Talk:2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities

This article is in need of attention.

This article was listed for deletion two times.

• The result of the first deletion debate was Keep
• The result of the second deletion debate was Keep

Is in [Accuracy_dispute] yes I don't see that sign here. why? Dwarf Kirlston Feb 17

There is no accuracy dispute: None of the article content's accuracy is disputed, nor is the title or existence of the article. Kevin Baas^talk 20:17, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

Kevin, as the history section clearly shows, this article's accuracy is highly disputed. User:JMcNamera 13:06, Jan 27, 2006 (GMT)

Maybe that's where your mistake lies, you're looking at the history page for accuracy disputes (If I understand you correctly.) You can't find them there, because there's no medium for them to exist there. You should be looking on the talk page, if you're looking for an accuracy dispute. Kevin Baas^talk 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Archives

For archived discussion of this page, please see:

1	Nov 5 2004 - Nov 9 2004
2	Nov 9 2004 - Nov 12 2004
3	Nov 12 2004 - Nov 17 2004
4	Nov 18 2004 - Dec 13 2004
5	Nov 18 2004 - Dec 13 2004 pt2
6	Dec 13 2004 - Jan 10 2005
7	Jan 11 2004 - Feb 14 2005
8	Feb 14 2005 - Oct 19 2005
9	- 2006.01.25

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. --kizzle 21:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Vote Suppression section

What happened? This section is way out of proportion. It is totally skewed, and needs to be corrected. I'm slapping a pov tag on it. Kevin baas 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I just read it over and it seems relatively reasonable to me. Could you point out specifically what you find objectionable in it and why? noosphere 17:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, tens of thousands of democratic votes are believed to have been suppressed, whereas only tens of republican votes are said to be suppressed, yet three of the four paragraphs deal w/suppression of republican votes. That's a little out of proportion, don't you think? Kevin baas 19:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's additional information regarding suppression of Democratic votes I am all for adding it. However, I would not advocate excising information about suppression of Republican votes simply to keep a balance dictated by the size of the allegations.

If the information is relevant we should include it, imo. And it's not like there's a gross imbalance (only two out of six paragraphs in that section mention alleged offenses against Republicans). noosphere 02:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, but if the scope of allegations is drastically different between the two parties, that is a key fact this section must be written in accordance with. --kizzle 02:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, what about just mentioning in the section itself that although every relevant Republican allegation of voter suppression is documented here, there were far more allegations coming from Democrats than Republicans, and citing the appropriate source? noosphere 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Each section should be written in distribution proportional to the number of votes disputed. That is what I am saying. I never mentioned deleting content. I mentioned adding balance to that section which is way off kilter. Kevin baas 03:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, if you don't mean to delete content are you talking about adding content in support of Democratic allegations of vote suppression? I'm all for that. Or, if not, what kind of balance are you talking about? noosphere 17:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the ting is, if we add a four thousand paragraphs on suppression of democratic votes to balance out the four on suppression of republican votes, there will no doubt be quite a bit of trimming to that novel. And after that trimming, probably back down to four paragraphs, there will be no trace of mention of suppression of republican votes, which republicans will balk at, and return us to the original state of affairs... So essentially what I think we need is a rewrite of the section, maybe going to 6 paras if neccessary, that still includes some mention of suppression of republican votes, but is more commensurate to the distribution of irregularities in the physical world. The greater detail of suppression of republican votes can be moved to the main vote suppression article, if not already there, where it will be much more commensurate. I'd suggest a look through the page history to find a pre-skewed version of the section, and to work from that as a basis, saving much time in research and composition. Kevin baas 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

To reiterate my basic point in regards your question, the main issue I see here, when fixing this problem, is the conflict between balance within the section and balance between the size of the section and the rest of the article. The second will inevitably be done by someone if the first is done without offloading some of the current text to the vote suppression article. So there's really no way to reconcile both of the balances that I am talking about without ultimately cutting back on the discussion of suppression of republican votes in this, summary article, and moving it to the main vote suppression article. Kevin baas 17:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

the overwhelming majority of the content of the article is about alleged suppression of democrat votes. two or three paragraphs - which are really little more than two or three sentences - about republican votes suppressed, is clearly not POV, nor out of balance with the body of the article. this strikes me as an attempt to suppress any mention of suppression of republican votes, which is POV. articles are not tagged as "POV" simply because there are a few sentences in the body of the article that do not conform to the overall POV of the article. suggesting that because a *section* of the article deals more with one POV than the majority POV of the article, as justification for tagging it, is unreasonable. furthermore, if you will direct your attention to the POV tag, it is for *whole articles* not sections. either the article is POV, or it is NPOV. slapping the tag on one section is a misapplication. Anastrophe 18:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You said "the overwhelming majority of the content of the article is about alleged suppression of democrat votes.". That is not neccessarily an objection. It happens to be the case that the overwhelming majority (we're talking 98-99%) of irregularities found in the 2004 presidential election favored George W. Bush, and by another measure, the overwhelming majority of disputed votes likewise favor George W. Bush. In order for this article to be neutral, the content must be in the same proportion as the empirical (i.e. commensurate). For further clarification of this concept, you can take a look at my user page's section on NPOV. I agree with you wholeheartedly that "suggesting that because a *section* of the article deals more with one POV than the majority POV of the article, as justification for tagging it, is unreasonable", and I will be on your side, vociferously objecting, when someone makes that suggestion. Each section, ofcourse, should have it's content distributed irrespective of the distribution of the content in the overall article, and with respect only to the distribution of phenomena in the empirical world. Each section formed independantly like this, on every scale (such that paragraphs in sections are likewise commensurate, and sections are formed in due proportion to each other), leads to a well-balanced article, not affected by POVs, but indicative of the subject of the article as it exists in the empirical world. Kevin baas 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"In order for this article to be neutral, the content must be in the same proportion as the empirical (i.e. commensurate)." since we are discussing a controversy and irregularities, the article does not deal with the empirical - otherwise, the article wouldn't exist, as there wouldn't be a dispute about the number of votes cast. certainly, it can be said that more people hold the opinion that more democratic votes were supressed; that opinion may be correct, but it is not yet indisputable - again, the article wouldn't exist if the facts were indisputable. for example, you said above, "Well, tens of thousands of democratic votes are believed to have been suppressed, whereas only tens of republican votes are said to be suppressed,[...]". can you provide a citation for that assertion - that only tens of republican votes - fewer than one hundred - are claimed to be supressed? the article doesn't appear to address specific numbers in this regard. furthermore, limiting discussion of irregularities based upon the number of votes in dispute by party would tend to suggest that it's less of a crime to supress a few votes, than to supress many votes. In fact, it is a crime regardless of the number of votes - if even one vote is illegally supressed, the crime is the same as if a million are supressed. every vote counts isn't just a catch phrase. by that proposed measure, if there were a concerted, systematic effort to suppress all green party votes, and every green party vote in the presidential election were supressed, then - since they amounted to 0.1% of the total vote - it would not merit any mention at all in this article, because the number of votes supressed would not be considered noteworthy. the article is about the controversy and irregularities. were republican votes alleged to have been supressed? then it merits inclusion. Anastrophe 18:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are implying this is an article about god, or the information in the article as presented is not falsifiable, then I beg to differ. I'll read and reply to the rest of your comment later. Kevin baas 20:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(back left)if you are implying that the only choice is either god or empirical data, i'll point out that that's a false dichotomy. Anastrophe 22:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That was actually my point. There are uncertainties, to be sure, but each piece of information available should be given equal weight, or perhaps lets say be weighed according to it's reliability and importance, yes, a bit removed from the empirical level. So are these words, they are simulations - the word simulation is a simulation, and in that sense it's already a level removed from empirical. So it is with the data we have. The poll books and official certified canvass report (precint-level vote count), though empirical documents, aren't the actual voters voting. They are in that sense non-empirical, but I contend that their substantiveness is not a thing to be downplayed. This applies in general. Kevin baas 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

On the point of criminal proportionality, I would say it's a crime to suppress one vote, and two crimes to suppress two. Kevin baas 03:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Cites and opinion

"Two senior managers went directly from working for a company manufacturing voting machines to winning unheard of success in politics. Some believe the consistency of their ties with one political party is sufficient to overturn the 2004 poll given the small margin of victory. Even a small alteration of the machine could have been enough to change the result in battleground states."

The first sentence at the least needs some de-opionating. The second sentence needs a cite, and a rephrase to who actually believes this. Arkon 01:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"A re-vote was eventually ordered to reverse the original result to one that agreed more closely with original exit polls."

This needs to be reworded. As it is now it seems to say a re-vote was ordered to conform to the exit polls. Arkon 01:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Among the issues raised in 2004 were allegations or complaints regarding obstacles to voter registration, improper purges of voter lists, voter suppression, accuracy and reliability of voting machines (especially electronic voting), problems with absentee ballots and provisional ballots, areas with more votes than voters, and possible partisan interference by voting machine company and election officials. "

I could not find any citation in the article for this claim (in bold), a cite is needed. Arkon 01:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Made changes for these sections today. Arkon 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet another source making this single edit unnecessary (the others I have no disagreement with).

1. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports (free registration req'd):

Although city election officials initially blamed postelection data entry for the flaws, the newspaper found gaps existed at dozens of wards, with more votes counted than people tallied in log books.

The gap has been narrowed to 4,600 by a closer review of election day logs and other records, which authorities placed off-limits to the newspaper during the investigation.

2. The National Review 'Corner' reports on the story in the Journal-Sentinel, using the exact phrase 'more votes than registered voters'.

WISCONSIN VOTER FRAUD {Jonathan H. Adler} The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that an official investigation of voter irregularities has found clear evidence of fraud, including thousands more votes cast than registered voters, over 200 felon voters and at least 100 people who voted twice. Powerline has more.

3. The AP reports the story:

About 4,500 more ballots than registered voters were cast in the election last November in Milwaukee, investigators said Tuesday. Also, more than 200 felons voted improperly in Milwaukee, and more than 100 instances of suspected double-voting were found.

These sources now make a half-dozen citations for the use of the phrase 'more votes than voters'. The section has been updated to read 'more votes than registered voters'. That is most accurate and most readable, and has been fully cited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are quite a few incidents of this having happened (like this one Scoop), but here's one from a more recent source, originally in the Miami Herald and reprinted on Voters Unite.

{In Miami-Dade County} On Election Day, registered voters sign a paper before voting, signatures that are supposed to be counted by poll workers and compared to votes recorded on the machines at the end of the day. Large discrepancies indications of a problem are supposed to be reported to elections officials.

The study found that there were 5,917 cases where there were more votes than signatures. Of those cases, 4,353 are expected to be clerical errors where poll workers miscounted the signatures, the study found.

For example, in one precinct 590 ballots were cast but only three signatures were counted.

For the first link the apt line is "A careful review of the absentee vote in one Ohio county revealed that many more absentee votes were cast than there were absentee voters identified." This is more than a bit different than the line in the article, if it were rephrased as such it would be great.

In the second link the apt lines are "The study, expected to be released next week, found that workers at dozens of polling places submitted counts of signatures to elections officials that did not match the number of votes recorded on the touch-screen machines. Most of the discrepancies appear to have been caused by poll workers miscounting signatures. Others may have been caused by voters signing in but walking away before voting or glitches in at least one machine." Also quite different than whats in the article, and as before if this was included as reported it would be fine. Arkon 02:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the section you bolded, 'more votes than voters' is correctly substantiated by the examples I provided off the cuff above - and again, my examples are not necessarily the examples the article was crafted on. It was far more cited a few months back, before a group of editors removed many of the citations for readability's sake. Take a look in the page history as well, for more info. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree re: substantiated. If the cites that the piece was created from aren't linked it doesn't deserve inclusion. Page history in regards to cites doesn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion either. I'll give it a few days, hopefully the person who inserted it will dig up the cites. If not, I'll be bold. Arkon 03:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to be bold - but you also have to recognize you are one editor, who is coming to an article without having participated in the balance between citation and readability. The fact that there were numerous incidents where more votes were cast than eligible voters is most definitely substantiated, in numerous ways - and deleting that content is unwarranted. Everything that's in this article that was put in while I've been an editor has had a citation, so far as I am aware. WOWT Television Here's another report of a 'more votes than voters' situation during the election, that I found while my toast is toasting. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"The fact that there were numerous incidents where more votes were cast than eligible voters is most definitely substantiated, in numerous ways" You have as yet, not demonstrated that in the least. That was what my original request was, and the cites you provided if anything contradict whats in the article. This last quote even is contributed to a glitch, not more votes being cast than voters. Again, if you wish to chnage the article to reflect whats in that article, I'm all for it. As an aside, I don't care much for the arguments for ownership of an article. Arkon 04:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been no such arguments for ownership, and never have. Let's focus on the issue - the four words you objected to on the basis of verifiability. I've provided 4-5 off-the-cuff examples of verified incidents of more votes being counted than eligible voters. Not sure how that can be more clear. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Only the last actually reflected what was in the article, and that, just barely. It will need to be edited to reflect the cite (which I will do soon if not done by someone else). I have repeatedly asked for cites for this (and others that have not been answered), and only that. If you wish to say that "You're welcome to be bold - but you also have to recognize you are one editor, who is coming to an article without having participated in the balance between citation and readability." is anything other than a claim of ownership, be my guest. I believe you would be better served responding to the requests of fellow editors instead of claiming seniority. Merry Christmas! Arkon 05:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misinterpreted my comments as implying seniority. I was meaning to speak to history, and to point out that objections you might have to content may have already been addressed, and a review of the page history is often helpful. Sorry again for being unclear and thanks for the advice, however misled. - and Merry Christmas. -- User:RyanFreisling @

(resolving edit conflict) Akron, you are wrong about the accepted policy on wikipedia. The criteria for inclusion is interesting inmporant, accurate, and relevant. Cites have nothing to do wiht it. falsifiability and verifiability are important for demonstrating accuracy, and cites are a means of doing this - they are not the ends, but a means. And, as ryan has pointed out, the statements are verifiable. It's unfortunate that someone removed citations. The solution is not to remove text now, but for the person who removed them to put them back in, and failing that, for a person who would like to see the text removed, to recover the citations and put them back in. The burden does not lie on the person who found the information and cited it in the artcile. They did their job. If someone wants to change the article, it's their job, as it was for the people who made it how it was, to do their research, and from that research make the most positive, productive change they can. That is, make the change that most contributes to accuracy and informativeness. In the case in question, Ryan has been helpful enough to guide you in your research. Happy editing! Kevin baas 03:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, you'll forgive me if you clarify for your first statements further later on in your post. I'm in a bit of a hurry so I am just responding to your inaccurate assertion regarding wikipolicy. Here's the relevent quote "Providing sources for edits is mandated by Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are policy. What this means is that any edit that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." Arkon 04:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're not challenging an edit - you're challenging the article's content, which was deleted and restored, and numerous citations provided here on 'talk'. Not trying to split hairs, but I thought I'd clarify your relevant quote. The section you refer to, 'more votes than voters', is and has been cited. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I had hoped the section header, any my specific requests for cites would make it clear that that is what I am seeking. Not sure how it could be any clearer. And no, to this point your citations have not backed whats in the article. Arkon 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure how my examples could be clearer cites of the section you highlighted - more votes than voters. There are, unfortunately, many more. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The first "The study found that there were 5,917 cases where there were more votes than signatures." != "more votes than voters". The second "counts of signatures to elections officials that did not match the number of votes recorded on the touch-screen machines." != "more votes than voters". I needn't go on. Merry Christmas! Arkon 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you needn't, 'cause in this instance you're plainly incorrect. Voter = signature. Just follow the cites and read, like for example the Scoop link I provided:

A careful review of the absentee vote in one Ohio county revealed that many more absentee votes were cast than there were absentee voters identified.

All absentee voters must be identified as such by name and residence in the precinct poll books of the precinct in which they are registered. Over 100 precinct poll books in Trumbull County were checked for absentee voters and that number of actual absentee voters was compared to the certified number of absentee votes. There was an inflated difference in nearly every precinct of the five communities examined. The five communities whose poll books were carefully inspected for an absentee vote overcount are: Warren City (311), Howland Township (138), Newton Falls City (34), Girard City (57), and Cortland Township (40). The 106 precincts of these five Ohio communities, about 39% of all precincts in Trumbull County, netted a total of 580 absentee votes for which there were no absentee voters identified in the poll books.

"When there are more votes than voters, there is a big problem" stated Dr. Werner Lange, author of this study {...}

You now have been provided 2 cites that use the exact words, and the other cites supporting incidents of more votes than voters. Now it's time for you to Assume_good_faith on the part of other editors. No one is claiming ownership or avoiding the facts. The issue is not being spun - the objection you raised has been addressed fully and factually. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the 2 cites above that you state "Voter = signature". I'm just going to let that comment stand on its own. I don't think anything else I say about would sound civil no matter how much I sugar coated. For this cite, once again, it does not match what I asked for the cite for. For example, "absentee vote overcount" != "more votes than voters". This is self evident, yes? Of course, if you wanted to reword it to "there were cases where more absentee votes were counted than registered absentee voters", that cite would fit wonderfully. Once again though, I will recommend responding to the requests of fellow editors instead of (this time) throwing out random policy pages. Merry Christmas! Arkon 07:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - if you read the whole article that I've indicated (repeating it here verbatim is inapropos), you will see what the word 'signature' means in that quote, which addresses your misconception. 'Absentee vote overcount' is not what's being discussed. Last, no sugar coating is needed, and your ongoing civility is most welcome, and in fact most necessary... not at all random. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is just incorrect. As I've read the entire cite, it states explicit reasons why signatures are not votes. Such as people signing in, and not voting, miscounting of said signatures etc. Again, the cite was requested for "more votes and voters". When a reader reads this they do not think "more abstentee votes than people listed in absentee rolls" etc. Thus the request for a cite so the reader can be sure what that is referring to. I feel I've been as clear as is possible about this, and will say no more until I edit the section later. The randomness of the AGF link is apparent in that I am requesting a specifc cite for a specific section in the article. Disagreement over whether said cites back the section, however mind boggling, is in no way an assignment of bad faith. As a gesture of my good faith in you, I will assume you know this. Until tomorrow, merry Christmas! Arkon 07:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The definition of an overvote is "more than one vote per ballot". The section does not specifically state "more ballots than voters", it more generally says "more votes than voters", which could include unusual incidents of overvotes as well as 'phantom votes'. So literally the citations do back the content's general statement, more votes than voters. The issue of multiple votes on a single ballot (overvotes) are not at the source of the conflict, thus Conyers, et. al. You may be requiring an overspecification beyond the literal content.

Your disagreement with me is not bad faith, and I'm glad to have been able to point out some valid sources for the info. What would be bad faith would be accusing me or other editors of ownership, or of not being responsive to other editors' concerns. Neither are the case. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 07:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The section does indeed state "more votes than voters" which is overbroad, and thus why I asked for a cite. The cites do not support this overbroad statement, and clarification is needed if the cites provided are the ones to be used. I intend to do this. Fortunately I didn't accuse you of ownership, but I decried your claims of both ownership and seniority. You can redefine your comments if you wish. This discussion stand as is, others can decide for themselves. I'll limit my responses to substansive responses to article based requests/questions, but I'm afraid I can't not point out bad behavior. Happy New Year! Arkon 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

WHen there is no such bad behavior, accusing others of it is bad faith. as you promised, I'm merely asking that you limit your responses to substansive responses to article based requests/questions. Accusations are erroneous. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

all article content is the result of edits, either current or past. it is indeed splitting hairs.Anastrophe 04:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

My point was that the edit where the content was added was likely accompanied by a citation to have persisted (given the contentiousness of the article) and to ask which edit was being objected to on the basis of verifiability, so I have to disagree. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The introduction being a summary, it usually does not have citations, the citations should be in the summarized section of the body. And if they are no longer there, it is because an edit removed them. Thus the edit that Arkon would be objecting to, is the removal of a citation, not the addition of uncited content. However, his solution of removing the uncited content, IMHO, is not the wisest solution to the problem of citations being removed from the page. I would think that him finding the removed citations and adding them back in would be both more intiutive and more relevant to the problem. Kevin baas 15:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

As you just said, the cites weren't there. The summary was referring to something that didn't exist elsewhere in the article. Thus, my objection is to information that is not cited, as I've explained multiple times now. My interest in this article is removing unsourced material, and unneccessary opinion. If you don't want to look for a cite, thats fine, but your demand that I do so is silly, and looking through the archives, quite systemic. I will continue to request cites, if the cites provided to not match the text, I will modify the text, if no cites are provided, I will remove the text. Which is, of course, the wikiway. Arkon 21:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase 'more votes than voters' has now been cited - Conyers' report., as you noted below. So, just with a cursory scan I've already found you five citations. The text is valid, not unnecessary, nor opinion, and should stay. I hope you will respect the process. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another cite, from Conyers' report. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(iii) the voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; {...} (vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush Conyers' report

Wonderful, now we can attribute that claim to Conyers. Unless of course there are primary sources buried in that 100+ page document. My quick glance didn't find any. I'll edit that section to reflect the cite tomorrow if someone else hasn't. Arkon 05:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, glad it's finally cited to your satisfaction. Just with a quick glance I found the name of the person testifying at one of Conyers' Columbus post-election irregularities hearings... Joe Popich, who testified that

“(entered into the record copies of the Perry County Board of Election poll book): There are a bunch of irregularities in this log book, but the most blatant irregularity would be the fact that there are 360 signatures in this book. There are 33 people who voted absentee ballot at this precinct, for a total of 393 votes that should be attributed to that precinct. However, the Board of Elections is attributing 96 more votes to that precinct than what this log book reflects.”

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another article with similar instances (and more info about the supposed cause of a Perry County excess votes problem:

But in Perry County, a punch-card system reported about 75 more votes than there are voters in one precinct. Workers tried to cancel the count when the tabulator broke down midway through, but the machine instead double-counted an unknown number in the first batch. The mistake will be corrected, officials say. USAToday

Akron, you are being completely unreasonable. Conyer's report does have sources listed, and your refusal to look for them (and they are hard to miss) does not in any way diminish the veracity of the report compiled by his staff and others. It seems to me that you simply refuse to believe any of this, or in any case refuse to believe that the information is valuable and should be made accessible to the public. It doesn't seem to me that you're actually interested in what really happened, or making that knowledge available to the public. I find that problematic - I find it problematic because that is the very goal of wikipedia, that you seem to not be interested in, and yet you are on wikipedia. I'm trying to preserve my good faith here, but I want you to know, for your information, the impression that you are giving me and I imagine others. Kevin baas 15:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems as though you must be misreading my comments. I have no where refused to look for cites. Full stop. I have no tried to diminish the veracity of the report. Full stop. I have no expressed a value judgement on the allegations. Full stop. Asking for cites is now not being interested in "making that knowledge available to the public"? That is indeed an interesting interpretation. I would appreciate it, if in the future, you take more care in reading my comments. Right now you are just building up a big fat strawman to argue against. Strawmen don't argue back. Arkon 21:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

When you promise to delete what you consider uncited, and do not communicate having sought verification yourself, it is not unreasonable for others to interpret that as an unwillingness to do so. No strawman here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cited or uncited is not a value judgement. As this is a collaboritive project, I will do what I can, you and others will do what you can. I've stated what I can and intend to do, which is supported by wikipolicy. If others cannot or don't wish to find verification, I will follow said policy. This strawman is too stuffed at this point, perhaps scarecrow is more apt. Arkon 21:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Citations are factual. In this case, the phrase 'more votes than voters' has been verified by numerous citations, which I have provided here. Are you saying you'll insert the link to Conyers' report after the phrase? If so, I'm all for it if it will let you focus on improvements to the article, rather than non-collaborative threats. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, I will put in the conyers links, and modify the statement to match that cite. I am quite curious where you found a 'non-collaborative threat' though. Please enlighten me. Arkon 21:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(unindented)I will, as you say, let the comments speak for themselves. I have no objection to any such edit, if it improves the article's accuracy and readability. Suffice it to say that your original objection has been well-addressed, and tangential, unfounded accusations of ownership, strawmen or seniority against individual editors are bad faith - and I ask you to desist in such behavior and focus on the facts and the article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, phantom allegations, while I of course quoted the offending portions of your comments. Then you follow these phantom allegations with yet another 'bad faith' accusation, and top it with a cease a desist. This is bordering on commical if it weren't the root of so many problems with this article. By all means, continue to make accusations without pointing to where they come from. Continue to make accusation of bad faith without pointing to where they come from. Continue to obscure reasonable requests for citations by demanding others to do work that you can/should do if you are arguing for inclusion. I will, on the other hand, continue to try to follow wikipedia guidelines to improve this article. I won't, however continue conversations with you, as you have demonstrated quite an inability/desire to collaborate. Happy New Year.

I've done none of the above. You raised a question about the verifiability of a phrase, it's been verified, and you've accused a number of other editors of bad faith, all without making a single substantive edit to the article during the process. As you said above, let's all focus on the facts of the article, please. It's why we're all here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey there

Hi folks. Found a new source of non-partisan video on archive.org, relating to the elections of 2004. Video of noteworthy events should be a good source for some renewed, deeply quality-oriented editing. [1] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2 Cuyahoga County BOE workers indicted in Presidential recount

Sept 1. 2005

CLEVELAND -- Two Cuyahoga County Board of Elections workers were indicted Tuesday on charges of misconduct, including unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots during the 2004 presidential election recount.

Rosie Grier and Kathleen Dreamer were indicted on six counts each, according to the Cuyahoga County prosecutor's office. The charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 18 months.

Erie County Prosecutor Kevin Baxter, who was appointed as a special prosecutor in the case, filed the charges.

"I think the grand jury did what was supported by the evidence: That there was some problems in the way the 2004 presidential recount was conducted," Baxter told the Sandusky Register.

{...} Bennett said they have received no indication that the county's recount isn't accurate. He said the charges are procedural and don't affect the vote totals.

Grier and Dreamer were indicted on charges of failure to perform duties imposed upon them by law; misconduct of board of election employees; knowingly disobeying elections law; unlawfully obtaining possession of ballots/ballot boxes or pollbooks; and unlawfully opening or permitting the opening of a sealed package containing ballots. [2]

Another source:

Kerger charged that elections officials failed to randomly select precincts that were supposed to be counted by hand and compared against ballots tabulated by a machine; conduct test-runs before witnesses; and investigate discrepancies between vote totals.

Baxter would not offer details of his investigation but said he examined allegations that officials took "measures in order to all but assure that there would not be a countywide hand count."

Cuyahoga County's four elections board members issued a statement defending their employees and the voting process.

"These allegations are based on interpretation of procedures, not on any suggestion of fraud," they said. here

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review?

I'm considering putting htis article up for peer review. Feedback? Kevin Baas^talk 16:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What is your purpose for peer review? Rkevins82 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Two-fold: 1. improve the quality of this article, 2. get it to featured status. (it's certainly interesting and important) Kevin Baas^talk 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

content added by 148.78.243.121

An edit was made to the main article by 148.78.243.121 on 2006-01-25 at 19:00:49.

This edit was destructive of existing content, without any justification, so I just reverted it. However, the edit did add some information, which, on a cursory examination, contains valuable information that could be incorporated somewhere in the article, without destroying the existing content. noosphere 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to make things clearer for those editors who evidentally have trouble reading wikipedia diffs, the content that was destroyed was two links (one to www.freep.com and the other to sfgate.com), along with portions of the article text. Please do not delete this content without discussing your reasons for doing so on the talk page.

If you want to add relevant content, that's great. But we should not be deleting already existing content without good reason and consensus. noosphere 06:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The freep link you want in the article is a dead link and I replaced it with one that is live. The SFGate link was out of date since it does not discuss the resolution to the charges against the campaign workers. [148.78.243.121] jack 13:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In the future please justify your edits as you have just done, but in the "edit summary" box of the page you're editing (and, if need be, on the talk page) at the time you make your edits. That way other editors don't have to guess or try to read your mind re: why you made those changes.

Also, just because an article doesn't discuss the resolution of an issue doesn't mean it has no historical significance.

Finally, those two links wasn't the only content you removed without justification. noosphere 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

imbalance in the name of 'Balance'

FAIR's website says it best, when it comes to voter suppression and reporting objectively.

Balance and objectivity—reporting both (preferably all) sides of a story without favor—are journalism’s classic tenets. However, when the factual evidence is far stronger on one side, forced evenhandedness is neither accurate nor fair. When reporters will go to any lengths to avoid appearing partisan (particularly to escape the “liberal media” tag), they open themselves to being used by campaign spinners, passively parroting political rhetoric rather than parsing it.

The cult of “objectivity, as Brent Cunningham observed in his essay “Rethinking Objectivity” (Columbia Journalism Review, 7–8/03), makes journalists “hesitant to inject issues into the news that aren’t already out there.” And the convention of balance-at-all-costs—even when the facts are not balanced—can neutralize issues that already are out there.

The taboo against suggesting that one side might be more right than the other remains strong, however, as shown by the brief controversy over an internal memo from ABC News political director Mark Halperin to his staff, published on the Drudge Report (10/8/04). Halperin stated, “We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn’t mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.” A suggestion that both sides should get only as much criticism as they deserve was depicted as a demand that Kerry be held to a lower standard. [3]

I have a real problem with the voter suppression section as it currently stands. In search of 'balance', we instead have a section that does not reflect the depth and distribution of voter suppression activities in the 2004 Election. To claim that GOP- and Dem- dirty tricks were equal in scope is to misrepresent what took place in the interests of appearing 'non-partisan'. Some of the greatest factual blunders in history have resulted from a need to placate one's audience with partial mistruth. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, to the extent that the article should not hesitate to state that there was many more reports of voter suppression against Democrats than against Republicans, if the data shows that this is the case (which apparently it does).

However, I also feel it's perfectly appropriate to give examples from all sides, as long as the examples are relevant and sourced, as per wiki policy of no original research.

Therefore, if what the facts are is stated clearly in the article, I see adding documented examples as admirably serving the purpose of Wikipedia.

That said, if the issue of just how many examples of voter suppression from each side should be included continues to be an issue of contention, perhaps we should remove all examples from the main article, and move them in to two sub-articles: Examples of Allegations of Voter Suppression Against Republicans in the 2004 US Presidential Election, and Examples of Allegations of Voter Suppression Against Democrats in the 2004 US Presidential Election, or something along those lines. noosphere 22:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The content on vote suppression belongs in the main article for vote suppression, this is just a summary, and as a summary, it should give a proportional overview of that article, in number of words not in stating what the proper proportion of the summary should be in the not neccessarily proportionate summary itself. People learn by repetition, not by direct statement. If something happens 20 times, and something else happens one time, it is more effective to repeat it 20 times, and the other thing 1 time. It is really the lenght of content that gives the information. We're not trying to tell people what the proportion is, we're trying to give them the most information possible in the shortest span, and Kullback-Leibler divergence shows that the best way to do that, the best way to maximize information entropy, is to have each bit of representational information correspond to the same quantity of bits of the represented's information as any other bits, and to have the representational bits as mutually exclusive as possible. In sum, to maximize the informativeness of the summary, one keeps the coverage of the summary in word count in the same proportion as the coverage of the article. And if that is done all the way down the chain (including from article to world), then what you get is accurate and balanced. Kevin Baas^talk 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the article should state "what the proper proportion of the summary should be". I am suggesting that it state how many allegations of vote suppression there were. Please note that these are two very different things.

As to the rest of what you said, I don't think you are going to convince many people on the best layout for this article by appealing to information theory.

The inclusion of (sourced) statistics regarding the total number of voter suppression allegations against each side seems to be non-controversial. It is the number of examples of voter suppression that seems to be controversial, with neither side willing to budge. As you know, I'm on the side that thinks that if its relevant and sourced, it should go in.

However, since we don't seem to be making any progress on exactly which relevant examples should go in and which should not, perhaps we should try to be practical and reconsider creating a separate sub-article for the allegations from each side.

That way each side could put in examples to their heart's content in to the sub-articles. And in the main article readers won't be put in to the position of having to infer anything from the relative word count alloted to the examples from each side, since there wouldn't be any examples in the main article at all.

Now, if we decide against splitting the examples out to sub-articles, and if the editors of this article can not reach a consensus regarding what the proper "balance" of these examples should be, and if there is no wiki policy regarding this issue, then perhaps its time to ask for some mediation. noosphere 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I like Noosphere's suggestions about the breakouts, and I also appreciate Kevin's statement about boiling it down to word counts in order to be factual, accurate, and representative of the article's subject. However, I fear that the idea of having an article for each political 'side' of this topic may in fact ultimately contribute to the politicization, rather than diminish it. Wikipedia's presentation of this highly political topic must be apolitical in it's accuracy and representation. The various reports (ACVR, Conyers, etc.) are all on the record and there are many citations to live, valid sources already in the article (and in the already-extant 'vote suppression' article, that speak to the issue. The article has undergone tremendous work since the Election, and this is hardly the first page protection, nor the most controversial or persistent topic on this article that has been worked through by all sorts of editors. I'd hope that the editors could work this out in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, creation of dedicated sub-articles for these examples may well politicize those sub-articles themselves, but at least we can get on with the work of continuing to improve this article, rather than fight about which examples should go in.

And even in the sub-articles themselves, the issue of what proportion of examples of Democratic to Republican voter suppression allegations to keep will not be an issue, since the articles will be separate and can maintain 100% proportion of their respective examples. They could still fight about which examples are relevant or well-sourced, but that's a different battle.

One last thing I want to make note of is that none of the people actually involved in this edit war that have tried to insert this new content (namely, Arkon and the three anonymous editors) have commented on it in the talk pages or made any kind of argument for why the content should go in besides "let the user decide".

This is troubling, because Wikipedia works by building of consensus regarding controversial issues, not by making unilateral edits or a free-for-all policy where we can dump any and all content in and "let the user decide".

If you are involved in editing the article and your edits are controversial, please contribute to the ensuing discussion so that we can come to a consensus. Staying quiet until the controversy dies down only to come back and make more unilateral, unjustified edits is just a waste of everybody's time. noosphere 00:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a strange topic, "Imbalance in the name of Balance". Just that the topic exists shows this is highly POV. The examples are mostly partisan. Citing a report by John Conyers isn't citing a non-partisan source. However, that is kept while editors remove factual information about campaign workers pleading guilty to damaging vehicles for "get out the vote" efforts. I think we should remove all the party and partisan group accusations thru the entire article and stick with MSM reports and judicial decisions. Reports from partisan groups should be cut out but instead what is removed is the information about the resolution of the Detroit court case.

Another complaint I have towards this section is the quote from a state legislator about supressing votes. Shouldn't his explanation be included in the article instead of omitting it? User:JMcNamera 13:58, 27 January 2006 (GMT)

Where in Wikipedia's policy does it say that the sources cited have to be "nonpartisan"?

According to the policy of NPOV:

"In Wikipedia context, neutral point of view (NPOV) is taken to mean a neutral description of the facts, including the fact that various points of view exist, rather than a single universal point of view."

The fact is that Conyers' point of view exists. Therefore there is nothing wrong with neutrally describing his view, as long as it's sourced and there is no original research. noosphere 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The report is included because it is factual and contains valuable information. If you can find any reports that dispute any of the information in that report on factual grounds, by our guest. Kevin Baas^talk 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And the republicans were given every opportunity to participate in the judiciary hearings and contribute to the investigation. They choose instead to exercise their right to be partisan. Because they decided not to examine the facts, and therefore have nothing to say about them, there is nothing to say about what they have to say about the facts. That's not our fault. Don't shoot the messenger. Kevin Baas^talk 19:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

New vote suppression section

I think this line can go, making room for more relevant and representational information:

In addition, while most political parties encourage turnout, occasionally acts of voter suppression are alleged. In a particularly overt case, a Republican state legislator in Michigan said, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." [26]

Leaving us with:

The term "voter suppression" is used to describe methods of discouraging or impeding people from voting. The government agency or private entity doing so believes that the would-be voters thus turned away would have been more likely to vote for an opponent. For example, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) described alleged voter suppression in his state (Ohio):

Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common. [25]

Activists with ties to the Democratic Party also are alleged to have acted illegally to suppress Republican voters. In Wisconsin, the son of a Democratic Congressman and four volunteers for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, acting independently of that campaign, slashed tires on 25 vans rented by Republicans to aid in voter turnout. All five were arrested and are facing felony charges. [27] No evidence has been found that any votes were suppressed as a result of their action.

In 2004, the issue of long lines and unequal voting machine distribution (among other issues) received increased attention in Ohio. In many places, voters had to wait several hours to vote. These waits have been attributed to an overall increase in voter registration without the mandated proportional increase in voting machines in some precincts (some precints lost voting machines while gaining registered voters); misdirection of voters, and poorly trained staff.

And I'll add that that last sentence (my work, admittedly) is a little long. And I think that the last and second last paragraph should be switched. Kevin Baas^talk 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of room for more summary in this section, before it becmoes about the same size as the exit polls and voitng machines sections. I'd estimate it can be about 1.5 to 2 times the size. This should give us more room to have a more representative summary. Kevin Baas^talk 19:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "voter suppression" is used to describe methods of discouraging or impeding people from voting. The government agency or private entity doing so believes that the would-be voters thus turned away would have been more likely to vote for an opponent. For example, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) described alleged voter suppression in his state (Ohio):

"Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common." [25]

In 2004, the issue of long lines and unequal voting machine distribution (among other issues) received increased attention in Ohio. In many places, voters had to wait several hours to vote. These waits have been attributed to an overall increase in voter registration without the mandated proportional increase in voting machines in some precincts (some precints lost voting machines while gaining registered voters); misdirection of voters, and poorly trained staff.

Months prior to the election, the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections filed suit against the Cuyahago County (Ohio) Board of Elections, claiming that they botched or failed to file the registration of at least 10,000 voters. During the election, a record number of provisional ballots - ballots for people who believed they had registered but were not on the voter roles - were filled out in that county. Of those, 33% (8,099) were ultimately thrown out, more than three and a half times the normal Ohio rate of 9%. Shortly after the ballots had been counted, the People for the American Way filed a lawsuit seeking to have provisional ballots re-examined, demanding that provisional ballots be accepted regardless of the precinct they were filed in, in accordance with Ohio state law and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that registration be checked against voter registration cards, rather than just electronic voting lists.

Absentee ballots were also an issue. In Broward County, Florida, over 58,000 absentee ballots sent to the Postal Service to be sent out to voters were never recieved by the Postal Service, according to the Postal Service and county election officials.

Five Democratic citizens are alleged to have acted illegally to suppress Republican voters. In Wisconsin, the son of a Democratic Congressman and four volunteers for the Kerry/Edwards campaign, acting independently of that campaign, slashed tires on 25 vans rented by Republicans to aid in voter turnout. All five were arrested and are facing felony charges. [27] No evidence has been found that any votes were suppressed as a result of their action.

Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? Edits? Kevin Baas^talk 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the partisan references in it. The last paragraph is esp. partisan, beginning w/"Five Democratic citizens", and having "Democrat", "Republican" mentioned a total of four times in it. (an average of one per sentence) Then there's the Kuccinich Quote at top. But that only involves one partisan reference. Kevin Baas^talk 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit war

I would like to point out that there seem to be two seperate issues the editors of this article are fighting over. The first is an issue regarding deleted content. The second regards added content.

It should be possible to come to consensus on these issues separately.

The issue of deleted content is that two links (to www.freep.com and to sfgate.com) along with some text was deleted from the original article without justification. (See the Content added by 148.78.243.121 section above).

Since then the deletion of the www.freep.com link has been justified (it's a broken link). Does anyone dispute this? If not, it should be deleted from the article.

The sfgate.com link is not as recent as the www.jsonline.com link that replaced it, and as such does not contain some of the more recent developments. But it still serves a historical function, and is a relevant link concerning the issue that section of the article addresses. Does anyone still believe it should be deleted? If not, it should stay in the article.

As far as the text that was originally deleted from the article, I have yet to hear any justification whatsoever for this deletion. If anyone has such justification please state it here so we can come to a consensus. Otherwise, we should keep the original text.

Now, regarding the issue of added content (the allegation against the Ohio Democratic Party), it is being addressed in the imbalance in the name of 'Balance' and Vote suppression sections above.

If we can keep these issues seperate perhaps we can more easily disentangle the mess we've created and come to a consensus. All the involved editors are encouraged to voice their views and justifications in the appropriate sections. noosphere 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing information

Problems with the certified canvass report and poll books are mentioned in the intro, but not discussed in any amount of detail in the article. Is information somewhere and I'm just missing it, or do we need to create a section for it? Kevin Baas^talk 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

add Category:Controversies

please add Category:Controversies to the article. -- Zondor 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

no, it already has Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. -- Zondor 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

unprotect - dispute resolved?

There has been no activity on this page for a while. Is it safe to consider the dispute resolved in agreement on the proposed new vote suppression section? Kevin Baas^talk 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, half the editors involved in the edit war have not deigned to respond at all on the talk page, so I expect them to start revert warring as soon as protection is removed. And even you, myself and Ryan are still divided on whether to split examples of voter suppression in to a seperate article or not. And there's still no word from the people who want to continue adding examples of Republicans alleging their votes are being suppressed, which I presume you still object to.

So, no. This does not sound like consensus to me. As much as I'd like to see the article unprotected so we can get back to work, I am afraid the edit war will just start up again until we reach a genuine consensus. And I don't see that even beginning to happen until all the involved parties restart discussion on these issues. noosphere 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's consensus insofar as it's stable - nobody has edited the proposed versions, or suggested any revisions, and as a proposal it's much more volatile than it would be in the article, so we should expect the same from it when placed in the article: no objections. It is not okay to allow an article to be held hostage by silence. Lack of objection is de facto consensus. Kevin Baas^talk 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is regretable that this article stagnates like this. However, I don't see silence as a sign of consensus on these issues. A number of editors were making unilateral edits and reverts without discussing them on the talk page or even summarizing their reasons for doing so. While other editors (namely, you, Ryan, and myself) have all made attempts at engaging these people in dialogue we have largely been ignored. So, can we take this as a sign that they consent to any of our proposals? I don't think so. Like I said, I fully expect them to start revert warring as soon as the article's unprotected.

So, what can we do about this? A few days after the page was protected (about two weeks ago) when I saw that half the editors involved apparently did not seem interested in resolving this dispute through dialogue I opened a Wikiquette alert, but no one has come to our aid. So today, shortly before I saw your proposal to unprotect the page, I opened a request for help from the Mediation Cabal. It looks like they have a ten day backlog and I don't know how effective they'll be, but I thought it was worth a shot. If that doesn't work maybe we should try some more formal mediation.

I know this isn't the fastest process in the world, and it's a shame for the page to stagnate like this, but it seems that our only alternative is to unprotect the page and see where the winds blow. My concern is that the edit warring will resume (since no real consensus has been achieved, imo) and we're just going to have to ask for the page to be protected again in short order. noosphere 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see those steps taken. I've been going about this by trying to get people to work on a draft on the NPOV-disputed section on the talk page. If the proper dispute resolution process (namely, dialogue) is not followed by everyone, then something should be done about it. But in the meantime, everyone should try to follow the proper process, and try to make progress, regardless. Kevin Baas^talk 20:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since discussion on the disputed section has come to an end, and there are no objections to the proposed new versions (after a very reasonable time has passed), I am going to request page unprotection, and replace the existing section w/the proposed version that has de-facto consensus. If a dispute returns that brings this page back to protected status, so be it. The users can then be reminded (hopefully) that there is a dispute to be resolved, and work towards consensus on the talk page. If they cannot do that, well then in any case, progress will be made toward the proper remedy. This page cannot benefit anymore from protection. Kevin Baas^talk 15:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected. It's been a long time (my bad, I haven't been working protection recently). There is no need for absolutely agreement on every aspect of a protected page, only for enough that the editing should not descend into warring again. The talk page seems to suggest that the situation is probably sufficiently cool for that not to happen. -Splash^talk 16:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I kept the section disputed tag up, even though there are no existing disputes on the talk page, to help stabilize the article and encourage discussion if anyone who has removed silent all this time has any unspoken qualms. Kevin Baas^talk 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the only reason the situation looks like it's cooled down is because half the editors involved in the dispute are ignoring the discussion on the talk page. And even those of us who have talked it out aren't fully in consensus. But I guess we'll see what happens. noosphere 17:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm crossing my fingers, too. I was a little bold and made a number of changes beyond the proposed version, primarily reorganizing the article as a whole: moving relevant information from outside the section into it, and merging. Primarily, I added ballot spoilage info and voter registration info, and cut it up into "pseudo-subsections" - bolded para beginners: "voter registration irregularities", "provisional ballot irregularities", etc. I hope this isn't particularly controversial. I think it's particularly neutral and objective. And furthermore, I haven't altered the balance of the content (haven't added or subtracted), just the organization (just moved), notwhithstanding a liitle more info on ballot spoilage. Kevin Baas^talk 18:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

BBV reports many new anomalies in FL voting machines

"The internal logs of at least 40 Sequoia touch-screen voting machines reveal that votes were time and date-stamped as cast two weeks before the election, sometimes in the middle of the night.

Black Box Voting successfully sued former Palm Beach County (FL) Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore to get the audit records for the 2004 presidential election.

After investing over $7,000 and waiting nine months for the records, Black Box Voting discovered that the voting machine logs contained approximately 100,000 errors. According to voting machine assignment logs, Palm Beach County used 4,313 machines in the Nov. 2004 election. During election day, 1,475 voting system calibrations were performed while the polls were open, providing documentation to substantiate reports from citizens indicating the wrong candidate was selected when they tried to vote.

Another disturbing find was several dozen voting machines with votes for the Nov. 2, 2004 election cast on dates like Oct. 16, 15, 19, 13, 25, 28 2004 and one tape dated in 2010. These machines did not contain any votes date-stamped on Nov. 2, 2004."

From a message by Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org. There are further details and analysis within that message that I haven't quoted here.

noosphere 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The time and date stamp thing, most likely the machines' internal clocks were not set to the right time. That would explain why they didn't have any votes date-stamped Nov-2. If not, these machines would be extras - they would not have been used, which means that: "Hey palm beach had 4,313 voting machines, but we counted the votes from 4,372. Something's not right here." The date thing is really weak. People have their computer clocks set wrong all the time.

Anycase, that should go in the voting machines sub-article or the BBV article, if anywhere. Kevin Baas^talk

It doesn't appear that it was just a matter of having the clocks set wrong, since "these machines were L&A (Logic and Accuracy) tested, and the L&A test activities appeared in the logs with the correct date and time."

"Many of these machines showed unexplained log activity after the L&A test but before Election Day. In addition, many more machines without date anomalies showed this log activity, which revealed someone powering up the machine, opening the program, then powering it down again. In one instance, the date discrepancy appeared when someone accessed the machine two minutes after the L&A test was completed."

"Voting machines are computers, and computers have batteries that can cause date and time discrepancies, but it does not appear that these particular discrepancies could have been caused by battery problems."

"The evidence indicates that someone accessed the computers after the L&A and before the election, and that this access caused a change in the machine's reporting functions, at least for date and time. Such access would take a high degree of inside access. It is not known whether any other changes were introduced into the voting machines at this time."

There are also many other non-clock-related anomalies reported by the voting machines. Look in the BBV article for details. -- noosphere 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Join!: Wikipedia:WikiReader/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities. Kevin Baas^talk 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'm already spending so much time on wikipedia that my non-wiki projects are suffering. I just can't afford to devote even more time to this addiction.  :) My sympathies and well-wishes are with you, though. -- noosphere 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiReader

WikiReader on this topic, under construction. Come join. Kevin Baas^talk 20:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cabal mediation

I'm responding to the Send for the Cabal request for mediation placed concerning this page. I've looked through the talk page, so I have a sense of the issues involved; here's my questions:

1. are the two major issues (the deleted content and the question of balance) still in dispute, or have either of them been resolved?
2. have any new issues arisen?
3. shall I give suggestions based on the information and opinions already posted, or should we make it an active discussion? if the latter, I recommend debate style: one position statement followed by one rebuttal statement from each participant, without extending the argument further than that. that tends to keep the air clear...

let me know if I can help.  :-) Ted 02:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to our aid, Ted. I don't think either issue has been resolved, per se, since half the editors involved in the original disputes have not engaged in dialogue on the talk page since the edit warring began. However, since the page was unprotected neither issue has come up again, as far as I can see. There are other editors involved in this who may have different views regarding the status of these issues, however. I welcome their input.

As far as new issues, there was some reverting going on regarding some disclaimer about Georgianne Pitts, but I was not part of that, so I'll defer to the involved editors as to whether that's still an issue or not.

As to where we go from here, I am not sure trying to start a debate will be successful, considering the apparent unwillingness to engage in dialogue that was evident among half the involved editors before. I guess we could try, but then I expect the involved editors to repeat was was already said in the talk pages, with silence from the rest. Since you've already read the talk pages perhaps it would be better if you make suggestions based on the opions already posted. But, again, this is just my opinion. I am eager to hear what the other editors think. -- noosphere 03:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

well, it's the nature of mediation to be a dialog. I'm just another user: I don't have any special powers or authorities, I'm just good at helping people sort things out, sometimes. That being said, refusing to engage in the mediation process while continuing to make contentious edits would be fairly clear evidence of vandalism (bad intent), and if that happens I don't think we'll have any trouble convincing a sysop to intervene on your behalf. time will tell... Ted 05:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, maybe we should give dialogue another try. I am willing to debate the issues in the format you suggest. noosphere 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

mediation closed as of this date (02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)) due to lack of participant interest. see case file for recommendations. Ted 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Ted. -- noosphere 02:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Alaska refuses to release '04 Election data

Just FYI.

(excerpt from the story at Brad Blog) A long-standing public records request for the release of Election 2004 database files created by Diebold's voting system had been long delayed after several odd twists and turns, including the revelation of a contract with the state claiming the information to be a "company secret."

But while it finally appeared as though the state had agreed to release the information (after reserving the right to "manipulate the data" in consultation with Diebold before releasing it), the state's top Security Official has now -- at the last minute -- stepped in to deny the request. The grounds for the denial: the release of the information poses a "security risk" to the state of Alaska. [4]

The case of Diebold whistleblower Steven Heller: Huffington Post/LA Times

(excerpt) Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed documents in Jan. & Feb. 2004 which provided smoking gun evidence that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in California voting machines. The docs also showed that Diebold's California attorneys (the powerful international law firm Jones Day) had told them they were in breach of the law for using uncertified software, but Diebold continued to use the uncertified software anyway.

Heller is alleged to have come across these docs while temping as a word processor at Jones Day, and he is further alleged to have taken the docs and exposed them to the bright light of day. Now, after sitting on this for 2 years, the Los Angeles District Attorney, under pressure from Jones Day, is going after this whistleblower with 3 felony charges, each of which carries the potential of time in state prison. Here is a story in the LA Times. Heller's lawyer believes the 2 year wait to file charges was due to the then-impending 2004 election, and that Diebold and their attorneys didn't want the information to be made public in the lead up to the election.

[5]

Listed as a problem of factuality

"This article seems to be a conclusion searching for evidence. Except for some very small stories in the mainstream press, this article takes data from unverifiable and dubious (partisan) sources, and attempts to expand the "controversy" into something much bigger than reality. Other editors have produced chartes and graphs based on this dubious data, which firmly goes against Wikipedia:No original research. All unverifiable and unreliable data or conclusions should be removed from this article and replaced with brief summaries of the concerns. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)"

Okay, done. With the exception that altough Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell is a dubious source, his data was kept in because it is official, including, for instance, the certified vote count for Ohio, which was used to determine the electors for the electoral college, and consequently the presidency. He is certainly a parisian and dubious source (he lies alot) but to take that official election data out would cripple the article. Kevin Baas^talk 17:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read this on ]Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute, and it doesn't seem proper to respond on the page itself....... First, without even looking at the article itself, there may be a NPOV issue, but you cannot really claim that there is a factual problem if it is cited. Can you find other citations to negate that before you claim that they're false? Can you explain exactly how these partisan sources are outright lying? Can you explain how mainstream media is flawless in their coverage? I recall hearing some newscaster claiming that no one actually checks facts in the mainstream media anymore, it's all echoing that someone said this or that.

Second, producing charts and graphs based upon someone else's research isn't original research. It is the creation of a recap of information, just as the article itself is. If the charts and graphs were violations of original research, then all of Wikipedia would be since it isn't simply copied in the exact form it was found in from somewhere else.

There is no reason that Wikipedia should ever have less information than it already does. If there is a problem with partisan sources, perhaps adding a few words stating that something didn't simply happen, but that this partisan source claims that it happened would be in order.... then simply add contradicting sources to make it more NPOV. One of the greatest parts about Wikipedia is that you can find a wealth of information on some obscure events that no other encyclopedia would ever have an article on. Covering this in detail is a good, not a bad, thing.

KV 00:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding.  :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one else is responding or seems to want to participate in debate over the original issues the mediation request was about, perhaps you could offer your opinion on them, since you had taken the time to read over what was said about the issues on the talk page. This way we will at least have the opinion of an uninvolved party, should an edit war over these (unresolved, imo) issues come up again. -- noosphere 02:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

New info: Registration purge

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2006/1832 Kevin Baas^talk 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

new info: ohio exit polls

http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf Kevin Baas^talk 01:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Map source data

I fixed the caption of the 'incidents map' to point to the 2004 election data from EIRS, on the voteprotect.org site. However, that map is a color index of incident numbers, without calculation as a percentage of the population. If I recall, the map we've got is balanced against each state's population, to give a more accurate reflection of the true ratio of irregularities to voters. Kevin - would you mind commenting a bit about the map's origins and core data? Thanks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the source and cleaning the caption up some. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The red-yellow maps are from EIRS, I imagine they're out of date by now (perhaps we should date stamp them, the date would be the date it was uploaded.) If i recall correctly the copy-status is fair-use.

The red-blue map ("Election Day Problems") is a remake of a map that was in the boston globe. All the information that was available originally is in the the image. Orignally, we were going to use the image directly from the boston globe, but i emailed the globe about the copy-status, and they said it was copyrighted, $20 per use. So I made a map from scratch, using nothing but the data provided in the original image. I grant it GFD copy-status. The data is, according to the globe, EIRS all incidents nationwide, (I would imagine restricted to reports made on Nov. 2) divided by state population from the last census - both publicly available data. Kevin Baas^talk 00:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And btw, I think the article looks much better w/the map above the text. Kevin Baas^talk 00:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What about somewhere in between? Like after some of the text, but not right on top of the TOC. I just think the map being on top really distracts from the intro. I kind of feel that's the reason we place the first image over on the right, so the text (the more important part of WP) comes first. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The map is now too small to read. Kevin Baas^talk 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I made it 500px, but was a little wary of going any larger because it makes the column of text small, perhaps too awkward. I hope we are getting closer, though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I can read it, but some people don't have good eyesight. then again the important text is fair size, and they can click on it for a fullsize version, and the width of the text is a concern. I'm neutral; it's fine w/me if it's fine with everyone else. I think it's a good compromise. Kevin Baas^talk 05:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

this article needs work

I made some edits tonight. Interested editors who want to dialog about this article, drop me a line on my talk page. Merecat 08:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think those edits help the article a good deal. They are along the lines of edits I have been meaning to make but haven't found time for.--RWR8189 08:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Merecat 08:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond here, because I think it's better to discuss the article here on its talk page. Merecat's edits to the summary of exit poll discrepancies at the top of the article seem problematic to me. I do think the previous summary was too strong, but these edits have introduced qualifications that are misleading or are simply not correct. For instance, to say that only the exit poll results for "early morning and early day voting" indicated discrepancies is wrong. CNN's website showed unadjusted results after midnight that indicated Kerry had won the popular vote. Also the weasel word "some" is now overused; e.g. "in some states", "some polls". We're talking primarily about the NEP poll here, the biggest exit poll by far, which covered 49 states (omitting Oregon because it uses mail voting). I'll try to improve our summary tomorrow. Comments welcome. -- Avenue 11:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Most accounts which I have read indicated that Dems tended to vote earlier in the day than Repubs and that the polls reflected this. So if you want to get more precise, we will need citations which take this into account. I felt that my general account was accurate enough to convey what occured. Also, wasn't it Kerry who said "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot"? If I remember the news reports about that comment, it was made by Kerry later in the day, after the tide of the exit polls started to turn. It's misleading to suggest that the exit polls were running towards Kerry all day - they were not. Also, hasn't there been previous problems with exit poll accuracy? Didn't the polling system get scrapped after the 2000 debacles? Merecat 14:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe 'Dems tended to vote earlier in the day' is apocryphal. Please provide a cite. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, perhaps you missed the fact that there is information regarding this exact point, already in the article. Here it is again:

In a 77-page report issued in January 2005, the polling company, Edison/Mitofsky, denied the possibility that fraud caused differences between exit poll results and vote tallies. [6] Edison/Mitofsky believes "Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters" and that this willingness was the cause of the error in the exit poll results. Edison/Mitofsky said their evaluation does not support the hypothesis that discrepancies were higher in precincts using electronic voting equipment.

And why do you suppose that is? Because most of the polling is done daytimes, ergo, more Kerry people vote daytimes. Also, though this link is a blog and not suitable for a source, it has some interesting information on this topic to help guide our googling. And take a look at this from WAPO "The analysis found no evidence of fraud resulting from the rigging of voting equipment, a contention made repeatedly by those who question the 2004 vote." [7] See, it's a contention, for which the analysis of the premiere voting poll, showed no evidence. Merecat 16:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Reluctant Bush Responder theory, and Merecat's arcane extrapolation around the 'daytime' habits of Democrats and Republicans is interesting, but each is non-science. It's speculation. While talking about voting machines, here's a fact addressing your 'fact' tag inclusion re: distribution and long lines with urban centers.

Among the 464 complaints about long lines in Ohio collected by the Election Protection Coalition, a loose alliance of voting rights advocates and legal organizations, nearly 400 came from Columbus and Cleveland, where a huge proportion of the state's Democratic voters live. [8] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(Ryan, this thread is about exit polls, not voting machines or long lines Merecat)

This thread is titled 'this article needs work'. Thanks, though. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Ryan, one shouldn't confuse "thread" with "section". The thread is the series of increasingly indented comments, starting with the least indented, in this case, "And why do you suppose that is?...". Kevin Baas^talk 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And from our very own wiki article United States presidential election, 2004, exit polls, we get this "In the early polls women represented 58% of the sampled voters, but by poll closing only represented 52% of the voters as reported by local governments, so women were likely oversampled in the early polling.". Suffice it to say, it's common knowledge that wome voters tend to lean DEM. And if our article is accurate, then more women voted in the daytime than men, ie; more Kerry voters voted early than Bush voters. I see supportng evidence here, not "apocryphal" suggestion or "speculation". Merecat 16:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it doesn't matter whether 'Dems tended to vote earlier in the day' or not. I recall that the available unadjusted exit poll results were based on almost all the final sample, so it would require a massive late swing to Bush to account for the discrepancy. It wouldn't hurt to document this, if we haven't already. -- Avenue 16:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop hypothecating and cite some facts as I have done. Merecat 16:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that a word? I think you mean hypothesizing. Please try not to attack this article's talk page, and work civilly with Avenue and other editors. Moreover, conflating an oversampling of women in the initial polling with a proposed oversampling of Kerry voters in the final adjusted poll results is indeed non-science. Like other non-sciences, you can assemble whatever rationale you wish, but the numbers don't support it. That of course, is when Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics is required. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Ryan. Perhaps instead, I'll read "Election 2004: exit-poll disinformation hoax backfires?" [9], which has this excellent WARREN MITOFSKY quote "the Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters." - see entire inverview at PBS [10].

And yes Ryan, hypothecate is a word, but as you pointed out, it's not the right word here. And though one can also hypothecate a financial return forward (ie; guess at a rate of expected return based on assumptions), that's not what I was trying to say. Thanks for noticing. That said, here is the ever notable Dick Morris "the possibility of biased exit polling, deliberately manipulated to try to chill the Bush turnout, must be seriously considered.", suggesting that the polls were intentionally (and falsely) boosted towards Kerry so as to sandbag against Bush, same as was done with Killian documents. [11]. Merecat 16:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And here is CBS reporting "The first wave of data has a smaller sample size and is only interviewing people that voted that morning, says Lenski. "So they're not necessarily going to accurately reflect the entire day." [12]

So then, so far, we have a) smaller samples in the morning, b) willing Kerry pollees and c) over sampling of women. These are all facts, not speculation. To me, this supports that the morning polls did not accurately reflect the actual voting of the day, not the other way around. Merecat 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And how does the left-wing account for their complaints? Why they accuse media groups like the every conservative (har!) CNN of "trying to steal this for Bush". [13] Indeed, those evil rightwingers at CNN - their always trying to help Bush and the Republicans, right? Merecat 17:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are assertions of facts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What are? Merecat 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What you claim were 'facts, not speculation'. They are assertions of fact. Some are accurate, and some are apples and oranges. As your analysis is intentionally fruit-based, and not really apple-based or pomegranate-based, in a sense I'm making salad. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh Ryan, isn't it true that datum do not become facts until they are asserted? Merecat 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here for philosophy. Everything you specifically called a 'fact' above, is an assertion. The underlying data may, or may not, support it. Your repeating it here doesn't make it fact. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy?... Ryan, we are talking about proper word use, not philosophy. Data itself does and says nothing until put forward as an assertion. A piece of paper with information on it, sitting on prosecuter's desk is not a "fact". It does not become a fact, until put forward into the area of fact finding. I thought that's what are triyng to do here - agree on what we will accept as "facts" for the purposes of writing this article. However, if you want to dismiss all asserted facts as mere "assertions", well we won't make any progress that way. Merecat 17:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, your comment, that "facts aren't facts until they're asserted", is a 'one-hand clapping', or 'tree falling in the woods' question. Facts are true. Sometimes facts conflict with our views of the world, and those who need their arguments to remain valid choose to exclude them. Other times, we take someone else's word that something is 'a fact', and we interpret more into it because language and speech always brings re-interpretation. Those behaviors are what your argument reflects. Please focus on the specific, underlying FACTS. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a DEM poll analysis expert conceding that Bush won [14]. Merecat 17:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflation. Not sure anyone's arguing he didn't. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, I submit to you from Alternet (also, like the Captain's Quarters link above not a source for the article, but food for thought), this: "Farhad Manjoo and others have it basically right: there's not a lot of there there. Vote tampering does not appear to have happened on the scale necessary to affect this election." and "Obviously, the unweighted data have always been highly problematic and – interestingly – have always shown a strong Democratic bias." and "It's entirely possible that exit poll samples this year, controlling for similar points in the weighting process, were off more than in past years. I can't say at this point and I urge the NEP to make the appropriate historical comparisons available to answer the question. But, even if so, this is hardly evidence of skulduggery in the real world; much more likely it reflects the enormous – and perhaps increasing – difficulties of conducting surveys of this complexity in a rapidly changing country." and finallly "Of course, additional inaccuracy in the exit poll samples this year (if true) is not a development completely devoid of implications. It could mean that some of the specific results from the survey are less reliable than in the past. (Personally, I have my doubts about some of the numbers, like those for urban/suburban/rural [see above] and for Hispanics.) But that's a far cry from assuming an election has been somehow stolen or tainted." [15] Merecat 17:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, stooping to Alternet. The last refuge of a scoundrel? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you concede that Alternet is not a reliable source for articles, yes? Also, I see Alternet as an opiate for the masses, not a refuge for scoundrels. Merecat 17:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm pointing out your selective inclusion or exclusion based on how the source and allegation fits your world view. Verry convenient! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a personal attack to me. Please stop - see WP:NPA. Merecat 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the quote? so the guy speculates about how exit polls, in theory, might get less accurate over time (for instance, one might decrease the sample size), and he goes on to say that speculating this has nothing to do with election irregularities or lack thereof. None of this I disagree with, but it begs the question: what's his point? Kevin Baas^talk 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is to remind us to not leap to conclusions, to not simply parrot every hysterical claim that asserts disparity of 2004 poll vs. final numbers means theft of election. Merecat 17:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that nobody is rash enough as to leap to such conclusions. Kevin Baas^talk 17:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The current state of this article suggests to me some of the previous editors here may have been doing that - leap to conclusions. Merecat

Or, indeed, parrot the reverse - or worse, shout down those who ask for answers without claiming theft. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that Alternet is shouting down the left wing? Merecat 17:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you are doing so in your argument here. Make valid edits, show proof. Reflect varying points of view of involved and expert opinions. Be an editor. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like another personal attack. Again I say, please stop. See WP:NPA. Merecat 17:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. — from WP:NPA. Kevin Baas^talk 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You might be right. However, Ryan's 1st comment which said in part "[s]elective inclusion or exclusion based on how the source and allegation fits your world view. Verry convenient!", was certainly a pointed barb, if not an attack. Merecat 18:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if it hurt your feelings. I did find your selective inclusion of that content thought-provokingly convenient to your argument, however.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology acccepted. And, I am not saying this to be the case, but did you ever think I might have a learning disability or something else innocuous? Rather than simply infer mal-intent, why not see if you and I can avoid bickering? Merecat 18:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry again, but I don't know how to respond to that hypothetical, except to say that I welcome any efforts by you to discuss and collaborate on the article in good faith. Also, what's with the brackets? My comment was intact.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out the offending part. Merecat 19:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You were offended by the use of the letter 's'? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but how else does one illustrate that the leading edge of the sentence is truncated? Merecat 19:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With an ellipsis, like so: "...selective inclusion or exclusion based on how the source and allegation fits your world view. Verry convenient!" -- noosphere 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ya. if you see a "[S]entence like this..." in quotes it's because it's a fragment from a compound sentence, in which the "s" was not originally capitalized. brackets are used in quotations to mark places where the quotation is inexact, but the original meaning is preserved. Usually this is done either to fill in context information or to shorten long quotations. An example might be: original: "He said that they had...", quoted: "[Tom Feeney] said that [the Department of Agriculture] had..." Kevin Baas^talk 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, the exit polls that are the source of such talk are at about 12:22am on Nov. 3 (exact time varies among states), which included the overwhelming majority of the sample size, and, ofcourse, every hour of the day Nov. 2 (and then some). Kevin Baas^talk 21:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, just to be clear, could you provide a reference for that, and for what they said at precisely that time? -- noosphere 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls article. Why doesn't anyone read these things before talking about them? Kevin Baas^talk 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for that. -- noosphere 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for Kevin Baas

Regarding this edit 21:12, 16 April 2006 of yours. Based on the logic of your edit summary, shouldn't we remove the other reports regarding registration allegations also? Merecat 21:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they are instances of voter suppression. events regarding voter registrations are not ipso facto vote suppression. that would make registering to vote an act of vote suppression. when the event has a high likelihood of decreasing the number of votes in the final vote count, then it is vote suppression, as it suppresses the quantity of votes. The other instances are in there because they have a high likelihood of decreasing the number of votes in the final vote count. What was removed does not belong because it does not have such. Kevin Baas^talk 21:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but why then, is this in the article:

Allegations of voter registration fraud were made by both parties in many states during the 2004 election. Some of the controversies involved the procedure by which workers are paid per registration. In Colorado at least 719 cases of potentially fraudulent forms were submitted. Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson issued a statement saying:

"I have a message for those that finance direct participation in abuse - I'm saying abuse. They could be out there legally doing it and there's no problem. If there is abuse in their process, we're going after them."

So that's about people trying to get money out of the system? am i understanding correctly? voter registration fraud is not vote suppression. This wouldn't affect the final vote count. But it's interesting and may have a place in the article somewhere. What do others think?

And why is there no mention of the Millwaukee Democrats who pled guilty to slashing tires on Republican GOTV vans? That qualifies as "voter suppression", yes? Merecat 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Last time I looked that was mentioned in the article, I believe the vote suppression section. Maybe someone took it out. If so, it wasn't me. It's pretty small-scale vote suppression (both in the scope and in the likely effect on votes) in comparision to all the voter suppression issues in the election. Kevin Baas^talk 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Small scale perhaps, but due to the convictions in that case, it's more notable than mere allegations. Merecat 02:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no "mere allegations" in this article. Mere allegations do not rise to the level of significance that would merit inclusion. Kevin Baas^talk 23:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, by definition, any criminal accusation which has not been proven (or pled guilty to) to the satisfaction of an empowered fact-finder, is an allegation. Merecat 00:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

True. i do not dispute this. I am disputing your usage of the word "mere", as it relates to "empty" or "unsubstantiated"; insofar as "mere allegation" reads like "arbitraty assertion". Kevin Baas^talk 16:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Guilty pleas, such as the ones recently made by the Democrats who slashed tires, by virtue of being an agreed upon disposition, are inarguably true - both sides agree that they are. For that reason, such pleas much more strongly prove the truth than allegations. Compared to the proof value of a guilty plea, an unproven allegation is indeed "mere". Merecat 20:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. People can plead guilty even though they aren't (since the justice system is obviously broken, and there're all sorts of other considerations to be taken in to account when deciding how to plea, including who the judge and jury are; where you're being tried; your race, socioeconomic background, overt sexual orientation, religion; who you're up against; how much money you have to devote to pleading your case; who your lawyers are; the current political situation; media attention, etc...).

In contrast, something that's never gone to trial may be far better documented than any court case. For example, what we know now about the Holocaust compared to most trials of Nazi war criminals, even Nuremberg. In fact, often with the aid of hindsight something can be understood to have happened, which may not have been provable at or around the time it happened or went to trial. For example, look at what we know about the Gulf of Tonkin incident now compared to then.

Finally, there are all sorts of legal reasons that certain, otherwise indisputed evidence might not be presentable in court (such as if it was attained through an illegal wiretap). Outside a courtroom we are under no such legal obligations to restrict our evidence to what was legally obtained, etc...

In sum, legal judgements or admissions of guilt are not the ultimate standard. Just because someone pled guilty doesn't mean they were. Nor does the absense of guilty verdict mean the alleged act was less certain to have been committed. Of course, that doesn't mean that guilty verdicts should be ignored. But clearly it also doesn't mean that allegations of actions that haven't been test in court should be dismissed, are necessarily less reliable, or woth the pejorative adjective "mere". -- noosphere 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In aggregate, pleas' of guilt and convictions have far more veracity than allegations. Suggesting otherwise, is patent nonsense. Merecat 21:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. What an amazingly incisive argument. You managed to address each one of my points so well. Very convincing. -- noosphere 21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm just getting prepared for when these apologists attempt to argue the exact opposite point to his current argument (that allegations in fact trump reality) when Rove or other Plamesters are indicted and some uncorroborated email 'allegedly surfaces' to falsely exonerate them. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm glad you have something to look forward to. Best wishes with that. Merecat 21:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Send them to Libby in prison - he'll need 'em. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, it's a blessing to hear your concern for your fellow man. Merecat 21:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Never mind. Trollfeeding concluded. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you call me a troll? Thanks Ryan, that's just swell. Merecat 21:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The behavior is pretty clear. Argue, avoid, argue, avoid... it's rather telling. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, what are you talking about? I've answered you above. Merecat 21:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The title of the section is 'question for Kevin Baas'. Look where you've brought the discussion. Your comments in this thread have been superficial, evasive and frankly, the effect is quite trollish. Perhaps you might consider editing a few non-political articles, to demonstrate your interest in improving Wikipedia, instead of defending a political POV... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps if you let Kevin answer instead of butting in, we would not get sidetracked. Merecat 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Argue, avoid, argue, avoid." I'm sorry, but I've reached my troll-feeding limit for the day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm sorry you lack the wherewithal to continue our dialog today. I hope you are feeling better soon. I enjoyed our chat. Have a nice day. Merecat 22:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I already answered you. I believe it was a week ago. I also believe it was my first comment in this section. Then you asked another question, which I answered immediately. Since then, you have not asked me anymore questions. Kevin Baas^talk 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Then Ryan interjected and started a thread that went down a diferent rabbit trail - which included him complaining abut me. At that point, I reminded him that he had butted-in in the 1st place. The inference there is that he ought to avoid butting in, so as to avoid the easy offense which he appears to take. Merecat 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I liked noosphere's interjection: it helped clear up what I meant to say. Ryan was over the top. He's frustrated. I think you understood that in your response, but you were a bit confrontational. Anycase, I think your response to noosphere was a bit ... well, he had good points. To put it succinctly he was saying that things aren't always black and white. If we would really like to trim down this article to only things that have been tried in court and ruled guilty, the article would be really short, and not very informative. We can do better with the space. But what other questions did you want to ask me? Kevin Baas^talk 07:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

None at this time. My interest in reducing POV is to hold editors to editing standards as in: If we include this for a reason, then we must include that for the same reason - if we are to be consistant. Same in reverse. Merecat 11:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Nescio made that point when he was discussing the links with you, at which point you refused to discuss that issue. Kevin Baas^talk 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, whether you think it or not, you are wrong. And also, didn't you just say you don't want to talk with me anymore? Merecat 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough. Kevin Baas^talk 14:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Jerry! Jerry! --kizzle 03:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

4 get jail in election day tire slashing

"Judge says probation doesn't atone for crime". [16] All 4 are Democrats who slashed the tires of Republicans in 2004 to prevent voting. sounds pretty serious to me. Merecat 00:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please. What is the maximum scope of damage the slashing of tires could have affected? This is absolutely nothing close to the caging tactics (35,000 people alone) of the Ohio Republican Party along with the heavily partisan decisions concerning 80-pound paper registration requirements, overly strict intrepretation of HAVA defining jurisdiction as "precinct" rather than "county", among many many other decisions by Kenneth Blackwell, co-chairman of the Bush campaign who happened to be aggressively advocating the Issue 1 anti-gay legislation while administering the election. So don't preach to me about serious when the scope is entirely miniscule in comparison. I'm not saying don't include it, please do, just keep your proportions in the bounds of reality. --kizzle 03:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, so you are saying it wasn't serious? What was it a joke? These are connected Democrats committing overt criminal acts to stifle Republican GOTV efforts. If Pubbies did this, the media would be SCREAMING bloody murder. As it stands, nary a peep. Merecat 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that the scope of votes lost was miniscule in comparison. You can use highly subjective words as "serious" and "joke", but scope is a much better indicator as it is far more quantitative. I didn't say don't include the passage, just know what you're talking about when you say serious. Bottom line: the scope of votes affected by the pranksters is miniscule compared to the caging tactics and partisan directives issued by Blackwell that affected tens of thousands of votes. --kizzle 20:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And then there's the recent report of what actually happened in Warren County, during that unprecedented and unjustifiable 'level 10 Homeland Security' alert. Offers some perspective, indeed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please. One is factual court record while the other is wishful/hopeful thinking of the losing side. When Blackwell loses even a civil suit it will be noteworthy. Otherwise it's pure speculation from extremely partisan sources. Blackwell did nothing wrong. The lawsuits went nowhere because they have no merit. Kerry conceded because there was no merit. But the tire slashing was a premeditated and deliberate attempt to to deprive people of their right to vote. This is night and day. And you will cite the mootness of Moss but the reality is that if there was any merit to the allegations, the Dems would have sued to change it for future elections. It was grandstanding to satisfy the rabid base and nothing more.--Tbeatty 03:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First came a ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Ohio and three other Midwestern states. The judges blocked plans by election officials to hold mass hearings on some 23,000 challenges to newly registered voters that Republicans had filed…The appeals court judges, upholding a ruling issued earlier in the week by District Judge Susan Dlott, said they were "mindful of the practical difficulty of ... arranging and conducting literally thousands of hearings for all challenged voters between today's date and Nov. 2" without violating the rights of individual voters… After about an hour of argument, Dlott ordered Ohio's secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, to direct election officials in all of the state's 88 counties to cease holding challenge hearings.

Henry Weinstein, THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE; In Ohio Courts, It's Almost Like Florida in 2000; Judges are awash in election-law cases and challenges to voter registrations in a state that could be critical to winning the presidency, Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2004, pg A20

--kizzle 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And while it never reached court, Blackwell had to reverse his directive on the 80-pound paperweight registration requirements due to public outcry, meaning if he had continued, he probably would have lost the case. (Andrew Welsh-Huggins, Criticism mounts over election chief’s decisions, Associated Press, October 1, 2004) --kizzle 20:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya, forgot about this:

Serious questions have also been raised about absentee ballots, which may have been withheld from those who requested them — a problem in the Bay State as well...We don’t know yet how many of those students were trying to vote in Ohio, but we do know that the Republican-led Ohio legislature prevented the elections department from implementing expedited absentee balloting and early voting, says Trevas. Then, Blackwell barred those who never received their absentee ballots from casting provisional ballots in person — that is, until Election Day, when a Toledo woman filed and won a lawsuit against him in US District Court.

David S. Bernstein, Questioning Ohio: No controversy this time? Think again, Boston Pheonix, Issue Date: November 12-18, 2004

--kizzle 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok last one, I promise:

Secretary Blackwell also sought to prevent the news media and exit poll takers from locating themselves within 100 feet of polling places (Dan Horn, Even Rules Go Down to Wire, CINCINNATI ENQ., Nov. 2, 2004, at 1A). This would have been the first time in thirty years in which reporters were prevented from monitoring polls (Voting Issues Keep Courts Busy up to Last Minute, PLAIN DEALER, Nov. 3, 2004, at S9). Media organizations challenged the barrier, leading to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling that struck down Secretary Blackwell’s decision (Beacon Journal Publ. Co. v. Blackwell, 389 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2004)).

--kizzle 21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty speaks words of wisdom. Merecat 06:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To borrow a method of Merecat's, I'll respond with an interrogative - was there, or was there not, an unprecedented private counting of the votes in Warren County after an official, and never-justified, 'level 10' Homeland Security alert? Just curious. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of that. What is your source for that? Merecat 17:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Erica Solvig, Warren County Still Counting, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, Nov. 3, 2004.
• Erica Solvig, Warren Co. Defends Lockdown Decision, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, Nov.10, 2004
• Erica Solvig & Dan Horn, Warren Co. Cites Terror for Lockdown, CINCINNATI ENQ., Nov. 10, 2004, at 1A.
• Jim Bebbington & Lawrence Budd, Validity of Votes Debated over Internet, DAYTON DAILY NEWS, Nov. 10, 2004, at B4
• Elections officials defend restricting access, Associated Press, November 10, 2004
• Jon Craig, ELECTION DAY AFTERMATH; MORE VOTING QUESTIONS RAISED, The Columbus Dispatch, November 25, 2004

--kizzle 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, have you even read the article? And re: the old canard - Election irregularities investigation and reform is not about 'sore losers', it's about ensuring the integrity of the electoral system, and American government. In Italy, Berlusconi is still refusing to acknowledge Prodi after reports of irregularities - when the system is questioned, answers must be given - or the integrity of the system is greatly reduced. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, what the heck are you talking about? You asked me a question. I answered you and asked one back. But instead of answering, you go running off down a rabbit trail about Italy... why the heck are you bugging me with nonsequiters? Please stay on point. And why are you double signing your post? Merecat 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Relax, merecat. I am on point. 1. I raised Italy to point out that irregularities can affect elections of right- and left-wing, foreign- and domestic candidates. It's important not to dismiss those raising concerns about irregularities as 'sore losers', if one truly wants to reinforce the confidence of the public in government. And 2., there are a number of cites in the article for the Warren County episode. Read them, don't ask me for new cites. Re: double sigging, it's called a mistake. Again - relax, and read the article.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the only convictions for 2004 stuff so far are to the Democrats who slashed tires. Merecat 20:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to limit the topic to 'convictions', rather than 'controversies'. I wasn't. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well convictions are a better form of proof than complaints, don't you agree? Merecat 20:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides being irrelevant, as ryan points out, merecat's assertion is false. republicans have been charged with phone jamming conspiracy, pleaded guilty, and been convicted. if this isn't in the article, it should be. i don't recall whether it was ohio or new hampshire. Convictions have their weaknesses, too, as was pointed out much earlier. The best form of proof is empirical verifiability. That's what this article is founded on, not convictions. Kevin Baas^talk 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle may be partially right, I did hear something about NH phone jammers. I'm not sure of the status there. And regarding "empirical verifiability", public records of convictions as reported by reliable sources, are about as good of proof as you can get, right?Merecat 21:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

to throw a semantic joke in here: Fredrich Nietzsche once said that "convictions are worse enemies to truth than are lies." Kevin Baas^talk 20:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But at least in this instance, we can take comfort in knowing that the Democrats involved here now definately do have the courage of their convictions. Merecat 21:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The facts being on our side doesn't hurt either. --kizzle 21:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Merecat 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, which Democrats were you referring to? I thought you were referring to the editors here. --kizzle 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the Milwaukee convicted Dems. Get it? "Courage of their convictions". - Merecat 21:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No, was that funny? --kizzle 21:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a spoil-sport - I was playing along with Kevin's lead. Merecat

phone jammers were 2002

NH phone jammmers was 2002. [17] Merecat 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And "More than 897 phone calls from a telemarketing firm jammed phone lines sponsored by the state Democratic Party and a ride-to-the-polls line at the Manchester firefighters union for one to two hours." does not sound like tire slashing to me. Doesn't even sound like "jamming". There are sixty seconds in a minute and a phone call on redial takes way less than 10 seconds, more like 6 or less. Minimum 10 calls per minute per line, means maximum 1.5 hours via a single line, not 2 hours and probably closer to only an hour. And telemarketers have multiple lines. So the calls were certainly parallel in time, not serial. If 897 is a fact, then what happened was more like 3 or 4 ten minute bursts of busy signals. Sounds more like these callers were taunting the DEMs, not jamming their lines. Merecat 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Truly stellar human beings. You're defending them by saying they're simply assholes rather than criminals? (Psst, you haven't mentioned that this incident is connected to the White House) --kizzle 21:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly connected. And by the way, Mary McCarthy (CIA employee) is conected to Clinton and the Dems, right? Merecat 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The man convicted, "Bush campaign operative James Tobin, made two dozen calls to the White House within a three-day period around Election Day 2002 _ as the phone jamming operation was finalized, carried out and then abruptly shut down". [18] was also "New England campaign chairman for Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., Tobin stepped down two weeks before the {'04} election when state Democrats accused him of involvement in a phone-jamming scheme on Election Day 2002. Tobin was later indicted for conspiracy." [19] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan from your #2 link "Tobin was acquitted by the federal jury on the most serious charge against him, of conspiring to violate voters' rights." Merecat 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes - my sincerest apologies, Merecat! It seems he was only convicted of telephone harassment charges for his part in a plot to jam the Democrats' phones on Election Day 2002. Thanks for helping me refine and strengthen my point. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You're totally right Merecat, except there's a distinction between the tactics each party uses. Democrats go for petty dirty tricks such as votes for crack cocaine, slashing tires, hence the convictions. Republicans go for systemic dirty tricks, hence the numerous court decisions cited above regarding caging and improper handling of the election. So not only are convictions helpful, but court cases as well. --kizzle 21:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Kizzle, it seems that you are arguing that Democrats are petty but Republicans know how to take the bull by the horns? Hmmm... based on a "quality of cheating" argument, you seem to be saying "vote Republican". Merecat 21:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One would only infer that if one were unethical. I would think one would vote the opposite based on one's moral and patriotic outlook on cheating. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That depends on if one wants to win or not. Merecat 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess again, 'the end justifies the means' for some people. Winning at any cost, including violating the law, seems much more the POV of a criminal than an American patriot. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... tell that to Mary McCarthy (CIA employee). Merecat 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Without being snippy, my point is that convictions are not the only indicator of wrong-doing, look at the non-criminal court cases as well. --kizzle 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But convictions are a very good form of proof for the points we make here. Merecat 21:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly are. And your point, that Tobin was not convicted of telephone harassment charges for his part in a plot to jam the Democrats' phones on Election Day 2002., is patently false. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... they both are. If you ignore the court decisions against Blackwell and the Ohio Republican Party, which affected tens of thousands of votes, and instead focus on the convictions of slashing of tires which had little impact on voter turnout, I can't see how you can claim your view to be consistent. P.S. do you still doubt Warren County? --kizzle 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There have not been any "court decisions against Blackwell" which prove anything. Merecat 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

umm, are you kidding? I'll re-post:

First came a ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Ohio and three other Midwestern states. The judges blocked plans by election officials to hold mass hearings on some 23,000 challenges to newly registered voters that Republicans had filed…The appeals court judges, upholding a ruling issued earlier in the week by District Judge Susan Dlott, said they were "mindful of the practical difficulty of ... arranging and conducting literally thousands of hearings for all challenged voters between today's date and Nov. 2" without violating the rights of individual voters… After about an hour of argument, Dlott ordered Ohio's secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, to direct election officials in all of the state's 88 counties to cease holding challenge hearings.

Henry Weinstein, THE RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE; In Ohio Courts, It's Almost Like Florida in 2000; Judges are awash in election-law cases and challenges to voter registrations in a state that could be critical to winning the presidency, Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2004, pg A20

--kizzle 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And while it never reached court, Blackwell had to reverse his directive on the 80-pound paperweight registration requirements due to public outcry, meaning if he had continued, he probably would have lost the case. (Andrew Welsh-Huggins, Criticism mounts over election chief’s decisions, Associated Press, October 1, 2004) --kizzle 20:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya, forgot about this:

Serious questions have also been raised about absentee ballots, which may have been withheld from those who requested them — a problem in the Bay State as well...We don’t know yet how many of those students were trying to vote in Ohio, but we do know that the Republican-led Ohio legislature prevented the elections department from implementing expedited absentee balloting and early voting, says Trevas. Then, Blackwell barred those who never received their absentee ballots from casting provisional ballots in person — that is, until Election Day, when a Toledo woman filed and won a lawsuit against him in US District Court.

David S. Bernstein, Questioning Ohio: No controversy this time? Think again, Boston Pheonix, Issue Date: November 12-18, 2004

--kizzle 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok last one, I promise:

Secretary Blackwell also sought to prevent the news media and exit poll takers from locating themselves within 100 feet of polling places (Dan Horn, Even Rules Go Down to Wire, CINCINNATI ENQ., Nov. 2, 2004, at 1A). This would have been the first time in thirty years in which reporters were prevented from monitoring polls (Voting Issues Keep Courts Busy up to Last Minute, PLAIN DEALER, Nov. 3, 2004, at S9). Media organizations challenged the barrier, leading to a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruling that struck down Secretary Blackwell’s decision (Beacon Journal Publ. Co. v. Blackwell, 389 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2004)).

--kizzle 21:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sources for Warren County:

• Erica Solvig, Warren County Still Counting, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, Nov. 3, 2004.
• Erica Solvig, Warren Co. Defends Lockdown Decision, CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, Nov.10, 2004
• Erica Solvig & Dan Horn, Warren Co. Cites Terror for Lockdown, CINCINNATI ENQ., Nov. 10, 2004, at 1A.
• Jim Bebbington & Lawrence Budd, Validity of Votes Debated over Internet, DAYTON DAILY NEWS, Nov. 10, 2004, at B4
• Elections officials defend restricting access, Associated Press, November 10, 2004
• Jon Craig, ELECTION DAY AFTERMATH; MORE VOTING QUESTIONS RAISED, The Columbus Dispatch, November 25, 2004

Do you doubt either a) Warren County's private vote based upon a fake terrorist threat or b) that there were court cases decided against Blackwell? --kizzle 22:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(cough)King County(cough) Arkon 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, what about the Dems stealing that election in King County? That was 2004. [20] Merecat 22:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

King County elections officials are guilty of sloppy record keeping, compiling an account of the November 2004 vote that is incomplete, confusing and riddled with inconsistencies, according to testimony yesterday in the Republicans' legal challenge to Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire's election...But whether any of those failings will help the GOP's cause -- or whether King County is guilty of more than that -- is not at all clear. - [21]

What in your citation asserts "Dems stealing that election in King County"? --kizzle 22:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, please provide a link to a reliable source which reports on a court case with a final finding of fact that Blackwell was culpable for something related to a 2004 transgression. If not, please stop with the hysteria histrionics (oops - wrong word used at 1st).. Merecat 22:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, please be civil. Kizzle's question and post were quite calm and reasoned and not at all hysterical. It's inaccurate and uncivil to describe his behavior as hysteria. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan you are correct. I meant to say "histrionics". Merecat 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Still uncivil, inaccurate and apparently, an intentional decision by you to attack or marginalize a fellow editor with whom you disagree. That's bad form, Merecat. I still have hope you've gotten past reverting to this behavior. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Republican lawyers attacking the legality of Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire's election opened their court case Monday in Chelan County with a bold claim of election fraud by high-ranking King County officials." [22] Merecat 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Superior Court Judge John Bridges raised an eyebrow at the claims. "At this point, the court does not believe there is a fraud causation element to this case, for whatever that is worth." [same cite] I think it's clear that by reading that article and flippantly determining the 'Democrats stole the election', your argument is more based on POV than fact. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems a far cry from proving "Dems stealing that election in King County" :) --kizzle 22:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize I couldn't challenge (rightfully) your citation without it being taken as "histrionics". Do I seriously have to re-post for the third time? I've provided you with citations, go find them using either lexis/nexis or the web. Blackwell's decision to disallow provisional ballots to those who had not yet received absentee ballots was struck down. Blackwell's decision to restrict the media from polling places was struck down. Blackwell's directive to restrict registrations to 80-pound paper weights was struck down in the court of public opinion. The only reason why the Supreme Court didn't take up Blackwell's challenger issue is because there wasn't enough time, even though the issue was "undoubtedly serious" according to the Supreme Court. And finally, the Ohio Republican Party's attempt to illegally "cage" 35,000 people who were predominantly minorities was struck down by the 6th circuit court of appeals (which happens to have two republican appointees to one democratic appointee). Look about five inches up for snippets and supporting citations. If you seriously think that the only thing that matters are criminal charges rather than civil court decisions against Blackwell, then I can't save you. P.S., do you still doubt Warren County? And by the way, citing a Republican lawyers argument as evidence of fraud is a far cry from supporting your initial charge of "dems stealing that election in King County". --kizzle 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument is pointless. Solely for the purposes of this argument, on this page, at this time, I concede that Democrats are more wonderful than Republicans and are generally less effective when cheating. Merecat 22:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You do have my thanks for the constructive dialogue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Is your position so weak that the satisfaction of your request for sources and a simple challenge to your citation causes you to abandon the argument altogether? --kizzle 22:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not that. Rather, it's that I do not want to allocate any more time or effort to this particular topic at this time. Merecat 23:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Pity. You hadn't yet responded to whether you acknowledge Warren County's fake terrorist threat, the two citations you provided substantiating "Dems stealing that election in King County" did nothing of the sort, and the citations provided to you upon your request substantiating court decisions finding against Kenneth Blackwell were never acknowledged. When you have the time to regroup your argument, I'll be waiting. --kizzle 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, this is not a topic I will debate with you further, because you have made some pre-judgements that blind you to my point, such as "Democrats go for petty dirty tricks such as votes for crack cocaine, slashing tires, hence the convictions. Republicans go for systemic dirty tricks...". I reject that notion. I contend that both Pubbies and Dems cheat from time to time, in about equal amounts and equal severity. Look, the mayor of Miami was booted out of office for vote rigging not too long ago, and he was a Dem. Rep. Cunningham is going to jail for bribes and he's a Pubby. Until you accept that cheating is an equal opportunity vice, we can't make any headway. And sadly, some others who edit here have your same bias on the topic of Dem/Pubby cheating. That's why we end up with imbalanced articles like this one - mostly pointing out Pubby issues, while glossing over Dem ones. That was my point and I am not interested to expend any more effort convincing you. Let's just agree to disagree. Merecat 23:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite striking that you accuse me of bias when you are incapable of simply acknowledging the Warren County fake terrorist threat. Of course I think the slashing of the tires should be included, but to say that each party cheats in equal amounts is patently false. Democrats in the 1800's did it far more with the political machines like Boss Tweed, but I'm afraid to say, Republicans, because they control the voting apparatus and all branches of government, are much more into fraud now then the Democrats. The reason why I make the claim that they engage in systemic fraud is because they have the power to do so, unlike the Democrats. If Democrats controlled all branches of government along with all the voting machine companies and had secretaries of state doubling as co-chairman of their campaigns, I guarantee they would be performing in fraud as well. Unlike you, I acknowledge the fraud that does occur by my party. Democrats slashing tires? Cite that baby and put her up on this page. Your claim about "Dems stealing that election in King County" however is simply not supported by any citation you have so far provided. The fact that I have asked you several times to acknowledge that Warren County engaged in a secret count based upon a fake terrorist threat proves your inherent bias. At least I can admit my party's wrongdoings whereas you cannot. P.S. I thought you were done debating. --kizzle 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Lewis Libby, Tom DeLay, Katherine Harris, Karl Rove (we'll find out in 10 days), Rush Limbaugh... there's a reason why they call Republicans today a culture of corruption. --kizzle 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, here's a test, if you pass it, I may debate you in the future: You use the phrase "fake terrorist threat" (see above). for that reason, I ask you: Yes or No, has there been any finding of fact, civilly or criminally which has found Blackwell (or anyone) personally culpable for a "fake terrorist threat"? If, yes, please cite. If no, please stop mistaking allegations for facts. I await your reply. PS: If you cannot either supply a cite as specified here, or in the alternative, withdraw your assertion of "fake terrorist threat", I have no interest in debating you. Merecat 23:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's a cop-out, and pure avoidance. There's not even a hint of an answer in that blatant tap-dance of a non-response. Either participate in the exchange of ideas in good faith, or don't - but such maneuvering is as disruptive as it is distasteful. I suggest we leave this thread to die, now that Merecat has expressed a lack of interest in continuing it.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. If Kenneth Blackwell didn't do it, does it mean its not fraud? What is provable is that Warren County, whose vote totals came out to 66,523 to 25,399 favoring Bush, cited an FBI terrorist threat on a seriousness of "10 out of 10", whereas the FBI denies it ever issued such a notice. I never even said that was Blackwell. That was all on the Warren County board of elections. Am I only allowed to cite one Republican per argument who committed fraud? However, what Kenneth Blackwell did do was to issue several directives that ultimately were found in either the Federal Appeals Court or the 6th Circuit of Appeals to have been wrong that either did or would have significantly hurt voters. These are not allegations but final findings of fact. Gee I hope my answer was good enough so that you'll let me debate you in the future. --kizzle 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, are you still not going to acknowledge any of the decisions against Blackwell? And yet you call me biased. --kizzle 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, I contend that this "fake terrorist threat" is false. I contend that no such thing has been found as a fact in any court, civil or criminal - against anyone regarding Ohio 2004. And I further contend that anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Now, if I am mistaken in that, please show me a citation to a reliable source which shows that to be true and then I'll be happy to proceed with further dialog. If not, then please leave me be. You have your way of talking and I have mine. I am setting a predicate requirement as a condition of further dialog. You can choose to ignore it, but if you do, I will not dialog further with you regarding this article at this time. The choice is yours. Merecat 01:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to keep out of copyvio trouble, someone tell me if i've posted too much.

Warren County elections officials say they restricted access to the building where votes were counted in the presidential election because of fears terrorists could disrupt the process. On election night, officials closed off all but one entrance to the county administration building and barred reporters from being in the counting room. County Commissioner Pat South said the precautions were the recommendations of the county's emergency services official after discussions with federal authorities...But the FBI, which oversees anti-terrorism activities in southern Ohio, said it did not alert officials of the southwest Ohio county to any threat. Homeland security officials in Ohio also said they knew of no heightened terror warning for the county. "The FBI did not notify anyone in Warren County of any specific terrorist threat to anyone in the county prior to election day," FBI spokesman Michael Brooks said Wednesday... - Elections officials defend restricting access, Associated Press, November 10, 2004

Lebanon Attorney Jeff Ruppert said he does have concerns over how provisional ballots were handled at polling places - which he said seemed to be inconsistent - but not over the final count… Ruppert was a registered witness election day. He and a Republican witness were among those watching the ballots tabulated. "I had free access," Ruppert said. "I was there from 8:30 p.m. to quarter to 1 (a.m.). There were no problems whatsoever that I saw. Both me and my Republican counterpart were allowed to go anywhere as long as we didn't touch anything. I left before the complete count was over because I was convinced the complete count was fine." - Jim Bebbington and Lawrence Budd, Validity of votes debated over Internet; Warren County count discussed, Dayton Daily news, November 10, 2004

Meanwhile, attorneys for various citizen action groups that plan to contest the results said they are puzzled that vote totals in the presidential race in Warren County far exceed totals in most other statewide and countywide races. For example, the total of 94,415 votes cast there for President Bush or Sen. John Kerry is 3,000 more than all those cast in the U.S. Senate race and a constitutional amendment about same-sex marriage. Further, 20,000 to 24,000 fewer votes were cast in three Ohio Supreme Court races and 13,000 to 24,000 fewer were cast in various countywide races. - Jon Craig, ELECTION DAY AFTERMATH; MORE VOTING QUESTIONS RAISED, The Columbus Dispatch, November 25, 2004

These came off lexis/nexis, they're all mainstream newspapers. Two essential conclusions: Elections officials locked down the counting process citing an FBI warning about terrorism, and that the FBI issued no such warning. In addition, the Democratic observer left before the official count was over thus he could not have certified the final result. These sources fit notability, verifiability, and are all reputable. --kizzle 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, I never said that there are no allegations, what I said was there are no findings of fact. What you produced here is good enough perhaps, for citation material to support an allegation, but please stop telling it's a fact that there was a "fake terrorist threat". Now then, since you have failed to meet my predicate condition, this dialog is concluded for now. Good night. Merecat 02:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what are you talking about? The board of election admits it shut down due to terrorist threat issued from federal authorities. The FBI said it issued no such order. Which of those do you contest? If I were a lawyer, of course I'd have to settle for "alleged" if I were going to try it in court, and putting it here in Wikipedia as "fake terrorist threat" would both be weasel wording and spoon-feeding. Of course, you'd have to be an idiot to take both of those statements as true and not conclude the justification was suspicious to say the least, and I'm confident that giving the reader the facts I supplied without using any weasel words or spoon-feeding, about 95% of them would conclude the same. Sweet dreams. --kizzle 02:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your continued lack of acknowledging anything wrong with the actions of the people from your party blatantly demonstrates your clear bias. Like I said before, at least I can admit when my party does something wrong, whereas you rubber-stamp everything your party does with a seal of approval, kinda like your Republican Senators. And by the way, stop saying pubbies, I hate that freerepublic/michelle malkin/democratic underground slang. Don't bring that shit here, it dumbs down everyone. P.S., did any courts find against Kenneth Blackwell? --kizzle 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Silence is golden. --kizzle 06:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OPening sentence

I changed the opening sentence to active voice because weasel words are classic in the passive voice. There apparently was a rejection of the active voice sentence I placed and a passive voice sentence has replaced it but the weasel wording remains. By using active voice the weasel term "Some people believe..." or "Some people say..." becomes very clear. I would rather have the explicit weasel wording rather than try to hide hide in the current passive voice language. THe openeing sentence should simply say "(X or group X) questioned the validity/verifiability of the Presidential election". It's simple and direct. We need to know who and we need to know what. But to couch it passive voice lends authority where none exist. This is why weasel words and passive voice are discouraged. The current version is passive voice. It needs to be active voice to avoid weasel word violations. Comments?--Tbeatty 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that initial sentence, I would agree with you that "some people say" is a weasel phrase but only if it is used in the body of the article. Since there are multiple separate groups that contest various aspects of the election, I don't think its appropriate to mention every group in the title sentence as long as who these "some people" are are revealed in the article. --kizzle 04:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I didn't mind the "Some people" as long as it wasn't passive voice. There is a difference between "The world is flat according to some people" and "Some people say the world is flat." I was okay with "Some people question the election" but as soon as I changed it to active voices, someone objected to "some people" and hcanged the sentence back to passive voice. --Tbeatty 06:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"someone" objected to "some people"? Hypocrite ;) --kizzle 06:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Polling

All sampling polls are corrected. It is inaccurate to say "pre-corrected polls" as even the initial polling data was corrected based on historical polling results. They are corrected by time of day, race, gender, party affiliation, and voting precinct. This is one of the errors associated with sample polling. "Early polls" or "initial polls" is more accurate. "pre-corrected polls" imply there was no correction before a certain time and that is not true. All of the sampled data was corrected for the factors listed above and was in the very first polling report. --Tbeatty 06:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the PBS link at Mitofsky International before concluding that. Merecat 06:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the source of this controversy is that some people, such as Jonathan Simon and Stephen Freeman, use the pre-corrected numbers because they think its accurate and that the final version is arbitrarily matched to the vote count because its assumed to be correct (which is the case). When there are 1pm 4pm, pre-corrected, and final exit polls, its simply inaccurate to portray them as early exit polls, as that would indicate the early sweeps during the day while returns were still coming in. Check up on it here. --kizzle 06:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you both misunderstand the data. There is a term called "exit poll weighting". It is in the Mitofsky report. Weighting formulas are applied immediately. No exit poll was reported without applying this weighting. This is how statisticians sample a single precinct and predict a whole county (within a margin of error). These are correction factors. The whole Mitofsky report was about which weighting factor was incorrect and what the magnitude was. Statistics ruled out a number of them but others remained. See page 5 ("Surevey Weighting") of the Mitofsky report where he mentions weighting as early as noon on election day. All polling is corrected throughought the entire poll. And for the next election, there will be a new factor: geographic absentee ballots rules. Further, it is inaccurate to not apply weighting becasue there is systemic bias present in exit polls that must be corrected in order to be accurate. For example, woman are more likely than men to fill out an exit poll. Women are also more likely to be democrats. A raw sample with correcting for gender will result in an oversampling of women and therefore an inaccurate poll favoring the democrat. All of the exit polls were corrected for known systemic biases in the polling method. --Tbeatty 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In this article: "WHAT WENT WRONG?" (with 2004 polling), Warren Mitofsky says the polls were leaked early and that caused much of the confusion. Merecat 06:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. --kizzle 06:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this, Warren Mitofsky, the director of the 2004 exit polls, leaked the data to the Clinton campaign in 1992. Merecat 06:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --kizzle 06:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

According to USA Today on 11/17/2004: "This year, the leaking of the early exit poll data and the subtle use of it to hint at a possible Kerry victory caused the networks and the pollsters they hired to do the work some embarrassment." and "The polling firms —Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International — and the networks said critics didn't understand that early day exit polling often produces results much different from final vote tallies. This year, some pollsters theorize, Kerry's supporters may have been more eager to get to their polling places early." [23] Merecat 06:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ya, that is correct, except that the final exit polls were adjusted to the vote results because they were assumed to be true, which makes the actual final version a bit hard to measure vote fraud when its arbitrarily matched to the final tally. Oversampling and other errors were present in the earlier versions, but the 12:23am was somewhat close to what the exit polls predicted before they were matched to the final vote count and thus more accurate than the versions USA today is talking about (4pm and 7:38pm). --kizzle 06:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This: "Election 2004: exit-poll disinformation hoax backfires?" also makes good reading. Merecat 06:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, citing a grass-roots support page for Alan Keyes? Are you kidding me? --kizzle 06:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Could Karl Rove actually have ben right about the 2004 polls?

"Karl Rove, designer and executor of the Bush campaign, moved to avert the panic. He dispatched e-mails noting that the early exit polls in 2000 and 2002 had incorrectly forecast Democratic landslides. This year's polls, he said, were similarly flawed with massive oversampling of women." [24]

Hmmm... Merecat 06:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what the word "neutrality" means? Try to find a more neutral site that isn't a piece by Robert Novak that relies on a quote by Karl Rove on one of the net's most conservative opinion websites. If it's true that's fine, quote Mitofsky or an academic or mysterypollster or anyone who actually knows what they're talking about. How many more citations of yours do I have to rip apart? --kizzle 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Any objections to the USA Today article being quoted ("early day exit polling often produces results much different from final vote tallies") and cited in the article? It seems to clear up the polling numbers complaints rather nicely. Merecat 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, just not in the lead section. Put it in the exit polls section and try to find a quote directly from Mitofsky if you can rather than USA today, if not USA Today is ok for now. --kizzle 06:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

See, this is how real people discuss on Wikipedia, its not just a partisan war but a quest for good information from notable sources (which seems quite difficult coming from you recently). Put that stuff up, I'm going out to scheme on some college girls. 'Night. --kizzle 07:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would make a new section for it, though, because that article seems to be discussing early day Nov. 2nd, whereas all of the content on polls right now is about early-early Nov 3rd - after the polls had closed. Anything less than a clear distinction between the two in the article is just plain deception. Kevin Baas^talk 16:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I am not sure what you are saying. The polls which triggered the "gap in votes" claims, were morning exit polls done on election day, which were leaked early and misinterpreted. Merecat 17:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've already pointed out above, and provided source(s), that the controversy is over 12:22 am/12:23 am Nov. 3 polling data. (see #this_article_needs_work, at the very end of the section) Don't ask me to repeat myself if you don't read what I write: what would be the point? Kevin Baas^talk 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Election day was Tuesday Nov. 2nd, 2004. The exits polls at the root of this were taken on that same day and released (leaked early) that same day. Why are we talking about Nov 3rd? Merecat 19:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to read up on this stuff. Go to www.exit-poll.net, www.exitpollz.org, download the January 19th Edison/Mitofsky Report, go to google and type in "exit polls site:www.mysterypollster.com", download Stephen Freeman's paper "Exit Poll Discrepancy" (something like that), Elizabeth Liddle's WPE paper, the entire USCountsVotes collection of papers... but to answer your short term answer, you are simply not correct in saying that these were early morning leaked exit polls. There were three waves of released exit polls, 4pm Nov 2nd, 7:38pm Nov 2nd, and 12:23am NOV 3rd. After the final vote results were given sometime between 12:30-12:40am, the exit polls were then "calibrated" to match the vote results and thus substantially shifted at 12:50am. It is the 12:23am final version of the exit polls before they were "calibrated" (hence pre-corrected) to match the vote total that proponents of the exit-poll-implies-fraud theory (of which I am not a member) use to justify their case. --kizzle 20:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Warren?

I am pretty sure that the PBS interview with Warren Mitofsky makes it clear that Tuesday exit poll numbers were leaked on Tuesday afternoon (election day).

"Behind the scenes during Tuesday's election a national media consortium was feeding the television networks and other news organizations exit poll information that showed Senator Kerry leading President Bush. By mid-afternoon, the preliminary numbers had leaked onto several widely read Internet sites. This, in turn, sent the stock market down sharply in the last hour of trading."

Unless I am misreading the article, the numbers were leaked on Tuesday. Read this Merecat 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers were leaked on tuesday. numbers were also leaked on wednesday. i believe the links that kizzle just gave you provide these numbers, as does the wikipedia article. In discussing election irregularities, one is concerned with the most accurate poll data, which in this case (lacking the raw data) would be the most recent pre-adjusted exit polls. The nov. 3, 12:22am poll numbers are this. Warren was talking off-subject. Kevin Baas^talk 17:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the controversy, numbers were leaked early on Tuesday, this got the hopes of the Kerry supporters up and then, when the vote tallies came in, Kerry supporters got upset. Do I have that right? Merecat 21:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the exit polls were released at 4pm, 7:38pm, and 12:23am. 12:23am the next day is not "early on Tuesday". But yes, the exit polls had Kerry ahead by 5 million votes, even Karl Rove and Karen Hughes had said they went through a "near-death experience" according to the 12:20am AP radio feed that day. --kizzle 22:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(resolve edit conflict) That's news to me. I've never heard of that controversy. It doesn't sound very interesting or important, and it's not an election irregularity per-se. Also, as kizzle points out, it's inaccurate: the poll numbers did not swing back towards bush later in the day (or if they did it was insignificant). even the latest available non-retro-fitted poll data, the 12:23am nov. 3 poll data, shows kerry w/a strong lead.

The controversial irregularity that the exit poll section and subarticle deals with, which was the primary focus of the people and organizations involved (when it came to exit polls), was that the final (unadjusted) exit polls to final vote counts discrepancies where significantly outside the statistical margin of error. The probability of this happening by random chance is very low. From a mathematical/scientific perspective, when improbable events happen, there's something to look into; there's a lot of information packed into that event that one might learn something important from.

But you should be reading the exit polls section and article yourself, rather than asking me. The article will give you the answers you seek, and much more, with many citations and additional resources. You seem to have no problem reading and comprehending the article that you cited, I don't see why you should have any problem reading the wikipedia article. Kevin Baas^talk 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I have read it. However, I am also interested to hear your understanding of the essence of why it's important to mention this the way we are mentioning it. Now, what about the pollsters themselves? They are polling experts. Based on the post-election reviews which they have done, wouldn't the pollsters themselves be screaming bloody murder that the polls 'prove Bush stole votes' if indeed they do prove that? And if the pollsters are not saying that (Warren isn't), then why are we trying to give this polling deviation so much evidentiary value? Merecat 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an academic debate on the matter between the people of USCountsVotes (fraudsters) and the likes of MysteryPollster, Elizabeth Liddle, Mitofsky, and others on whether the discrepancy is a result of systemic bias or if the vote count is wrong. Keep in mind, both sides agree that the exit poll results (all things being equal) are statistically impossible, it is the cause of this error that is under debate (systemic bias i.e. reluctant bush responder or vote count being wrong are the two theories being pushed). You seem to think that Wikipedia is a place where we factually analyze all claims and only those that withstand a threshold of rationality may be placed here. If that were the case, the Intelligent Design article would be deleted in a heartbeat. Instead, we report on things that are significant to the public, and a large percentage of people (20% by WaPo I believe, I heard it cited on Countdown on MSNBC, i'll try to find a cite) believed that there was fraud in the last election. Some of these people think that the exit poll discrepancy proves their claim. I do not. However, we still include it in this article. I agree that there are issues where certain facts that are presented should be attributed ("these critics claim", etc.) rather than being adopted into the official tone of the article, but the content of these claims should still remain whether or not you agree with the rationality to the argument.--kizzle 03:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

True. However, what I mean is this: Teenager stoner comes into your home and says; "When I am high, God talks to me". Equate that to certain public activists etc, who say: "Exit polls prove Bush stole election". Now, we as editors have a question to answer: How much ink do we give to claims, in the media or elsewhere, that are based to such a degree on the assertion and POV of the proclaimees, that for all intents an purposes, there are no facts to back them up? As it stands now, none of the public claims about "polls = prove cheating" have anything but individualized argumentation of statistics as their basis, as in "this contended deviation proves X". The election has been over long enough that we can start implimenting a "haven't found the fire yet" test. There is a saying "where's there's smoke there's fire". Well then, if there's fire on this issue, why hasn't it been found yet? If the media can win pulitzer prizes helping rogue CIA employees like Mary O. McCarthy leak information about so-called "black sites", they can certainly find actual proof of a nationwide election fix, right? Well, since they haven't, we can safely take it that the "smoke" regarding "poll deviation = election fix" stems from "smoke and mirrors" not fire. Even so, I am not saying that we filter this information out completely. Rather, I am saying that give it only limited ink, very scrupulously. We would not post the stoned ravings of a deluded teen copiously and we ought not to post these stale, unsupported accusations on this point too copiously either. Merecat 03:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank God for people like Mary McCarthy, first of all (though it is questionable whether she actually leaked the black sites info, no?). Second of all, the academic debate between several PhD's could hardly fit your analogy of a "teenager stoner", your point about proportion of ink to a claim's credibility is well taken, but its not like these people are crazy or stoned. There is an 8 million vote discrepancy between the exit polls and vote count. The only logical conclusion that Edison/Mitofsky could come up with, the reluctant Bush responder theory (rBr), is described as a mere "hypothesis". Thus, given a huge discrepancy with no concrete reason as to why it occurred, some people think that it is due to fraud. I personally don't. However, it's clearly unfair to equate such a view with the hallucinations of a pothead. --kizzle 04:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

All told, hundreds and thousands of very smart Democrats and anti-Bush activists, lawyers and lawmakers looked into this issue for almost 2 years. So far, they have turned up zip, nada, zero evidence of a Bush scheme that "stole" the election. To me that says that the conjectures which assert "poll deviance = proof of vote theft" are baseless. Those who continue to advance them absent any actual proof, have (from my perspective) suspect motivations and/or suspect cogency, hence the "stoner" analogy. Merecat 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was a single fact in your response, just pure baseless speculation. Regardless, once again, Wikipedia is not the place to analyze the validity of claims, it is a mirror of events and issues in the public, the coverage of which is proportional to its public impact. Hell, Intelligent Design is worse than a stoner's hallucination, at least the stoner at some point stops hallucinating. By your rationale, that article should be deleted post haste. --kizzle 07:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, I don't know why you turn and attack me as agressively as you do. And please stop trying to bait me into the ID dispute. I don't have a dog in that fight. The point I was making here is: The current lack of evidence that there was an election "theft" in 2004, must be taken into account when we determine how much ink to give to suppositions that poll deviations prove theft. Inquiring minds want to know; Where's the beef?. Regarding proof of Bush 2004 theft, there really is none found to date. And it is interesting that you mention the ID fight. That's because the ID dispute basically boils down to an attempt to prove a faith assumption and were it not for the fact that freedom of religion concerns overlap at a cross purpose with supposed NPOV teaching at public schools, then that issue would not exist. Suffice it to say, I do see in the anti-Bush crowd a fervor which borders on religious fanaticism, so it was interesting that you mentioned ID. Merecat 08:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bait you, I was using an analogy, or is it that only you get to make them? I apologize if you construed any of my comments as an attack, I personally view personal attacks as a sign that an argument is weak, thus I try not to make them. Regardless, if I have made any personal attacks against you, I apologize. I do believe, however, that characterizing your co-editors with a "fervor which borders on religious fanaticism" comes dangerously close to your definition of personal attacks. I will re-iterate for the third time: It does not matter whether you agree with the rationality behind the case. Alien_abductions, Kennedy_assassination, Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate, Holocaust_revisionism, The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion, and Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations all contain topics which have varying problems of rationality, sources, etc. yet they have detailed articles because they are prominent in some form or another in the public discourse. Consequently, it does not matter whether or not you believe there is a "current lack of evidence that there was an election 'theft' in 2004", the fact that a large minority is discussing it and a lawsuit was filed, it deserves a detailed article on that justification alone. You can take this point as a "personal attack", "histrionics", or eminating from a "fervor which borders on religious fanaticism", but it won't change that you're wrong. --kizzle 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, if you think I was talking about my co-editors when I said "I do see in the anti-Bush crowd a fervor which borders on religious fanaticism", then you are mistaken and have made a Freudian slip. Please re-read the thread of my comments, not just my last comment. I was and am clearly referring to the wild-and-woolly crowd in the public who are advancing the theories and contentions which are aggregated in this article. Such people are the left-wing equivalent of the "black helicopter" crowd. Now, regarding your point of "prominent in some form or another in the public discourse", I contend that the wiki devoting such copious detail to every hare-brained anti-Bush accusation is in fact driving the internet discourse and making topics notable that otherwise would not be. Take a look at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. By and large, that article has turned into a links repository - an aggregate page of anti-Bush complaints. Certainly, articles like that one and this one, are becoming repositories of political rants and are running afoul of WP:NOT, but no one seems to notice. Suffice it to say, there is a difference between saying "such & such and so & so are saying X, regarding Z" and saying "such & such and so & so are saying X regarding Z for reasons 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 (etc)". In the final analysis, the anal-retentive nature of these anti-Bush articles is so dense that they distort the vision of the editors. The editors here (and on similar screed type pages) need to step back and ask themselves "are we handling the subject matter of this article optimally or not?" To this article and others like it, I give that a big fat, "No!". Merecat 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So you consider documenting what happened during the 2004 election a "political rant"? If that were so there would be no references, and the entire article could be deleted per WP:NOR. As it stands, the article is documenting what happened from a NPOV perspective, with citations to back up every claim. If you have a problem with that perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. May I suggest Fox News? They will be happy to agree with you that even the mere thought there was any kind of impropriety on the part of the Republicans during the 2004 election must be a figment of some dirty hippie's imagination, and structure their reporting accordingly. We don't have that luxury. Wikipedia strives to be non-partisan, and that's precisely why articles like this one are allowed to exist. If there are sources to back up the claims, and the subject of the article is notable and encyclopedic, we have every right to keep the article (as the AfDs on this article have amply demonstrated). So, I suggest saving the "black helicopter crowd" and "hare-brained anti-Bush accusation" rhetoric for the Free Republic. As such ad-hominems have very little place on Wikipedia. -- noosphere 11:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You misread my concerns. I agree with you that "documenting what happened..." is a good idea. However, complaint drive articles like this do not "document what happened". Rather, they document what various anti-Bush complainers bleat and claim "happend". Again I will repeat, after close to two years "where's the beef?". For you to get offended about my comments tells me that you think the anti-Bush complainers in the media and public are "right". But you misunderstand my objections. I contend it's not even knowable if they are "right" or not, because they offer such thin gruel as proofs such as "the polls were off by X%". That's not proof, it's supposition based on a disputed premise. I don't agree that exit polls are even accurate at all any more - too many people vote absentee and by mail and too many others ignore pollsters. These are well known truisms, but we still spend many editor hours collating and printing what are basically unsubstantiated complaints. Articles like this are not worthwhile at all. They are, to put it plainly and simply, hype and bunk. And FYI: ad-hominems are a form of argument, but the receiving party of the ad-hominem must be in the argument. Unless you are telling me that you have a dual role - both a wiki editor and an anti-Bush public agitator, then my comments about the wild-and-woolly crowd cannot possibly apply to you. But if they do, you should recuse yourself from editing this article as you are too biased. Merecat 15:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You misread the article. The article is not anti-Bush, it's not bunk and it's not hype. It's not a 'complaint drive' and it's not about what some 'claim' happened. It's about what happened, and the varying explanations from various experts that attempt to shed light on why these irregularities occurred. Your premise is that to analyze the occurences is to bash the winner. And that's wrong. But worse is your subtle attempt to discourage another editor from editing, for what you perceive as excess bias. Coming from you, a user who routinely and exclusively pounces on politcal articles and tries to bully their own right-wing POV, that's positively hilarious. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If by "Where's the beef?" you're implying that this article officially adopts the conclusion that fraud occurred, then please remove any of these offending statements. However, what still remains are controversial events and facts surrounding the 2004 election and attributed explanations of these controversies. Even if you argue until you're blue in the face, it is a fact that the exit polls were off by 8 million votes. It is a fact that Edison/Mitofsky, the firm who conducted the exit poll for the NEP called it a mere "hypothesis". It is a fact that Ron Baiman, Ph.D. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago, Kathy Dopp, MS mathematics, USCountVotes, President, Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D. Visiting Scholar & Affiliated Faculty, Center for Organizational Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania, Brian Joiner, Ph.D. Professor of Statistics and Director of Statistical Consulting (ret), University of Wisconsin, Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Case Western Reserve University, Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D. Temple University Statistics Department, Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistical Science, Southern Methodist University, Richard G. Sheehan, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Finance, University of Notre Dame, Jonathan Simon, J.D. Alliance for Democracy, Frank Stenger, Ph.D. Professor of Numerical Analysis, School of Computing, University of Utah, Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Statistical Sciences, Cornell University, Bruce O'Dell, USCountVotes, Vice President dispute the findings of the January 19th Edison/Mitofsky Report. The number of years of education combined with the co-signers of USCountsVotes hardly makes them a "wild and wooly crowd" and they write reports that substantiate their claim. Do we conclude that the election was stolen? Of course not. But we report on the facts on the case and not exercise censorship because we don't share the same ideology or interpretation of these facts. We state the known facts, then give the Edison/Mitofsky side and the USCountsVotes side, along with subsequent reports like MysteryPollster, Febble's paper, etc, in order to give the reader more information rather than censor because you think they are "bleating" nonsense. As for your baseless speculation that exit polls are not "accurate at all any more - too many people vote absentee and by mail and too many others ignore pollsters"... it's entirely irrelevant what you believe. If you can cite such a conclusion by a notable group or academic study, then include it in the article, as we're not exactly going to use you as a primary source. --kizzle 17:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat replies to Kevin, Kizzle & Ryan - thanks for pleasant dialog

The reason why there is a dearth of sources to cite which can explain the drop off in polling accuracy is the same reason that polls are becoming less accurate: People are not participating in polls as much anymore. And for this very reason, those same people are not available to be verified as past poll participants. Think about this:

Did you cast a vote in 2004? (if yes, continue)

Did you cast your vote at a polling place on 11.02.04? (if yes, continue)

Were you queried by an exit poller on 11.02.04? (if yes, continue)

Did you agree to be polled? (if yes, continue)

Who did you tell the pollster you voted for? VoteA:____________

Who did you vote for? VoteB: _____________

Only if we get to VoteA = VoteB, was that person was an accurate data sample on 11.02.04

Now if we wanted to verify the speculated cultural phenomenon of voters not agreeing to be polled as often, easily or uniformly across voter classes, how could we do that without establishing our base pool? We can't. And regarding people who did make themselves unavailable for polling in 2004, how could we get the to agree to be verified now? Again, we can't. The point of all this is that the common sense explanation here is the right one:

a) The 2004 polls may have been inaccurate, but this is hard to verify

b) So far, no proof that the election was stolen has been found, this is easy to show via where's the beef?. In other words, if there is proof, let's see it. And why no arrests so far?

Combining these two points, we can eliminate nefarious Bush theft as a premise to the supposition that the polls actually were accurate, but Bush "stole" the election via rigged tallies. Why? Because for almost two years, a very motivated group of very smart lawyer types have looked into this in great detail and have come up dry. What that leaves us with is that the polls were not accurate.

So why does this matter? Valid inferences that "polls prove Bush stole", are the only rational reason why complaints about the polls could be notable to this article, but insane inferences are not notable. And it is insane to keep inferring after two years of no proof. Perhaps I am merely thinking out loud here about what's bothering me. Let me say it this way: The name of this article is 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and to me , this says that the "irregularities" and "controversies" relate to the election itself. But the controversy about the polls is related to polling accuracy, not election accuracy. And it has to be, because if it's not, then we are presuming that election results were inaccurate and we are doing that based on unverified polling data. It's the election results which are our benchmark for articles that relate to "2004 U.S. presidential election". However, for this page to be accurately titled, as currently comprised, it should be called 2004 U.S. presidential election - controversies, allegations and complaints.

Suffice it to say, this dialog has been very helpful to me. I now have a better idea of what's bugging me about this article, it's "irregularities". That word, used this way, presumes that what's being compared to is "regular" and what we are comparing is "irregular". I have a real problem with that. There is nothing whatsoever factually proven that 2004 election was itself, "irregular", stolen or otherwise unsually bad.

Anyway, as you can see, I've not edited this article much anyway as I think it's a bunch of silly bunk and won't bother with it much, not at least unless a few editors here came around to my way of thinking here. And since that does not seem likely at this point, it's probably best that we drop this thread. If and when I edit this article, I'll be careful to do so in small chunks. And if I edit, let me know on this page what, if any, issues you guys have with my edits. Thanks for a nice chat. Merecat 20:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The sanity of a claim is not criteria for its inclusion in an article, otherwise Heaven's Gate would be deleted (see, I used something else besides ID, though they are comparable). It is the public impact that merits inclusion, not a rational assessment of a claim. I don't know how many times I can say this before you'll understand. Hopefully that was the last time. And if you weren't being sarcastic in your title, I've enjoyed myself in this thread too, so no problem :) --kizzle 21:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sanity is not a criteria but it's acceptance in the scientific community is a criteria. There is a very small, distinct minority that thinks that the polling discrepancies were not adequately explained my Mitofsky. They deserve a very small and distinct paragraph. --Tbeatty 23:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"There is a very small, distinct minority that thinks that the polling discrepancies were not adequately explained my Mitofsky." Have you got a verifiable source for that claim? If so we'll be sure to include it in the article.  ;) -- noosphere 00:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Should I ask why the title of this section is written in the 3rd person?--152.163.101.13 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To conform with WP:NPOV.  ;) -- noosphere 00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

I have placed an NPOV tag on this article due to its flagrant violation of the "undue weight" provision of WP:NPOV. Phil Sandifer 04:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is not violated here. This article is about irregularities and controversies surrounding the 2004 Presidential election. The content does not violate undue weight, as it clearly would if the article were titled 'Reasons the election was fraudulent' (which is a decidedly minority view). This article is not, and so, does not. Tag removed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It gives undue weight to the idea that there is anything notable to say about the paranoid ravings of the blogosphere. And are you seriously claiming there's no dispute on this article? This article has been under dispute for 18 months now. You've had your fun, and it's time to finally clean the paranoid blog droppings off of Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 04:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As usual, your hyperbole doesn't make your POV truth. You're entitled to your POV, just keep it off the article page. If you have specific content POV issues, bring them up here. Don't just slap tags and whine.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So I shouldn't use the tag to indicate that a dispute exists when I dispute the POV? That's a novel reading. Phil Sandifer 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You put the tag on first, and your only 'discussion' has been ranting about the blogosphere. The blogosphere didn't cause the massive lines and voting machine problems, or the many irregularities surrounding the counting of the votes. Your 'explanation' is blather. The tag is unjustified and your conduct here does not further substantiate it in any way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The extreme body of verbiage on this topic suggests that there is a massive controversy and a massive set of irregularities in the 2004 election. This is a POV. And it is a POV that has been given a truly insane amount of weight. Phil Sandifer 04:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your view of what the 'extreme body of verbiage' suggests is your view. Slapping the tags across all the related articles and post 'merge' notices, as you have done, is against consensus. If you have to resort to such behavior, you are likely acting against consensus and may need to check yourself. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of the tags is to indicate that there is a dispute. If there were consensus, there wouldn't need to be the tags. Phil Sandifer 04:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all the tags on all the articlesas there are no arguments concerning NPOV violation in the articles, just a general rant about the bloggosfeer and if the usage of the tags is justified. No, it is not, unless you have actuall arguments concerning the articles themselves. KimvdLinde 05:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am baffled as to why I am being accused of adding tags without discussion. My point seems straightforward. The combined length of these articles is around 500 k/b. That is roughly double the coverage of the rest of the election. So our total coverage on the Presidential election is 1/3 coverage of the election, and 2/3 coverage of controversy and irregularities. WP:NPOV states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Now, considering that the idea that there is any significant controversy or irregularity in the 2004 election is a minority viewpoint, the fact that we have nearly half a meg of text on the subject, and that 2/3 of our election coverage is on the subject, this strikes me as a grotesque violation of the undue weight policy. The fact that the article is still based on local news stories that were not picked up nationally and had minimal local follow-ups, as well as blog posts and reports issued by partisan action groups speaks volumes to the nature of what is being presented here. So my objections are threefold.

1. The article is grotesquely long compared with the coverage of more mainstream aspects of the election
2. The article is based on terrible sources
3. The article stitches together a wide field of sources into something that is original research.

Therefore, I strongly dispute the neutrality of this article, and request that the tag be re-added post haste, as it was a staggering assumption of bad faith to remove it within minutes of its being added without responding to the point I raised, which is that the article was giving undue weight to its aspect of the topic. Phil Sandifer 05:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the WP:NPOV policy and even the very part of it you quote refers to the proper proportion of coverage in a single article. The subject of this article is notable, so therefore should exist. Whether or not its content is large relative to other (arguably more notable) articles is completely irrelevant to the WP:NPOV policy. Since point 1 of your argument rests on this misinterpretation of policy it is not convincing.

It is a needless twisting of NPOV to suggest that if you spin off your discussion to nine sub-articles you suddenly become immune to claims of over-representation. Phil Sandifer 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should modify WP:NPOV to reflect your POV on the matter, because there's nothing in it about sub articles. -- noosphere 06:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Use common sense. It is an obvious violation of the spirit of NPOV to suggest that a valid solution to undue weight is to add so much more that the articles have to be split. Phil Sandifer 06:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If articles have to be split, for whatever reason, then the sub articles still have to be justified on their own, just like any other article. The history of their "parent" articles is completely irrelevant, which is why you won't find them mentioned in any Wikipedia policies I'm aware of. Anyway, as I said, this discussion does not belong here but on that new Wikipedia policy you'll have to write before your arguments along these lines can be taken seriously. -- noosphere 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a flagrant violation of the spirit of NPOV. Again, the way to deal with the fact that a subject has excessive coverage is NOT to make the coverage even more excessive. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly disagree that the spirit of WP:NPOV has anything to do with sub articles. If the sub articles themselves violate that policy then that would be one thing. But there is nothing explicit or implicit in that policy that says you have to take other articles in to consideration when making the determination whether an article violates that policy or not. If you think there's something in it that even implies that other articles should be takin in to consideration please quote the policy. Otherwise, I really don't know where you get this "spirit of NPOV" from. -- noosphere 22:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps by actually respecting NPOV as something that is meant to deal with Wikipedia's coverage and respectability, instead of as an annoying obstacle to my POV-pushing? Phil Sandifer 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As for point 2, please specify which specific parts of the article you think are cited with questionable sources and why you think that specific source is questionable. A broad brush condemnation like this is useless.

I did this some time ago, and was roundly ignored, to the point of being told that Ben Cohen, an ice cream mogul, is a notable source on election law. Phil Sandifer 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then maybe a link to that discussion would be helpful when you bring up this same subject again. Since, without specifics it appears that you are not supporting your claims in any way. -- noosphere 06:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For point 3, if you think the sources are combined in such a way as to violate WP:NOR please give us more specifics. How and why does the article violate this policy? Just accusing it of violating the policy without giving specifics is not convincing either. -- noosphere 05:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to write the same things. KimvdLinde 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Find me a general overview of this topic that combines the sources in question outside of this article. Currently this article is taking primary sources and arranging them in a way that is undoubtedly novel - the very definition of original research. To avoid being original research, it would have to find a reliable source that has taken all of the news articles, blog posts, and reports and already compiled them to a general discussion of the controversies and irregularities, i.e. a secondary source. Phil Sandifer 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not exactly. If that was a criterion for wikipedia, it would be impossible to write an article, as you by definition bring research of various sources together. KimvdLinde 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, no summarizing, quoting, and citing sources is not "the very definition of original research". In fact, WP:NOR says, in the very first paragraph that "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." So, citing sources for the claims made in an article is how you keep the article from being original research. I suggest you take a few minutes to re-read that policy, since your argument runs pretty much exactly counter to it. -- noosphere 06:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That same paragraph also warns against novel interpretations and narratives, which this unquestionably is. Look particularly at the section "Example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." This article may be using coy phrasing to avoid doing this obviously, but it remains an obvious attempt to synthesize tons of crappy sources to suggest that there is a whole lot of controversy and a whole lot of irregularities. Phil Sandifer 06:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think the new synthesis is that there are many irregularities and controversies? Can you cite a specific part of the article that asserts that and where that very claim is not supported by the sources it cites? Basically, what you're saying is that certain sources cited do not actually support the claims they're cited in support of. In order to verify that this is indeed true we need to see where in the article those specific claims are made and what sources are used to attempt to support them. So please provide those. -- noosphere 06:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the claim is supported. It matters if it's novel. Are you trying to tell me that you believe that the idea that there were massive controversies and irregularities about the election is not a novel view? That it is a mainstream view? If so, then you shouldn't need to cite so many primary sources - it should be doable entirely with the credible secondary sources that do not appear to exist. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the sources cited did not themselves claim what is written in the article you'd have a point. However, before we can determine that we need you to quote the specific claim, and not make sweeping generalizations. Where precisely does the article make the "novel claim" you refer to? -- noosphere 22:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You are asking for a specific place of a general problem. This is a petty attempt to bog down in specifics. The problem is that the overall tone and volume of the article is a novel interpretation - not that there are specific lines. The problem is in the grotesquely excessive coverage itself. Phil Sandifer 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I could say, "All of Wikipedia is POV, based on questionable sources, and is stiched together in such a way as to constitute original research," and I'd be laughed at if not outright ignored because I did not cite any specifics nor support my assertions in any way. It's absurd. As are the accusations you make against this article. -- noosphere 06:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. You really think this article is A-OK? Phil Sandifer 06:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. -- noosphere 06:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This ignores the fact that these articles are explicitly a master article with several sections that were spun off to full articles, and that view themselves as a subsection of the larger election article. Phil Sandifer 06:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with this article make your arguments in respect to this article. If you have a problem with the other articles, make your arguments about them. I see nothing in any Wikipedia policy that addresses how other articles have to be written based on the content of a different article. If you can cite such a policy please do so. Otherwise, I really see no point in discussing it here. Perhaps you can write your own policy about sub article content. Then your points would be relevant there. But certainly not here. -- noosphere 06:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, use common sense. If the problem with an article is that it gives undue weight to a particular aspect of a topic, expanding the coverage of the topic until it has to go into another article very obviously does not fix the problem.

Since you've just repeated your earlier point above, I'll just direct you to my earlier response above. -- noosphere 07:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

@Phil: I know that some local stations tend to not meet my standards of WP:CITE, but remember that much of this article, as suggested by the title, is about contraversies. That is not to say that any trash can go in (and I will have a look at this sometime soon to check for that), but that as long as thing proports as facts meet more rigirous source standards than the criticism/accusations, which should still have some (enough to assert their existence, though not necessarily their validy), then the article should be fine.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is less WP:CITE than the way in which they're being used - without exception what we're seeing is small stories that caused no splash getting rounded up and put together. The problem is that there isn't a single good secondary source for this - everything in this article is an attempt to stitch together primary sources to provide a history of election fraud. That's an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 06:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is normal in wikipedia to split large articles into smaller ones if the article becomes to large. That is not a violation of WP:NPOV. KimvdLinde 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is if the article's largeness is because of a violation of NPOV. Phil Sandifer 06:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You think that if an article violates NPOV and splits then splitting the article is a violation of NPOV? Where in WP:NPOV does it say that? Where does it address splitting the article at all? Anyway, if either the parent or sub articles violate NPOV you should be able to give us some specifics. Whether and why it was split is completely irrelevant. If you think otherwise please cite a policy to support your opinion. -- noosphere 07:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If an article violates NPOV because it gives undue weight to a POV, and then that POV expands so much that it necessitates an article split then it is a NPOV violation, because the NPOV violation was never fixed. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. If the NPOV violation was never fixed then surely it's still present in the sub articles. If it's present in the sub articles you should be able to point it out without reference to the parent articles. If you can't, then I'm afraid your argument simply has nothing to do with WP:NPOV, which does not even mention or imply anything about sub/parent articles. And, again, if you are going to attempt to point it out please quote the article where you think it violates policy and quote the part of the policy you think it violates. Don't just make sweeping generalizations. -- noosphere 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV violation was that the discussion of irregularities was wildly out of proportion to the discussion of the mainstream viewpoint. Moving these irregularities to their own sub-article linked to by the main article does not solve that. Phil Sandifer 23:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge may be in order, that sometimes helps "cruft control" automatically, though I am not sure how much shaky stuff is in these articles right now.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I would suggest that the first step is to remove everything that is not sourced, second to eliminate everything that is badly sourced and has better sources that show they are wrong, third condense stuff, and finally start talking about merging. KimvdLinde 06:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a misunderstanding of WP:V to ask for better sources showing that the claims are wrong. Phil Sandifer 06:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no ad hoc, the burden of proof does lie on the claims, not the discrediting of them. I'll look at this article in next few days.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not think so. WP:V is about Verifiability, not truth, in other words, is there a source that can be checked (and I see a lot of links to external sources in these pages). Maybe some sources are not reliable, than those have to be addressed in their context. KimvdLinde 06:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we are using other's information, we are already assuming that it is true...the assumption, obviously, will be based of a)credibility and b)opposing sources. Just because b) is not present, becaused no one cares to rebuttal, does not mean that a) no longer matters. Credibility is the main issue here. How credible are blogs and political opposition (against certain leaders parties) sites?Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The main question is: Is this a reliable source. If opposition sourses are not reliable, than government sources are neither. That is part of the big political game. In that case, it becomes the way it is written down at wikipedia, it is no longer a fact, but an opinion. Blogs are in my opinion generally not reliable, just sources to find links to specific topics. KimvdLinde 07:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on our personal opinion as to whether blogs are acceptible references. There's a section of WP:V which addresses the subject of blogs.[25] In sum, they're generally not acceptable, but there are exceptions. But anyway, until we see some specifics regarding these blog accusations all this is academic. -- noosphere 07:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

They are, specifically, acceptable as primary sources. If this were an article on the blogosphere's reaction to the 2004 election, they would have a place. But it is not. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Only acceptable as primary sources? Did you actually bother to read the part of the policy I linked to before you replied? I quote, "...self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." So, here is an explicitly stated exception that does not restrict citeable blogs only to those writing about themselves. -- noosphere 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, if you have a problem with a specific citation just point it out, and give us a specific reason why. Saying that every source in an article this size is faulty for some amorphous reason is completely non-productive.

The burden of proof is indeed on the person making the claim, as Voice of All points out. This is due to WP:V. But let's see what that policy actually says on the matter: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." There are references for every claim in that article. If you think otherwise it's you who have to tell us which specific claim is being made where (quote the article please) and show us that it has no references. Then the burden of proof (to provide references) will be with the person wishing for that unsourced part of the article to remain. So far you haven't quoted or referred to any specific part of the article. So I'm asking, where's the beef?

If you accuse the whole article of being unsourced, well, all I can say is that there're plenty of sources in that article, so it's patently false. If you claim sources are not reputable you have to provide some specifics as well. Then we'll address those and come to consensus. Otherwise, this entire discussion is completely useless. -- noosphere 07:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[26]. The article has changed somewhat since this version, but it gives an idea of how bad the sourcing was and is. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, many of your observations then were acted upon - but somehow you remain in objection to this article. Seems like you may want to leave it alone, if you can't find satisfaction in the wikipedia process vis-a-vis this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's look at the sources again, then. I've used some shorthand. Local means it's a local news source. Unless the story got picked up nationally or widely reported, one-off local news stories do not provide acceptable levels of reliability. POV means that the source is explicitly advancing an agenda.

2. The "4President Corporation." WTF? 2. OK. 3. Another instance of using local news sources instead of national news, suggesting that the story fizzled on a local level. 6. Local paper again. And, again - where's the follow-up? Was this a one-day story? That doesn't wash. 9. Local. 10. Local. 11. POV. 12. POV. 13. POV. 14-15. Blog. 18. Inacessable local. 19. Local. 20. POV. (Also, neither of these come close to supporting the claim that this is an AP correction) 22-24. POV. 25. POV. 27. POV. 28-29. Local. 30. POV. 31-32. Local. Also, by what REMOTE standard is this a notable fact to include? 35. POV. 36. POV. 38. POV. 40. POV. 41-42. Blogged accounts of Michael Moore activity. So much wrong with this. 44. Local. 45. POV. 48. POV. 49. OMG POV. 50. POV. 51. Local. 58. Not sure what this is, but it doesn't scream "reliable major media source."59. POV. Message board thread. This source is a joke. 60. POV. 61-62. Self-published POV. 63. WE ARE STILL CITING AN ICE CREAM MOGUL AS AN ELECTIONS EXPERT. 66-68. POV.

This, of course, notes only the numbered sources. Things like the Freeman analysis are their own problem. It also ignores the horrifying degree to which this article works through insinuation. It is a compendium of things that are barely relevent to the topic (Felon lists discarded months before the election that thus played no part), and things of marginal relevence (tire slashing by a few people). Phil Sandifer 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unless the story got picked up nationally or widely reported, one-off local news stories do not provide acceptable levels of reliability"? Please quote a policy in support of this assertion. -- noosphere 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't rules-lawyer. It is transparent that if a small, local news source asserts something substantial, and yet no major, notable news source with high-quality editorial practices pick it up, the news source is not acceptably reliable. Phil Sandifer 22:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't like the "4President Corporation" source? On what grounds? Saying "WTF" is just not good enough. Please provide specifics. -- noosphere 22:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are they? What editorial practices do they have? What evidence is there that they are an important source of national news? Phil Sandifer 22:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. So what precisely is your objection? -- noosphere 23:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, we're done here. Nice talking to you, but it's time to let some other people play. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So you have no objection to it? You were just asking rhetorical questions? -- noosphere 23:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As to your objections that some sources are POV... according to WP:NPOV itself, "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." WP:NPOV does not compel us to find some sort of "objective" source. It acknowledges that different sources may have different POVs. What we want to avoid is injecting POV in to the presentation or description of the source's POV, or taking sides. That's what WP:NPOV is about. It does not prohibit citing POV sources, or articles like the one on the Arab-Israeli conflict simply could not be written. -- noosphere 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, when I said "How credible are blogs and opposition sites?", I meant politcal opposition, like small sites that try to tear down specificic people/organizations.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate: The proper place for this discussion is on a VfD. Phil seems to be arguing, not that the article (or sub-articles) contain any POV, but that the existence of the articles themseleves is POV; that the articles don't belong on wikipedia. (as there existence is "undue weight". if that's what he believes, then the proper course of action would be to list those (or that) article(s) on AfD. However, before doing this, he should look to see if there have been any prior AfDs, and if so, what the vote distribution was. That will give him an idea of how likely a VfD is to succeed, and from that he can infer whether an AfD would be friviolous. Kevin Baas^talk 18:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the proper place to address undue weight is in the article itself. It needs almost a complete rewrite. It is very bead form to remove someone elses NPOV tag without addressing the underlying problem. This article relies and reports a very one-sided view. It also has a problem with reliable sources which is what you allude to above.--Tbeatty 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag says that the Neutrality is disputed and that is undeniable.--Tbeatty 19:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the full tag and understand the policy about using it. sweeping generalizations do not meet the requirements for using the tag. Kevin Baas^talk 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of the entirety of Wikipedia. Does that mean I get to slap every single article with a NPOV tag? -- noosphere 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to dispute all the articles, knock yourself out. This section outlines the problems with the entire article. It is entirely proper to tag it NPOV at the top of the article.--Tbeatty 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I think cutting down the article, removing badly sourced statements, and merging in the sub-articles would fix the NPOV problems in this article, and therefore suggest it. Phil Sandifer 21:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

merging and splitting are not matters of POV/NPOV, they are matters of article length. badly sourced statements would be removed for the sake of factual accuracy, not POV. cutting down the article does not effect POV, it effects article length. Kevin Baas^talk 22:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

POV can obviously be expressed through what material is presented, and I believe that to be the case for this article in particular, thus removing badly sourced statements is a matter of NPOV. Arkon 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't follow logically as your use of the word "thus" implies. the policy is to add, rather than subtract, to balance out POV. removing unverifiable statements is a matter of factual accuracy (verifiability). Kevin Baas^talk 00:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually it follows quite well. From the NPOV policy: "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." This, again is the case by what material is being presented and who it comes from. In particular their relevance. The undue weight section is also obviously relevant. Arkon 15:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises of your argument. And see my user page for my personal philosophy with regard to neutrality, which is consistent w/wikipedia policy. Kevin Baas^talk 23:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing statements might be necessary for "undue weight." In that sense, removing the least well sourced statements are preferable to the best sourced statements. Considering that it's all fringe stuff, picking the least well sourced statements is a tough choice. --Tbeatty 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is a matter of proporitionality. the goal of which is to maximize informativeness, interestingness, importance, and verifiability. (a compound metric) to do optimize this, one works towards making each unit of space in the article about as i,i,i,& v as any other - this is what i mean by proportion. weight is an inter-spatial consideration. then, when by such consideration one discovers one needs to expand or contract a space, one can apply the same analysis inside the offending space. This can go on recursively, until one gets to the level where one might, for instance, remove sentences with low significance or verifiability. Since the irregularities and controversies were, with some notable exceptions, not well reported by the mainstream press (much like the issues with WMD intelligence in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq), many of the sources are alternative or non-U.S. media, some of them are congressmen, etc., much like the issues with WMD intelligence in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. Kevin Baas^talk 01:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Prior to the publication of those doubts in mainstream media, the WMD intelligence did not belong in Wikipedia either, even though it, in hindsight, turned out to be true. Phil Sandifer 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we finally discovered the core of the problem: we're on different planets! Kevin Baas^talk 00:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Which has been my concern all along. I agree with you that the WMD intelligence was crap. I agree with you that the Diebold machines are a massive scandal that should never have been allowed. However, my agreement and belief that these things are true does not play into my belief on whether they should be in Wikipedia. Whether they can be confirmed in what are widely seen as the reputable and important sources for national news does. We pick verifiability over truth. If you can't phrase the claims in verifiable terms, from reputable sources, then it doesn't matter how true they are. Phil Sandifer 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing in any Wikipedia policy that says that only the mainstream media can be used as sources. -- noosphere 00:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS screams caution about the sort of sourcing this article uses, on the other hand. Phil Sandifer 00:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are, actually, plenty of mainstream media sources in this article. So you should be more approving than you let on. And most of your specific objections (if I can use that phrase to refer to single-word objections) to some sources in this article were either that they were "local" or "POV", neither of which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. I've raised this point numerous times now and you've consistently ignored it. If you've got any specific problems with specific sources, problems that can be supported by specific Wikipedia policies, then by all means raise them. Sweeping generalization, however, will get us nowhere. -- noosphere 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is, I think, the fundamental problem - you stop your considerations at what is forbidden, whereas I look on to see what is discouraged and what is encouraged. Phil Sandifer 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The fundamental problem is that you're mostly making general allegations and speaking of the article in the abstract whereas we should be discussing specific allegations about specific sources in respect to specific policies. Otherwise we're just going to be going in circles. -- noosphere 03:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Spinning off discussion

OK, since most of my explanations are now buried in a pretty pointless discussion with Noosphere, who seems uninterested in moving beyond rules-lawyering, I'm extracting my main points so that people can actually address them. Phil Sandifer 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

The combined length of these articles is around 500 k/b. That is roughly double the coverage of the rest of the election. So our total coverage on the Presidential election is 1/3 coverage of the election, and 2/3 coverage of controversy and irregularities. WP:NPOV states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." Now, considering that the idea that there is any significant controversy or irregularity in the 2004 election is a minority viewpoint, the fact that we have nearly half a meg of text on the subject, and that 2/3 of our election coverage is on the subject, this strikes me as a grotesque violation of the undue weight policy. Phil Sandifer 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the undue weight argument is garbage. If there are properly sourced facts that are significant and salient to the topic, there is no good reason to leave it out other than minimize what you see as a black stain of falsehood on Wikipedia. --kizzle 23:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You may think that, but the NPOV policy seems not to. Phil Sandifer 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see no policy that states that material should be left it out so as to minimize what Phil Sandifer sees as a black stain of falsehood on Wikipedia. I do however, think that kizzle's criteria of "significant" and "salient" are a good estimate of how the dueness of space in an article is weighted, according to WP:NPOV policy. If I recall correctly, it uses the terms interesting and important, which, to me, covers about the same grounds as signifcant and salient. Also, the article should be addressed in it's particulars. one should remove insignificant info and add significant info, and if in the end, the article is a stub, well then it should be deleted. Kevin Baas^talk 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow. This may be because you are not actually responding to any of my points. `Phil Sandifer 00:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are basing your hypothesis on a false premise. Your point was: "the NPOV seems not to [think that]" "If there are properly sourced facts that are significant and salient to the topic, there is no good reason to leave it out other than minimize what you see as a black stain of falsehood on Wikipedia."

because of the conjunction in the sentence ("..., there...") there were two things that you said the NPOV seems not to think. I addressed these two things independantly in relation to the NPOV and what they seem to or not to think. But maybe I missed your point entirely. Kevin Baas^talk 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Regardless of whether I find the article to be a black stain of falsehood (Since it is immaterial), there exist reasons to remove salient and sourced information - if they are original research, if they give undue weight to a particular point of view, etc. Salient and sourced are among the minimum requirements for inclusion, but they are not the only minimum requirements. A good example of this is John Byrne, where a lot of careful debate has gone into how much to put into the "controversies" section. He gets involved in a lot of feuds. Reporting all of them is excessive and POV, though. A similar principle applies here. Phil Sandifer 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And I believe "considering that the idea that there is any significant controversy or irregularity in the 2004 election is a minority viewpoint" is using the wrong metric. it is a minority viewpoint because it was so underreported, that not a lot of ppl know about it. that's why we have encyclopedias. the metric should be, rather, if the majority of people who know the information in the article believe that the information is significant. And there is plenty of evidence of what the minority view of that populace is and what the majority view is in the three VfD's this article has gone through. However, if you still are unconvinced, I suggest listing this article on VfD. Kevin Baas^talk 01:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Wikipedia does not exist to fix problems of underrepresentation. You may be thinking of the media. Phil Sandifer 01:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about underrepresentation? And what do you believe is wrong with my argument? Kevin Baas^talk 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or underreporting, for that matter. Phil Sandifer 01:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I forgot that I used that word, which is similiar enough. Suffice it to say, it was not my point. I was just using it to demonstrate that your argument seemed to assume that, in general, people were informed about the issue and therefore could have an opinion (view), and that one cannot assume that. By your response I gather that you do not object to that assessment. My argument was that significance of information can only be judged by people who have said information. The only practical samples for that, that I'm aware of, are the VfD's for this article. Kevin Baas^talk 03:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing a different point than I am. My point is that, for whatever reason (As the reason doesn't matter at all for this point), the viewpoint that there is a significant confluence of controversies and irregularities in the 2004 election is an extreme minority viewpoint. Until this viewpoint has become more substantial than it is now, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to provide this depth of coverage, as it suggests falsely that the view is important. In fact, it seems that this viewpoint has been in sharp decline, being a major issue in the month or so following the election, but now, 18 months, having basically faded from the view of all but a few. Phil Sandifer 14:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow you completely missed the part where I pointed out the flawed assumption of that logic. Somehow you missed it again when I reiterated it. Kevin Baas^talk 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a major issue immediately following the election. As such it deserves to be documented by Wikipedia. Anyway, the controversies and irregularities made the news on numerous occasions. That is enough notability for there to be an article on them. The two VfDs on this article have made that amply clear.

Whether a majority of people in the world think the issues described in this article are important or are even aware of them is quite beside the point. The majority of people in the world may never have heard of and don't consider Xenu, the Polish-Soviet War, 3D Monster Maze, or Bulbasaur particularly significant or important. However, not only does Wikipedia have articles on them, but they have become featured articles, some on Wikipedia's front page.

The fact is that this article meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and that's what matters. -- noosphere 16:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin - by all means, please iterate your point again then. Phil Sandifer 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep it simple: Significance of information can only be judged by people who have said information. Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The contrary would be absurd. One would have to say: "I don't think __(there is no subject to this sentence)__ is significant." Kevin Baas^talk 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Unacceptable sources

Over half the numbered sources in this article seem to me inadequate - either because they are heavily biased sources being reported as facts, instead of POVs (And this is before the question of undue weight even comes in), or because they are local news stories that give no evidence of ever having been meaningfully picked up on a national level, suggesting high levels of triviality.

2. The "4President Corporation." What even remotely recommends this source as reliable? 2. OK. 3. Another instance of using local news sources instead of national news, suggesting that the story fizzled on a local level. 6. Local paper again. And, again - where's the follow-up? Was this a one-day story? That doesn't wash. 9. Local. 10. Local. 11. POV. 12. POV. 13. POV. 14-15. Blog. 18. Inacessable local. 19. Local. 20. POV. (Also, neither of these come close to supporting the claim that this is an AP correction) 22-24. POV. 25. POV. 27. POV. 28-29. Local. 30. POV. 31-32. Local. Also, by what REMOTE standard is this a notable fact to include? 35. POV. 36. POV. 38. POV. 40. POV. 41-42. Blogged accounts of Michael Moore activity. So much wrong with this. 44. Local. 45. POV. 48. POV. 49. OMG POV. 50. POV. 51. Local. 58. Not sure what this is, but it doesn't scream "reliable major media source."59. POV. Message board thread. This source is a joke. 60. POV. 61-62. Self-published POV. 63. WE ARE STILL CITING AN ICE CREAM MOGUL AS AN ELECTIONS EXPERT. 66-68. POV. Phil Sandifer 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you flesh this out into a bulleted list, linked to the sources, please? That would make it much easier to discuss. Kevin Baas^talk 21:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

They correspond to the link numbers in the articles. I do not think it is excessive work to go look at it, since this is now the second time I have drawn up this list. Phil Sandifer 23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that now that a lot of references were added the link numbers you mentioned no longer correspond to those that exist in the article today, don't you? This is why it's important to provide a quote from the article, some context, the link itself, and something more substantial as to why you don't like the sources than "POV" or "Local" (neither of which are prohibited by Wikipedia policies, by the way... NPOV applies to how articles present the opinions in the sources, not to the sources themselves, which can be and inevitably are POV... and no policy prohibits using local sources). -- noosphere 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Innuendo and original research

It also ignores the horrifying degree to which this article works through insinuation. It is a compendium of things that are barely relevent to the topic (Felon lists discarded months before the election that thus played no part), and things of marginal relevence (tire slashing by a few people). The result is to arrange a wealth of minor facts in such a way as to try to paint a picture of large-scale controversy and irregularities. This violates WP:NOR, specifically the section about "novel interpretations." Phil Sandifer 23:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree w/your analysis. But I agree w/you on the two clear and exact sections of the article that you brought up. I couldn't find "felon list" in the article, but I tagged the section with tire slashing in it. There's a long history of discussion on that section, (for instance, the first section on this page) you might want to take a look through the archives to get some perspective of the state of affairs with regard to the content. Kevin Baas^talk 20:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the felon list section a day or two ago. Phil Sandifer 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.4president.org/ec2004.htm

Ok, link #2 of the article: http://www.4president.org/ec2004.htm. It gives an overview of the steps in the elections, nothing more and nothing less. Nothing to be disputed. Considered POV by User:Phil Sandifer: 2. The "4President Corporation." WTF?. I am puzzeled. KimvdLinde 23:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not POV - just not an acceptable reliable source. Find an actual reputable place for this information. Simple enough, no? I mean, election procedure is pretty widely known. You should be able to find a source that looks legitimate, and where anyone can explain why they are reliable. Phil Sandifer 23:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, YOU were complaining about POV. If this is just not the best source and the content is not disputed, why do you not provide a better link that provides the same information but is a website that you like better? KimvdLinde 23:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not my job. And I did not refer to 4President as POV - I have no idea who the hell they are. That's the problem. Phil Sandifer 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, Phil, when you're right, you're right. That source is just not acceptible. It does not meet the standards of a reliable source. The claim that it supports is, "On January 6, 2005, the votes were counted by Congress and the results were certified." That claim, along with the unreliable source has now been removed. I hope that pleases you. Cheers! -- noosphere 23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Classic. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I say...

I'm going to get a lot of flak on this from ms. freisling and k-baas, but if it were up to me we'd scrap the entire article and begin writing it from scratch with Merecat, Phil Sandifer, and the rest of the doubting thomases analyzing sources as we put them up. But just a thought. I expect a full veto. --kizzle 23:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No flak. Just disagree. When you actually look at the article, you can see ways to improve it. Only the merest efforts at working this article editorially have been undertaken, amidst the political attacks of all stripes. The process hasn't really even begun, much less failed. It is possible to address these topics without vitriol and ill-will, and be focused on fact, but it takes good will. That, and not the quality of the content, is what's really at issue here. This article is a lens. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know that all I've been doing for the last year and a half is read up on this shit, so I'm definetely for an article. While there are some sources that need to be pruned, I just don't like the layout and what information is focused on, the Ohio article hasn't changed much since KB wrote it the three months following the election, I just feel that we'd get more accomplished by a clean sweep rather than picking apart each sentence. I feel like these articles need a fresh new look, not just fixing what is there currently. It would be fun, I could use a lot of lexis sources I have down and mainstream papers so that we don't get challenges like every week on the validity of the sources on these pages. But, I understand your point of view. --kizzle 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please - write this article in your userspace or something. A legitimate subject expert using real sources like Lexis and mainstream papers is what's needed. The current articles formed organically in a haze of news sources many of which petered out but never got removed. It's the sort of thing that demonstrates one of the problems with the Wiki-method for current events - things get added before perspective exists. Phil Sandifer 23:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could do that, I'll put up a link in a few days with what I have, Phil, Ryan, anyone else is welcome to contribute. --kizzle 23:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree - this article is currently rotten to the core. Scrap it and the sub-articles, and build something that addresses the core and notable issues. Phil Sandifer 23:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Scrap the entire article and proceed sentence by sentence and source by source? We'd never get past the first paragraph. Anyway, while Phil Sandifer and Merecat may not have been around during the genesis of this article plenty of other people with similar agendas were. Getting most any source or claim in to this article has been a constant battle, and starting from scratch isn't going to do anything but start the battle from scratch and waste a lot of good research.

Anyway, say we do this and a year or two later have an article that meets the approval of all the editors who've worked on it so far. New editors will come along and demand the very same thing. Some part of the article won't please them, so why not start from scratch?

The fact is that the article as it stands represents the consensus so far. New editors should make specific objections, not attempt to force everyone to ditch all the work that went in to it just because they weren't around to object to the every source at its inception or since they couldn't convince other editors to make the changes they'd liked earlier. That way leads madness.

I do appreciate your trying to find some middle ground here. I just don't think this is it. -- noosphere 23:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"It is assumed that editors working toward consensus are pursuing a consensus that is consistent with Wikipedia's basic policies and principles - especially NPOV. At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is POV, inaccurate, or libelous. This is not a consensus." - Wikipedia:Consensus Phil Sandifer 23:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think everybody here knows that, Phil. Kevin Baas^talk 23:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, I don't think it is possible for me to agree more. Arkon 15:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I ended up doing almost a full rewrite of an entire section: the vote suppression section, in attempt to resolve a balance dispute. the dispute is no more. I think rewrites of sections is a good comprimise. I guess if one is really that ambitious though, they could try a full rewrite and put it up for vote. that's a lot of work for a high risk. Kevin Baas^talk 20:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags and Thanks.

Thank you for attempting to participate in the wikipedia process, Phil/Snowspinner. The content you marked with 'fact' tags should be removed if unsubstantiated. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I think that sources should be found for such statements so as to replace Weasel words for non-common knowledge like "it has been estimated", by who? An anti-Bush blog for all I know? Maybe there are good sourced out there, but I think it best, per WP:CITE, that sources be added for them. It should not be that difficult anyways.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

By saying 'wait a minute', I infer you disagree with my post - but your comment isn't in disagreement with mine. Accordingly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Can you explain? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes...nevermind...I see, silly me :). I read it too quickly and saw "tags" and "removed". Nevermind then.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the issues here but I was asked to comment. At first glance, the page is difficult to read because it lacks narrative flow, and it also badly needs reliable, secondary sources. At nearly 7,000 words long, it has only five separate references, only two of which are to mainstream media, and the NYT one looks like an opinion piece. It might be worth setting up a draft page to start working on a new version, making sure that every edit is sourced from the start, preferably to the mainstream media or to scholarly sources. The title also needs to be changed and probably shouldn't have the word "irregularities" in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Paper vs plastic

"Oddly, though, as statistics experts Steven Freeman and Josh Mittledorf noted in an article for In These Times, analyzing the data provided by exit polling companies Mitofsky and Edison, "only in precincts that used old-fashioned, hand-counted paper ballots did the official count and the exit polls fall within the normal sampling margin of error." In those places where computers were used to count the vote, oddly the exit polls showed Kerry winning but the voting machines had Bush winning."[27][28] -- noosphere 06:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oddly is POV. And the reader deserves to know that In These Times is an explicitly political publication, not an impartial news source in the quote. Better would be "In These Times, an anti-corporate magazine that describes itself as "dedicated to informing and analyzing popular movements for social, environmental and economic justice," claims that the exit polls that showed Kerry winning were accurate in precincts that used traditional ballots, whereas they were inaccurate in precincts that used computer ballots, suggesting that the electronic votes may have been tampered with. This analysis was not repeated or reported by any more mainstream sourecs." Phil Sandifer 17:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this repeated in lots of independant experiments on the internet, with the same results. Kevin Baas^talk 17:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A "political publication"? When the NYT is described as part of the "liberal media", what isn't a "political publication"? And as for "impartial news sources", I challenge you to find a single one anywhere. Besides, these sources meet WP:RS, which says "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion". So even though the word "oddly" is POV, it's quite acceptable as part of the article, since we'd be quoting the source. We wouldn't be presenting it as Wikipedia's opinion, but the source's opinion, the presentation of which is quite acceptable.

Your suggested phrasing fails to make it clear that it is part of the source. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh? You didn't notice the quotation marks around it? -- noosphere 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, saying "this analysis was not repeated or reported by any more mainstream sources" would be original research. As such, it would violate Wikipedia policy. -- noosphere 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a gross misunderstanding of the point of WP:NOR, though not one that surprises me, I confess. Phil Sandifer 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"though not one that surprises me, I confess" - Keep it civil, Phil. Do we preface any link to Fox News with "Fox News, the media arm of the GOP, blah blah"? --kizzle 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Numerous people on this page are arguing with a good faith and sensible understanding of Wikipedia's rules - they understand the concerns and the point of the rules, and are willing to work towards that to the best of their ability. Noosphere has not appeared to be among them, as this flagrant attempt to contort the NPOV policy shows. And if our only source for something is Fox News, I, at least, would be inclined to tag it with a comment regarding their political bias. Phil Sandifer 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would not be so inclined. I would think that the internal link to Fox News would be adequate for any reader interested in the alleged biases of the organization. Kevin Baas^talk 21:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, as you have done numerous times during the last few days, you've accused me of distorting the NPOV policy, or of going against its spirit, without providing any evidence whatsoever. I quote policy to you, and you accuse me of wikilawyering. Yet you're unable to show anything in policy to support your own opinion. Just accusations without even an attempt to substantiate them via policy. Continuing to make unsubstantiated accusations will not lead us to consensus. So I urge you to reconsider your approach. -- noosphere 21:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point - I'll return to ignoring everything you say. Phil Sandifer 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, the fact is that "this analysis was not repeated or reported by any more mainstream sources" is a claim. Therefore it needs to be supported with a citation in order for it to be anything more than original research. If you think requiring claims to be supported by sources is a misunderstanding of WP:NOR, why did you add a million fact tags to the article? -- noosphere 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No - if you use a crappy source (Which that source is), and there is no corroboration to be found elsewhere, that needs to be mentioned. Without a balancing claim like that, simply put, the claim is too weak to go in at all. Phil Sandifer 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in any Wikipedia policy that prohibits a claim from going in as long as its properly sourced. Whether there is other corraboration of that claim or not is itself a claim. So, if you can provide a source for your claim, we'll put it in. Otherwise, it's unsourced original research, and violates Wikipedia policy. -- noosphere 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

How to initiate an NPOV debate?

(copied from Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute) If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

Please read the policy and become familiar with it. Kevin Baas^talk 20:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Did that. Did you miss the "NPOV dispute" numbered 27 in the discussion? --Tbeatty 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

huh? I was refering to the "Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." part. the first sentence there, I didn't think that Phil was being clear and specific enough to enable a discussion on the parts of the article that he believes can be improved. Kevin Baas^talk 18:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Excessively minority views

I am going through this article and removing things for which no evidence is provided beyond a primary source. I am only doing this for sources that do not seem to me to be prima faciae notable, and for which no claims of notability are made in the article. These views are not significant enough to require reporting viat he NPOV policy. That a few people got together and formed an activist group then put up a statistical analysis does not make that view worth reporting in an encyclopedia (c.f. US Vote Counts). Again, all of this could readily be fixed if this article were written using more reliable sources, and especially if a good secondary source regarding the views of various groups on the 2004 election could be found and presented instead of trying to stitch this together from POV primary sources of questionable notability. Phil Sandifer 15:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only is that nearly incomprehensible grammar to understand, you may find your deletions (the removal of information not due to it's accuracy, but it's source) reverted, as you haven't provided a valid, comprehensible reason for it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the paragraph is difficult to understand? I am happy to clarify. Phil Sandifer 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is quite unnecessarily tangled and arcane. A good editor would bounce it.

Clarified. Thanks for explaining it so I could do something about it. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

US Count Votes is a very significant source. It is an essential part of the dialog about exit polls, and a neccessary balance to Mitofsky's hypothesis paper. Kevin Baas^talk 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that US Count Votes makes a point you think is important. The question is what speaks for their significance beyond the point they make? Why are they a notable source? Phil Sandifer 16:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because they are a key player in the controversy that we are describing. A narrative does not leave out the main actors. Kevin Baas^talk 18:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing through selective deletionism

As it stands, your attribution of 'a few people who got together and formed an activist group' to whatever source you choose is your own POV, and not an objective basis for removal of information. Facts, please. If you have concerns about the information, try to corroborate or disprove it. To seek it's immediate deletion without that effort is to pursue POV over fact. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Perhaps if it were rephrased without the accusations of bad faith and in a way that actually addresses the point that there is no reason to believe that US Vote Counts represents a significant point of view, I might have something to say? Phil Sandifer 16:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kathy Dopp, one of the founders of that group, is certainly notable in the realm of the 2004 election irregularities investigation and reform. Your objection is due to partisan causes, not factual ones. Your desire appears to be to silence groups that don't meet your POV, not to inform the reader with the relevant information about the relevant individuals and events of this controversy. That's my point. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So your point is a personal attack? Phil Sandifer 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, my point is - an editor should understand the factual nature and relevance of a source before they paint it with a 'wingnut' brush, lest they get some of it on themselves. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say wingnut. I said small activist group. Which, from all appearances, they are. What they say is irrelevent if they are not a notable source, and there's no reason in the article or on Wikipedia to think that they are. It's not my job to do that homework for you. If you want the information in the article, it has to be sourced better.

Also, on a personal level, I would appreciate the cessation of your efforts to divine my political affiliations. Phil Sandifer 16:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to have done your homework for you, to say nothing of noosphere and others who have been returning the deleted citations to the sections you have now contested (including your 'fact' tagging of the day of the counting of electoral votes). As far as the rest is concerned, just focus on the article content, please. And try to do some, even cursory research before you throw your edits around with edit comments like 'US Vote Counts is not a notable POV'. Try to be more informed before making such blanket, false statements. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is both incivil and inaccurate - it is not my job to take sources that have been cited in ways that in no way establish their relevance and to divine and intuit their significance. I am not obliged to read the tea leaves to figure this article out. It is the job of those who want the sources to stay in the article. Personally, I'd like to see this article reduced to mainstream media sources and peer-reviewed publications, as I think is necessary for an area like US politics where such sources are readily available. Phil Sandifer 17:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is civil and accurate. You are deleting material to push your own pov, on a controversal page, and it is disputed, and rather than discussing it and meeting the burden of proof that the change is justified, you are simply engaging in an edit war. This is a perfectly civil and accurate description of your behavior. Kevin Baas^talk 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please to not presume to know my POV. That I disagree with you on the presentation of this article is not evidence of my POV, and it is a sad assumption of bad faith to say that it is. Phil Sandifer 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just making an observation. Kevin Baas^talk 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, your criteria are inaccurate and your argument shifts. It is not uncivil to point out that your objection to USCountVotes on grounds of notability is inaccurate. The field of election irregularities investigation is full of real, factual, corroborated and truthful accounts by citizens, private groups and small media outlets alike. Kathy Dopp is indeed a notable figure herein, and her groups' reports are included with good reason. Your dream vision of the article would only portray a small, and incomplete view of the facts of the episode, and so I would oppose it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My dream vision of the article would portray the verifiable facts that come from sources that can be shown to be notable outside of their limited context. If you find this worth opposing, I am deeply sorry to hear it. Phil Sandifer 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and once again you shift your argument. I made clear what I was speaking about, don't obfuscate it with rhetoric, please. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the POV you want to push, USCountVotes is a key player in the controversy, and as such belongs in the article. The article is not supposed to be part of the controversy - and we shouldn't bring the controversy into the realm of edit wars. We should describe the controversy as it exists. As it exists, USCountVotes is a key player. Kevin Baas^talk 18:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your say-so is not sufficient evidence that they are a key player. Find me the external source that shows that they're a key player. Find me the NYT or Boston Globe or Washington Post or LA Times or Chicago Tribune or so on and so forth source that talks about them. Find me the journal their findings were published in. Find me something other than your say-so. Phil Sandifer 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just off the cuff, here she is on Democracy Now. [29]

Anything not from the openly partisan press? Phil Sandifer 15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem. Kevin Baas^talk 16:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you do some research? It's kind of annoying to have someone who doesn't seem to know anything about the controversy come here and fight about everything that they know nothing about. there are plenty of resources. take a look at the timeline article. read thru it. i've read every single article in there. We wrote this article while the controversy was ongoing, and we paid attention to everything we could via the internet (including google news searches). that is the basis for my understanding. i'm sure uscountvotes is in there a few times. Kevin Baas^talk 04:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem - you stitched together an article out of current events from any news source you could find. That's no way to write an article. My objections are not factual ones - as I said elsewhere, I am not saying USCountVotes is a crappy source. I am saying that nothing on their page and nothing in the article explains to me why they are notable. It is not, in fact, my duty to fix every error I find. It is quite acceptable for me to notice errors, tag them, mention them on the talk page, and expect someone who will have an easier time fixing it through greater familiarity with the material to do it. And it's kind of shocking to be so viciously flamed for this.

Also, while I have you here, I asked you a question on the exit polling page that I think is an important one, and I'm looking forward to your answer. Phil Sandifer 15:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

now you're shifting your argument again. pick one and stick with it. Kevin Baas^talk 15:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you please consider, instead of making bad-faith dismissals like this, engaging the points I raise? You say to discuss things on the talk page, then ignore the points being raised there. You refuse to let articles be tagged, because discussion and consensus need to be reached, but you simply ignore half the points raised in those discussions. This is obstructionist and counter-productive. I am sure that this is not your intention, so why do it? Phil Sandifer 16:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just the thing. I did engage the points you made, then you shifted your argument, then I engaged those points, then you shifted your argument back to the points that I originally engaged. I'm not up for running around in circles. Kevin Baas^talk 21:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Section disputes

HAVA Section

Calling the Florida election a debacle off the bat is POV. The use of innuendo, such as suggesting that the people who created the voting machines' political affiliations are in some way a part of some irregularity, is particularly egregious. Phil Sandifer 15:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the florida election was certainly a pain and a crisis for a lot of ppl. It was certainly irregular on the side of things going wrong rather than right. that is fact. if think you can find a better word, give it a shot. But don't slap a POV tag on it for that, try fixing it first, and if there's a dispute, discuss it, and if the dispute doesn't resolve in due time, then slap a tag on it. Kevin Baas^talk 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The person who discovers an error is not immediately compelled to fix it. Tagging it with a dispute tag and explaining it on the talk page so someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject can fix it is, in fact, a valid response. Phil Sandifer 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, I welcome the amount of effort you have put forth to try to improve this article. There are many mainstream newspapers that refer to the 2000 Florida election in a very negative light, perhaps spend 5-10 minutes doing a google or lexis search? If you can't find one after that, then each of us will try the same amount of time trying to find a mainstream source that we can use to quote so we can avoid editorializing the description of the Florida election ourselves. --kizzle 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The voting machines affiliation is a description of a controversy that exists in the real world. There are ample references to verify this, including members of congress and bills introduced into congress. Kevin Baas^talk 18:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it needs to be explained like that, though. Something like "The heads of all of these companies are Republicans, leading X to claim Y [Z]" Where X is notable and Z is a reputable source. Phil Sandifer 16:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

re:bills introduced: I might be getting this confused w/something else, I'll have to re-read the bill i'm thinking of. Kevin Baas^talk 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Exit Polls

US Vote Counts does not appear to me to be a significant POV, and thus should not be reported. Phil Sandifer 15:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not true. See above. Kathy Dopp's group 'US Count Votes' is indeed a notable organization, and she a notable figure, in the realm of (2004) election irregularities investigation and reform. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• The organization is made up of notable people
• The organization was a key player in the controversy
  • Says who? Phil Sandifer 16:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • says ppl who were involved in the controversy. if you want to send a letter in to the democratic staff of the u.s. house judiciary committee, for example, be my guest. Do you, who have not researched the matter, actually presume to know better? The report was posted all over the place on the internet when it came out. It's probably still linked from everywhere. I'm sure it's cited on the congressional record, too. Kevin Baas^talk 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • A letter to the House Judiciary Committee would not provide a verifiable citation. I think perhaps you misunderstand me still. I am not trying to argue that there were no controversies or irregularities. I do not know, and do not particularly care. I am trying to argue that this article needs to comply with policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. For these things, only published reports from reliable sources matter. Not your say-so, not unpublished letters from hypothetical representatives. Published reports from major sources. That's what you need for this article. Phil Sandifer 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please read my entire post before responding. Thank you. Kevin Baas^talk 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I read your entire post. I only responded to part of it. Phil Sandifer 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Then we'll consider the matter settled. Kevin Baas^talk 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• As evidenced by newspaper articles in the timeline article
  • Where in the timeline? You surely don't expect me to read all 524. Phil Sandifer 16:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I did. You can just skim through the timeline, i'm sure it's in the description/title of the article(s).
      • Actually, USCountVotes is only mentioned once, and links to their own paper. Phil Sandifer 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I remember more than one article on uscountvotes, and they have more than one paper. Kevin Baas^talk 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• The ucountvotes gives required balance to Mitofsky's hypothesis papers.
  • Only required if the uscountvotes is a notable viewpoint. Phil Sandifer 16:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe you are misrepresenting the WP policy on balance. In any case, the uscountvotes' reports represent the POV of a significant majority of those aware of the controversy. Kevin Baas^talk 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • And we're back to square one, where I say "Find me some secondary citations instead of primary ones from reliable and mainstream sources then." Phil Sandifer 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't follow. I don't think you follow. Kevin Baas^talk 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• The uscountvotes is the most authoritative and valid scientific analysis avialable for these aspect of the exit polls. (including the famous/infamous reluctant voter hypothesis) Kevin Baas^talk 16:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The moment you declare a perspective the most authoritative and valid, you're POV pushing. Phil Sandifer 16:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • • Of the comparable scientific analysises (which, oddly enough, does not include Mitofsky), it is the only one done by more than one or two people. Kevin Baas^talk 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • And? Phil Sandifer 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • That's why i called it the most authoritive (pertinent) scientific analsysis available. Kevin Baas^talk 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
            • You have an interesting definition of authoritativeness. Phil Sandifer 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
              • How so? would you consider an analysis done by one or two non-notable people (probably students) more authorative than the one done by a number of notable professors? How is it interesting that I don't? Kevin Baas^talk 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Which he is allowed to do on talk pages. The USCountsVotes, while not the most authoritative IMHO, is a key voice in the exit poll debate among others such as MysteryPollster, Elizabeth Liddle, Rick Brady of StonesCryOut, and others. While I do not agree with their conclusions, the fact that they have amassed a dozen people all with impressive educational backgrounds renders them pretty significant in my mind. I know you mean well, Phil, but if you are not familliar with a group, event, or fact, please do not make a knee-jerk declaration of it being not notable. If you have questions about the notability or authority of certain groups or events discussed within these pages, I think you'll find your co-editors more than willing to provide sources and citations to help justify such passages being included. --kizzle 17:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Sure. But if "it adheres to the True POV" is his reason for why something should go in an article, that's not good. As for backgrounds, I'm not quite willing to take educational backgrounds as grounds - Jack Thompson has an imperssive educational background, but is a complete quack. Which is why WP:RS demands peer review or other major publications on related fields.
        • Then what about the Edison/Mitofsky reports? They haven't been peer-reviewed. Indeed, they cannot be, because they don't provide any of the data or methods they use to come to their hypothesize; there is nothing to review. By the same logic, that should be removed from the article. But this is not an academic article (for instance, it's not an article on the gaussian distribution), it is an article that documents a controversy. Thus the criteria is different, such that, I contend, both POV's should be included, even though one of them is unverifiable. Kevin Baas^talk 21:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • That they were the official reports contracted by the exit pollsters establishes their notability. And you can contend unverifiable POVs should be included all you want, but WP:V is going to shut you down every time you try. Phil Sandifer 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
      • As for the willingness of editors, I'm still waiting for some citations on USCountVotes. Or on anything from Kevin, actually. And I've certainly not meant to declare any sources non-notable in a knee-jerk way. I've meant to point out that the article is not giving context for its notability. My apologies if this has been unclear. Phil Sandifer 17:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • • Apology accepted. I hope it remains your goal to 'point out' what the article is lacking, rather than mass tag and revert wars. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Tagging is one of the generally accepted ways of pointing out where the article is lacking, and I have not reverted anything but tag insertion. Phil Sandifer 20:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
        • What about the fact that if you do a google search on "USCountsVotes" or "USCV", they are referenced in an SSRC paper you should really check out, MysteryPollster, MediaMatters, Randi Rhodes, and Michael Moore? --kizzle 17:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
          • This is considerably more helpful - it would probably be more solid if we were to cite one of those sources instead of using the primary source, though. Phil Sandifer 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't believe so, as I would much rather use a primary source than a secondary source, it lessens the signal-to-noise ratio. --kizzle 22:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, but secondary sources are preferred by WP:NOR for most purposes - and I think this is a case where that's particularly important - especially if we use mainstream secondary sources, thus basically eliminating noise entirely. Phil Sandifer 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
                • I must voice my strong disagreement with your characterization of simply quoting a paper written by a dozen PhD's later referenced to by Michael Moore, MediaMatters, Randi Rhodes, MysteryPollster, the SSRC paper, among others, as violating WP:NOR. We should quote the USCV paper but also quote the MysteryPollster contrasting pieces, the Elizabeth Liddle WPE paper "Febble's Fancy Function", Mitofsky Jan 19 report, Stephen A. Freeman paper, and possibly the Jonathan Simon piece on exit polls in order to give the reader a complete picture. Note that I am not trying to push a POV in this case, the MysteryPollster and Liddle papers do a pretty good job of refuting much of the USCV papers, I just would prefer not to censor one side of the debate and leave the other in. --kizzle 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Racial Discrimination

Who is Greg Palast, and why is his POV being reported? The article makes no claims of notability, he does not have an article - what is substantial about his views? This section contains no responses at all to the allegations it raises. Only the POV of those who believe vote suppression took place is represented. Phil Sandifer 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Palast is also a notable figure in the investigation into (2004)'s election irregularities. I can certainly say that Greg Palast is another noteworthy figure in this context. He is an independent investigator and reporter and he has written a number of articles and books, and conudcted a number of investigations into 2004 and other election irregularities. It is true that he is unabashedly in opposition to the Republican party/Right wing, etc., but he is certainly a notable figure in the context of investigation and reporting of 2004's Election irregularities. And he is certainly not alone in his view that there was a systematic effort to suppress votes, so his POV should be easy to corroborate or replace with something more 'mainstream' as you say. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is his notability in this context established? Phil Sandifer 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this? [30] Or even the Greg_Palast Wikipedia page? Please. To object without even an effort at knowing is to disrupt. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - perhaps some of those descriptions should actually go in the article? Also, you misunderstand my comments if you take them as objections - if I objected, my statement would be "Greg Palast is a nobody who's not worth citing." I asked a question, because the article did not give me enough information - Greg Palast was not wikilinked, it described him only as a progressive. I am also a progressive, but doubt my notability on this issue. Likewise, I questioned his. Phil Sandifer 20:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Your cause for mass tagging the articles, then revert warring the tags, then revert warring this article's tag, then section tagging, was because it didn't explain more about Palast? And your response, as a self-professed 'Progressive' is to slap the article with tags, rather than even read the WIkipedia article about him? I'm sorry, that's too much argument-shifting for me to view with credulity. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be taking the use of NPOV tags as rather a graver insult than I am intending it. Phil Sandifer 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Greg Palast is an intrepid investigator and reporter (in Europe, if I'm not mistaken). the section contains no responses because, as far as anybody who's edited the article before is aware, they don't exist. Kevin Baas^talk 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In Europe? Does he regularly investigate American issues, or is he working outside of his field?

He's American. Do some research at the above wikipedia article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess there are more obvious URLs.. http://www.gregpalast.com/aboutme.cfm. for instance, the ".cfm" is non-obvious. ".html" would have been better. that's all i got. Kevin Baas^talk 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Greg Palast is informative as well for those who actually want to understand the issue. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be wikilinked then? Phil Sandifer 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote Suppression (KB)

"Allegations of voter registration fraud were made by both parties in many states during the 2004 election. Some of the controversies involved the procedure by which workers are paid per registration. In Colorado at least 719 cases of potentially fraudulent forms were submitted. [76] Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson issued a statement saying:"

This is not an example of vote suppression. Disposing, failing to file, or filing registrations incorrectly are examples of vote suppression. Submitting fradulant registration forms does not suppress votes, nor does trying to scam the system for money. This does not belong in this section. Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a voter registration fraud section should be created that mentions Colorado, Sproul and Associates (repub), and ACORN in Ohio (democrat). --kizzle 17:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. If anyone wants to go ahead and do this, I don't think they'll get any objections. Kevin Baas^talk 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Criminal activity - In Wisconsin, several activists with ties to the Democratic Party were found to have acted illegally, suppressing Republican voters with criminal activity. The son of a Democratic Congressman and four volunteers for the Kerry / Edwards campaign, slashed tires on..."

This is given undue weight. it is way out of proportion with the other items in the section. Furthermore, it's not in the vote suppression article. The paragraph should be moved to the vote suppression article, and a brief summary should replace it on this article. Kevin Baas^talk 18:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Third AfD page deleted

There was an AfD on this article earlier today. The result was speedy keep. Phil Sandifer closed the AfD. Then I added a note to the top of this page that the AfD took place. Phil Sandifer reverted that part of the note. I reverted it back, since I believed that since the AfD took place and it was soundly rejected there should be a record of that. Now I see that the entire AfD page has been deleted. Is there a way to find out who did this and why? -- noosphere 01:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That'd be me. It was bad faith vandalism from a now-blocked user, and shouldn't be cluttering around looking like it was anything other than bullshit. Phil Sandifer 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, as much as I dislike the current state of this page, that was a bad faith nom if I've ever seen one. Arkon 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it observed that an admin deleting a page on which they were involved as an editor is at times considered an overly aggressive use of admin powers. Surely if that was obvious bad faith, another admin would have deleted it. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It might have been initiated in bad faith, but there's no denying that an AfD took place. You voted in and closed it yourself, Phil. If you thought it was vandalism you could have just reverted the whole thing. Instead you let it proceed and the result was a speedy keep, as you yourself have ackgnowledged. Why not allow a record of it to remain? -- noosphere 01:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I closed it before I had looked at Ham and Jelly Butter's contributions and realized that he was a role account troll. Phil Sandifer 01:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But the AfD was a record not only of Ham's actions, but those of everyone who participated in it, including your own actions. And it was a record of the AfD being rejected. As such a record it is not vandalism, though the deletion of such a record might be. -- noosphere 01:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've inquired of Snowspinner (Phil)'s peers at AN:I, and they back his decision to delete the AfD. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Looks like Phil did the right thing. I stand corrected. -- noosphere 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Palast

Should Greg Palast really be described as 'BBC journalist Greg Palast'? IIRC he also writes for the Guardian. Should it be 'Guardian and BBC journalist...' (sounds horrible), just 'Journalist Greg Palast', or stay as is? What say ye? Arkon 03:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Greg Palast, a journalist who has written for the BBC and the Guardian. Unless there's other pertinent information to include as well. Phil Sandifer 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Palast isn't exactly a household name for those people who haven't been following this controversy as closely as we have, I think some sort of description next to his name is reasonable. -- noosphere 03:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

More NPOV tag revert warring

Once again, Tbeatty and Phil Sandifer are reverting the article tag, despite the fact that not a single POV dispute remains about specific content. The preferability of mainstream media to blogs, and questions about various sources have been asked, but no facts are contested here. Fact tag sprinkling without a supporting conflict doesn't justify an article tag! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added it. Facts are not what is contested in a NPOV dispute. It is Point of View that is contested. It we were worried about facts, we would tag it with fact tags. OR request that it be cited. But this is a POV dispute, not a factual dispute. --Tbeatty 05:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, their empty claims of 'vandalism' and 'a lack of good faith' are just that - empty. My actions in this regard (reverting the article status as it has remained for months in the absence of actual discussion) are clearly valid, and while they may disagree with my actions such attacks are uncalled for. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You were not attacked in any way. YOur reverts of other editors tags were fairly characterized. AS a well used template test2 says (and it is not against AGF to use). Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Tbeatty 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely uncalled for. Obvious to all. Nighty-night, now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the section on the WP:Vandalism page.

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please stop removing the tags. --Tbeatty 05:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding them without a dispute in the first place. Moreover, I have consistently 'entertained the prospect of dialogue'. Your willingness to mischaracterize in order to marginalize another editor is stultifying, but ultimately less-than-beneficial to your own argument. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me inescapable fact that there is an NPOV dispute on this article. I recognize that you are not happy that people are complaining that the article is POV. I recognize that you believe with great conviction that the article is NPOV. However, there is clearly a dispute. To revert war to repeatedly deny a dispute even exists does, therefore, seem in rather bad faith. And it sets a chill over the whole topic. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a discussion. That makes having one difficult. In face of negotiations and civil dicsussion that have failed for 18 months straight, one has to consider other avenues of dispute resolution. Phil Sandifer 05:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about actually following WIkipedia process and editing? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sorry. I will put down the pile of books I am reading for my dissertation and get right on researching this. Because, after all, it is much more sensible to have me do it than it is for the people who have already apparently done research on this topic to just write a good article instead of a POV pushing one. Which is to say, as I have said before, that finding an error does not oblige one to fix it. Especially when the fix would require extensive research. That is why we have dispute tags, citation needed tags, and other such tags - to ask someone else to fix it. I am specifically asking you to fix it. And yet you decline, while also removing the request so that other editors might see it and fix it. Again - why? Phil Sandifer 05:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah. So you can't participate as an editor, but you can attack other users directly with (weak, hollow) claims of vandalism, refusal to edit, and bad faith. Sorry, I guess you've got time for that. I guess that's your shortcut to improving the article - attacking the editors. Once again, weak.

Personally, I find vague, unsubstantiated objections unsustainable. Hence the lack of tags on the current article. If you bring 'em back, bring some knowledge, not just vague objections. That's disinformative to the reader, don't you think? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, Ryan - if I were to go and remove all of the information I added a fact tag to a few days ago on the grounds that citations have not been provided, what would you do? Phil Sandifer 05:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated to whom? They are only as vague as the article is POV. We have given you specific objections. The fact that the objections are broad in scope doesn't mean they are not specific or valid. We have cited the policy that says removing these tags is considered vandalism. Yet rather than address the criticism, you want to revert war over a tag. Why? --Tbeatty 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, Phil - do you mean all the ones you added, even the seemingly laughable ones regarding congressional process and historical dates, or just the handful of fact tags remaining? Because right now, I'd respect 3RR, research each of them and bring 'em back to whatever extent appropriate and factual. I'm pretty confident it'd be straightforward - because yours would not the first fine-toothed-comb I've seen go thru this article. Except your comb, to date, has few if any actual teeth.

That's what I'd do. You paint this whole article with an inaccurate brush because of your own biased point of view (whatever it's source actually is). You've hated this article for quite a while, and sought to marshal support for your POV in any way you can, on- and off-wiki. Accordingly, quite honestly, I don't know if I can expect your, or tbeatty's, actions here to suddenly become any more respectful of consensus and Wikipedia process here than they've been to date. Make edits. Don't make vague comments about discontent, claim editing is impossible and slap tags on articles. Night, kids. Play nice.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The sources used throughout the article are not reputable and do not meet wikipedia standards. Example: "mysterypollster.com"?? Scientifically reviewd website? I think not. Innuendo throughtout the article is not balanced with factual data. For example, intro alludes to voting systems not being secure. Fails to mention that almost all the states still use these systems and corrections made were minor. No vote tampering with an electronic system has ever been uncovered or reported. The allegations in the first section are not put in context of the entire election nor is presented in a neutral manner. It reads like a blog. The article is in serious need of a rewrite from scratch (or a merge back into the 2004 election as the concerns are very minor). --Tbeatty 04:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your observations are almost to a fault based on a false assumption. Your first is that such a source needs to be 'scientifically reviewed' to be referenced. Your second is regarding innuendo. Please point any unsubstantiated innuendo out. Your point about 'minor corrections' is certainly something than can be addressed in an edit. Your 'no vote tampering' claim is false. Your 'allegations' claim can likewise be addressed with editing. Your 'reads like a blog' comment is just fluff. Edit it, don't tag it. Your merge/rewrite complaint (without action) is an old, old story. NOTHING here warrants the tag. Keep with the sections, and actually do some editing. You may find you feel you have more impact that way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have said several times, finding a problem does not oblige one to fix it. On the other hand, claiming to be a subject expert but being unwilling to do work to bring an article you've worked on up to expectations is unfortunate, if not indefensible. You present yourself as someone who could do the work to make this one of the best-referenced, best-presented, most neutral presentations of a controversial issue on Wikipedia. And yet you refuse, preferring to have an article full of innuendo (substantiated or otherwise), minor incidents, sources that are, if not wholly unacceptable, at least consistently below the level that is ideal. Why? I honestly can't find an answer to that question that doesn't involve assuming bad faith, and thus I am at a loss. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Because that's not a question, it's a testimony and a mischaracterization. I don't 'present myself' as anyone. I just edit. You have been consciously making efforts to eliminate this article, without ever actually rolling up your sleeves and doing the hard work yourself. I find it extremely interesting that you would castigate me for something you yourself have not had the guts to do. And finding what you see as a problem, having other editors disagree and demonstrate why, ultimately having their arguments be found more persuasive than yours - and then slapping a tag on it - is not participating in the valid exchange of ideas. It's just petty. Participate in the exchange of ideas.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted to eliminate the article - or especially the sub-articles - do you not think that I would have nominated them again for deletion? It's been over a year - it's a reasonable bet that I could rally 2/3 to delete all the sub-articles and merge them in here. I haven't. Consider that before you ascribe viewpoints to me. As I have said, I could do the extensive research needed to fix this article. But, well, I have rather a lot to do in my life. And to devote extensive research to a topic that you, kizzle, noosphere, and Kevin already know about so that I can do work you're unwilling to is, well, not a choice I think it's fair to expect anybody to make. You have the knowledge to fix this article. You have had the problems pointed out to you. You do not want to fix it. Fine - but allow the tag asking somebody to fix it to stand. Phil Sandifer 05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil, please quote specific portions of the article you find objectionable and the relevant parts of policy you think they violate. Enough with these vague, unsubstantiated allegations already. -- noosphere 05:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have. I have a dozen times over. Please actually deal with them. Phil Sandifer 05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I did deal with them. And you ignored me. -- noosphere 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A "scientifically reviewed website"? Where did you get that criteria? noosphere 05:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here. This website purports to be scientific with no review process or other credentials whatsoever. It doesn't appear to be any more authoritative than a blog. This is considered false authority. While it may be correct, it is not reliable. Verifiability not Truth. The article is littered with these. --Tbeatty 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in section 5, "Evaluating sources", of WP:RS that says anything about "scientifically reviewed websites". Could you please quote the part of that policy you're talking about? And while you're at it, please quote a part of the website that claims it's a "scientific website". -- noosphere 05:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the website is not scientifically reviewed and that science sources should be from reputable science articles that are peer reviewed. Look harder and you will find it. --Tbeatty 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made edits. I have done a lot of work to the intro. However, it still has not changed the entire articles tone and POV. It is not NPOV. That's all the tag says. --Tbeatty 05:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive proposal

This talk page has gotten really unwieldy. There's no reason for us to download half a megabyte every time we view/edit this page. I would like to suggest archiving it up to section 27 - "NPOV Dispute", since that seems to be the earliest section in which active debate is still going on. Comments? -- noosphere 05:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)