren't living at (because they are, say, at college or at war)."
Every campaign partakes in the practice of caging in its true mail order sense of the word. That does not make it a form of voter fraud or a term used to describe a form of voter fraud. This article needs to be taken down before this fraud spreads any further. Congragulations you have 5 links where people are basically parroting Palasts allegation or in the case of one reference the wikipedia article. Do you have any evidence that this term has ever been used in that sense outside of this circle? If not this needs to be taken down for the same reason the story was rejected 3 years ago. Wikepedia is not a crock pot where crack pots like Palast can dump in some false information then let simmer for 3 years then recycle the story using it as a source.GTTofAK 04:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whether or not Palast was correct and how his argument is presented is something for dispute resolution within the article. Regardless, the term has become notable if only because Goodling was quizzed about it before a Congressional body. Please follow neutrality guidelines in writing the article, and please don't engage in pointy AFD nominations that amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Dhartung | Talk 08:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no independent sources on this outside of Palast. Word for word parrotings are not independent. Unless one can be found it shouldn't be up. If this is such a common term in political campaigns someone should be able to find a reference to it outside of Palast's allegation. Without proper sourcing this article is in violation of wikipedia's standards. Agian I remind everyone that this article was made the same day the mainstream media and even the non-mainstream media rejected Palast's allegation because they could not verify his definition of caging. Its quite obvious to anyone who reads Salon.com's rejection of his claim and then looks at the date and time that this article was created that it was created to invent the supporting evidence that Palast lacked.GTTofAK 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and don't bring your conspiracy theories to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll say it again. It doesn't matter whether the story is true or false, what matters is whether the term is notable. Given the huge amount of reliable secondary sources writing about it at the moment, the answer is probably yes. As long the article itself doesn't make baseless accusations but merely reports the controversy, then no rules or guidelines are being broken. EliminatorJR Talk 08:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per EliminatorJR. The term is in widespread use. It may be that Palast's use is controversial or unconventional - I'm no expert - but the very fact that Goodling used the term before Congress without being asked to define it demonstrates its notability. If the article is biased, that may be fixed without deleting it. This AfD appears to come from a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, and should be concluded so that the energy being expended here can be redirected toward improving the article. -Pete 18:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Evidently, the term has been taken note of by House Judiciary Chair Conyers and is the object of further investigation and discovery. Since it's a term now current in the news, especially under its alternate entry as "vote caging," it has an obvious place in Wikipedia. In fact, much of this controversy seems to be based on the fact that the two terms, "Caging list," and "Vote caging," are conflated by Wikipedia. I recommend separating them with a link showing that the two terms are related and that the second is based upon the first, since their meanings appear to be diverging. As for complaints that reporting has been targeted at Republicans, that has more to do with the asymmetric nature of political vote caging than with the Republican party per se. It just happens that those voters who are most susceptible to the technique tend primarily to be poor, Black or Hispanic, and/or homeless. whether temporarily or otherwise. Since such people don't typically vote for Republicans, the practice is very valuable for one party, and almost worthless for the other. As for the sneering use of ironic quotes around the word "journalist" when referring to Mr. Greg Palast at the beginning of this discussion, this is perhaps an indicator that the author does not, himself, represent a truly neutral point of view, however much he likes to think of his personal opinions as "simple facts." Lee-Anne 12:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AFD isn't a cleanup procedure. --81.82.14.85 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seems to be a lot of obfuscation here. This article is not about the alligation or the story it is about the term caging. Palast's definition of caging as a form of voter fraud has never been verified by independent third parties. In fact it was rejected by most all independent third party sources 2 1/2 years ago because it was not verifiable. This article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability standards and as such it is perfectly acceptable to put it up for deletion. So don't try to accuse me of being ignorant of board rules.. Rather than complaining perhaps the people here should go and find some source that independently verifies Palast's claim rather than parroting him word for word. If its such a common term and practice that should be easy right?GTTofAK 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can I point you, again, to the comments above?. It doesn't matter whether Palast is right or wrong. Whether or not the term was in use before, it is now, and that's reported by multiple reliable sources. And, to be honest, your POV pushing as pointed out by User:Lee-Anne is rather noticeable. EliminatorJR Talk 19:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So your argument is that it doesn't matter if the verification requirements have not been met. All that matters is that the lie has spread far enough. Thank you for confirming ones of the many faults with wikipedia. And no I don't think Palast is a credible journalist he is a muck raker that even the far left takes with a big grain if salt thats why I put it in quotes. Sue me.GTTofAK 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GTTofAK said: Thank you for confirming ones of the many faults with wikipedia. 'Comment: The fault we should be concerned about is whether the mechanisms of Wikipedia are used properly to better the encyclopedia. If you have the goal of demonstrating a problem with Wikipedia, that would constitute a serious conflict of interest in this decision. Your positions are not unreasonable, but the idea that they constitute a reason to delete the article is simply illogical. Once that issue is settled, your arguments will be welcome in the process of ensuring that the article is as accurate as possible. But as long as you argue for the article's deletion, the only thing you accomplish is to undermine your own credibility. -Pete 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GTTofAK said: This article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability standards... Comment If the BBC and the Guardian are not verifiable, what organization is? The Wikipedia verifiability standard doesn't address truth or falsity at all, but whether the item in question has some sort of reality beyond rumor and urban legend. While it may have been true at one time in the past that the Greg Palast story was relatively unsubstantiated, many similar stories have surfaced, in several different contexts, and the GeorgeWBush.org site has published the wrongly-delivered e-mails which form part of the basis for the original story, which also contain the term vote caging. Complaining about verifiability at this point is beating a dead horse; the issue is in the public eye and many have commented on it, some with independent information. As a meaningful phrase, the term deserves some treatment if the Wikipedia is to remain current with modern language. It might help to make more effort to ensure a neutral tone, either by mentioning verifiable examples of vote caging by other political parties or by recasting the discussion as more theoretical, either without specific reference to particular incidents or parties or by relegating all such references to external links. Lee-Anne 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- GTTofAK said: Thank you for confirming ones of the many faults with wikipedia. 'Comment: The fault we should be concerned about is whether the mechanisms of Wikipedia are used properly to better the encyclopedia. If you have the goal of demonstrating a problem with Wikipedia, that would constitute a serious conflict of interest in this decision. Your positions are not unreasonable, but the idea that they constitute a reason to delete the article is simply illogical. Once that issue is settled, your arguments will be welcome in the process of ensuring that the article is as accurate as possible. But as long as you argue for the article's deletion, the only thing you accomplish is to undermine your own credibility. -Pete 22:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Everything posted is editorial by Palast. And Palast opinion is not a credible source. If this is such a common use of the term why is is so hard to find evidence outside of Palast.GTTofAK 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Not true: Monica Goodling's testimony before Congress using the term, the BBC and/or The Guardian's publication of Palast's material, and the common use of the term on blogs, talk radio, etc. are more than sufficient to credibly establish that the term "caging" has a meaning in politics, whether or not the technique has ever been used. That is all that has to be established to justify keeping the article. Specific arguments about when, where, and by whom caging has or has not been used are utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, and thus the allegedly controversial nature of Palast's claims simply have no bearing on an "article for deletion" nomination. They may have bearing on the contents of the article once it is kept. (2) GTTofAK, do you have a professional, financial, or other significant interest in suppressing discussion of vote caging? Are your edits to Wikipedia part of your duties in a paid position? -Pete 23:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article can be fixed by proper sourcing. An example: Reed, William (May 30, 2007). "Caging: how 'they' diminished the power of our vote". San Francisco Bay View. San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper. Retrieved 2007-06-06.
-- Yellowdesk 03:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep as rewritten, sources provided demonstrate the encyclopedic value of this article. RFerreira 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.