Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

More

This seems to be a good overview of many problems in this. election.[[1]] There is -much- there that should be in this article. 172.175.10.69 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The ACVR is a sham [2], [3], [4]. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Well at least their supposed impartiality and ulterior motives are a sham, but the stories they select are real. They just only select allegations of fraud by Democrats. --kizzle 21:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

While I haven't yet read the link in question, it's probably not a good idea to complain about a source considering many in the article already. But, if Kiz is right, it should be in the article. -bro 172.170.36.43 04:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Define 'it'. If by 'it' you mean the questionable origins and conduct of the ACVR, I'm all for it. Even if some of their allegations are correct, and are noteworthy of inclusion, they should really be placed in the article with adequate discussion and context about ACVR and the outrage by many at ACVR's blatant partisanship. Bro - which sources in the article are you implying to be questionable? -- RyanFreisling @ 04:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I mean the allegations of fraud. The first questionable sources that come to mind are the commondreams links. -bro 172.170.36.43 06:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I think both the reports of fraud by the ACVR and the blatant partisanship of ACVR should be reported. Keep in mind the significance and scope of the charges of fraud by the ACVR, as we're talking about people buying votes, a woman registering multiple times, basically minor fraud in the realm of 10-30 votes. ACVR should also have a section that describes that its really a bullshit organization setup by Republicans (of course not worded so strongly ;) ). --kizzle 21:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

That would be all fine and dandy, just wish all the sources would get such descriptions when apt. Such as the commondreams ones mentioned, naacp, etc. I was surprised that there was no mention of the problems in washington in this article. Seems like a rather glaring omition. 70.110.2.41 09:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you from researching the people behind commondreams and such. A good place to put this is probably in an article about commondreams itself, then wiki-link mention of commondreams in the article. --kizzle 17:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, but if you are going to describe the motives of one source, theres no reason to not do it for others. As for commondreams, the aboutus link on their page pretty much outs their biases. Not to mention the greg palast op/ed. The only thing I'm looking for here is consistency. -bro 172.150.234.103 21:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No one is disagreeing with you, you seem to be making a case to address a concern that doesn't exist - now, to cut to the chase, how about some actual edits, so take this from hyperbole into improving the article? -- RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

That was rather uncalled for...I just responded to your slamming of the previous source, by pointing out equally (or even moreso) questionable sources already included in the article. I am also addressing the fact that some would like to include the critiques against one source only, when there are others that meet that case as well. As mentioned previously I do not wish to touch the content of this article, but I do like to give suggestions, and point out errors/double standards. You (and kiz and others) have been editing this article for quite a while, so if you don't disagree with me (which is really only about the validity of the sources), I recommend you continue to add to this article, instead of trying to discredit a source that is at least on par with many included already. -bro 172.150.234.103 00:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The ACVR does not need any help being discredited. As for the rest of your post, you can complain, or you can participate in the editing. I'm encouraging you in good faith to do less of the former and more of the latter. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ditto to Ryan, I'm fine with the way the article is. If you, anon, have a problem with the article, stop bitching and start editing (SBASE). --kizzle 01:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, is the article a compilation of allegations of fraud for (whatever election you wish to call it), or not. Also, it would be good if you could distinguish between providing comment, pointing out flaws, suggesting information, and -complaining-. It would help both the ability to discuss, and the content of the article (which I would hope would be your goal). If you wanna include it with a bit about how you feel its biased, wonderful. But, don't complain when such things are done about other sources included. If you want to wikilink to its page where you can discuss its problems, wonderful. But, don't complain when such things are done about other sources included. Quite straightforward it would seem. If you (and other long time editors of this page) wish to turn a blind eye to the allegations that you don't like, well, I'm afraid I'll just have to call it what it is, blatant bias, pov. And, please, give the 'why don't you edit it' line a rest, I've mentioned multiple times on this page why I don't want to touch it, and discussions like this are the reason why. Heck, I agreed with you (kiz), yet the hostility is palpable. -bro 172.150.234.103 01:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As I've often said, arguing why one will not participate is arguing for one's own ineffectiveness. I am sorry if I have little energy to respond in detail to your concerns here, I'd respond far more directly to actual edits, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Any hostility is merely a desire to have you 'participate', instead of merely 'advising' the other editors who themselves 'put their money where their mouth is'. If you took it more personally than that, I again apologize and implore you to participate. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, there is confusion. I am certainly participating, but I am not -editing-. See the difference? I took issue with you slamming one source while ignoring others, you asked which, I said which. Every comment in this sections has been in response to a previous one. You seem to have time for any and all allegations except for ones that don't conform to your POV, this again, I find odd. This page -is- meant to discuss additions/edits to the article, which is what my original comment in response to the link provided was. -bro 172.150.234.103 01:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course the wiki has talk pages, but they are meant to support the article. I am not slamming the ACVR - they are an utterly illegitimate organization, and the incidents they present are welcome here - you're welcome to add them, but a loose incident of fraudulent registration, etc., does not match the scale of the incidents discussed here. You are welcome to add them, I will not spend my crucial time in parsing the partisan incidents from ACVR for this article, as they are the product of selective editing by partisans with a demonstrated lack of good faith and lack of commitment to true election reform. The allegations themselves are welcome, and you are welcome to add them - I will however focus on more substantial allegations affecting more votes and more impactful elements of the controversy. Not bias, I understand the source well enough to put it in context. And I repeat my request for you to stop opining and start editing. The article space is the crucial space, not talk. If you relegate yourself to talk, you minimize your impact. No POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not slamming the ACVR - they are an utterly illegitimate organization Heh. loose incident of fraudulent registration, etc. Doesn't sound like you've actually read them then. parsing the partisan incidents from ACVR for this article, as they are the product of selective editing by partisans with a demonstrated lack of good faith and lack of commitment to true election reform. Double heh. This is a glaring double standard considering many of the sources already present, which would fit under that description. I will however focus on more substantial allegations affecting more votes and more impactful elements of the controversy. That is of course, your POV. Not bias, I understand the source well enough to put it in context. Bias is more often not what is included, but what is excluded. I've relegated myself to talk for any controversial article, thats just the reality and it will stay that way. -bro 172.150.234.103 02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your entire post is your own POV, and there is not a fact within for me to hang my hat on. In the meantime, please don't be insulted if your concerns go unaddressed, by me at least. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your entire post is your own POV, and there is not a fact within for me to hang my hat on. Such as? To this point, I can't think of one time you have actually addessed an issue. So far its been "that link is bad, why don't you edit" repeated in many flavors. If that would continue to be your responses, I think it would be best for you to step aside. -bro 172.150.234.103 02:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

'Heh'. You haven't raised any issues. That's my point. When you edit, you make a substantive change, based on a fact, or an incident, or a conclusion. You've not done that. All you've done is say 'you should put some info from ACVR in here', and compared ACVR to the NAACP and a blog (commondreams). That's fluff. That's just banter.

No, my response about commondreams (which was the only one I mentioned besides Greg Palast, Naacp was mentioned by someone else) was to your request about similarly compromised sources. If you care to dispute that you are welcome, but you haven't. -bro 172.150.234.103 02:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's incorrect to equate the ACVR (a front group started by a Republican committee after the '04 election to counter Conyers' and other official committees) with the NAACP. It's somewhat more appropriate with Palast (a known anti-Bush reporter), but the NAACP was created to advance the interests of African-Americans. They are not 'opposed' to Republicans, they're opposed to black disenfranchisement.

Yet again, -I- did not mention the NAACP. At least argue what I say to me. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Other than 'you should do such-and-such', and 'I won't edit', I've seen little to respond to in your posts. There's a lot to dig thru to find it. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Was there so little to respond to that you had to attribute others comments to me? -bro 172.150.234.103 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This unproven allegation on Cybercast aside, he ACVR was apparently created on March 17, in order to testify before Congress four days later. Their leader, Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, was National Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04. Their communications director, Jim Dyke, was 2004 Communications Director for the Republican National Committee. The report, as described in an RNC email,

uncovers and documents massive amounts of voter intimidation by Democrats and their third party allies and as containing documented Democrat intimidation tactics.

It contains neither. The group and it's report are beyond suspect, to the point where I feel confident with my claim of illegitimacy. Equating Palast, partisan that he is, or the NAACP to ACVR is disingenuous. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, you aren't arguing the facts presented, just the legitimacy of the link. Which, I would be personally fine with, as I could use the same standard to strip much of the bogus sources from the article. Again, I never mentioned the NAACP. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If you would actually do so, I would welcome any removal of 'bogus sources'. Until then, there's little actually on the table to discuss... -- RyanFreisling @ 03:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment. A long time editor of this article (you), would welcome the removal of these sources (which I've already mentioned), but you don't feel you should do it? -bro 172.150.234.103 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Take an incident, write a blurb, and contribute it - so we can talk about facts, not linger in a POV battle. To 'relegate yourself to talk' when your talk posts do not center around specifics, is in essence a low-grade form of bad faith and little more than a generalized expression of discontent. This is not the first time you've conducted a discussion with a refusal to edit, and I'm again requesting that you participate in facts, in the article space, to address your issues. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

More "why don't you edit". Asked and answered. The link in question (which again wasn't -even- brought up by me) contains these facts. You can complain all you wish that I do not actively edit controversial articles, not going to change a thing. Indeed, this isn't the first time I've expressed this position, yet I have to continue to repeat it due to your constant refrain. Again, fact: This source contains information relevent to the article. Fact: Your POV makes you think it not worthy. Rather simple really. -bro 172.150.234.103 02:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is not my POV, as accusing another editor of POV is rarely a ticket to resolving disputes. The point is incidents - you've not raised any here. Raise them. Please. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure you well know, everyone has their own POV. The trick is to not let that effect your work. In this case, you are. As anyone can read in this section, you slam the original link, while poopooing others that are at the very least as bad. Ok, the point is incidents, the incidents are included in the orginal link. You tried to blast the link immediately, while ignoring the content. Raise them. Please. They are raised in the link. Which is why this is pretty frustrating, as it was the very -first- thing in this section. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your personal attacks aside about what's 'affecting my work' (please refrain), I repeat my point. Don't present links here and fret about inaction. Post incidents. Discuss. Involve. Participate. I continue to say it in good faith, and ask it in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, please point to any personal attack. Secondly, yet again, -I- didn't present the link. It would be incredibly helpful for you to attribute what I write to me, and what others write to them. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

'it's affecting your work' is a personal attack. Please don't repeat those kinds of instructions, they are uncivil. Actually, these discussions with you are quite circular, since you never manifest fact, so I'm not going to do the homework to research your refusals to participate, I'm going to focus on the article space and valid concerns raised here, with specifics, in good faith.

The actual quote is The trick is to not let that effect your work. In this case, you are. Your repeated ignoring of the substance does indeed support this. Again, the facts are in the report, which you don't feel you need to address, that is your failing, not mine. These are indeed quite circular, doesn't help when you attribute comments of others to me. Perhaps a more careful reading would help matters. You dont' like the source, we get it. Others don't like many of the sources in the article either. Simple way to fix it is to remove that information, or deal with the information on its own. The latter is what would be more productive, but it isn't what you seem to wish to do. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't post the link, and didn't raise any points, you and I have consumed a lot of bytes for naught. I welcome actual points from you. In the meantime, good night. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with kiz, only to be engaged in this fruitless convesation. For whatever reason you felt that this shouldn't be in the article. Again, if you wish to dispute its contents, go for it, they are there for all to see. -bro 172.150.234.103 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I will say it again - You have not listed any of it's contents here. You have pointed to a link and asked for action. That is not the wiki way.

Please excuse any misattribution, it's not intentional - it's just that the 'signal to noise' ratio of this conversation is quite high until we're talking actual facts... in essence, we're talking about nothing!

Again, I ask you - post those incidents here (or, even, Be bold and put them in the article itself) and let's get to work! I don't want to stifle its' contents. I am intimately familiar with the report, and I have nothing from it to contribute here, unless it is part of a larger 'ACVR' section contianing the most serious allegations, and the most serious conflicts of interest (which would take more effort than I have left tonight from responding to your refusals to edit). Do you have anything specific to bring here from the ACVR? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You have not listed any of it's contents here. You have pointed to a link and asked for action. That is not the wiki way. Actually, what I did was agree with the suggestion of Kiz. In response to your not liking the link, I asked for substantial reasons, that is the wikiway. Its real easy to save the effort of responding to (my) refusals to edit as its been addressed time and time again. The specifics are in the report which you can access as easily as I going there and pasting them here. -bro 172.150.234.103 04:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I can and have reviewed the report, on the day it was released. And I provided my reasons for why ACVR is an illegitimate organization - but there are no facts here to respond to, because you expect others to bring them here. The real difference is, you're asking me to do the work for you, and I'm asking you to participate, which you will not do. Hence the impasse. Must you have the last word? -- RyanFreisling @ 04:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a rather confusing comment. The facts that you wish to respond to are in the link. You can click on the link much easier than I can go there and then paste them here. I'm not asking you to do any work that you have no offered yourself up for. You don't want it included, the substance must be refuted for that to be a valid reason. The substance is available for you. Round and round we go.... You know, the whole last word thing is a rather funny device, why would you bring that up? Do -you- want the last word? If you wish for me to stop responding, all you have to say is 'I can't refute the substance of the link' or 'I don't want to refute the substance of the link', but complaining that you don't have it available to you to comment on must be challenged. -bro 172.150.234.103 04:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You're confused that I choose not to do the work for you? Please. Raise the issues yourself if you feel strongly. Otherwise, don't expect others to prioritize editing tasks you yourself refuse to do. It's not up to me, or anyone else, to edit for you. Wikipedia is quite clear, in encouraging editing. Talk pages are supposed to be for resolution of points in the article. The ACVR isn't in the article? Put it there yourself, or wait for someone else to do it. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Raise the issues http://www.ac4vr.com/reports/072005/default.html -bro 172.150.234.103 05:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

'Bro'... A link doth not a raised issue make. I know their homepage and their reports, their directors and contributors, their mission and their allegations. Just reposting of the link does not constitute participation, it's just regurgitation of known info (the link), and not the info itself (the allegations). Do you plan to bring that information into the article, as any editor would be able to do, or merely to post that link and express outrage occasionally? If so, that's just spamming. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen so much talk page used to persuade someone to edit. 172, I meant no offense in my previous SBASE post, but here's the thing. You have a good suggestion, mention the reports by ACVR while mentioning their scope, in addition, mention the the circumstances surrounding the ACVR. If you don't make these edits, they're not going to get done. Don't simply complain that the article is biased if you don't contribute a single word. Do something about it. If you don't, its no skin off mine or Ryan's backs. Case closed. --kizzle 05:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't make these edits, they're not going to get done. That is indeed the problem, and from which the claim of bias would seem correct. I simply agreed with your first statement on the subject. And took issue with trying to bury it without dealing with the substance they present. The rest of this hubbub has stemmed from the selective identification of questionable sources, and the inability (or reluctance) to deal with the claims they make. I had assumed from your comment of the stories they select are real. and your history as an editor here, that you would want to include this and improve the content. If excluding this information is no skin off mine or Ryan's backs, it would seem that is not your goal. -bro 172.150.234.103 05:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

'trying to bury it'? Not at all. Again - the problem is not that others don't agree with your prioritization of ACVR edits to the article - the problem is that you yourself won't participate as an editor, nor let others do it as they are able/interested. That's unrealistic, against the wiki, and again, it's bordering on bad faith. Period. No one is censoring, no one is stifling, or 'trying to bury' anything,but you are running the risk of being increasingly ignored by well-intentioned editors because you refuse to do what you ask of others. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, do you have some filter that doesn't let the text in every single one of my responses to the problem is that you yourself won't participate as an editor come through on your screen? nor let others do it as they are able/interested Actually, thats not true. I am in no particular rush. The issue is as it was stated by kiz here If you don't make these edits, they're not going to get done.. Your next few sentences are arguing against a big fat strawman. You were indeed trying to stifle with your first response to the link. Give your first response to it a glace when you get the chance. I ask editors who edit this article with the assumed intention of making it better, to do just that. Ignore that as you wish. To Kiz, my last sentence in the comment in response to you was overly harsh. It should have been phrased as a question and not a statement. -bro 172.150.234.103 08:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your response that you 'refuse to edit' controversial articles is not an acceptable one to me. It disqualifies you from having your points actively considered by me - it's bad faith. And all I said was 'The ACVR is a sham', and placed links to substantiate my point, and the very next post explicitly stated:

If by 'it' you mean the questionable origins and conduct of the ACVR, I'm all for it. Even if some of their allegations are correct, and are noteworthy of inclusion, they should really be placed in the article with adequate discussion and context about ACVR and the outrage by many at ACVR's blatant partisanship.

Your claim I'm suppressing the ACVR is false and another ascription of a POV motive/behavior to another editor, when you yourself will not participate - like the rest of your comments about my motives, it is merely more circularity. Contribute yourself. The rest of your 'talk' contribution is shrill and by me, now ignored. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Suppressing would be like if you added it and we reverted it for no reason. But its entirely unfair for you to come up with a change, expect us to make this change for you, and accuse us of suppression when we don't make the change. This is an online encyclopedia where anyone can contribute. Even you. --kizzle 16:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't come up with a change. I agreed that information relevent to the article should be included. That was the extent to which I argued for the information to be in the article. Like I said above, no rush. I accused Ryan of trying to stifle it, which she did by attacking the source and not the information in response to it being presented. -bro 172.171.7.200 19:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I did not stifle it, I called the source a sham. You didn't post the info, you posted the source ONLY, even though I asked you perhaps a dozen times to post the info. And I will ask you again, the last of many times, to stop your personal attacks on me. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ug, one more time, I didn't post the link. I'm afraid referring to your bashing of a source as stifling is accurate. -bro 172.172.211.110 02:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

K. We're all in agreement. Bro, sounds like you have some good suggestions for this article. Neither Ryan or I are inclined to do the work for including these incidents. However, we're not opposed to the info being in the article. The ball's in your court as to whether or not the info is going to be included. --kizzle 21:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Voteprotect.org site

The 'Research and Maps' link on the main voteprotect.org site [5] is the source of the information in the second paragraph (40,000+ 2004 Election incidents). A more direct link may be desirable. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Culling dead links

Thanks for culling some of the dead links, and for leaving the content in place to aid in updating them. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Palast content

An anon user claims the use of links to the Greg Palast information 'in-line' is sufficient to warrant it's deletion [6], [7],[8]. I strongly disagree - Palast's work is well-known and notable within the panoply of election fraud-related material, both for it's prescience (he wrote about much of this before the election) and for it's partisanship. Other opinions? Anon user - please allow opinions to be raised supporting your view before deleting this information outright again. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The Anon now claims it's the style guidelines that are prompting him/her to delete these links. [9]-- RyanFreisling @ 01:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon, I'm not even sure what part of that link allows you to justify their removal. Can you quote from that page and place the applicable passage here? --kizzle 02:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

"If an article has used information from an external webpage or it is to be indicated that more information regarding the article will be available, such as statistics, picture gallery, essays on a website, then such links should be part of the "External links" section at the bottom of the article. If the external reference to be cited pertains to only a paragraph or a line in the article, then the use of inline external links as footnotes serves as a proper citation." 172.168.5.139 02:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Since those two links are used inline with 3 other links, what we should be discussing is whether the inline link or the external link is more valuable to the reader - not deleting the external links outright without discussion. Also, I suggest you choose a screen name... anon editors often find themselves taken less-than-seriously. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me which you have, external or in the article, but only have one. Which was evident in my edit summaries. I've been an editor for many years now, I simply care not what opinions other editors have of me, simply the edits. 172.168.5.139 02:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but if you don't care which it is, exercise your age-old editing skills and don't just blank an entire block of content. If you're really interested in conforming this document to the style guidelines, you'll get little if any opposition. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite sloppy again. I don't care which it is. So I used my "age old editing skills" and removed the extraneous ones in the external links section per style guidelines. It seems you are incorrect in regards to little if any opposition, as can be seen in the history. 172.168.5.139 03:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts - your edit comments were sorely lacking, you simply deleted content when links were unclear, and worse, your anon IP and reluctance to resolve issues here could be misinterpreted as a sign of a poor editor. As far as opposition - we're discussing it here not because you brought your concerns here, but because I did. I'm comfortable with the accuracy of my commentary and my conduct. Your edits, however, are largely indefensible, which surprises me given your advanced experience. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

you simply deleted content when links were unclear No, I removed unsourced information, if you have a link to that information, put it in, citations are not meant to have readers dig through a website. and worse, your anon IP and reluctance to resolve issues here could be misinterpreted as a sign of a poor editor. Don't care. As far as opposition - we're discussing it here not because you brought your concerns here, but because I did. Hooray for you. Discuss all you like, I was following the guideline. Your ignorance of such is not my concern. Your edits, however, are largely indefensible, which surprises me given your advanced experience. Strange, you haven't mentioned one yet. 172.168.5.139 03:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Assume ignorance if you wish - like the rest of your judgments, they are faulty and anti-collaborative. First you deleted the second paragraph of the article, because you couldn't find the right link [10],[11]. Then you proceeded to delete dead links, and a few live ones [12]. If you deleted the content originally because it was unsourced, was deleting the dead links the first step to deleting 'unsourced content'? Can you see how 'caring' enough to raise your concerns here, and helping get other editors involved in actually replacing the dead links [13], rather than deleting them, might help the wikipedia, rather than hurt it? Care? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy. First you deleted the second paragraph of the article, because you couldn't find the right link. Because it wasn't sourced. Once again, cites are there for the information of the reader, they should not have to search a website for the information presented. This, I thought, was obvious. Then you proceeded to delete dead links, and a few live ones. Any "live" ones were done by mistake. If you deleted the content originally because it was unsourced, was deleting the dead links the first step to deleting 'unsourced content'? As is obvious, I left that material since at one time it was sourced. It seems you have issues with verifiability, a shame. Can you see how 'caring' enough to raise your concerns here, and helping get other editors involved in actually replacing the dead links, rather than deleting them, might help the wikipedia, rather than hurt it? I "cared" enough to remove dead links, discussion is not required to do so. Information must be sourced. Let me repeat that. Information must be sourced. If the link doesn't work it must be removed. If someone wants that information there they must find a source which can be verified. Perhaps you should spend some time reading the cite sources, reliable sources etc articles. It seems it would do you good. 172.168.5.139 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Your 'justification' doesn't pass the smell test. Your deletion was unwarranted, and broadcasted your intentions. You could have done much better. I'm not buying it - and you've just joined the ranks of my ignored anon IP's. I won't ignore any more faulty edits, however - just as I won't oppose well-considered ones. Good day. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If this your comments here are any indication of what it takes to pass your 'smell test'. I'll take that as a compliment. I'm giving the voteprotect link another day, and if a direct link isn't made, it will be removed. and you've just joined the ranks of my ignored anon IP's I'm devastated. 172.168.5.139 05:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove the link - but the content stays... it does not depend on the link for validation, it's FACT. It happened. If you delete that entire paragraph because the link is indirect, that's not a valid deletion and it will be reverted. The same with your midnight edits:

• Many Democrats alleged that other election-related problems affected their supporters more heavily - attributing that to Palast alone is untrue. The Conyers report, the Rainbow-Push coalition and many other groups have claimed that Dems were unduly affected.
• The director of blackboxvoting.org, Bev Harris, has filed a lawsuit against Palm Beach County, Florida Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore, which accuses her of stonewalling or ignoring requests for public records. - you followed this up with a link to her successor at BBV, but the event actually happened, and the factual nature of the event is not in dispute.

In short, the style guides do not say 'delete blocks of content if a link is missing or indirect' - if so, most articles would be deleted. Everything DOES NOT require a citation to stay here, and for months before you edited here, that content was grappled with and it's veracity resolved. I see your editing here as an attempt to undermine fact, not express it. To quote another anon editor, Shame. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the hubub going on here. But, yes, an assertion must be backed up with a citation. You are incorrect in your statement otherwise. For the first edit you mention, if others assert this, link to it. Simple enough. For the second edit, is there a problem with updating with more recent material? In summary, if you are asserting something in the article, be prepared to cite it, if you can't cite it, be prepared for it to be removed. I would do the exact same thing, as would many others. 70.110.2.41 00:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Every single paragraph in this article was argued over at length - and many of the citations intentionally removed in the interests of readability - now, must every paragraph be re-cited, to satisfy users who did not participate in the months and months of assembling and editing this article? Surely not every single paragraph requires a persistent citation to remain in an article. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of past arguments, yes, every assertion must be cited. This is in the interest of the wiki policy on verifability. 70.110.2.41 06:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Every assertion is, or has been cited at one point - and no, every assertion need not be cited to remain - just assertions under debate. And before deleting them outright, please bring questions up here. Every citation can be returned if needed. -- RyanFreisling @ 12:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Considering the title of this article, you can see why every assertion is under debate. If ever citation can be returned, it should be. 70.110.2.41 18:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim that every assertion must be cited is absurd. Browse through a few featured articles and notice how few citations there are. When something is widely accepted as fact, one does not need to cite it. Clearly this article should have many citations as it is on a controversial topic, but things like whether Bev Harries filed a lawsuit or Democrats alleged that problems disproportioantely affected them can stand on their own as a simple matter of record. LizardWizard 18:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. [[14]] 70.110.2.41 21:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

No, LizardWizard is 100% right. The article has been thru many NPOV editing passes and has been edited by the community of interested editors - the Wiki Way. The article remains compliant with the Verifiability requirements. Anon - if you feel there is a specific lack of verifiability, point it out and work in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

point it out and work in good faith Ah, well 70, at least he betrayed his words quickly so you don't have to go on and on with him. 172.163.244.167 01:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[I apologize for the extreme indenting, but I want to make it clear to whom I am responding] 70, I'm familiar with the policy on verifiability. Note that not everything needs to be Harvard referenced, nor is citing sources even the be-all-end-all of verifiability. Most clear, precise statements are verifiable, as per WP:V. Furthermore, if you feel content is dubious I encourage you to follow the steps laid out at WP:V - this is much preferable to blanking. Specifically, the wikipedia community needn't hear anything about your doubt until the 6th step, and it's not until step 9 and a week later that removal is indicated. LizardWizard 01:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

To the anons: It sounds like you have some knowledge we are unaware of that renders certain paragraphs here to be false. It is important to have constructive criticism of any article on Wikipedia, and I look forward to dialoguing with you as to what specific areas you have a problem with. Start by posting a section for each passage you dispute and see if you can spend 5 minutes and find a source yourself before posting. If not, we'll all chip in and see if we can come to some agreement as to the veracity of the statement. --kizzle 01:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am considering an RFC on User:RyanFreisling's incivility, offensive conduct and POV pushing. Can I find any support here? --Agiantman 01:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if anyone has any evidence of incivility, offensive conduct, or POV pushing on my part, please provide it to Agiantman - if my behavior warrants an RfC, I would only benefit from learning how to improve my conduct here.

As an aside, I would also recommend that Agiantman avoid the appearance of wiki stalking, by not following my contributions and posting whereever I have. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I certainly can attest to both incivility (not very important in my mind actually), and POV pushing. Heck, a quick read through of just this page is evidence enough for both. 172.135.239.51 01:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Heck, if you think so, please provide that information to Agiantman. I stand by my conduct here. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman, If you're going to file an RfC, file one already. Don't go around threatening to file one and causing disturbances on article talk pages. --kizzle 16:57, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Quick question, being that the Democrats are alleging election fraud, why does the section of the article discussing voter supression have mostly to do with Democrats doing illegal things? -Jack Blatt

Troubles me a bit too. In that section there are two mentions of GOP illegality and two of Democratic Party illegality - the 'tire slashing' and the 'Marion County (added last night)' episodes are incidents of crimes by the Democrats and the 'Kucinich' and 'Michigan rep quote' are incidents of wrongdoing by the GOP. I do feel that the section is unduly weighted in the GOP's favor to 'balance' NPOV, which of course unbalances the reader's perspective about the relative proportion of the volume of claims by each side. (these claims were made overwhelmingly by Democrats). RyanFreisling @ 16:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The article name is not "democratic allegations of fraud and irregularities". 172.134.175.138 21:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. It's just a fact that the claims of fraud are made overwhelmingly by Democrats. --kizzle 21:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. That is the function of being the loser. Media attention focused upon those allegations, does not mean there were actually more of them. 172.209.84.146 23:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Media attention is at issue in the article (see Media lockdown). And your argument, while predictable, is entirely false. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Media attention has a section, it is not a the topic of the article. My argument, being so predictible and all, stands entirely unrefuted by you. 172.148.137.250 00:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is completely flawed from the outset, and while I would be glad to walk you through why it's completely flawed, I will sum it up to say that the vast percentage of reports (media or otherwise) of irregularities in the '04 Election favored Bush. Period. That's not sore loser-itis, that's not POV. That's fact. So, your premise that 'media attention' determined the percentage of reports favoring one candidate over another is more than incorrect - it's fundamentally flawed. The article itself refutes your point - but I'm gathering from your argument that you may not even have read it. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to point this out, but you stating something, does not equal fact. The rest of your comment crumbles under that leap. 172.148.137.250 01:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ludicrous. Wikipedia is not a faith-based medium. The facts regarding the 40,000 incidents in the EIRS are in the article, they and many others around suppression, voting machine errors and distribution, etc., are clear, a matter of public record and this is uncontestable - your argument, once again, remains completely spurious on it's very face. My opinion hasn't even entered the discussion. As Bill Maher put it:

"You don't have to cover two sides of a debate when one side is complete bullshit."

Substantiate YOUR claim, that there were an equal number of irregularities for both candidates, and media bias has resulted in the perception of a pro-Bush percentage. That's science. That's NPOV. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ludicrous. Wikipedia is not a faith-based medium. What this has to do with anything, I'll never know. The facts regarding the 40,000 incidents in the EIRS are in the article, they and many others around suppression, voting machine errors and distribution, etc., are clear, a matter of public record and this is uncontestable Luckily, I never contested them, but your little assumption game just got worse. You assume these are all allegations by democrats. Tsk tsk. As Bill Maher put it Thank god his opinions mean nothing here. Substantiate YOUR claim, that there were an equal number of irregularities for both candidates Where did I make this claim? media bias has resulted in the perception of a pro-Bush percentage Again, where did I make this claim? Your silliness continues. 172.154.204.2 02:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote you:

"Media attention focused upon those allegations {by Democrats} does not mean there were actually more of them." -- 172.209.84.146 23:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As before, your objection has become circular, pointless and rhetorical, and as before, I'll refrain from further comment with you until you raise actual fact. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, reading comprehension problems I see. "Media attention focused upon those allegations {by Democrats} does not mean there were actually more of them." This means, to dumb it down, that the reason given does not mean there were actually more of them. It does not mean that they were equal, or any other proportion. So again, where did I make the claim: Substantiate YOUR claim, that there were an equal number of irregularities for both candidates 172.154.204.2 02:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you prove my point - you are merely being rhetorical, and trolling. Your point was clear. Again, I ask you to provide fact, not faith, and not try to spin what is an obvious issue. Please do not delete the recently-added content on your own volition again, without making a factual argument. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, it seems you consider arguing strawmen, ignoring whats actually said, and misdirection to be the way to argue. I'll take your labels and wear them with pride. Unfortunately, you do not present fact, you present hyperbole, and when thats smashed you make up a position and slap it on whoever. It is quite entertaining, yet horribly unproductive. The argument, factual even, is made, as usual. This time in the edit summary, ignoring it does not equal it not being made. Continue as you like, but don't expect to be taken seriously. 172.154.204.2 03:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You have a long history of attacking others with the very critiques that you yourself are prone to. I could literally turn that exact post around to describe your content - and in your case (unlike mine), the facts of our actions and contributions would bear it out. If you can agree to stop personal attacks, I will attempt to illustrate again why your argument is logically fallacious. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"bro" If you read this, head over to [15], per his MO, he is misattributing comments. 172.157.101.186 03:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am certain 'bro' will appear soon, based on the fact that you are almost undoubtedly him. Not buying it. And it's 'she', not 'he'. Good night. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately, your "buying it" means nothing to me. What I do enjoy, is exposing your ignorance. 172.149.162.30 04:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, the personal attacks... (sigh) -- RyanFreisling @ 04:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but I am just stating facts like you asked. I see you still haven't corrected your misattributions etc. I can't think of a more blatant personal attack. 172.149.162.30 04:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon IP 3RR vio

Our resident anon IP 'non-editor' has committed a 3RR vio on the article.

Revert war

Stop revert warring please. I've blocked a group of IP addresses for 3RR violation. Radiant_>|< 11:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Radiant!. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

As I am sure you know, blocking those IPs is rather useless. But, carry on. 172.138.13.214 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed disputed content

Removed this partisan-tainted content from the intro. We should review it here, as many of these incidents did indeed occur. They simply do not belong in the intro paragraph - and we should discuss the relative quantity of complaints against both sides for each type of fraud. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

After the 2004 U.S. Presidential election there were allegations of massive fraud, including but not limited to forging vote totals, miscounting votes for John Kerry as votes for George W. Bush, miscounting votes for George W. Bush as votes for John Kerry, Democratic operatives phoning Republican voters to falsly inform them that polling places have been moved, widespread voter intimidation, illegal aliens registered as Democrats, Democrat election workers paying people to register to vote, Democrats registering deceased persons to vote, and depriving neighborhoods likely to vote for Kerry of voting machines.

Over 40,000 alleged incidents were reported in the 2004 election, ranging from minor errors to direct voter intimidation, mishandled absentee and provisional ballots, malfunctioning or inaccurate machines and/or apparent hacking and vote tampering. (Source [16]).

The problem is, it's not biased. The fact is that the irregulaties only go in one direction. So don't shoot the messenger and don't cower in the face of irrationality, tell it like it is, IMO. If there were more rabbits than hares, would it be wrong to state that? No. Does it all the sudden become wrong when it becomes political? No. To the contrary, it becomes more imperative to state it. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine exit polls

The article mentions the second/proper election better agreed with the original exit polls. This is not too relevant. What's much more important and I assume it it the case that the second election agree with the exil polls for that election. It doesn't matter much with regards to the second election what the exit polls for the first/fraud election showed as it's easily possible a number of people changed their minds as a result of the controvery (the fraud, the poisoning etc). I personally suspect if the first poll hadn't involved so much fraud, it would have been closer then the second election although I suspect it would have still given a majority to the winner of the second election. Regardless, what's important is the first election 'results' did not agree with the exit polls for the first election and the second election results agreed much better with the exit polls for the second election which I would assume was the case. 60.234.141.76 13:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I have added a dispute tag to this article and all of its sub-articles, on the grounds that they read like the collective waste product of a sea of blogs, which, coincidentally, they are. Feel free to remove it when all nine pages are merged to a single page that is not so long it sets off a length warning. Snowspinner 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your dispute tag is unwarranted and will, undoubtedly, be reverted. If you object to the length or the quality of writing, the tag you chose is utterly inappropriate. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculously POV to suggest that there are 60,000 accurate words worth saying about this topic. Snowspinner 05:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it is ridiculous to conclude that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your action (applying the tag) - which is unjustifiable and likely to be quite temporary. If you want to improve the article, you are as welcome as always.... but your use of the tag is incorrect. You might have been better served only tagging this article, and getting feedback first - because you've introduced a dozen or more improper tags on your own whim, without regard for the community. -- RyanFreisling @

No. I'm not welcome, and you know it. If I try to give any of these articles the enema they so desperately need, I will be reverted, continually. Snowspinner 05:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Lovely (and telling) imagery. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a look below. The sources on this article are appallingly bad. Snowspinner 06:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of the tag is correct. This article is utter horseshit. I don't like Bush, but I don't like crappy encyclopedias filled with original research and blog-sewage either. --Delirium 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I have added a dispute tag to this article and all of its sub-articles, on the grounds that they read like the collective waste product of a sea of blogs, which, coincidentally, they are. Feel free to remove it when all nine pages are merged to a single page that is not so long it sets off a length warning. Snowspinner 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your dispute tag is unwarranted and will, undoubtedly, be reverted. If you object to the length or the quality of writing, the tag you chose is utterly inappropriate. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculously POV to suggest that there are 60,000 accurate words worth saying about this topic. Snowspinner 05:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it is ridiculous to conclude that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your action (applying the tag) - which is unjustifiable and likely to be quite temporary. If you want to improve the article, you are as welcome as always.... but your use of the tag is incorrect. You might have been better served only tagging this article, and getting feedback first - because you've introduced a dozen or more improper tags on your own whim, without regard for the community. -- RyanFreisling @

No. I'm not welcome, and you know it. If I try to give any of these articles the enema they so desperately need, I will be reverted, continually. Snowspinner 05:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Lovely (and telling) imagery. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a look below. The sources on this article are appallingly bad. Snowspinner 06:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of the tag is correct. This article is utter horseshit. I don't like Bush, but I don't like crappy encyclopedias filled with original research and blog-sewage either. --Delirium 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick tour of the citations in this article

Going purely through the numbered citations here...

1 is an article from the "Election Incident Reporting Service," an election monitoring group so important it has no article on Wikipedia. Its phone number now sends you to the "Lawyer's Commision for Civil Rights" 2 is an advocacy group against electronic voting. 3 is "news4Jax.com," which I assume serves the good people of Jacksonville. No national news carried this story? Odd. 4 is a site that's "Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community." 5 claims "wealthy and powerful interests" control U.S. elections - wonder if they have any bias. 6 is a "voice for the progressive south" 7 briefly looked to me like it would be a CNN article, but no, it's a random blog. 8, same blog. 9, at last, a Washington Post article! Well, OK, a Washington Post editorial. But at least it's an editorial from a mainstream publication. 10, a scholarly article that went through peer review so fast it got to version 2 within a week of the election, and had no authors attached to it. Man, that sure puts my scholarship to shame. 11, tough to tell since the article is no longer available, being behind a registration screen. 12, good show, good show. 13, liberal advocacy group, quoting a Latino think tank that hasn't updated its webpage in 2005. Oddly, neither of these are the Associated Press citation mentioned in the article though. 14, again, not a bad citation. 15 is admitted by the article as "a group called US Count Votes," which is about all that's clear about them. They investigate the accuracy of elections. No qualifications about their use as a source, but they're good enough for three citations in a row, apparently. 16 and 17 are also US Count Votes 18, ah, 18 is good. 18 plunges into that age-old source of good journalism, the random geocities page. 19 is indeed by Dennis Kucinich, writing in that great and unbiased newspaper "Common Dreams" 20 brings a smile to my heart, being well acquainted with Marion County, Ohio, but again, national news sources not picking this up? Wonder why. 21, a notable newspaper. I'm sure that mean old state legislator really did say it. I do wonder about how NPOV the paragraph its cited in is, though. I mean, I don't think "Political parties generally pay lip service to the ideal of encouraging turnout." is going to win any NPOV prizes. So, sure, good source, terrible usage. 22, San Francisco Chronicle, a good newspaper, if a totally random little bit oftrivia. 23, also a lovely source. Pity it's about the 2000 election. 24, the NAACP. Completely unbiased group, not known for their political advocacy. 25, progressive news site 26, MSNBC rehosted to the NAACP? Odd, if not actually a bad citation 27, blog 28, legitimate newspaper (Third good source that's actually on the topic of the 2004 election?) 29, anti-war group 30, Michael Moore! Lovely! 31, Michael Moore again! 32, we're up to four good sources. 33, again, we're dealing with those important national news sources. 34, we're drawing from the Guerilla News Network. Can we not actually cite the International Herald Tribune where the article comes from? 35, No, we can, we just like double citing things so we can get our liberal news networks in. (Five good sources) 36, an explanation of why all the other sources suck. Well, that's something. Of course, it does lend credence to the claim that this is all original research, if its based on the l33t s33krit sources that the real media has been hiding. And it begs the question of why, if there's a media coverup, the Boston Globe is reporting it. 37, another one of those news stories that just didn't fit into any of the national news broadcasts. Too bad, so sad. 38 doesn't seem to exist. 39, another local news source 40, same local news source. 41, Truth OUt again 42, Project Censored: News that Didn't Make the News. 43, Truth Out 44, "How the Christian right is on track to overthrow secular America." Nope, no bias there. 45, from the Free Press again. 46, doesn't the HoR publish their own transcripts we could link to instead of an advocacy group? 47, this is good source number 5, right? 48, Wired News. Good source. Except, well, not so much a political news source. 49 and 50, both good, though why it's so important to mention the bad voting machines that weren't used I'm not sure. Again, good source for a wholly irrelevent argument. 51, not a major news source at all. 52, a web forum thread! 53, minor news source. Progressive biased? I'm too tired to check. 54, one of the leading journalists in the country. So leading, she's not affiliated with any newspaper! 55, it's the same article again! 56, Wired. Accurate, yes. That notable election expert Ben Cohen really did say that. Of course, his qualifications as an election expert are, what, administering Ben and Jerry's new flavor polls? 57, Good. (6) 58, Good (7) 59, registration page for a news site 60, The Green Party press release. (Must have gotten a lot of coverage) 61, again, Green Party press releases. 62, Nader press release this time. 63, Nader again 64, What is this a source for? That Conyers is actually a congressman? 65, What is this supporting? 66, Michael Moore 67, Green Party 68, All right, you can have this one too.

68 sources, 8 of them are things where, if one of my students uesd them to support the claim in question, I would let it go without making them find a better source. Many of them are repeats, partisan press, or non-existant.

I should put an unverified tag on the article too, shouldn't I? Snowspinner 06:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Blog posts and other 'non-noteworthy' sources and content can, and should, be removed if the information claimed is uncorroborated. That has been the process all along. However, in this instance it is important to mention that advocacy groups, election research groups and independent media WERE leading the investigations and in some instances BECAME noteworthy in the process.

No one is prohibiting anyone from editing these articles, if their edits improve them. However, your critique of many of those sources (Green party, some of the elections groups, EIRS, 'Liberal papers', etc. is POV in it's own right. Make your edits - edit! Just do so wihtout the hostility and the presumption of POV-pushing - and ensure that your edits are such that they improve the article, not one that better suits your POV.

No one wants false or unverifiable information on Wikipedia here to be cloaked as fact, and your critique of the sources, while valid, is only an indirect way of uncovering fact. Why not concentrate on the issues and assertions for which those sources are cited? -- RyanFreisling @ 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that the sources aren't noteworthy. I'm asserting that they're biased sources, read entirely within their own limited field, being cited without qualification. I'm asserting that no notability or consequence came from any of this - there remains no significant mainstream media coverage, a year after the elections, of the alleged voter fraud. The whole thing turned out to be a non-issue, and the blogs' investigation fizzled. If you want to assert that these groups lead an investigation that is in any way notable, successful, or worth covering as anything other than what some leftist groups were busy doing for a few months, you can't cite the blogs - you need to cite CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, the NYT, the WSJ, Fox News, USA Today, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune - some nationally recognized media source in which these incidents got substantially picked up. A blog is a primary source - reporting its claims verbatim is original research. If what happened in a blog spawned some worthwhile investigation the secondary sources - the mainstream media that picked up on it - is where we need to turn. Snowspinner 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your policy of an across-the-board sanction on using blogs as sources. There are a few blogs such as MysteryPollster and Andrew Sullivan that are notable, verifiable, and most definetely reputable news sources. I'd agree with you on about 99% of blogs, but there are some such as MP (which is germane to the topic at hand) that I believe merit inclusion. As for your criteria of bias, I don't see how you can justify including anything from editorials in these nationally-recognized news sources, which are always biased, but exclude highly-recognized blogs such as Sullivan and MP. Remember, reputable, verifiable, and notable, not impartial. --kizzle 18:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If I was not clear, I don't think editorials are good sources either. I will grant that an editorial in the WP is better than an editorial in Common Dreams - but not by a lot. And I can accept that Mystery Pollster and Andrew Sullivan are notable subjects. I still think, however, that if their stories do not get picked up by a single major news source, that's mitigates heavily against them being credible on a given fact. Snowspinner 18:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If by major news source you're talking about the half-dozen highly reputable papers such as LA times, NY times, WaPo, etc., plus the cable news networks, there's a lot of stuff that goes on that they don't cover. I think it's a logical fallacy to assume that simply because an event did not appear in the few mainstream news sources, that it did not happen. For example, the complexities of the exit poll section do not warrant a segment on Hannity and Colmes or really any other TV show because they are complex and not interesting to the average viewer. However, this does not mean that there does not exist a vigorous academic debate between fraudsters and cynics as to what the meaning, if any, the exit poll discrepancy has on the possibility of fraud. I am currently writing an argument paper on the matter, and I sympathize with you Snowspinner on the lack of quality sources available that don't start out dogmatically concluding John Kerry actually won the election and that "Bushco" stole the vote. I also agree that the sources used on this page should be examined carefully, but I think that much of the info currently on these pages can remain if one simply takes the time to find the primary sources such as academic papers, government reports, legal documents, and even blogs such as BradBlog and Rawstory that post their own primary sources (such as audio interviews on Brad and scanned documents for Rawstory), rather than the low quality blogs that reference them. I had to do that for my paper and was quite successful in finding reputable sources (and believe me, I pruned the shit out of most of them). --kizzle 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I just have a lot of trouble with the idea that a large-scale national issue like this - an allegedly stolen election - didn't get national coverage. If there is something worth covering in an encyclopedia in this, there is a mainstream, verifiable source for it. If there is not, this is original research. It may well be true - hell, Kerry could well have won the election. I don't know. I do know that the verifiable sources that can be drawn on to give a summary of the situation don't get you to the point this article goes to. Snowspinner 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article is alleging that the election was stolen, but rather in certain cases, fraud on various levels was alleged. If it is alleging the election was stolen, than that should definetely be taken out, as there really is no credible evidence justifying such a giant and controversial conclusion. However, this does not mean that in isolated incidents, there were indications of fraud that could have happened in the tens of thousands of votes, as evidenced in the voting procedures headed by Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio. Read John Conyer's "What Went Wrong in Ohio" to gain a proper scope of what kind of disenfranchisement was indicated by Blackwell's choices. In this encyclopedia, we focus upon information that is verifiable from notable, reputable sources. Why do we need to additionally limit this to mainstream sources? The information in the official RABA report documenting the (in)security of Diebold machines is verifiable, comes from the actual company that tested the machines for the state of Maryland, but is covered barely anywhere in the media. We have satisfied notable, verifiable, and reputable (go to www.raba.com). Should we exclude information from this report simply because its not mainstream? --kizzle 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should exclude fringe information. There are mainstream analyses of the election; making up our own analysis is original research. The situation is similar with history articles: We should report history as historians analyze it, not dig up our own primary sources and write new historical analyses. If you wish to do that, you should first do it elsewhere, get your article published in a reputable journal, and then it will be reported in Wikipedia. Similarly, for this article, we should cite reputable analyses of the election, not conduct our own original research. --Delirium 00:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoting a report is not "producing a primary source", as per the definition of Original Research. Can you quote where it says we can only use external analysis rather than technical reports or other data? And I wouldn't exactly consider the RABA report "fringe", as it was the official security report of the company hired to evaluate Maryland's Diebold machines. Definetely not fringe. --kizzle 01:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See the official policy, Wikipedia:No original research, which explicitly says that original analysis based on data is original research and not to be included. See in particular the statement from Jimbo (Wikipedia's founder): "An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one." --Delirium 08:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me. It's not like this is a raw data output like a graph, data sheet, scatterplot, etc. that i'm interpreting, this is an analysis, go read the RABA report at www.raba.com. If we're to include a section on the security weaknesses of Diebold machines, this is the best document to reference, and it can be done so by simply quoting verbatim certain conclusions and passages from it. While it may not be mainstream, it certainly is verifiable, notable, and reputable. Please go read the RABA report before you call it raw data and not an analysis. --kizzle 17:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No. You don't understand. The RABA report should be cited as the RABA report, period. If the article follows the conclusions of the RABA report, that's original research. If it states or implies that the RABA report is true, that is POV. If RABA is a partisan or advocacy group, it falls afoul of [17]. Snowspinner 17:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page. I thought Delirium was implying that even citing the RABA report while not accepting it as truth was considered original research. BTW, RABA is not a partisan group, go to the site to see what they're about. --kizzle 18:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what I meant to imply. I mostly object to citing primary-source data and making arguments from that, as some of the Wikipedian-produced graphs are doing. --Delirium 18:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I think it's great that you're trying to improve the accuracy of this article and remove some of the dubious claims. I gave up on that task a while back - it's just too hard to get anything changed on this page when some editors watch it like a hawk. While I believe we share the same goal, I'd like to ask that you please be careful editing - for example, MysteryPollster is not some "random blog". The author is an expert on political polling and he makes a point not to misuse statistics. It's still up to readers to decide if they want to believe him, but my point is he's a step above the "random blog" level. Anyway, good luck getting this article changed. Rhobite 02:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's still my feeling, however, that blogs are problematic sources - they're self-published without editorial oversight, and just can't be leaned on in the same way as an edited national newspaper or a peer-reviewed journal. Since the degree to which mainstream media is reading the blogs is, at this point, well documented, I would figure that anything Mystery Pollster found that's important would get picked up somewhere else - I'm not saying "became a scandal that CNN led with every day for a week," but is there really nothing in the archives of any national news source following up on Mystery Pollster? Because if so, that speaks very badly about Mystery Pollster. Snowspinner 05:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting use of words, i.e., that national newspapers can be "leaned on". Many believe this is exactly what is happening to most national newspapers and explains why national news sources do not follow up on blogs like MysteryPollster.

Nothing in the mainstream news has really followed up on the election irregularities, but that just reflects poorly on the news. With so little coverage of the irregularities in the news, there's not enough space, not to mention research, to cover much of anything, including the famed mystery pollster. But the choices of the mainstream newspapers, whatever they may be based on, are certainly not based on the merits of the site or its role in the controversy. Both sides of the debate found it a source of refreshingly solid information. Kevin baas 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

Snowspinner and Delirium, I'm glad you've taken the time to try and give this article a careful examination of the sources used and the conclusions drawn from them. However, before you both start wholesale deleting every passage that looks prima facie like it comes from a dubious source, I invite both of you along with Kevin Baas, Ryan Freisling, and anyone else who wants to discuss the matter to go over each disputed passage one by one. Start with any passage and use the template here, and lets discuss each change before it is simply removed.

Let's not. We all seem to be in agreement that the page needs work. If I make a deletion you disagree with, bring it up on talk, but I'm not going to spend time explaining every edit I want to make to this page - if there are ones you have particular problems with, please explain below. Otherwise, I'm going to continue the editing work. Snowspinner 19:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, I don't want to have to play catch-up to every single edit that you make. I don't want to have to search through each individual edit you make... how is that collaboration? I want to collaborate with you, not play referee to your edits after the fact. If you want to take the time to make this article better, you need to take the time to work with other editors. --kizzle 19:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And I'm happy to. But it's ridiculous to expect me to operate as though every one of my edits is disputed before I've even made it. Snowspinner 20:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See also WP:BOLD Snowspinner 20:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

YOu are welcome to be bold - and when your edits are not justified (as in your plastering of NPOV and disputed tags across the family of articles without specifics), they'll doubtless be as boldly reverted. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you saying claiming these articles are POV is unjustified? Snowspinner 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is some POV in these articles, as they were initially hastily written as information became available. This, however, does not justify you from making dozens of edits and forcing us to wade through each individual one to see where we disagree. I agree in most cases, you should be bold. But you shouldn't start deleting everything you don't like, that's a little too bold. So that we can keep track of what you're deleting, just use the template, copy and paste the passage being deleted/edited, and leave a one line description as to why you did it. It's only common courtesy. --kizzle 22:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a substantial amount of extra work, especially for the uncontroversial. I explain my reasons in my edit summaries. If you object, bring it up on talk. But it's absurd to revert changes without explanation because you insist on getting prior approval on all changes. Snowspinner 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to take the work to do this right, then don't do it at all. This lack of effort on your part in no way justifies your wholesale deletions of sections without discussion, thus putting the onus of discussion on multiple sections hidden within the history on us. --kizzle 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion unwarranted. I object to both reversals - we have discussed the reasons above. Both are factual, corroborated incidents involving noteworthy individuals that speak directly to election irregularities. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

While I will grant that Ben Cohen is a notable figure in the world of, say, ice cream, I don't see where he's any more notable than I am on the subject of elections. As for the Michigan representative, it is a random fact in the context of the section - everything else alleges fraud in Ohio and Florida, and then this one quote supports fraud in Michigan - it's completely beside the point. Snowspinner 03:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Your observations do not mitigate the fact that these two sections are relevant and should not have been deleted (now multiple times) by you. Cohen has been actively involved as an election activist since before the election, and Ohio and Florida are not the sole location of the irregularities, nor the 2004 election. I am asking you to honor this as you claim to and revert your deletion. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How loud Cohen has been as an activist is immaterial - he's simply not a subject expert by any definition. And if you want to make a claim of broad irregularities in that passage that the Detroit quote backs up, do it - but in its current form, it's a quote that is relevent to none of the claims surrounding it. So no, I don't intend to revert those changes - I stand by them. Snowspinner 04:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"how loud" isn't the issue. He's a notable figure, and notable in the field of election reform issue. The quote form the Michigan Republican official is an on-the-record comment stating flatly that they must suppress voting - directly relevant to the topic! Stand by them if you must, but you're not considering my points and we'll wind up in conflict if you don't take a step back from your assertions and look at the plain facts about the relevance of these sections. Again, I ask you to return the content to the article and discuss here further BEFORE deleting. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(Moving left) What establishes Cohen's notability on election reform? It's certainly not any credentials he has. And merely speaking about an issue does not make one particularly notable, or the George W. Bush article would be quoting Barbara Streishand and Martin Sheen left and right. Out of all the people in the world, what makes Ben Cohen's opinion an especially important one on election reform? Why should I think he knows more than other people? Because it's certainly not obvious on the face of it.

As for the Michigan Republican, yes - it is indeed an on-the-record comment. Though "state senator" isn't really an "official" - you make it sound like he's some kind of campaign coordinator. But the real problem is that that was the only place in the article where Detroit is mentioned - nor is it mentioned anywhere in the vote supression article. You have a quote supporting vote supression in an area you're not even talking about in the rest of the article. It's a complete piece of misdirection - make an argument about Ohio, and then follow it with a juicy quote on a completely different topic. If there is vote supression to be talked about in Detroit, put information in about it - but it has no bearing on anything else that's currently in the article. Snowspinner 05:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You have a known, notable figure, active in election reform issues, describing his first-hand conclusions regarding the hackability of the voting system. You have an elected official admitting that they need to suppress voter turnout to win the election. Each certainly relates to the topic of the article, and to the theses of the sections in which they exist.

Both sections belong in the article, and I am now asking you for the third time to please revert your unwarranted deletion to avoid a revert war. -- RyanFreisling @ 11:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ben Cohen is not an expert on polling - he's just a celebrity mouthing off, and his opinion doesn't belong here. The Detroit quote is deceptive because it's sandwiched between two Ohio paragraphs. If we don't cover Detroit elsewhere in the article, the quote should go. Seems like an unfortunate choice of words to me, not an admission of conspiracy anyway. Rhobite 12:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rhobite here, and lets try to keep random celebrity mouth-offs and blog slush away from this article.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How is a statement by the organiser of an advocacy group a "random celebrity"?

Cohen is taking his message to the annual conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State, who meet tomorrow at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in the capitol...[Cohens group] which raised $100,000 in its first two days of fundraising last week, aims to convince other states to follow the lead of California...campaign is being run by TrueMajority, an online activist organization that he launched in June 2002...nonprofit, non-partisan organization has 400,000 members...s focusing on e-voting regulations at the state level because a bill before U.S. Congress to mandate a voter-verified paper trail has stalled.

Guettarda 15:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm still baffled - he founded a liberal action group. His group is not comprised of election experts. He is still not an election expert. I don't doubt that he's very passionate about the issue, but founding an advocacy group - one that's not even actually related to elections as such - does not make one a credible source. If you wanted to quote him in a section describing the groups that were involved in questioning the election, that's one thing, but the quote being used is to support the claim that electronic voting was a failure - and that's not something scoping ice cream or founding an advocacy group gives you any meaningful qualification to do. Snowspinner 15:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Then why not delete the whole section? It talks about advocacy around the issue of computer voting machines. Since Diebold machines and the lack of a paper trail are central to the controversy, and have been covered by major media outlets (I learned about the issue first in the NYTimes), why should a statement by the leader of a group which campaigned actively against these machines not be relevant to the article? Guettarda 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I said celebrity mouth-offs, I did say that "a statement = a celebrity", so please do not try to put words into my mouth that are designed to be nonesense. Also, I was refering to the quote about the hackers, not the one you posted above.

There was an abundance of controversy, pages and pages of it. Lets keep this article to down to at least somewhat more credible sources. Plenty of studies have shown flaws in the system, and so those studies belong here much more than the Ice Cream business owner's uncited claim(which perhaps is true, who knows?).Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 15:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Ex-Ice-cream-business-owner.
2. I have no idea what you mean by: "I said celebrity mouth-offs, I did say that "a statement = a celebrity", so please do not try to put words into my mouth that are designed to be nonesense." You called Cohen's statement a "celebrity mouth-off", right? All I said is, the quote should not be interpreted as "Cohen-as'celebrity", it should be interpreted as "Cohen-as-leader-of-400,000-member-advocacy-group" How is a statement, that was aimed at a meeting of State Secretaries-of-State, not noteworthy?
3. Where am I putting words in your mouth?

Guettarda 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"How is a statement by the organiser of an advocacy group a "random celebrity"?".

Those are the words you put in my mouth. Either is is semantics strawman or you just you meant "how is the organizer" instead of "how is a statement" but typed the wrong. Hopefully it is the latter.

He is random as he is not knowledgable on the topic like officials or researchers and election workers. As I already said, I was refering to the 1 minute hacking quote. If you want to add:

"Cohen is taking his message to the annual conference of the National Association of Secretaries of State, who meet tomorrow at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in the capitol...[Cohens group] which raised $100,000 in its first two days of fundraising last week, aims to convince other states to follow the lead of California...campaign is being run by TrueMajority, an online activist organization that he launched in June 2002...nonprofit, non-partisan organization has 400,000 members...s focusing on e-voting regulations at the state level because a bill before U.S. Congress to mandate a voter-verified paper trail has stalled."

Then by all means do so, as I have no problem with that. Thank you.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M}

Template (one line description of passage)

Passage: Insert passage here.

---

Discussion:

This passage is whack. --kizzle 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikibreak

As a heads up, my silence on this issue for the next few weeks should not be taken as my agreeing with anything in this article. (In fact, after looking at Kevin's most recent three edits to it, I'm even more appalled - he removed a right-leaning election watchdog group from the intro as partisan, while leaving Black Box Voting, which has always been particularly obsessed with Diebold's connection to the GOP?) Frankly, the stress of trying to fix this article in the face of an overwhelming number of POV pushers who are committed to fighting every step tooth and nail has achieved its goal - I don't have the stomach to fight this out right now, and trying to do so is distracting me from more important things in my life. Snowspinner 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a note to Snowspinner, I believe those edits are wrongly attributed to me. Not to use a cliche in the agressive sense, but literally speaking, I don' t know what he's talking about. (i haven't looked through the page history) Not to say that i haven't mistaken one person's edits for someone else's before. I think that's a common mistake on wikipedia. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

recent tags removed from article

As there has been no supporting discussion here to justify the 'totallydisputed' and 'originalresearch' tags, they have been removed. The article still is far from 'ideal' or 'perfect' - please contribute to the improvement of the content. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:48, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan about removing the tags, just a note to anyone wanting to re-add them, he is not alone :).Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 01:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

GAO Report

We'll be updating the article to reference the latest GAO Report, which states:

The nonpartisan GAO report has now found that, "some of [the] concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The United States is the only major democracy that allows private partisan corporations to secretly count and tabulate the votes with proprietary non-transparent software. Rev. Jesse Jackson, among others, has asserted that "public elections must not be conducted on privately-owned machines." The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush.

Bush's official margin of victory in Ohio was just 118,775 votes out of more than 5.6 million cast. Election protection advocates argue that O'Dell's statement still stands as a clear sign of an effort, apparently successful, to steal the White House.

Among other things, the GAO confirms that:

1. Some electronic voting machines "did not encrypt cast ballots or system audit logs, and it was possible to alter both without being detected." In other words, the GAO now confirms that electronic voting machines provided an open door to flip an entire vote count. More than 800,000 votes were cast in Ohio on electronic voting machines, some seven times Bush's official margin of victory.

2. "It was possible to alter the files that define how a ballot looks and works so that the votes for one candidate could be recorded for a different candidate." Numerous sworn statements and affidavits assert that this did happen in Ohio 2004.

3. "Vendors installed uncertified versions of voting system software at the local level." Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards can easily be done, according to the GAO.

4. The GAO also confirms that access to the voting network was easily compromised because not all digital recording electronic voting systems (DREs) had supervisory functions password-protected, so access to one machine provided access to the whole network. This critical finding confirms that rigging the 2004 vote did not require a "widespread conspiracy" but rather the cooperation of a very small number of operatives with the power to tap into the networked machines and thus change large numbers of votes at will. With 800,000 votes cast on electronic machines in Ohio, flipping the number needed to give Bush 118,775 could be easily done by just one programmer.

5. Access to the voting network was also compromised by repeated use of the same user IDs combined with easily guessed passwords. So even relatively amateur hackers could have gained access to and altered the Ohio vote tallies.

6. The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy, meaning, again, getting into the system was an easy matter.

7. One DRE model was shown to have been networked in such a rudimentary fashion that a power failure on one machine would cause the entire network to fail, re-emphasizing the fragility of the system on which the presidency of the United States was decided.

8. GAO identified further problems with the security protocols and background screening practices for vendor personnel, confirming still more easy access to the system.

This list taken from an article by Fitrakis and Wasserman]. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Good info, we should tie it in with statistical evidence too (from Ohio specifically and the Judge vote count disparity controversy etc). zen master T 19:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's try not to confuse the GAO report with left-wing editorials. Nowhere does the GAO report mention the Diebold CEO's offhand remark, nor does the report state that any actual fraud occurred in the 2004 election, immaterial or material. Rhobite 18:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Diebold's CEO's comment actually happened? --kizzle 20:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, but RyanFriesling said above that he was quoting the GAO report when he was actually quoting an editorial article. Grazon added content to this article taken directly from an editorial article, and he also claimed that the GAO report proved that there was fraud in the 2004 election. I'm just responding to incorrect statements about the GAO report, which are finding their way into the article. Rhobite 20:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then I think I'm on the same page. As it stands, it can only be proved that there existed a widespread easy untraceable way to commit fraud, no actual fraud has yet been proved or probably ever will be. --kizzle 20:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent the quoted sections. Everything in quotes is a quote from the GAO report, taken whole from within an excerpt of the editorial. I am sorry that wasn't clear. -- RyanFreisling [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Kevin baas plagiarism

Congrats, User:Kevin baas succeeded in adding cut and paste text from a Wired News article on 11/25/2004 and passing it off as his own words. [18] It remained in the article for almost a year. I applaud your journalistic integrity. Rhobite 18:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I repeat my conviction that this article is a cesspool. I should really file a RFAr on the continual POV-pushing edit warring that has locked this article as one of the worst Wikipedia has to offer. In fact, I think I will. Phil Sandifer 18:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you have a valid concern, just state it rather than being a sarcastic dick person. --kizzle 19:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. If you read this talk page, you'll notice many attempts by Snowspinner to have his concerns addressed. If you read the archives you'll find many more users who've tried in vain to improve these articles. Carbonite | Talk 19:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please. "I applaud your journalistic integrity"? "Congrats"? How does that follow Wikipedia:Civility?--kizzle 20:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I notice you're avoiding the topic of plagiarism in this article. Rhobite 20:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes, you have a point. Please make changes accordingly without removing info, as in keeping essential quotes and summarizing the rest unless it is redundant.
2. Try and make your point without being sarcastic next time. --kizzle 20:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Try not to call me a dick next time. Thanks. You're saying it's my duty to go around handholding and rewriting information which is plagiarized from opinionated articles? I'd rather just remove it. The people who want to add content to this article have a duty to write their own words. Rhobite 20:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a dick. I notice you haven't responded to the sarcasm part. --kizzle 20:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the Wired article, which do you believe:

1. The information is plagiarised, but not important to the content of the page
2. The information is plagiarised, but still important to the content of the page

If you believe 1, then I think you're wrong. If you believe 2, then how can you in good faith delete content you know is important to the page but was improperly added by another user? --kizzle 20:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If User A adds something improperly, and User B notices the text and removes it, it's not up to User B to rework the text. This really gets to the heart of what's wrong with these election controversy articles: Everything was just thrown into the article and any removal gets a huge amount of resistance. The addition of most information was rarely justified, but demands are made for all removals to have strong consensus. Carbonite | Talk 20:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Carbonite's assessment. It's just not workable if people write a sloppy article and then insist that other editors have no right to remove the sloppy parts. I also don't think that the old Wired stuff is relevant since it just discusses the initial intent of the GAO report. Now that the report is out we should discuss its findings. Rhobite 21:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

See, this is the problem. I completely agree with you that these articles were written in haste and thrown together in a failed attempt to help educate the public while there still was something that could have been done. Now, we're left with an article and several subarticles that are put together in a frankenstein manner with admittedly somewhere around 20% of sources (percentage we will clearly differ on) that need to be replaced with another more reliable source or be pruned altogether. However, what you and the rest of the deletionists here propose is to simply go through, take any passage that has a prima facie dubious link and remove it, thinking that if it was really true, someone will come along and replace it. The problem is, all of you together are going to hack the shit out of this article through many minor removals which is going to be next to impossible for those who actually care about this subject. Yes, there are bad sources. Yes, certain passages should be reworked. No, it is not your job to "handhold" previous editors. But if your answer is to simply remove info without doing a bit of work to see if there is a truth behind the dubious source that can be attributed to another, more reliable source, then I honestly can't see how you're trying to build a better encylopedia. I have no objections to what snowspinner or anyone else had before, all I asked is that we go through each change and see if a better source can be found. I am even willing to do the work to backup sources, but its hard for me to wade through the dozens of entries in the page history to try and backup each claim you guys blindly dismiss. This isn't resistance just like your attempts to remove info isn't censorship, either characterization is missing the point. --kizzle 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you didn't turn this into a larger issue. All I did was remove and summarize two sections which were cut and paste copies from other articles. Rhobite 21:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the issue, unless you, snowspinner, et al. aren't going to remove any more info. I see an apology for being sarcastic is still absent. --kizzle 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I would find your professed support for finding better sources more believable if, in the last few months, you had made any effort to do so. The fact of the matter is this - badly sourced material needs to go. Look at the history of John Byrne - plenty of true things got yanked from that article as unsourced, and only put back in later when people could be bothered to find sources. Phil Sandifer 02:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is why I'm offering to do half the work, you put up the disputed passages on talk, and I'll find a source if I can or we'll remove/rewrite the info. Last time I proposed that you weren't willing to put forth the effort and gave up. --kizzle 03:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up - every fact I said had a lousy source? I dispute those ones. Phil Sandifer 03:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Has Mediation Been Attempted?

I see that a Request for Arbitration has been filed and is in the process of being rejected. Has mediation been attempted? Robert McClenon 17:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure who the parties for mediation would be - I could be, but it would be a process of my continuing to have to do the research to catch up to what POV advocates already know. And I'm not sure which of the many people who support the article in its current form would be most appropriate to mediate with. Phil Sandifer 17:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The fact that an RfAr has been filed (and is being rejected as not ripe) illustrates that there are serious issues about the neutrality of this article (regardless of whether it is the opinion of the majority of editors that there are no such problems). I have posted an NPOV banner, and it should not be removed until neutrality and content issues are addressed. Robert McClenon 17:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

wow

Wow, I've been away for a while and things have become very acrimonious. It looks like some bad faith contributors have joined us and started discussion off on a sour foot. Let's not keep things there. We've had some very skeptical editors come here before, and they left much less skeptical and we thanked them for their positive contributions. These articles developed very fast with only a few major contributors, and we would like to have some more eyes and hands on it - provided we can all work together and be understanding, because anything else is arrogance and ignorance, and rather than making the article better actually makes it worse. Though it is reasonable for us to be wary of revisionist history since it has been so long since these events have passed, we welcome our belated co-authors.

Robert, we all know that (all the major contributors here, that is), and it's actually a little insulted that you stated it. RFAr is not relevant to dispute tags, and is in fact not even a content issue. But there is clearly much discussion on this page unrelated to the RFAr, and issues and questions raised, in accordance with the policy of dispute tags.

In any case, let's tone it down a bit. Kevin baas 21:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to establish some good faith, consider not removing the dispute tags this time - the articles are rightly tagged as POV, and should bear the factualyl disputed and original research tags as well - there is a clear and well-documented dispute on all of these fronts, and your insistence that it is not so does not constitute an end of the dispute. In fact, if you want to come off as the benevolent and open-minded contributor you're acting like, you might consider restoring the tags that you and Ryan fought so hard to remove. Otherwise, I have to say, it seems more than a little hypocritical for you to come out of the gates crying "bad faith." Phil Sandifer 21:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm... the tag is still there. (and btw, they are tagged as POV dispute, not to be confused with "x person is neccessarily right." Kevin baas 21:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is also, in the sections above, a well-documented accuracy and original research dispute. Phil Sandifer 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You are suggesting, Snowspinner, that there is a "factual dispute" as well? If you could, briefly, what fact or facts are disputed? Kevin baas 22:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I dispute the accuracy of every piece of information that comes from partisan and unreliable sources, and further dispute that its sum-total points towards a "controversy" or to anything "irregular." Phil Sandifer 22:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a POV. That is not a (or multiple) dispute(s) of the veracity of a specific empirical statement or statements. It is a POV. A general dismissal. If that is the best you got, then it should be clear to you why that does not warrant a factual dispute tag on this article. Kevin baas 22:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Ummmm... what? Phil Sandifer 22:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

So you and Kizzle and Zen-Master are "major contributors", and everyone else is either a "bad faith contributor" or a "skeptic" who eventually joins your crusade? OK. Rhobite 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you misunderstood me (or at least are pretending to in order to be acrimonious). I think everyone can reasonably agree that, quantitatively - that is, in terms of edits and content - me, kizzle, zen-master, and a few other, have together written the majority of the article, as has been pointed out rhetorically on the RFAr. Regarding bad faith contributors or skeptics, I said nothing to imply that everyone else is either one or the other. I never made that statement. Nor did I state or imply that there was any sort of crusade to join. I hope this clears things up. Kevin baas 21:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And what I meant by "skeptical" was skeptical of the way they would be treated by others when they came to try to improve this article. I hope you are not offended by me undestanding your (and Snowspinner's) position as "skeptical", it is not meant pejoratively. I meant by that statement only to say that those contributors who were "skeptical" at first about how they would be recieved by other editors, left much less so - and I only said this to reassure you. Kevin baas 22:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not offended to be labelled a skeptic - I am skeptical of election conspiracy theories, along with the vast majority of Americans. I'm just annoyed at your suggestion that people can't possibly hold a good faith belief that the election wasn't stolen. Rhobite 22:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we still aren't understanding each other. I do not mean to say that your are skeptical that there can be problems in an election or that the 2004 election was particularly notable for irregularities and controveries (for instance, the historical electoral vote objection). By my last paragraph, I was trying to clear this up. I meant that I gathered from how you have spoken here that you are skeptical of the way you would be treated by other editors - which you see is an entirely different issue.

And regarding bad faith, again you made the same confusion: from personal interaction and communication to a prejudge. good faith is about dealing with other people, starting with the belief that their intentions are good, that they are being honest, and that they don't have an agenda. It is not about believing something before any examining the facts and evidence and sticking obstinately to that belief, nor is it about which particular belief that is. It is not even a matter of belief, save to the effect that another person is trying to engage honestly and even-handedly with you. I get the impression that you do not believe that I, or kizzle, are trying to engage honestly and even-handedly with you. Good faith is important because without it, noone can get anywhere. Kevin baas 22:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Loonies

Please cite these claims: In the section titled "The 2004 Electoral Vote Challenge in Congress":

• "Numerous Democratic members of Congress spoke on the importance of election reform, announced initiatives for constitutional protection of the vote, and called for election integrity protection against conflicts of interest, listing problems with the process of the vote in Ohio and other states." - how many Democratic members of congress? What were their names?
• "Numerous Republican members of Congress called the objection "frivolous" and the objectors "loonies". House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX)'s aggressive denunciation of the proceedings was noteworthy for his attack on what he called the "X-Files Wing" of the Democratic Party." - how many Republicans used the words "frivolous" and "loonies"? Were these words used by DeLay? Links would be great here. I found DeLay's "X-Files" comment on Thomas but I wasn't able to find the word "loony".

From the detail article 2004 U.S. presidential election recounts and legal challenges, the "arguments for" and "arguments against" sections are essentially straw men because they cite no sources. We need to cite which Democrat quoted Thomas Paine. Who claimed that election officials gave illegal orders? Which Republicans used the word "frivolous"? "loonies" and "conspiracy theorists"? "sore losers"? "sour grapes"? Rhobite 22:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The videos and the transcripts are there, and they are cited. Watch them / read them. Kevin baas 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You have presumably already watched and read them - why don't you take the responsibility and do the work properly? Phil Sandifer 22:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I did. Feel free to check my work. Watch them / read them. Kevin baas 22:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I searched the congressional record and as I said the word "loony" is nowhere to be found. I also think it's a double standard to speak of the Democrats' words generally (they "spoke on the importance of election reform") while focusing on single words said by Republicans such as "X-Files Wing", "frivolous", etc. I've changed the article and I actually cited my source. Please indicate who exactly said the word "loonies". Rhobite 22:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You most certainly did not - crediting phrases to "Republicans" is not crediting - they are not a hive mind. Which Republicans? Phil Sandifer 22:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well that's a minor point. You certainly can't say i wrongly attributed them. And if you want to be more specific, you can go ahead and cite the particular republicans. While you're at it, you can cite the particular democrats, too. Go ahead! That's a change that we can both agree on! (And regarding the "hive mind", i think you should take a look at their voting record prior to tom delay's stepping down - it's pretty much in lockstep.) Regarding changes that you said you made, I'm presuming you watched the videos and have done some background research? Kevin baas 23:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This is infuriating. I searched through the congressional record for 1/6/2005, the day of Boxer's objection. I could not find the word "loonies". Stop telling me to do my background research when I have clearly done so. I'm not even going to address the fact that you just reverted the article, erasing 2 days of improvements and re-inserting two sections which are copyright violations along with grammatical errors and broken links. I will also suggest that people who believe there is such a word as "violatility" should not edit encyclopedias. Rhobite 23:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm a fan of research. I really don't think I would have put a quote in there if it wasn't there. There are two records by the way, one for the house and one for the senate. And just watching the videos is easier than reading, and a more direct source. I believe my edits improved the article. I responded on my talk page re what should be done with the potential copyvios. I'm not aware of any grammatical errors, and i noticed one link (as opposed to links) went back in, i din't know why it was removed. I was going to check on whether it was broken. As regards the word "volatility", what do you have against it? and if so, what would you propose as a better word? Kevin baas 23:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you really suggesting that one needs to watch the video over the transcript? What purpose does that serve other than wasting time? Phil Sandifer 23:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Kevin I know that there is a House and a Senate, and I searched the Record for both of them. Do you know what the Congressional Record is? It is the official transcript of all argument and evidence presented in Congress. I am not going to watch the video. The exact same argument is in the text Record. If the word "loonies" is not in the CR it was not said. If you can't be bothered to cite useful sources, your contributions here are worthless. About the copyvios, quoting five paragraphs of Wired verbatim is far past the limits of fair use. We also have a duty to write our own words here. There is nothing particularly special about the Wired article - it's just an outdated news article. We should cover the actual results of the GAO report, not some Wired news article from November 2004. And please stop replacing the broken links to Cobb's website - they no longer work. Rhobite 23:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The C-Span videos don't even work anymore, they are broken links. I tried opening them in RealPlayer and WMP. They are linked from 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities in case anyone else wants to try. Rhobite 00:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"They are really just trying to stir up their loony left," John Feehery, a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, said of the Democrats. NYTimes (Jan. 6, 2005)

So the quote doesn't actually call the Democrats loonies, isn't from where it's supposed to be, and wasn't from a Congressman but from a spokesman? Phil Sandifer 00:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the only quote I was able to find of Jan. 6, 2005 relating the word 'loony' to those pursuing an investigation/objection on the grounds of election irregularities. Does the article state that the word 'loony' was used during the actual debate? And equivocating about whether the Rep. Hastert himself, or his office, issued the statement is splitting hairs. An official spokesman for a Congressman is exactly that. -- RyanFreisling [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 00:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is par for the course when you're dealing with Kevin Baas. Notice that the original quote said numerous Republican lawmakers used this word.. instead we get one Hastert spokesman. Thanks for the link, Ryan. I don't think this quote should be mentioned in the article. We can't quote every lawmaker's spokesperson every time they say something silly. Please don't make me start digging up all the stupid things that have been said by Ted Kennedy and his staff and inserting them into this article at random places. Rhobite 00:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite, I think you know the policies, no character attacks, not only is it against policy, not only is it uncivil, not only does it reflect poorly on the attitude and mental and emotional disposition of the speaker, not only does it reflect and encourage uncritical thinking, it's also bad rhetoric. You kow the policy, Rhobite, and I hope you understand the reasoning as I have articulated. Excercise some self-constraint. Kevin baas 18:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So it's not OK for me to point out false statements which you've added to articles, but it's OK for you to comment on my "emotional disposition"? It is not a personal attack to make an observation about the poor quality of another user's edits. Especially when that user has a political agenda and a penchant for stretching the truth. Rhobite 03:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"If the word 'loonies' is not in the CR it was not said." I don't think that generalization is accurate. Members can "revise and extend" their remarks. It's certain that many things appear in the Record that weren't said. I think (though I'm not sure) that a speaker who committed a gaffe and then repented of it would be able to edit it out. I agree with Kevin that the video is the direct source, if it's available. Note that I'm commenting on Rhobite's generalization, not this specific quotation; I haven't examined any sources about "loonies". JamesMLane 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

From [19]: "Asking to Revise and Extend allows a member to add to or edit his/her floor remarks in the Congressional Record. Making changes to the words actually spoken on the floor requires the consent of the entire House. Revisions are limited to those that make technical or grammatical corrections. Extensions are usually the text of articles, letters, or reports to accompany the floor statement." I think it's very unlikely that multiple Republicans used the word "loonies" on the floor of the House and then they all gained the consent of the entire House to edit out the word from the Record. Anyway the video links are broken so there is no way to verify that it was said. It's more likely that Kevin Baas (who is a "fan of research") saw that Hastert's aide used the word and added it to the article, suggesting that multiple Republican members of Congress used the word. Hey I'm done responding about this. Unless anyone is seriously suggesting we replace the word "loonies" in this article let's move on. Rhobite 02:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)