Talk:Brooks Brothers riot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Brooks Brothers riot[edit]

Article Added J23 07:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)J23

Need to add that the Democrat-controlled canvassing board had taken those ballots behind closed doors to be counted in secret. Thats why they were stopped, not because the GOP didn't want the ballots counted, but because they didn't want those ballots counted in secret by Dems. The Dems tried to cheat and got busted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.20.245 (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We can't add that unless reliable sources say it, and reliable sources don't generally make stuff up, so we aren't likely to see that added. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Check out http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/6757/, written by a reporter who has written for Newsweek, Time, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times, and who supports the above 4/25/08 comment and cites eyewitnesses. In contrast, sources that the article presently cites to, Rachel Maddow and Salon.com, are extremely partisan to begin with, and cite no sources themselves to support the claims for which they are cited in the article. I'm not kidding; read the sources.Dave148109 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect. That piece was written by a Republican candidate for congress, conservative activist Ken Timmerman. He has never "written for" those publications, although his opinion pieces have been printed by them (as have the opinion pieces of every Tom, Dick and Harry with a pen and paper). The "eyewitnesses" he supposedly cites are actually the very Republicans involved in the riot, for whom he has written his apology piece linked here. Unlike the other non-partisan eyewitnesses and observers cited in the Salon sources, etc. I'm not kidding; read the sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"Hundreds of "paid GOP crusaders" descended upon South Florida to protest the state's recounts". Source cited: Time Magazine article, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html. No source or eyewitnesses cited by Time Magazine for this claim.
"The protest prevented official observers and members of the press from getting in." Source cited: Robert Parry, http://www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html. No source or eyewitnesses cited by Robert Parry for this claim.
"...the protesters...were astroturfing". No source cited.
"The demonstration was organized by Republican operatives". No source cited.
"DNC aide Luis Rosero was kicked and punched." Source cited: New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/24/us/counting-vote-miami-dade-county-protest-influenced-miami-dade-s-decision-stop.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm. Source cited by the New York Times: Democrat aide Luis Rosero himself, who has a political agenda.
"The demonstration was organized...to oppose the recount of 10,750 ballots during the Florida recount." No source cited. However, sources cited do support that the protesters objected to the recount of these ballots in secret in violation of Florida's sunshine laws. Timothy Noah, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2000/11/sweeney_and_the_siege_of_miami.html.
Due to the partisan vitriol exhibited by some of the article's main sources - Rachel Maddow/MSNBC, Al Kamen/Washington Post, Joe Conason, Robert Parry, John Lantigua/Salon.com, Benjamin Sarlin/The Daily Beast - in all of their reporting, they cannot be deemed reliable sources on a politically-charged incident. Anyone who wants some balance should view http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/6757/, because they're certainly not going to get any balance from this horribly written article.Dave148109 (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Both sources cited by this article are very POV. The article doesn't mention that the so-called riot was nonviolent and was a political protest. Biccat (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Not true. It wasn't "counting in secret by the Dems." It was the whole canvassing board and the representatives from each party. The angry, boisterous riot in the hall created an environment in which the canvassing board felt intimidated and threatened, and had the effect of ending the Miami-Dade recount early. It's absolutely true that Republicans didn't want the recount to go forward because Gore stood to gain and Bush stood to lose. The Supreme Court took the unbelievable step of granting certiorari and issuing a stay, halting the statewide recount on the grounds that counting votes causes "irreparable harm" to Bush. A really extraordinary claim. I know this is heavy on opinion. The moderator will do what he/she must with my remarks. Matt2h (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and source reliability tags[edit]

POV and reference requests added. Rockindahaus (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

According to reporting on the Rachel Maddow Show this evening, as well as other reporting, it's absolutely true that over ten of the "rioters" during this incident were staffers of GOP Congressmen and at least one staffer from the Bush election committee. They were clearly identified by name and photograph on the program, with references to other fact checking and multiple interviews with knowledgable and credible sources. Each of the ten individuals identified by Ms. Maddow and other reporters went on to high-paying jobs in the Bush administration after their efforts to stop the recount. There is NOTHING to dispute in the article as written. If anything, it is FAR too deferential to the repubicans who organized the illegal, paid act of public nuisance represented by this incident. I highly encourage the dispute to be resolved in favor of the article as written, and for the article to be expanded to bring out the full truth of the hateful violent and illegal act this represented on the part of the GOP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.124.199 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
There was nothing "illegal" about this demonstration. In any case, I've removed the tags after adding "allegedly" or a similar qualifier to the allegations (for the claims to move from "alleged" status to unqualified status the sources should clearly be news reports as opposed to opinion columns), changed the POV term "rioters" to neutral "protesters", and described the "riot" as "so-called".Bdell555 (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I now see Salon cites a NY Times story that suggests Democrat Peter Deutsch leveled accusations of illegal behavior at the rowdies. And another NY Times says violence occurred. But that latter NY Times story is contradicted on some points and I think it should be kept in mind that, according to most sources, the proximate cause of the "riot", or at least Sweeney's "shut it down" order, was the decision to make public access to the recount more difficult, as opposed to there being any evidence that a pre-meditated decision to "shut down" the recount was made in Washington.Bdell555 (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of community organizing as done by both political parties and their allies. Jmcnamera (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

While it may not be suitable for the main article, I stumbled across this item which names some of the provocateurs along with a photograph and who they worked for:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6215784

Is it appropriate to include the list in the main article?

  1. Tom Pyle, policy analyst, office of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).
  2. Garry Malphrus, majority chief counsel and staff director, House Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice.
  3. Rory Cooper, political division staff member at the National Republican Congressional Committee.
  4. Kevin Smith, former House Republican conference analyst and more recently of Voter.com.
  5. Steven Brophy, former aide to Sen. Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.), now working at the consulting firm KPMG.
  6. Matt Schlapp, former chief of staff for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), now on the Bush campaign staff in Austin.
  7. Roger Morse, aide to Rep. Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).
  8. Duane Gibson, aide to Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) of the House Resources Committee.
  9. Chuck Royal, legislative assistant to Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).
  10. Layna McConkey, former legislative assistant to former Rep. Jim Ross Lightfoot (R-Iowa) now at Steelman Health Strategies.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How many people did the Gore campaign also send to the recounts? I doubt the democrats did anything different except to not be noticed by MSNBC. 65.199.223.34 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As an independent/libertarian, I would have mentioned Gore's campaign if their workers had transgressed. The point is to remain unbiased and report what happened wherever the chips fall. Is it fair/unfair to reference this information and why or why not? I'm not vested either way, but want to get it right.
Thank you, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
We don't need the names. The names merely reinforce the charge that this protest was astroturfed (i.e. that the protestors were Republican operatives). Why say with 100 words what you can say with 1? It creates issue of balance to give reams of space to elaborating on the charge of astroturfing. We've got a few words at the end from Sweeney and a Republican lawyer defending their actions. This should not be dwarfed by redundant material alleging astroturfing.Bdell555 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words[edit]

I'm adding the weasel tag because of the messy way in which a lot of it is worded. For example, "astroturfing" has only just recently been added to the article, at the same time that the term has been receiving attention in the media. Even though it describes this situation, it's still sounds more like a loaded slang word than a neutral term. 98.21.149.219 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree: I had to look up astroturfing (which I should have looked up earlier) to see what it meant and it's clearly pejorative and inappropirate. I removed both the astroturfing and weasel words. We may not be able to satisfy both sides, but we need to be as unbiased as possible.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The attention on astroturfing is the reason why there is more attention to this article recently. To make no mention of astroturfing is to deny readers knowledge of the fact that this is the reason why this incident from 2000 become prominent in 2009. Being "unbiased" does not mean repressing facts. And the facts are that this was an alleged instance of astroturfing. It is, in fact, the allegations of astroturfing that make this incident controversial. What's controversial about a non-violent grassroots protest? Nothing. It is the practice of astroturfing that is controversial, and astroturfing is not illegal. Go ahead and revise to "alleged astroturfing" or "Democrats have cited the incident as an example of astroturfing" but don't repress all reference to astroturfings given its importance here. You should instead be nominating this article for deletion on the grounds of lack of importance if you truly think this incident has nothing to do with astroturfing.Bdell555 (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You make a good point and I'm a believer in presenting all the information and letting readers make up their own minds. I may have overreached in deleting the term from the References section. Feel free to re-edit.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"shut it down"[edit]

I've removed the unqualified claim that people were "flown in to 'shut down'" the recount. This is the background that many in Democratic Party circles accept as gospel, but from what I can gather from the facts, any order by Sweeney to "shut it down" came in reaction to the decision to relocate the counting process as opposed to a pre-planned decision made in Washington. The "shut it down" order should probably go back in somewhere, but should be qualified as either disputed (Sweeney never clearly admits to using such words) or have it presented such that the possibility that the effort to "shut down" was spontaneous in Florida as opposed to premeditated by GOP operatives in Washington is left open to the reader. What WAS clearly premeditated was the sending of Republicans to Florida in order to be on hand for eventualities.Bdell555 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of applying your own analysis "from what you can gather from the facts...", as that would be in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. According to the reliable sources provided thus far, Republicans sent more than 750 people to Florida during, and because of, the recounts. The "shut it down" phrase was used, but that doesn't equate to "they were flown in to shut it down". It's possible they were there to observe the recounts, and decided to "shut it down" ... and here is where the accounts usually diverge ... either spontaneously, when the recount was going to be moved to a smaller location, or when it was clear that the recount was going to continue despite the protests. Care must be given to cite sources to support any opposing views expressed in this article, and if something "should be qualified", we editors are not the people to do it -- it all has to come from the sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Riot": The talk-radio term is not intended to be interpreted literally, but is a literary device, emphasizing the contract with "Brooks Brothers", i.e, that there is more to surface appearance.
Bdell555, I think you did like me and erred too far in the direction of caution, deleting too much info.
Best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Rachel Maddow's claim that operatives were "flown in" in order to "shut down" the "count" is effectively contradicted by Paul Gigot who was there and reported to the WSJ. Gigot describes Sweeney as "a visiting GOP monitor" in Miami and reports that Sweeney did not give the "shut it down" order until AFTER he learned that the counting officials had moved location. Gigot also described the "bourgeois riot" as a "semi-spontaneous combustion". In addition to this is Sweeney's statement in the Salon article that he did not intend to shut down the recount but restore the process to public view. It follows from this that the contention that the GOP people were there to "monitor" with an eye to "fairness" is well founded as an alternative account. Although one could cite to the WSJ and Salon articles, these sources are already cited for direct quotes. I think it would be a case of citation overclutter to cite them again.Bdell555 (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"It follows from this that the contention that the GOP people were there to "monitor" with an eye to "fairness" is well founded as an alternative account." - Incorrect. Here is the partial sentence in the Wikipedia article that is in question:
the demonstrators claimed that they were there to monitor the process and advocate for fairness.
As I mentioned above, that is WP:SYNTH, about as clear-cut an example as possible, and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. The labeling of Sweeney by a columnist as a visiting GOP monitor does not equate to they "claimed that they were there to monitor". Sweeney's explanation of his call to "shut it down" does not explain his whole reason for why they were there.
The Salon article you mention says,
"GOP spokespeople have said that at least 750 Republican activists have been sent into South Florida from around the country to oppose the recount..."
That is significantly different from "monitor with an eye to fairness". The Slate article, which also repeats Sweeney's version, specifically states,
"...it was certainly an organized disturbance aimed at stopping the hand recount. It was successful, and, possibly, it was against the law."
That is a far cry from Sweeney's denial that he was trying to shut it down and just trying to "restore the process to public view." So obviously there are conflicting accounts of intent here. When we describe these accounts in the article, we can't draw our own conclusions. Phrases like, "It follows that..." are red-flag indicators that we are synthesizing our own conclusions from various facts, and straying from the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
An example of a WP:SYNTH situation would be at the Alger Hiss article where advocates for the idea that Hiss WAS NOT a spy cited selected material to make that case from sources that concluded without ambiguity that Hiss WAS a spy. In other words, an argument was being invented that nobody in those cited sources was actually making. Each individual cite was legitimate as an individual cite, but the article as a whole ending up being misleading. The ultimate wrong behind "synthesis" is thus taking material out of context repeatedly such that readers are led to believe the context is other than what it really is. The context here is that just letting Rachel Maddow's assertion that people were flown in to "shut down" the recount would be POV; there is an alternative perspective here and that's that the people were flown in to ensure the recount was conducted fairly and to "shut it down" IF it was not being conducted fairly. The exact word for word sourcing you are demanding here isn't really available from the sources because the sources are not spelling out the alternative perspective to their own. These are by and large partisan sources. It is an easy inference that the demonstrators themselves would not agree with Maddow's characterization of their intentions, and the drawing of such an inference is not "synthesis" when the totality of available info supports it. "Synthesized" material is invariably at odds with the totality of info because it is constituted out of selective bits and pieces. In sum, there are, indeed, "conflicting accounts of intent here" and it is POV to give one account, cited to a partisan, and then suggest to the reader that any conflicting account would be unsupported.Bdell555 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your example of WP:SYNTH, and your opinion that context has something to do with it. Moving past that now to our actual situation, and real WP:SYNTH, as clearly defined in its article's first sentence: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
The synthesized content not explicitly stated by any source: "the demonstrators claimed that they were there to monitor the process and advocate for fairness."
One source refers to one person as a visiting GOP monitor. That does not equate to the whole crowd claiming to be be there to monitor the process. One source refers to the claim of one individual that he was just trying to "restore the process to public view" when he gave the order to "shut it down." That does not say anything about why the crowd was there, or what they advocate, etc. Oh, and by the way, Maddow has nothing to do with that synthesized sentence either, so I'm not sure why you rambled down that trail. You keep misattributing to her the statement that operatives were "flown in to shut down the count"; she actually said the operatives, when they heard the recount was going to go forward, decided to shut it down. It was the Salon source that said they were sent into Florida to oppose the recount, and Slate that said it was an organized disturbance aimed at stopping the recount. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"The exact word for word sourcing you are demanding here isn't really available from the sources because the sources are not spelling out the alternative perspective to their own." (from Bdell555)
Just because you can't find your preferred "alternative perspective" in the given sources, that doesn't give you license to create that perspective and insert it, unsourced, into the article -- regardless of how valid you might feel your perspective is. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If one insists on technicalities, all of the claims of intent to "shut down" have to be sourced to just "one individual" as well. The "one individual" here was the group's leader. At issue for the demonstrators was the circumstances under which the recount was "going to go forward", not whether it went forward period. This is not just my idle speculation, it is just as much a valid inference about the chronology of events given by the totality of sources as the alternative inference about demonstrator intention. Subjective intent is not concretely verifiable. The bottom line is that fitting the article to the sources without exercising some judgment biases the article because the sources are biased (everbody knows that Maddow and Salon.com lean left). The by the book solution may be to reject the sources on reliability grounds but I am trying to be reasonable by not calling for source rejection because of partisanship, I am rather calling for a common sense acknowledgement of their selective omission.Bdell555 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but "valid inferences" that go against WP:OR and WP:SYNTH aren't valid for Wikipedia. If you think I'm "insisting on technicalities," well ... yeah, although most of us call them "Wikipedia Policies". Also, I'm not buying the "if sources are biased, then facts from those sources must be inaccurate" argument I think you are making (please correct me if I misunderstand you). Facts are facts regardless of the bias of sources, but I'll grant you that bias can lead to omission of unfavorable facts. That is why we usually have sources from across the spectrum. Everybody knows Paul Gigot and The Wall Street Journal lean right, but I don't see you putting their opinions or reporting through the ringer. But that's fine. My advice: steer clear of conjuring up "valid inferences" or "exercising some judgement" whenever two editors doing so are likely to come up with two different results. That is the "by the book" solution. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As someone once said, "A good compromise is when everyone is not quite happy." It seems like a well-balanced article at this point. I'm impressed.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The article still states flatly at one point that the GOP operatives were there to oppose a recount period. The equally if not more plausible view that they were there to oppose a recount that was not transparently conducted has limited sources because the vast majority of available sources with respect to this incident are selectively omitting to provide support for that view. Again, this "riot" has become a part of Democratic Party folklore and is of limited interest to Republicans, such that if the article just reflects the majority of available sources, it is going to look like it came right from a Democratic Party spokesperson.Bdell555 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"Is of limited interest to Republicans" - who cares what is interest to Republicans? Or Democrats for that matter? Bdell, your perpetual proclivity for missing the point is astonishing. Furthermore, your committment to re-writing history to suit a partisan narrative is simply unbelievable. This is clearly another case of an editor being so far out in right/left field that every article with a NPOV is deemed by that same editor as being POV with a left/right slant. On the contrary - it is you who are slanted, and Thank Heavens you were unsuccessful in skewing this article to fit your ideology.GodFearingLib (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits (September, 2012)[edit]

Xenophrenic, please stop deleting the information that the canvassers came from a heavily-Democrat county and that they attempted to exclude Republican observers in violation of Florida state law (see http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1445.cfm). This information is much more important than the brand of tie some of the demonstrators were allegedly wearing, which you keep reinserting, and is from a source at least as reliable as a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, the Rachel Maddow Show, and the Salon.com Politics section, all of which are cited in the article. Although the purpose of the article as written is to present this subject in a false, extremely partisan manner, that is not a proper use of Wikipedia according to its policies. Important facts need to be included, and irrelevant allegations excluded, to give the article some balance and credibility.Dave148109 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dave148109. Your edit has been reverted per WP:BRD; please resolve the issues here first, rather than trying to editwar your changes into the article while concerns remain unresolved. Continued edit-warring will likely result in you being blocked from editing. Thanks.
Your information is from Cutting Edge Ministries, rather than a reliable news source. Wikipedia has specific requirements as to what sources may be cited to support assertions of fact. You can review those requirements here. If you wish to receive wider input as to whether your source meets Wikipedia's RS requirements, you can raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you feel that reliably sourced facts and attributed opinions are given too much, or not enough weight in the article, I would recommend that you raise your concerns at the NPOV Noticeboard for some constructive input. Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Zenophrenic. Rest assured your concerns about the accuracy of the fact that the canvassers were attempting to exclude Republican observers in violation of Florida state law is misplaced. The Cutting Edge was citing World Net Daily here: http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/6757/. The article was written by Kenneth Timmerman, who has written for Newsweek, Time, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times, and who cited named eyewitnesses. Compare that to Rachel Maddow, who is cited as a source that the demonstrators were paid by a specific committee, for which she presents no proof, and the Salon.com article, cited as a source that the incident was set in motion by a certain congressman, for which again no source is cited other than (arguably) an unspecified Miami Herald article. Furthermore, it cannot in good faith be disputed that Miami-Dade County is heavily Democratic, a fact you keep deleting, nor is derisively mentioning the brand of tie the demonstrators were allegedly wearing an attempt to create an unbiased article. Pursuant to WP:BRD, wouldn't you agree these are changes that should be made?
I have also reviewed Wikipedia's policy on edit wars, and would point out that it appears that you, not I, are in violation of this policy for undoing my edits multiple times. It would also appear that you are attempting to circumvent this policy by playing "tag-team" with another editor, Swatjester, to keep the article in its hopelessly partisan state. Before undoing any more edits, I appreciate your raising your concerns here so other independent users (i.e., not friends who you ask) can comment on your proposed reversions. Thank you. Dave148109 (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The above allegation of tag teaming is patently ridiculous, and I've warned Dave148109 about WP:AGF violations on his talk page. Furthermore, neither Cutting Edge nor WorldNet Daily are reliable sources. Rachel Maddow, from MSNBC, is, as is Salon.com and the Miami Herald. SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The claim that Rachel Maddow and Salon.com are "reliable sources," while Cutting Edge and WorldNet Daily are not, is unsupported, particularly in light of the fact that when you read the sources, Cutting Edge and WorldNet Daily cite eyewitnesses, whereas Maddow and Salon.com cite nothing to support the claims for which they are cited in the article. Furthermore, Swatjester's personal attacks not only violate the WP:AGF policy he cites, but also indicate that he is unable to adequately support his position with substantive facts. That this article remains in its current state is disappointing and embarrassing to anyone who wants to see the Wikipedia project work. Dave148109 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to be certain, I've re-checked all of the above sources you mentioned. Your characterization of sources is in error (I see many "eyewitness" accounts and direct quotes where you say none exist), just as your characterization of SWATJester's comment as "personal attacks" is in error. I've noted above the appropriate noticeboards where you should raise your concerns. What was their opinion on the sources being discussed? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) The Time Magazine article cited (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html)--I think Time is a legit source,please tell us if you do not- states "Seemingly oblivious to GOP anger over the Florida Supreme Court ruling to allow manual recounts, the canvassing board tried an end run around the court's Sunday deadline by deciding to recount only some 11,000 of Dade's 654,000 ballots. Those disputed ballots, most of which did not register presidential votes in the machines, were thought to favor Gore. Worse, the board moved into a smaller room that cut off public observation."Boss4Us (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Time Magazine source says what you just quoted here on this Talk page. (Your link to it here is broken, by the way.) I agree that it is a reliable source, of course, or else it wouldn't be cited in our article. Let me know if I can answer any more questions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
So what is the problem, then? It's been reverted yet again. Boss4Us (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem noted in the edit summary was "content not found in cited sources". Much of what you added to the article wasn't supported by the source you cited. Some of it also conflicted with other reliable sources cited in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And what is it specifically that you think was not supported?Boss4Us (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Too many items to list here, but for starters, the numeric counts you gave for recount votes and military votes (the recount was actually halted), referring to the canvassing staff as all Democrats (only 1 was a Democrat), inserting a broken red-link to an article, etc. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

State law did not provide for canvassing boards to carry out a partial manual recount in place of a full recount[edit]

Xenophrenic removed the following, alleging that it was not conveyed in the cited source:

Florida law included a provision for a manual recount of all ballots, but did not provide for a partial recount.("The 2000 Florida Statutes". Florida Senate Website Archive. Retrieved 6 April 2016. )

The section referred to provided that:

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall: (a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system; (b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or (c) Manually recount all ballots. (6) Any manual recount shall be open to the public.

Can you please explain your objection to the sentence?

Hello. The text you quoted is not on the page to which you provided a link. Perhaps it is on a sub-page linked to that page? Could you please provide the specific page? And will we see the "Brooks Brothers riot" mentioned on that page, with an explanation of why this statute information is relevant to the subject of this article? Or are you performing original research here? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. It looks like the page has changed; from the original link you would have to click through a few times, although
http://archive.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC166.HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0102-%3ESection%20166#0102.166
also works (as of now). That is the statute which does not, of course, refer to the specific protest. Here is a sample contemporary article describing the Republican explanation that they were protesting the decision to change to a partial manual recount:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/23/us/counting-vote-miami-dade-county-wild-day-miami-with-end-recounting-democrats.html
Here is a brief by George W. Bush explicitly making the argument that 102.166 requires a full manual recount if any
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florida2000/12-10_bushbrief.pdf
The legislative safeguards of § 102.166
(5)(c)—which provides that if a county canvassing
board elects to conduct a manual recount, it “shall”
“[m]anually recount all ballots” (emphasis added)—are
plainly designed to avoid the dangers of selective, arbi-
trary and incomplete results inherent in a partial manual
recount.
Were I to cite these sources as well as the text of the law would you agree that it is appropriate to include the argument made by those opposed to the partial recount? 74.116.173.5 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The statute link and the petition by the Bush attorneys (long after the event described in this Wikiepdia article) aren't helpful here. As for the NYT article, what specific content in that article would you be citing? I don't see where it supposedly is "describing the Republican explanation that they were protesting the decision to change to a partial manual recount. Am I just missing it? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
"The canvassing board first voted unanimously this morning to proceed with the limited ballot count and scrap the results of two days of counting. But Republicans fiercely opposed the change of plans, saying that unless a full recount was conducted, the public could not put trust the accuracy of the outcome. "No shortcuts should be taken," Bobby Burchfield, a lawyer for the Republican party told the board."
also "Only hours before ending the recount today, the canvassing board had decided to count only the 10,750 ballots that had been rejected by computer tabulation for having no clear presidential selection. The move would have helped them meet a Sunday evening deadline imposed by the State Supreme Court. But that decision set off the angry protest and board members themselves then concluded it would not be fair to recount only some ballots." 74.116.173.5 (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I read those two sections of the NYT, which appear to explain not why they were protesting (which was actually occurring even before the decision to do a limited count of 10,750), but explains why the demonstration escalated in anger and violence. Counting just the reject ballots meant they might complete the task before the court-ordered deadline, and that panicked the protestors. Our Wikipedia article already says the Republicans opposed the decision to count the 10,750 rejects, but we can certainly make it clearer that the Republicans were hoping to force the counters to attempt a full recount. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I see you have done so. While I disagree with what you wrote above that a link to the statute would be out of place, and have other quibbles, this will have to hold me for now. Thank you. 74.116.173.5 (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The above statute link is to 2010 regulations which are significantly different from the ones in use during this 2000 event. The 2000 regulations included a "1% of total votes" stipulation, no longer present in your 2010 link, which was cited at the time. Such regulations would require a secondary source to convey that they do or do not apply in this situation, and how, before we can add them to our article. It's not "me" saying such information is out of place, it's Wikipedia policy regarding synthesis and primary sources. Thanks for understanding. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a riot[edit]

Florida Statutes define what a riot is and by any reasonable interpretation, the events at the board of election were not a 'riot' as defined by the statute. It is unlikely that Democrats were feeling so kindly to Republicans during those days that they would have passed up an opportunity to jail a few especially boisterous ones if they could have. That puts the title of the article as a POV violation and, since it's an assertion of criminality, also creates a WP:BLP issue as it names living people and essentially accuses them of a crime. Perhaps an article rename with this page redirecting? TMLutas (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well but we use normal English usage and not statutory definitions when talking about many things. And Google gives some hits for "Brooks Brothers Riot"; it's not like we made it up. And if (for some reason) the description "Dade County Circus" or "Miami Hootenanny" or whatever had come into common usage to describe this event, we would use that term, notwithstanding that it wasn't actually a circus or hootenanny.
As far as the criminality aspects, lots of things are described loosely a riots -- the kids in the basement, a comedian at a club, and so forth. I wouldn't worry about it. Herostratus (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, if that's the best you can do to justify NPOV is that others are doing it, you're not making much of a case. We use normal english usage in a neutral point of view manner. This isn't neutral. TMLutas (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Well but "others are doing it" is exactly how we name things, per WP:COMMONNAME and so forth. We don't name things ourselves. We don't want to name things ourselves. Otherwise we would be forever arguing over what to call everything. An editor would be like "I don't like the name World War I, it should be called the 'European War of 1914'" and another would be "No, let's call it the 'European Civil War'" and another would be like "No I've come up with a name I like, 'Anglo-French-Russian War Against the Germanic Powers'" and so forth.
We wouldn't get anything done, and readers wouldn't be able to find our articles, and when the did they would have to delve to figure out what the article is about. I think where you really want to make your case is at the talk page for WP:COMMONNAME, and you can make the case the article titles should be decided by whatever the last person to edit the article wanted to call it, or whatever, and good luck with that.
Now... if you want to make the case that "Brooks Brothers riot" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, that is very different. If there's another name that's used more, or as much, present that data and then you have will have reasonable case for changing the name. Herostratus (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The title of the article is fine, because it is the most commonly used name to describe the specific incident that day. The technical correctness of the name isn't really a big concern in Wikipedia's naming convention. Will we be arguing next for a name change removing "Brothers" because none of the demonstrators were related, or to remove "Brooks Brothers" because, according to video footage, all the suits were actually "Ralph Lauren"?
I chuckled a little at the notion that the "assertion of criminality creates a BLP issue". There was already breach of the peace, assault, public disturbance, and toward the end, unlawful assembly in an enclosed hall where the crowd swelled beyond safety limits -- and law enforcement did "engage" (but that doesn't necessarily mean arrests were made). All of that is in the sources, so we've long since moved past 'assertion'. What is not sourced, to my knowledge, is that no arrests were made and no charges were pressed after the chaotic incident, which would be unlikely. But we're not to speculate or conduct our own original research. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

My friendly advice would be that the article is not made more persuasive by reading like a partisan exposé. If the article gives the impression of bias - which I think it currently does - people will just go hunting for other sources. The article should state the facts, clearly and neutrally; if the facts are as damning as you think they are, readers will grasp that for themselves.

I edited the sentence about where the "Brooks Brothers riot" name came from: simply from the fact that people involved were wearing corporate attire. I see that's now been re-edited to add to the end of the sentence, ", the astroturfing protesters were corporate-sponsored and flown in, as opposed to being local citizens concerned about counting practices."

That's irrelevant to the sentence. The sentence is about where the name comes from; who the protesters were is covered in the next paragraph. Putting that in, particularly with an obviously partisan term like "astroturfing", just reads to me as if the editors can't stand for any sentence to exist in the article which doesn't specifically say how awful the Republicans were being.

(You can include words like that, if they are attributed as someone's view - as it's a subjective assertion of dishonesty, I'm not sure it can ever be a neutral description. See WP:WTW - "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint.")

I'm afraid at the moment the article just makes me want to go and read other sources to get the other side. TSP (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

... the "Brooks Brothers riot" name came from: simply from the fact that people involved were wearing corporate attire.
Not exactly. The significance of the description is not that they were wearing corporate attire, the significance is in the fact that this group of protesting local citizens was in reality a group of flown-in paid political activists and agitators - and their attire was one of the biggest clues to that fact. Hence the immediate mention of the astro-turfed nature of the event as part of the origin of the clever "Brooks Brothers" name for it.
You are, of course, free to seek out other sources that support whatever "side" you prefer, but as for Wikipedia articles, they should stick with reliably-sourced facts without taking sides. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)