Talk:Hacking Democracy

External link

Concerning the YouTube video, may I see a statement released by the producers and signed, should be notarized as well, that releases their movie for showing/distribution via YouTube? I hope this whole thing isnt on the basis that the uploader named themselves after the company, cause that would be silly, since when you sign up to YouTube you can name yourself whatever you want.

This statement should be signed by HBO as well since its their logo being displayed and the exact version they aired, so unless HBO also consented to their logo being used by the producers we are still on legal shaky ground. --NuclearZer0 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You want a *what* ? -Kevinmooney 23:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to see the statement they released when the put the movie on YouTube, you know proof they did it. --NuclearZer0 00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's up to you to prove that it's NOT the account of Public Interest Pictures on YouTube and Google Video. This country works on a presumption of innocence. - F.A.A.F.A. 08:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure, take it to AN/I if you have a problem. See what an admin says. --NuclearZer0 11:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Producers

FROM the HBO HD page:

"HACKING DEMOCRACY was directed by Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels; produced by Simon Ardizzone, Robert Carrillo Cohen and Russell Michaels; executive producers, Earl Katz, Sarah Teale and Sian Edwards; edited by Sasha Zik. For HBO: supervising producer, John Hoffman; executive producer, Sheila Nevins. " Credits - F.A.A.F.A. 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't say HBO produced it I do not care. --NuclearZer0 11:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic Job

Another facade of our wonderful government exposed. This is right up there with our Income tax structure, Pharmaceutical drugs and more. Great Job!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.26.79 (talk • contribs)

It didn't help 'em tonight! LOL! - F.A.A.F.A. - Hello Speaker Pelosi! 07:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson appearance

I noticed that Andy Stephenson, whose article was deleted for non-notability, was on screen for a total of several minutes in several scenes, which shuld count as one of the verifiable, reliable, sources documenting notability needed for an article. Edison 20:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The general concensus was that he didnt do anything and didnt really say much either during his time on screen. I could care less either way. --NuclearZer0 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We tried to use this as a source. It wasn't enough to sway concensus. At this point, if we want to preserve the relevent information from the Andy Stephenson article, moving it to Black Box Voting seems the best option. The masses have spoken on this issue. It is time to move on and do the best we can with what's left. --Jayron32 03:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note to nuclear: I can find a total of two comments on Andy's on-screen role in HD, with you apparently arguing FOR recreation of the article. Please point me to the posts that show some type of consensus. Maybe I missed them.

• "Comment - after watching Hacking Democracy tonight I believe there is enough to recreate this article, however not to overturn as there was nothing out of process in its original deletion. I wish the creators good luck and if anyone needs any information let me know on my talk page as I recorded the entire shows, Andy being featured in a large portion, maybe 20% of the time he is with Bev Harris." --User:NuclearUmp 03:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks - AfD Discussion of Andy's presence in HD F.A.A.F.A. - Hello Speaker Pelosi! 04:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• There was comments in reply to me. --NuclearZer0 05:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• No there WEREN'T. The only comment in reply to yours addressing Andy's amount of screen time is GabF's, which I already addressed. Your false claims speak volumes about your character. - F.A.A.F.A. - Hello Speaker Pelosi! 07:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

The number of reviews in the article is far too many. There is no point to keep every single insignificant review, especially from small irrelevant newspapers. I'd say a max of 10 review links should be more than enough dr.alf 08:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, some people don't get it however.--NuclearZer0 11:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal without having some sort of inclusion of them in talk is poor practice. You could save someone not aware of article history the effort of having to find all those items again with a simple link. The revision with reviews is here. They should not be used as is, but as a basis for a properly formatted section with input from major sources. *Spark* 12:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

response Questions have been raised as to the notability of this subject. The person who nominated the article for AfD has expressely said that there was not enough evidence of external review of this subject to justify keeping it. When faced with the evidence elsewhere, he said that it was still deletable, unless the information was added to the article. I added it to make the article more notable. If you feel that there is a need to remove SOME of the reviews in the interest of making the article more readible, please do so. Wholesale removal of all of them is no better than putting the entire list in, however. I will return 10 reviews as requested. --Jayron32 17:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good example of wp:point in action. The afd is over and the result was snow keep. Its proably not productive to an edit war to make a moot point. I suppose having a having pages of reviews does help fill the sparse content on this article though. Take a look at the numerous other movies such as Office_Space for ideas on how to reference reviews, without converting wiki to imdb.com Dman727 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable "murder" reference

This line appeared until I removed it: "Shortly after Stephensons work at Black Box voting, he was fired by Bev Harris and then later murdered by political opponents who conspired to withhold funds for surgery."

A quick googling shows that he appears to have died of cancer, with some discussion around fundraising for this, but I didn't immediately find anything about funds being withheld. I know nothing of the case, nor have I seen the documentary "Hacking Democracy" - I was simply following links and this line caught my eye as not holding a reference for something as apparently important as a politically based murder in the US.

81.107.44.202

AfD

FYI:

The User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard page is up for deletion right now. This article was listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard during the last AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)