Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 8

clarification of summary -> daughter article relationship

While I'm slightly confused as to where people stand, I'm guessing that you don't have a problem with the summary -> daughter concept Ryan, you just don't like the idea of replacing this article outright with JML's. So how about this. I will take the page as it is currently and put a copy at 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities/summary , let us discuss here what major subtopics we should have, and try to reduce them to two paragraphs (number flexible), then cutting what is currently there verbatim into a main article (and hopefully adding what has been dropped in the past for clarity's sake). Once we have a summary article which contains all topics that people can agree on, we will replace this current page with the summary, and expand upon the daughter articles. What does the group think? --kizzle 02:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

We don't need a copy, and I strenuously disagree with creating a parallel version. Edit here in good faith. Edit the summary if you want in good faith. Why can people not see the most direct path? What is the fear? What is the problem?

Also, we must allow days for answers, not minutes, before a consensus of the available is assumed. A lot of folks have not weighed in at all, and we've created massive cruft in this spinning argument that could have been edits. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea. This article has lots of great info, but it needs such a huge overhaul that working on a temporary version is probably the best way to proceed. I also hope that there's as much discussion about what goes in the article as there is about what comes out. Carrp 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I've listed this page on Wikipedia: Request for comment to get other people's opinions on the detailed/summary issue. I think having outside views from editors would be very helpful. Carrp 03:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've clarified the issue. No one disagrees that this should be a summary, and the detail moved to daughters to a reasonable and continuing extent, as I have said literally a dozen times. Don't reframe the argument. The issue is whether individuals contribute to that end by editing here, or by somehow replacing this content. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that detailed or summary is very relevant to the discussion. Just a few hours ago you said:

See why I think we should all discuss it, despite your own belief that it's a 'useful level of detail', others never involved may have other opinions...

I don't believe you clarified the issue on the RFC. I'm not going to revert, but I am going to edit. Carrp 03:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Useful level of detail' is a continuum. The issue is not the 'summary/detail' continuum (which you pose as a yes/no decision). The issue is exactly as I described. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A "summary" article of any really large issue/article is going to be really large itself, so size concerns alone should not be enough justification for further daughter article split offs, especially considering this article was reduced to 1/3rd its former size just recently. Can Carp please specifically indicate exactly what in the current article needs "summarizing"? zen master 03:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please see the numerous discussions above for a full description. As Ryan stated above "No one disagrees that this should be a summary, and the detail moved to daughters to a reasonable and continuing extent". This article is currently 64k, which is twice the size an article should be. It's true that much editing has been done, but a 900lb man who loses 600lbs still isn't considered fit. Exactly what information will be moved or merged and where it will be moved to is the next part of the discussion. Carrp 03:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I keep thinking that moving the news'n'links out to daughterville will really help us visualize the remainder of the article. A large part of that ~64k is wikitext for those links. And Carrp, I agree wholeheartedly. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that 64k is neccessarily twice what an article "should be". I think that 64k is twice the average size of an article (32k), which is not neccessarily an appropriate standard. I don't deny that the article could use some more trimming, but I think a better estimate of what we should expect to end up with (but still, not neccessarily what we "should" end up with), would be the average size of comparable articles, such as ones previously listed under ongoing events. Kevin Baas^talk 20:43, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Moved the News out

And the page size is now 50k. If we move the external links as well, the page will be 41k. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved the hearing excerpts to 'recounts and legal challenges'. Should it be renamed to include 'hearings', etc.?

Either way, the article (including the external links) is now 45k -- RyanFreisling @ 05:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I originally suggested the single word "remedies" to encompass recounts, legal, challenges, hearings, and investigations. If it were to not have hearings in it, I would prefer the current title to a title w/"remedies", as the current is more precise and not too long. Kevin Baas^talk 20:37, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

'remedies', while vague, isn't horrible. What about 'legal actions'? Do you at all object to my moving the hearing excerpts there? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the hearings should have their own section in the daughter article. The only objection I would have does not concern hearings content in particular, but the accessibility of the relevant daughter article. I think it should be given the same attention that voting machines, vote suppression, and exit polls are given: a section w/2-3 paragraphs and a link to main article. Kevin Baas^talk 19:42, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

lets get the ball rolling

So far, I propose to keep these topics and move the rest out:

1. Voting machines and vendor issues
2. Exit Polls
3. Vote Suppression
4. Racial discrimination and other bias
5. Other Controversies

also, I think a summarized version of the Voter's Rights advocacy organization and political efforts and responses should be in sections as well. The rest should be taken out. So far that's it. don't bite my head off if you think i missed something, just tell me what you think should be in there. --kizzle 05:28, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not biting your head off, but I recommend you approach this in terms of what modifications you can make, not what should not be 'excised'. The page is now 45k, including links, so the difference between it and your version should again be incremental and improve the article... start small, and edit, don't shred... -- RyanFreisling @ 05:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And btw, I just got the ball rolling, by making a few edits, that made a difference. Note that if the external links are also 'exported' to a new or existing page, the page size BEFORE editing to your desired format is 36k. I think that is unarguably within the range of possibility for 'good faith' editing as I've described. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I reject any automatic assumption that an article at or under 32kb is fine. The 32kb line is set based on browser capability. I believe that to have available a summary article of substantially less than 32kb, with appropriate links to more detailed information, is helpful to some readers.

Ryan, as I've said above (more than once), I began the process that you call for -- changing this article, by making incremental edits and by posting to the talk page with ideas about general directions. My edits to the article were reverted. Some people on the talk page agreed with me but others vehemently disagreed. We've already seen enough discussion to know that there's still no consensus. It's not a matter of a rephrasing here and a slight trim there. It's two completely different visions of the article, if I may repeat the word I've generally used. For an example, note zen master's comment above, that the summary article is "focused on what I believe are non core issues". To combine these two articles into one, we'd have to write an article that (1) satisfied my desire for a comprehensive summary of all the issues (letting the reader decide which one(s), if any, to focus on in greater detail), and (2) satisfied zen master's desire for an article that focused on what he considers the core issues. I don't think that's doable. My conclusion is based on my having made edits and comments to this article, and on having seeing the reverts and comments made in response, by zen master and others. For now, let's just improve the existing articles -- this one, the summary, and the various daughter articles. (Of course, if those of you who like the approach of this article think it can be trimmed without losing its focus on what you want emphasized, fine, go ahead and trim it. Just don't expect to persuade anyone to vote to delete the summary just because you managed to get this one under 32kb.) JamesMLane 06:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the paranoia is coming from, as I've said I don't want VfD. I'm only sorry that your selective quoting of zen_master etc. serves to justify not participating, and instead 'taking your marbles and going home'. I see no external reason why you couldn't begin to affect this article for the better. I just think it's unecessary. Any other motive you ascribe me is falsely ascribed. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, simply because you 'have a vision', does not mandate the need for your article. There is no 'Pokemon, James' version' wiki page, afaik. Whither process, as I've already asked? You approached this process with a fait accompli that this article, that didn't match your vision, would give way to your own, which is an 'anti-community'-minded approach. I've had my edits undone, you just try to be intelligent, responsive, and fair - and in your case, you already have a template for what you COULD contribute, if you chose to. You are saying you choose not to, and that seems a waste, if we're 'on the same side', as someone said. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could adequately answer your repeated comments along these lines only by taking an hour or so to wade through this article's huge history and its talk page's huge history and assembling a collection of the relevant edits and comments. Your characterization of anything as a "fait accompli" is, to put it kindly, not in accord with my recollection. Because I think that on important issues, we're on the same side, I strongly believe that it's not a productive use of your time or of mine for each of us to continue saying the same things over and over again. We see it differently, OK? Let's leave it at that. I'm going to try to muster the willpower not to keep responding on the same point, in the hope that this discussion will die off and free both of us for more useful pursuits. JamesMLane 07:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How do you think JML wrote that summary in the first place? He took the page, made incrimental edits to it until it was to his liking. Personally, I like his version in that it is very brief and serves as a good primer for people who want to read casually. Does anyone else agree with Ryan's stance on this? --kizzle 08:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm well aware how a wiki page is written, and again I contend a page written by one person (or a few, with -50 edits) cannot supplant a page written by 100's of editors with 100s of edits. There is no need to prove a negative, so there is no value in any lack of response to your question (silence does not equal consent). Can we at long last focus on the real issue? Work collaboratively, in good faith, to create your vision. Creating 'your own version' and seeking to vote it to replace another, longstanding page is not the wiki way. You know this. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am seeking to work collaboratively. There is no wikipedia policy limiting the scope of change to gradual increments. The type of edit I want to make to this article is structural and deals with its form, not content. Such an edit cannot be made incrementally. This is not a replacement, as the content stays the same, but the form is changed. I don't think it is right to limit people from discussing a reorganization because it is not a gradual process. Incremental editing and group editing are not necessarily identical. It does not have to be JML's summary page identical, but I do like the issues he has stressed in his version. Thus, I reassert that we reopen discussions about the form of this page and what are the most important topics we need to stress (and to base what daughter articles will follow). I still think we as a group should come to a decision about what main topics should make up (and not what has made up) the 2004 U.S. Election controversies. Anything we come up with will be based upon what current content is there and relocating any additional content to daughter articles. One more thing, in the process of reorganizing a larger page towards a summary page, we must by definition discuss "excising" topics to daughter articles, or else it will not be possible to create a summary at all. --kizzle 20:19, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

The wiki policy is to resolve issues in good faith, by editing, not excising or replacing. You wanna pull stuff, we can discuss it here, and edit it there! Otherwise, you are not collaborating on the article. There is nothing prohibiting you from informing this version with those aspects of JML's that you like. I do not understand what I see as an outright unwillingness to participate using the fundamental, basic approach - editing. Assume_good_faith and don't assume your ideas cannot be made via editing. That is unfair to the article and to your goal alike. I have now said this a solid dozen times, and you have plead an incapability to even try. That's an unacceptable justification, and the article remains uninformed by your ideas, while we waste more and more time in circular discussion. Participate as an editor. That's the wiki way. Again, you know this. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Moving" would be the word, not "excising". Excising is censorship: "I don't want this to be true, so I will keep people from learning about it." - antithetical to the idea of "encyclopedia", and completely irresponsible. Often extremists will excise in the name of "NPOV", thinking that NPOV means "There shouldn't be anything that I don't want to be true in the article." That is not what is being done when content is moved for organizational purposes, so as to make information easier, not harder, to find. Kevin Baas^talk 20:30, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Bingo. Was about to make that point. Many thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well, "excising" was meant from this article into the daughter articles, so "moving" is equally applicable. --kizzle 21:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

An edit that I believe would immediately improve the size and quality of this article would be to merge the paragraphs of italicized quotes into their respective daughter pages. The quotes are good for supporting details, but are a bit too lengthy for a summary article. Carrp 15:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree completely. A lot of that has been done, and more is yet to do, for sure. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Kevin Baas^talk 20:13, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Maps

I like the first map at the top of the article. The improvement I could see would be to provide a link to the source and data. I looked at vote-protect.org, but I'm unfamiliar with the site layout and couldn't find the map there.

The second map (under other controversies)..., well it could use some work. It's very difficult to read the logos on the states and I'm not sure what the source is. Also, it doesn't seem to be very recent. I'm not sure if two maps are needed for this page. If there is the need for two, I'm sure there are far better maps than this second one. Carrp 15:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first map is based directly on the EIRS data at http://voteprotect.org and was properly accredited at one time. and the second is a Kevin Bass spectacular. Let's see how he weighs in. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second map is up to date. Not much has happened in a while. Last I heard (and we seem to be keeping pretty close tabs on developments here) they're still pushing for a recount in New Mexico (and the Republican in Washington is still trying to overturn the election for governer). Personally, I'd like to put New Mexico back to dark red, but I've got to go with the latest info. If anyone has any updates for the map, please let me know.

I wish it was as pretty as the first map. Or smaller, but the legend can only get so small. I think it's an important map that gives people an idea of what's going on in America regarding election problems, remedy-wise; I think it complements the first map: problem<->solution. I think it should be kept, but would not be against moving it to a daugther article and/or modifying it if that was the consensus. Kevin Baas^talk 20:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Recounts and legal challenges

I think this daughter article deserves treatment in the main article consistent with that of the vote suppression, voting machines, and exit polls daugther article: a section w/a big link and about two paragraphs. As it stands now, there's one link to it somewhere on the page. Finding it is like playing "Where's Waldo?" Kevin Baas^talk 20:58, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

People shouldn't have to play "Where's Waldo", but a "See also" section shouldn't contain redundant links. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections. JamesMLane 12:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Possible Federal lawsuit

In the second paragraph of the Introduction, we say "a Federal suit may be pending". I haven't found any mention of this elsewhere in the article, or in the daughter article on recounts and legal challenges. Can anyone please point me towards further information about this? -- Avenue 20:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had removed that - the lawyers initially said they intended to file a federal case, but nothing has been done thus far. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted from the congressional record!? Alarm goes off in my head.

Does anyone have a the content that was deleted, or want to transcribe it from a c-span video? We could post the transcription on WikiSource and link to it, and/or we could post it in the recounts and legal challenges daughter article if it's not too long. Kevin Baas^talk 20:41, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

I'll go digging. I've got the transcript, and I've got the video. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[1] <- probably not the most reliable site, but a start for people who are curious, unless you guys are talking about another speech. --kizzle 21:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Transcript posted to Kevin's talk page. Note that I did find DeLay's speech on the copy of the Record here, but not on other copies I've read recently. I will confirm, but until then, it may be better to omit what could be a false assertion. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GOP comments on challenges

"Republican lawmakers responded to Senator Boxer, and to Representative Tubbs-Jones and her colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, "with howls of derision." Some engaged in ad hominem tactics, labeling the objections "base" and "outrageous" (David Hobson, R-Ohio), and calling the objectors "aspiring fantasy authors" of "wild conspiracy theories," whose behaviour exemplified "their party's primary strategy to obstruct, to divide, to destroy" (Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio).

Others denounced the debate itself as "a travesty" (Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania), a "squandering time" by people "who persist in beating a dead horse" (Senator George Voinovich, R-Ohio); or, more gravely, as an exercise that "in the midst of a global war on terrorism <...> clearly emboldens those who would in fact undermine the prospect of democracy" (David Dreier (R-California), and "an assault against the institutions of our representative democracy" by the "X-Files wing" of the Democratic Party (Tom DeLay, R-Texas)."

--the verbatim is taken not from the Congressional Record, but from:

Michael Keefer: "The Strange Death of American Democracy: Endgame in Ohio" Global Research January 24, 2005 http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE501A.html

Election 2000 controversy

Is there a wikipedia for the controversy surround the year 2000 election please? As far as I was aware it was the 2000 election that was George W Bush's most controversial so far, wasn't it? --Rebroad 21:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Possible reasons:

• People were paying more attention this time around, given the problems with the last election
• There were many more problems with this election than the last one
• The problems are more diverse this time
• More organizations are involved
• There's just a lot more info

The main problems, as I am aware, with the last election, were:

• the Florida Central Voter File
• inequitable distribution of voting machine technology (such that African American areas had technology known to be unreliable: punch-cards. -violating the Equal Protection Amendment
• corrupt judges: with either the audacity or insanity to rule that the law "if the voter's intent is clear, the vote should be counted" disenfranchises a specific race of people, violating the Equal Protection Amendment (see Bush v. Gore.) (and that the inequitable distribution of voting machines did not)

This election had many more problems, and included a blatently partisan judge as well (who went so far as to publicly denigrate the case and baselessly insult the attorneys.) Kevin Baas^talk 22:45, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I think we/someone/everyone should undertake the development of a 2000 election controversies article from a historical perspective. Is there any controversy related information in the main 2000 election article (I haven't looked)? if so we can start from that. zen master T 21:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 2000 U.S. presidential election#Florida election results section is very relevant, along with some of the information in Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000#Campaign Review and Al Gore#2000 presidential election. -- Avenue 12:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

OK, I'm back. The various unresolved disputes have been swept away into archive pages.. but they're still here. Let's start with the exit poll section.

NPOV disputes:

• "the final published results from these exit polls are controversially adjusted to match vote counts" - there is no controversy to NEP's methods, outside of the minds of some editors here and fringe press

  There's controversy in the halls of friggin' congress! Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  I don't know what that means. Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  I mean that there are congressmen who are involved in that dispute. I wrote an explanation of the "controversy" below. I think it makes it clearer. That sentence you pointed out could probably use some rewording, in light of the explanation below. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• "Mitofsky's own report on the source of the exit poll discrepancy does not offer any evidence to support this hypothesis, and some statisticians, computer scientists and other commentators are unconvinced that this explains the observed discrepancy between exit polls and actual results." - This is original research and original argument. Wikipedia articles should not claim that he "does not offer any evidence". This paragraph needs to be cited or removed.

  It doesn't offer any evidence. That ain't research, that's a fact that's plain as day. Read the thing yo-self. Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  Perhaps you could name "some statisticians, computer scientists, and other commentators" for me? Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

  Well I'm a statistician and computer scientist, if that helps. But I don't see how that's relevant. Do you see any evidence in there? Do you see anything that even claims to be evidence? Do you even see any data? What the hell would a statistician or computer scientist do with the reports? If anything, they'd say "What the hell am I supposed to be looking at?" In any case, if you want more info, you can read the irregularities->exit polls article. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

• Steve Freeman, Jonathan Simon for starters... can't provide a hyperlink but a page # to each of their reports... is that good enough Rhobite? --kizzle 20:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• word "Errantly"

  where? Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  The word "errantly" is used a single time in the article. Are you really having trouble finding it? "A preliminary report from the California Institute of Technology errantly used adjusted exit poll data in an effort to prove there were no exit poll discrepancies." the word "errantly" is a POV value judgment. It needs to be attributed or removed.

  That's not POV. It's mathematically impossible to prove either way using adjusted exit poll data. Insofar as a false mathematical formula (for instance, 2+2=5) is an "error", the word "errantly" is a mathematical fact. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  I agree with Kevin on this point. It's not POV to assert that that x=x is a vacuous statement, or even something more complicated like w(x/w)=x, as in the Caltech study (where w is the unadjusted Bush poll figure, and x is the Bush vote count figure). The word "errantly" seems to have disappeared; I've rephrased it as circular reasoning, but I'm open to suggestions for better ways to explain this. -- Avenue 14:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "Critics point out it doesn't make sense" - needs citation or removal.

  where? Kevin Baas^talk 08:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

  Again, you could simply search the article. This is the next sentence after the Caltech thing. Unless you can name these critics I am removing the sentence. Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's it for the exit poll section. More later. Rhobite 08:23, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite's argument does not make sense to me logically, why have exit polls if you are just going to adjust them to the actual vote results? The universy of penn prof is the one that makes that claim about Mitofsky's report I believe, we should change that to say who is saying what and get into more of the evidence for why people make the claims they do. "Critics point out" should be changed to "Critics claim" or something like that, feel free to fix obvious problems. zen master T 08:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in being dragged into another debate on the merits of the controversy. I am simply trying to remove value judgments and statements by imaginary critics from this family of articles. "Critics claim" is not acceptable. Rhobite 09:03, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Insofar as the supporters' pov is presented, the critics' pov should be presented, in order to retain NPOV. It's policy. Kevin Baas^talk 09:37, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Alright, here's the controversy re:exit poll, adjusted to the vote count. Firstly, let me restate zens' arg. If you have an exit poll, thats simply weighted by the vote count, what's the point of the exit poll - it's an exact copy of the vote count, why not just have a vote count? Wait, we already do! It would be nice to have an exit poll, too, didn't we use to have one?

Now secondly, let me state the diff here between exit polls in america and exit polls in other countries. Now here, we like to watch our election like a sports game, so the media pays for the exit polls, and they use it to predict the outcome. When they know the outcome for a given precinct, they throw that exit poll data out, because, assuming an election without sufficient irregularities, the tabulated vote counts are a more accurate indicator of how people voted. Fine. We get a better show, and free exit polls. Yea!

In other countries, the candidates pay for the exit polls, not the media. The candidates may have their own polling team, so that they can get an estimate of what the vote count should be. If the vote count differs significantly from the exit poll, that's an indication of fraud. That's why the candidates use exit polls; to check for fraud. The statistics and effectiveness of this method does not change from country to country. It works in America as much as any other country.

Problem is, the exit polls in America aren't, as we thought, free, on the contrary, they're unavailable! We don't know what the final exit polls are. We have most of the data, which is outside the margin of error in many states, consistently in the same direction. When the exit poll data is adjusted for voters for one party being more likely to accept the poll than voters from another party (rejection rates), using all the data we have, those states are even more outside of the margin of error, in that direction. We have here a statistical anomaly that is "significant", in that it demands an explanation.

Now, the problem is, we're not (in theory) supposed to have this data. If everything "worked out", we would only have the "adjusted" exit poll data, i.e. we'd only have the vote count, to compare against the vote count. This would not tell us that there is something "significant" demanding explanation, although there still would be something "significant" demanding explanation. Insofar as this is significant, insofar as having such an indicator that is a means of protection of the most fundamental right by which all other rights are protected, is important, there is something to be said as to whether we do or do not have that indicator, and whether we should or should not have it. This is where the controversy lies. Namely, that would the "exit poll data" be adjusted to the actual vote count AND the raw exit poll data be not available, as is the case, we would not, in theory, (and in this case, in practice, for the most part) have this indicator, and with it, this protection. Kevin Baas^talk 09:15, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more clear here, Edison/Mitofsky DO have the raw exit poll data, and it is (or will be) reposited in a private data repository (the name of which is in the exit poll article). The data does exist, but those people who have access to it, are not letting the public, or the U.S. Government, see it. Thus, it exists in coherent and readily transferable form, but is not being made "available". Kevin Baas^talk 21:44, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Instead of answering a single one of my questions, you've again tried to turn this into a debate. I'm rewriting the section tomorrow. Please don't think that my refusal to get into a petty debate means I don't understand the topic. I understand your points, and I agree that exit poll data should be more public. But that's irrelevant to my NPOV questions. Rhobite 09:19, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to answer the first question. Kevin Baas^talk 09:28, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

And I think that should be rewritten. I look forward to seeing your rewrite tommorow. I gave the long explanation in hopes that you might find it helpfull for your rewrite. It explains what I thought was meant by the sentence. I think that after your rewrite, it will be more precise, which is why I look forward to it. Kevin Baas^talk 09:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I rewrote some paragraphs of the exit poll section. I planned on making it shorter but plans change. Please give me feedback. This should be updated in the exit poll sub-article as well. Rhobite 20:33, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't looked over it fully, but first thing that struck me was "The goal of..." More accurately, what the television media used it for. something like "the goal of" or "the purpose of" or the "intended use of" makes it sound like it is particularly suited to this task, and not suited to be used for other purposes. However, what someone intends to use something for or buys something for does not affect it's applicability to any other purpose. For instance, if someone buys a tire to use to make a sandbox, that doesn't mean that a tire is not suitable to be used as a wheel on a car. Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Predicting the outcome of the election is the stated goal of NEP's exit polling. That's the reason why they perform several adjustments on the poll results. The adjustments increase the poll's predictive accuracy but as you point out, decrease its effectiveness at detecting fraud. So the polling is particularly suited for predicting the outcome of elections. Rhobite 21:15, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

These adjustments were made after the final election results were cast. Doesn't this make their utility in predictive ability moot? Why would networks pay millions of dollars to simply have Mitofsky come up with numbers that were corrected to the vote count? Why bother? --kizzle 21:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

You confused either the logic or the semantics there: the adjustment of the poll results is partiuclarly suited for predicting the outcome of elections. The actual polling is particularly suited for gathering data about how people voted, irrespective of what that data is ultimately used for, or what is done to the data after it is gathered. Kevin Baas^talk 21:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I like the changes to the first para. I think that's perfect. I also like the inclusion of the USCountVotes report. Some quotes from it, though would be less interpretive and more informative than things like "claimed that NEP did not adequately investigate whether the type of voting machine was a factor in discrepancies." Also, the I'd like to see the quote from mitofsky back in. It was much clearer, and, again, less interpretive and more informative. (and matching quote for quote would balance pov, and show the interpersonal conflicts at ground zero)

I also think some of the background and history should go back in, like how the exit poll data was leaked. Imagining that I was a new reader who didn't know anything about this before i read it, I would be interested to know about this, and would be confused about how this all went down, otherwise. Kevin Baas^talk 21:18, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Rhobite's argument does not seem to make sense to me, once you "adjust" a predictive instrument you've irrevocably tarnished that instrument. Performing any adjustment is in opposition to the stated goal of predicting the outcome of an election. zen master T 21:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some responses: When I say "polling" I am referring to the whole process, including analysis. The first step, gathering data is called "sampling". I'm wary of quotes but I agree that one small quote each from Mitofsky and the USCountVotes report would be helpful. I don't think that I removed any specifics on how the results were leaked - I believe that's all covered in the sub-article.

Zen-master, you are wrong. You don't know the exact mechanism of NEP's adjustments, but you're willing to conclude that they "tarnish" the polls' predictive value anyway. I can't see how someone would object to their age-race-sex adjustment, for example. I'm not willing to discuss this further with you since this isn't a debate class. None of this sophistry belongs in the article. Rhobite 21:56, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not knowing the exact mechanism of the adjustment is a convenient way of preventing people from precisely criticizing the adjustment. The exit poll was "adjusted" by NEP because they claim or assume the final election results are accurate, critics should be allowed to criticize this action shouldn't they? zen master T 22:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Zen-master does know the exact mechanism of NEP's adjustments. It's pretty straightforward: weight the results by the vote totals - although this is a short and seemingly ambiguous sentence, it is an exact and mathematically unique process, that is rather straight-forward. If, for instance, 50% of voters voting democrat that were polled wear a hat, and 50% wear no hat, while 80%-R=H, 20%-R=nH, then so should be the case for the vote count. the number of total people who were a hat, then would be the number of democratic voters in the vote count times .5 plus the number of repub voters in the vote count times .2. Same holds true for everything sampled. You condition all the probabilities on how people voted, and then just switch the poll results with the vote count. No sophistry here. Is sophistry involved? The exit polls would sure like to keep it a mysterious, and say "it's over your head, you wouldn't understand." sounds Sophist to me.

What he means by "tarnish" is, besides the fact that now the poll data on how people voted is no more, having been replaced by the vote count, information regarding the other distributions, such as race, age, sex, is lost. (Because information cross-entropy is always lower than information self-entropy, by the Cramer-Rao inequality or Cauchy-Schwarz? There is no article here. The point is, information self-entropy = -sum_x[p1(x)lnp1(x)] >= -sum_x[(p2(x)lnp1(x)] = information cross-entropy, where p2(x) represents adjusted data) That is, the probability that the age-sex-race distribution is accurate is thereby decreased (not increased, contrary to intuition), regardless of the accuracy of the vote count (even if the election was absolutely flawless).

In sum, Zen Master is, mathematically (and thus logically) speaking, correct in asserting that adjusting the exit poll data "tarnishes" their predictive accuracy.

There really isn't any statistical "analysis" done on the polls. They're just weighted - that's not analysis. Regardless of what you mean when you say "polling", whether you refer to sampling or what have you, I am clearly (as you have noticed) refering to "sampling" when I say "polling", and the logic of my argument is thus apparent, and stands. It is important to make the distinction between the sampling and adjusting of the data, as it is crucial to understanding the logic here, such as raw exit poll data being possible indicators of possible fraud, adjusted exit poll not being so, raw exit poll data being available or not, etc. The logic and arguments can not be understood without this distinction be mantained. Kevin Baas^talk 22:21, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

How is a confidence interval not classified as statistical analysis? That's how they call each state, based on a 99.5% confidence interval constructed from the weighted data. I don't think they call a state unless the entire interval lies above 50%. 95% confidence intervals are also applied to the raw results to account for sampling error. This is all on the Mystery Pollster site. I'm interested in hearing you explain that one away. Should be easy, since you're a statistician. Rhobite 22:42, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Right, you're talking about what's also known as margin of error. See variance, standard deviation, normal distribution, and more precisely, multinomial distribution. Kevin Baas^talk 23:00, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I looked up "statistical analysis" in wikipedia, and found it redirected to statistics. There are certainly some procedures in statistics that could be usefull in analysis, but when one is doing statistics one is not neccessarily doing analysis. I find the concantenation of the word "analysis" to "statistics", esp. insofar as it just redirects to statistics, to be meaningless and misleading. If you're doing statistics, you're doing statistics. If you're doing statistical analysis, you're doing statistics AND analysis. Obviously, confidence interval is a concept used in statistics. I dispute that it is analysis, thou. Kevin Baas^talk 23:22, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Rhobite, do you understand my argument, that the logic needs to be articulated (broken up into joints) in the article; that one can't simply refer to the entire process as "polling", but that it should be split into two parts, sampling (people polling the voters) and "adjusting", in light of my long explanation to your first question regarding pov, that you stated you are in full agreement with, and my shorter response: the adjustment of the poll results is partiuclarly suited for predicting the outcome of elections. The actual polling(of voters, by people) is particularly suited for gathering data about how people voted, irrespective of what that data is ultimately used for, or what is done to the data after it is gathered. That is, this data can be used to predict the outcome, or as an indicator of possible fraud (to predict the present). Kevin Baas^talk 23:43, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I clarified some of the polling vs. adjusting language in the article. You can edit it too, of course. Let's drop the statistics discussion, it's off-topic anyway. Rhobite 00:14, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Although none of that is falsifiable or verifiable because NEP does'nt present the data, I don't doubt that there is a set of 1400 precincts wherein Kerry's vote was overstated by an average of 1.9%. Nor do I, by the same token, doubt that there is a set of 1400 precincts wherein Bush's vote was overstated by an average of 1.9%. I do wonder, however, what the point of presenting this information in the article is. It is not unexpected, and therefore not significant. There are things much more significant than expected ecological variance, such as unexpected and unexplained aggregate discrepancy. Kevin Baas^talk 01:45, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

You have no idea how annoying this is. I cite sources, you pretend that you understand statistical analysis and yet again lecture me with patronizing nonsense. There's only one problem with your theory. NEP conducted exit polling in 1480 precincts. So the 1400 precincts analyzed represents the vast majority. Rhobite 02:13, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Did they? Well I stand corrected. Perhaps you should post that figure and cite it, it will make that statistic a lot more substantial, as people will be able to put it in perspective. In any case, I hope you can understand my doubts regarding reports from NEP: it's like the story of the boy who cried wolf, they haven't giving me much reason to trust them, and plenty of reason to doubt them or be suspicious of them. If they'd show the actual data, so that anyone can verify what they say, I'll believe everything they say or imply that I can verify with the data. However, as it stands, the report cited is unscientific, as it is not falsifiable or verifiable. Kevin Baas^talk 02:53, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Side Note, more statistics info

It's a long thread here but I think the analysis presented is relevant to recent discussions on this talk page. zen master T 02:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and this zen master T 02:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i'm kobeisguilty on that, btw :)--kizzle 05:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting read, thank you. I'm not sure if I agree with TruthIsAll's technique but the dialogue is interesting nonetheless. Rhobite 12:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't read all of it yet, but what strikes me are:

1. the null hypothesis would be not making a hypothesis, or getting as close as possible. saying that there wasn't fraud (that the vote count is correct and the exit polls are incorrect) is not the null hypothesis. As people have pointed out what we have is a surprisingly low correlation between the exit polls and the vote count. That's the null hypotheses; a.k.a minimum message length or occam's razor - no speculation.
2. People say "that's all we have", are the exit polls and the vote counts. That's not true. we have irregularities that, when taken into account (when the vote count is adjusted by them), make the discrepancy more probable. What else could we expect to have? What else would there be to explain the discrepancy? Evidence that either the vote count or the exit polls were irregular. We have that, not all of it, ofcourse, how could we expect that? But a decent portion of it, including what seems like the vast majority of vote count irregularities in Ohio, for when the vote count is adjusted for all of the irregularites, the discrepancy is well within the margin of error. Thou, when the exit polls are adjusted for the irregularities in them (such as rejection rates), there remains more to be explained, rather than less. In any case, it's fallacious to say "all we have are the vote counts and the exit polls" Why does this article have so many subarticles, then? Kevin Baas^talk 20:35, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

You can't calculate correlation with the proportion data we have.. there's nothing to correlate. You can perform hypothesis testing. If you were testing Kerry's results in Ohio, for example, the null hypothesis would be P <= .485 where P is the population proportion sampled in the exit poll, and .485 is Kerry's actual vote tally, 48.5% (call it P0). The exit poll's result (call it p) was 52.1%, or .521. n = 1963. Standard error is then sqrt((.521)(.479)/1963) = 0.0113. However you need to compensate this because there can be error for both candidates. Mystery Pollster recommends multiplying by 1.7, so SE = 0.0192. 1.7 is the conservative multiple, he says some people multiply by 2, this would increase our assumed error even more. To get the test statistic (z-value) take (p-P0)/SE => (.521-.485)/0.0192 => 1.878. I rounded a little to show the intermediate numbers but that number is correct. Based on the Z-value of 1.878, the P-value = 0.03. It's low, but not low enough to reject the null hypothesis at a 99.5% significance level. This supports the Mystery Pollster's results. Freeman appears to have left out the 1.7 multiplier in his calculations.

These results don't even require additional explanations such as Kerry voters being more willing to answer polls, although I believe that's true as well. That test means that the unadjusted Ohio exit poll does not support the hypothesis that Kerry won more than 48.5% of the vote at a 99.5% level of significance. Rhobite 21:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding kerry voters being more willing to answer polls, I accept the null hypothesis, pending data to support an alternative hypothesis. The only data we have, which is, admittedly, rather sparse, suggests that it is more likely that bush voters were more willing to answer polls. However, The data is just to little, the MOE to large, the weight of that statistic, in the scope of things, negligible. That is, after incorporating it into the probability model, one is still very much at the null hypotheseis.

Regading the Ohio exit poll, I didn't work through all of your logic and math there, A little lazy, forgive me. The aggregate statistics is more information and gives a better estimate, as it incorporates more information. I was discussing on your talk page the probability that kerry won ohio OR florida OR both, OR neither AND new mexico and Nevada (I think NM & N are correct, I did it so long ago!), the most stastically relevant combinations, based on the exit polls and their MOE. When we're talking about explanations, we're talking about in the aggregate, so it's proper to consider the statistics in the aggregate; comprehensively. That is, although a given state may give us some hints as to what happened, as may another states, combining all those hints together, canceling out where they overlap (a or b = p(a) + p(b) - p(a) * p(b)), will produce a more informed and accurate picture. Kevin Baas^talk 23:27, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

As the Mystery Pollster explained here [2], Kerry had a lead in the exit poll but lost the vote tally in four states. In all four of these states, the poll/tally difference was within the recommended margin of error. What I did above was a test to see if there is evidence, at a high significance level, to support the hypothesis that Kerry "should have" received more than 48.5% of the vote in Ohio. BTW you should look at this graphic. It gives you some perspective - it should function as a reminder that you shouldn't focus on just these four states. For all we know (and remember that you are assuming Bush fraud), Kerry fraudulently won some states which should have gone to Bush. Rhobite 23:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

i missed this part of what you said before - i am not assumming bush fraud. i am not assuming any fraud. i am reporting the facts. the only thing i am assuming is good faith. Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I don't know what states you are talking, but I don't doubt that some states were within the margin of error. However, other states were not. Kevin Baas^talk 23:48, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Regarding that graphic, I also made a graphic some time ago, but it's a map, instead, and like this graph it just shows the raw % discrepancy, rather than the z-score. Thus, one should keep in mind that the MOE was smaller in the swing states. Of the few states where the exit polls showed higher more votes for kerry than the vote counts, none were outside the MOE. Kevin Baas^talk 23:55, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

And btw, I think that's an excellent graphic. Do you know if it's GFDL? I think it would be nice on the exit polls page, with some description. We'd need someone to verify the data, ofcourse. Kevin Baas^talk 00:05, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Regarding correlation, perhaps I was being a bit imprecise with the term. More precisely, I meant that they have a unexpectedly low information redundancy. The "explanation" lacking is the information that is in one and not the other. That's where investigation and analysis comes in - finding where that information is; finding that information. Kevin Baas^talk 23:46, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

No, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico were the only four states in which Kerry won the exit poll but lost the election. As Mark Blumenthal showed, all four were within the margin of error. Which states do you believe were outside the margin of error?

You've said that MOE is less in swing states a couple times, but I don't understand what you mean. Did they use larger sample sizes there? MOE is dependent on the sample size, sample proportion, and desired confidence level. And MOE is actually highest when the sample proportion is 50%, so if sample sizes are the same then MOE will be the highest in so-called swing states.

They used a larger sample size in swing states, with a stated goal of lowering the MOE; of having a more accurate estimate there. I don't know why you got a p*(1-p) there in the formula, and it seems rather counter-intuitive. At a 100% sampling rate, one has perfect information redundancy (in theory), and thus zero error, while at 0% sampling rate, one has no information redundancy, and thus undefined (closer in concept to "infinite" than "zero"; as likely to be zero as any other number, and positive definite.) error. Fact is, the used a larger sample size (proportion), and therefore the exit polls in those state ARE, statistically/informationally speaking, closer to the how people voted. This is regardless of any systematic bias: as the sampling approaches the limit of a complete sample, the affect of systematic bias approaches zero. Kevin Baas^talk 00:51, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

The graph is from this article. I don't see any free licenses, so I assume that the image is copyrighted and unusable here. You could make a similar one if you wanted, I think it just uses Freeman's data and the official results. Rhobite 00:30, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any licenses whatever, so I assume the null hypothesis. One can always email the guy and ask. Kevin Baas^talk 00:56, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I wanted to know. It does make sense to use a larger sample size in swing states. Regardless, the four states I mentioned are within the margin of error, taking into account the sample size. As for your p*(1-p) question, that is part of the formula for margin of error of a sample proportion. The full formula is Z*sqrt((p)*(1-p)/n). Z is the Z-value for your desired confidence level, e.g. if you want a 95% confidence level you'd find Z[0.05/2] = 1.96. p is the sample proportion x/n, and n is the sample size. If you try various values of p in this formula you'll find that p=.5 has the highest standard error. Rhobite 01:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well if that's the formula you're using, then I'm not interested in the result. Kevin Baas^talk 02:10, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

I must have been reading you wrong, I looked here, and found that p is the expectation or mean, what you called the sample proportion, which I interpreted as the proportion of the whole that the sample is. Apparently you didn't pick up on this misunderstanding. Whatever the popular terminology, I am interested in the result where p represents the expectation, as described in the given link. Kevin Baas^talk 02:22, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Oh geez, I completely misread you, forgive me. I read friggin' dsylexic. I saw sample size where sample proportion was and vice versa, where you were discussing swing states. Kevin Baas^talk 02:25, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

Arnbeck's latest and greatest

Remember when we removed the line about Cliff Arnebeck et. al. having withdrawn their OH Supremem court case re: irregularities, and seeking a federal case, pending more info? Here's the latest:

Arnebeck: "Three days after we did the voluntary dismissal (of Moss. v Bush) I filed a motion to intervene in a federal pending case to essentially proceed with the same litigation and take these emergency depositions of Bennet and Blackwell. We're hoping to get into this federal case and prove the fraud and all the civil rights conspiracies.

"And if the case we selected is not available because the judge won't let us in, we intend to file additional litigation. We are intending to broaden the investigation to prove how the votes were stolen all over the country." [3]

Here's the case he's trying to join:

Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell

U.S. District District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 2:04-cv-01055

Here is a PDF of the actual filing pdf.

Here is all the documentation of the case [4].

This case was filed on election day. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow. (I hope the federal judge(s) make(s) rulings based on reasonable interpretations of the law.) I think this should be put in the timeline and possibly the Moss v. Bush article.

still a npov dispute?

is there still a npov dispute somewhere? the tag is still up, but i havent seen any disputes in a long time. Kevin Baas^talk 21:10, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately the best way to learn of the details of a dispute is to remove the disputed/pov header, if there is a dispute someone will put it back (and hopefully grace the talk page). zen master T 23:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put it there. I still have big problems with this page, but no time to edit it. I'm happy that the exit poll section has improved, though. If people want to remove the NPOV tag that's fine. Rhobite 00:32, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and removed the npov header. zen master T 02:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found a wiki: "civicaction" A link from here, or no?

[5] A link from here, or no? opinions? Kevin Baas^talk 03:39, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Rep Feney response to Clint Curtis allegations?

I was just wondering if Florida Representative Feny has every officially responded to the Clint Curtis conspiring to write vote switching software allegations? Anyone have any info on that? zen master T 04:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To include?

(I copied this from Talk:2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression#To_include.3F, in light of the fact that the disputed info was recently put into this article. Kevin Baas^talk 03:41, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC))

There is a lot of specific info out there on freepress and other sources, should all of those be integrated into this article and if so, how? Kevin Baas^talk 00:37, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Something should be included in this article about the dozens of GOP rented vans which had their tires slashed by five Kerry-Edwards campaign staffers, including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic politicians on the night before election day. Criminal charges have been filed, and the case is currently ongoing. 1, 2, 3 --BaronLarf 21:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is about disenfranchisement. That did not disenfranchise any voters. Kevin Baas^talk 17:59, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I thought the article was about voter suppression. Tire-slashing of get-out-the-vote vehicles obviously had voter suppression as a motive. --BaronLarf 18:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not suppress votes. The motive is unclear, most likely it was an expression of extreme discontent with the policies of the Bush administration. The motive, anyways, is irrelevant. This article is not about motives. Nowhere in the article are motivations discussed. Only empirical phenomena; facts and data regarding votes and lack thereof. Notice that the scale of each irregularity is in the thousands of votes. At most, the tire slashing could have affected a handfull of votes, but there are no indications that it affected any. A ratio of at least a thousand to at most 20 is 500 to 1. On average each irregularity is covered by less than 500 words. Thus, to put this event in representative proportion, it word recieve, were there actually indications that it suppressed votes, at best, less than a word. Representing things out of proportion is a form of POV/bias. This is not about people being angry or sad, or what have you. It's about popular suffrage. If you can find voting irregularities that affected in the range of at least a thousand votes, then they belong here, but guesses of motivation, or discussion about motivation, or anything of the sort, even in regard to votes that were actually suppressed and where comparatively significant in quantity of votes affected with reasonable certainty, does not. Kevin Baas^talk 14:26, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

Intro should convey potential for millions of votes switched

The intro should convey the possibility that millions upon millions of votes could have been switched (through sketchy voting machines and central tabulation computers plus all the other techniques). "40,000 incidents" doesn't convey that, I kind of confuses the issue additionally. What do people think? zen master T 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm against speculation, esp. in the intro. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:21, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Speculation, huh? If Kerry really won the election millions of votes would have had to be switched, right? The majority of evidence indicates the vote machines and central tabulation computers contributed the most to the switches, though vote suppression was likely another big factor. How else were the exit polls so far off? zen master T 18:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, speculation.

"If Kerry really won the election, millions of votes would have had to be switched, right?"

Technically a valid argument, but how do you know your initial premise that Kerry should have won in the first place? As for exit polls, they are definetely not evidence that proves Kerry won. For example, did you know that every presidential election since 1988 shows exit polls overstating Democratic support? Although one cannot rule out fraud, there are many other plausible explanations besides fraud. And what majority of evidence? There is no direct evidence to any of this. All you can prove is that there existed circumstances that would have made it extremely easy to fraudulently manipulate the vote. There is no evidence that indicates what you say. You start out assuming there were switches made in the first place; what evidence do you have of these switches besides what you see in the exit polls? I personally believe that significant fraud occured in the election, but I must rest that on a belief and a gut feeling from the few facts that we do know about the election and those responsible for counting our vote. --kizzle 20:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Huh, what are you guys talking about? The preponderance of election controversy and iregularity evidence is that millions of Kerry votes were switched by vote software and vote tabulation machines from Republican owned companies. You guys are starting to sound like (subtle) anti vote fraud propaganda? Diebold, hello? What is this article about if not that? zen master T 22:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The known facts. I am anti vote fraud propaganda insofar as propaganda refers to distortion/embellishment/speculation/what have you. I am all for the dissemination of confirmable factual information regarding the irregularities. As far as I can tell, everything in this article catogry is exactly that. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:52, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

It is a confirmable fact there is/was a potential by Republicans or others to affect millions of votes in the 2004 election. Agree or disagree? Note the title of this section is "convey the potential". zen master T 23:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a speculation. or whatever you want to call it, a "potential". Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:01, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

I could very well state the potential that i'm mickey mouse, but i'd make a stronger argument for it by stating all of the relevant circumstances, and a reader can then calculate, from those circumstances, the liklihood that i'm mickey mouse. so to, with potential. it is not our job to analyze or hypothesize, or state potentials. it is our job to state the empirical, what is known to have happened, not what is known to be able to happen or be able to have happened. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:07, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

That's not speculation and your mickey mouse example is rather inapplicable given the content of this article. What I want to add to the intro is summarize the sum total of all the controversies and irregularities to convey the scale of the issue. Can we do something like that? zen master T 00:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to portray the approx. scale, and I think the phrase "massive fraud" does a good job of doing so. If you're interested in an estimate, i'd suggest Moss v. Bush, they're examined 15 of the 88 counties so far, and have, in their most conservative estimate, a little over 100,000. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:49, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Arnebeck et al. have also stated their intention to extent their investigation beyond ohio. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 00:50, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

The point is that through republican owned voting machine companies it goes from hundreds of thousands to millions easily. This article is about the overall controversy and irregularity (not just OH), so why not include a sense of scale in the intro? zen master T 00:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because you're pulling the numbers out of your ass. --kizzle 01:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Have you read this article? You are personally attacking me rather than focusing on the issue, that is what propaganda bots do. Here is some lite reading for you and everyone [6] zen master T 05:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, Zen. And we are focsing on the issue of neutrality, which is an important issue. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:35, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Zen, your statement "millions of votes could have been switched" is not based upon any evidence that directly supports such a claim, only that the exit polls are off and that the voting companies are shady in general. If that's our criteria for including "potentials", why couldn't I have said "It is possible Karl Rove paid off John Kerry to intentionally lose the election." We all know Karl Rove's antics, and John Kerry did lose the election, so that sentence to me seems equally as valid as yours. By including such "potentials", we abandon the potential for neutrality. I'm not saying abandon your belief, but recognize it is a belief and not a theory. Let us, in the article, stick to what we do know and leave the reader to come up with their own potentials. --kizzle 17:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)--kizzle 17:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is a theory based upon strong evidence. Were you a psychology major? If you don't include info or allegations that isn't abandoning neutrality, that is burying it. zen master T 22:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you possess that directly supports millions of votes being switched. And if all you have is exit polls, I suggest you read in detail Mystery Pollster's site. --kizzle 04:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

TruthIsAll (Andrew Tanenbaum) has completely debunked "Mystery pollster", read the democraticunderground.com site sometime (URL provided above). zen master T 05:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen, I'm kobeisguilty on DU, and I have had several discussions with TIA... his analysis of MP isn't the greatest and at best doesn't "completely debunk" his viewpoint because he treats statistics like common mathematical proofs using definite integers, when statistical figures are not as finite. MP doesn't say that there wasn't fraud, just that the exit polls are too blunt of an instrument to definitively rely on as evidence for fraud. If you are so sure about this Zen, then answer me this: How do you explain that every presidential election since 1988 has overstated democratic support? And if you answer that republicans have been doing it since then, you better have evidence of such phenomena (is that a word? :) ) that doesn't include the mere existence of voting machines back then. Remember, Diebold bought AccuVote in 2002. --kizzle 05:55, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Increasing the scope of the issue does not diminish already known facts (absent evidence). zen master T 06:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As long as you're aware of what scope the facts allow. --kizzle 06:19, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Your awareness differs from mine apparently. The larger question is why isn't there an investigation on the potential for massive election fraud? Certainly by any measure the controversies and irregularities are more than enough to warrant a massive investigation as oppose to say sweeping everything under the rug? zen master T 06:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I only wish there would be an investigation, as there is much to doubt. All I am taking issue with is your assuredness of the possibility of fraud where no evidence indicates such concreteness about such a belief.

So you support an investigation but don't think it's reasonable to consider the possibility of fraud? That is illogical. zen master T 06:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I believe that fraud occured, it is just a matter of what actual evidence I have to support this belief that is in question. One can easily argue that an environment existed which would make fraud highly easy to accomplish, but one does not have evidence of the actual fraud occuring.--kizzle 06:43, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

You also agree an investigation should occur, which is more than a belief. It is notable, factual and relevant to state in the intro that there exists or did exist a potential by Republicans to "steal" millions of votes in the 2004 election. zen master T 07:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want such an investigation because of its ability to uncover new evidence which could change my belief into a conclusion. --kizzle 15:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The article is not about potentials to steal votes. The article is about irregularites that are definitively known to in fact have occured. Zen, to put possibilities in the article is to weaken it. People will read that and think that the rest of the info in the article is as unsupported as that. People who come to the article apt to disbelieve will focus on the weakest point, and ignore the rest of the article, based on that. It's stupid, but it's what people do, pretty reliably. It will make the article less credible; in effect, it is the same as removing large chunks of data from the article. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 07:40, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my proposal, where the intro currently says there are allegations of forging vote totals, we should add a caveat or tangential allegation about the alleged existance of a potential to illegally affect millions of votes in the 2004 election. Is that more clear? zen master T 08:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why millions? Why not tens of millions? --kizzle 15:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

ohio re-recount

Anyone know the status on the "how many times do i have to count it?" "once, ofcourse. the thing is that you haven't done that yet. i don't know what you were doing before, but it sure wasn't what the law calls "counting", although it certainly did use up a lot of money and time." anyone have an update? i haven't been keeping track. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:18, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Racial discrimination and other bias

I updated the link to the US Commission on Civil Rights report for 2000 and made a slight change to the wording, that may be controversial so I'm adding this to defend it. In the sentence "the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights determined that, in Florida in 2000, 54 percent of the ballots discarded as "spoiled" were cast by African Americans," I changed determined to estimated. Determined implies absolute certainty, while report states that number is "based on estimates derived from county-level data. These statewide estimates were corroborated by the results in several counties based on actual precinct data." Also the Dissenting Statement, included in the report, strongly attacks the statistical methods used in arriving at that number along with the fairness and objectivity of the report overall. [7]

Fraud

Firstly, I haven't gone through the entire article yet, but from just the intro I'm a little bothered. It seems to focus entirely on irregularities that would benefit bush over kerry. There are of course allegations/evidence of the articles namesake occurring that would benefit kerry over bush. Would this not deserve a mention in the intro? If not shouldn't this be named '2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities benefiting Bush'. As is, it should include information of -all-. Right? -bro 172.157.33.19 5 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)

It focuses on all of the irregularities, without bias. problem is, 99% of all irregularities happen to favor bush. that is no fault of the editors of thsi page, and there is nothing they can do about it. (i.e., dont' shoot the messenger) Kevin Baas^{talk: new}

How exactly, do we know, or how -would- we know what irregularities favor which candidate? -bro 172.144.83.113 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I believe the case of the election workers convicted of slashing GOP 'GOTV' vans' tires is already mentioned. Are there other, specific examples of irregularities that occurred that you can relate here, or wish to add to the article? Kevin's point re: 99% of proven irregularities favoring Bush is determinant here. -- RyanFreisling @ 5 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

See above. -bro 172.144.83.113 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

That's not an answer. Do you have specifics? -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

See below. -bro 172.153.6.49 6 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

Ok, after reading through it, it definitely needs a NPOV tag at least. The fact that there are -no- mentions of complaints from the R's in the article is really bad. I'm going to wait a few days for some comments, and hope someone else does it if there are none, but I will otherwise. -bro 172.157.33.19 5 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

See above. I assume you're being playful and not intentionally evasive, given your having prompted this discussion in the first place. -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

Actually, no. I was just trying to point you to where I've addressed both parts of your question above, the "Kevin's point re: 99% of proven irregularities favoring Bush is determinant here" one, and the why I haven't added content one. -bro 172.153.6.49 6 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

there are no mentions from r's about it because r's have nothing to say about it. that is, they ahven't said anything, besies in the forum of the electoral contest: 2004_U.S._presidential_election_recounts_and_legal_challenges#Ohio:_U.S._Congress_electoral_contest in which, effectively, they didn't say anything, in that none of their arguments were logically valid. In other words, they choose to remain silent, and it would be partial of us to interfere with that right. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} July 5, 2005 11:04 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, theres been plenty of accusations flying from both sides. My problem is that I do my best to not touch obviously controversial topics, and my hope is that bringing certain things to the attention of the talk page that the articles would be improved. But, I'm not asking or trying to force anyone else into doing the research either, but I do think if its not done, the NPOV tag is needed. -bro 172.144.83.113 5 July 2005 22:50 (UTC)

As the article stands now, the entirely significant majority of fraud allegations are of republican fraud, and thus the intro reflects this. Clearly you have some incidents in mind of democratic fraud as well, if you add some of them into the article, then it is a lot easier to justify including this change in the intro. --kizzle July 5, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

Yes, as the article stands now thats the case, which is why I mentioned the tag. I also explained my reasons for not wanting to touch this, and other articles like it. I also mentioned that I'm not trying to force anyone else to go digging. In case anyone does, take a look into voter registrations, voting by felons, dead people, pets etc. My main concern as stated above is this idea that these irregularities somehow favor Bush. I don't see how thats in any way provable. Although I wouldn't mind to see someones proof if they have it. -bro 172.153.6.49 6 July 2005 01:44 (UTC)

I am aware of the Dick Tracy and Mary Poppins registrations by the democrats, selling votes for crack cocaine by democrats, but besides these two incidents, I honestly don't know what you're talking about, and this doesn't come from a lack of familliarity of the 2004 election. Are you simply objecting to there being little representation of democratic fraud on here without knowing anything about incidents of democratic fraud not already covered here? --kizzle July 6, 2005 03:16 (UTC)

Two things really. Firstly, I don't believe it can be said with any certainty who any fraud/irregularities et al. would benefit. Secondly, was the lack of such irregularities that have been brought up by R's. Something else that would fit, if you wanted to dig into it, would be the situation in WA. It centered around the governors race, due to the closeness of that race, but the problems existed and certainly had an effect on the pres. race. As I've mentioned, I do know of many such problems across the country, and I've mentioned a few here, but again, I do not really wish to edit this, and attributing such things to benefit a certain candidate isn't accurate. -bro 172.139.207.115 6 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

I disagree. And WA is a different election entirely, and so not included here. If you don't wish to edit it, you should at least cite specific examples here in talk, and participate in the discussion. You need to engage in the process, and work to resolve your concerns before threatening to put an accuracy tag on the article. Without it, such an unsubstantiated tagging would be rightly reverted on the basis of your denial of the correlative and Appeal to (im)probability. To address whether when addressing these incidents there is a 'real' inability to conclude the likely beneficiary of the cited instances, I'll ask again - are there any instances where you feel that the conclusion of the likely beneficiary of an instance of irregularity is inaccurate, or made in error with insufficient evidence? -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Hm, I coulda sworn that I -was- discussing. I wasn't threatening anything. I thought I expressed my concerns multiple times to multiple people. As I've stated above, there is absolutely no accurate way to determine who any instance of fraud/irregularities/whatever you want to call them will benefit, if this is incorrect, (also as I stated above) I would certainly be willing to learn. If you are asking me to cite links for this or that, I tried to make it clear that I was unwilling to edit this (and other equally controversial topics) and to offer suggestions to those that -are-. I've pointed out a few generalities, but if i were to start googling away, I guarantee we'd be in an edit war in no time. Mainly due to the odd collection of websites that are used as cites in the article, one could use equally odd ones that point the finger in the opposite direction. I'd rather not do that. As for the WA election being different somehow, I do not understand your point, it was Novermber 2nd, 2004, people cast their ballots for pres as well as gov at that time, allegations of fraud, and more than allegations have been made. I don't believe you are saying that those votes would somehow be restricted only too the gov race, so I'm not sure I know your point there. -bro 172.139.207.115 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

The WA election belongs on a different page because of the scope of the article, which is 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities, not gubernatorial races. As for odd collection of sources, if you mean dubious or unsubstantiated, please let us know which ones have been shown to be false. It seems that simply the lack of allegations of Democrats committing voter fraud is troubling you, yet you have not offered any examples of this (with the exception of the WA election, which does not belong here). --kizzle July 6, 2005 21:39 (UTC)

Point is, this article deals with 2004 Presidential Election controversies and irregularities. WA doesn't fit. You must do more than make general (unsubstantiated) suggestions - you must point out what you specifically feel are generalities. To do as you have done and voice a concern, without making any specific recommendations or concerns, does not help Wikipedia become better - it's just lobbying. And assuming an edit war will erupt is not Assuming good faith of the community - a no-no if you wnt your opinion to be heard. If you are unwilling to participate in good faith, and are unwilling to edit, I don't see how you can have a real impact. -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

I think I need an explanation on how fraud in a presidential election, which the WA one was, and the gov. race was included in, does not merit mention. The rest I've addressed elsewhere. Assuming good faith is all well and good, reality is better. I'd like not to test the waters, thanks. -bro 172.168.154.58 6 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

The WA election was Gubernatorial, not Presidential. And vis-a-vis reality, I cannot find any real points you have raised that can be responded to editorially in the real article, so this discussion is now circular. -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

No, it was the general election, containing pres and gov and others. The problems were raised by the gov. candidates, and addressed as such since it was so close. Circular indeed. -bro 172.168.154.58 6 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

This article does not focus on the general election. It is focused on the Presidential election. Is this the only specific objection you have? -- RyanFreisling @ 6 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Bro, don't take his word for it... just look up at the top of your screen to the title of this page. --kizzle July 6, 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Are you guys being obtuse on purpose? The general election is called, uhh, general because it consists of the election of multiple positions, -including- presidential. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)

Not being obtuse - just pointing out the scope of the article is not the scope you are describing here. This article is not about the entire general election - it is specifically about the Presidential election. It's that simple! -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

Yep, it's also that simple that the same problems brought up in regard to the recount for the gov. are the same problems that existed for the -entire- election. Same ballots, same bat time, same bat channel, same bat irregularities. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Sorry, but your snark just strangled your point. I have no idea what you're trying to say. The incidents raised in this article are most decidedly not the same issues as reported in the WA election. They were covered, tracked and (where possible) resolved independently, in a state (not federal) context. If you again have examples to cite, please contribute - otherwise you verge ever closer to pure hyperbole. It is not educational or informative to create a counterpoint between the U.S. Election for President and the WA governor's election to satisfy an unsubstantiated desire to be 'fair and balanced'. Leave that to FOX. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Sigh, one last time. If you read about the problems in WA, they are about the problems in the -election-. Now, what is that election? Presidential, gov. and other various seats. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. This article's focus and the nature of elections are both clear. This article does not cover the entire 'general election', it is focused specifically on the Presidential election. They are separate elections, not just separate seats, whether or not the ballot used is the same ballot for all elections in the general election or not - and given the wide range of irregularities covered herein, I'll say it again (also for one last time) this article's focus is clear and appropriate. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

Again, wrong. Trying to exclude the problems in this election from the presidential, when it is irrevocably linked, is beyond silly. They are not -seperate- in any sense other than being seperated by a line on paper, or screen. The articles focus is on the presidential election, which this was, as it was others as well, just as in the majority across the country. I don't believe its possible to dumb it down any further. This is my last attempt. Keep on keepin' on. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing your opinion. We obviously disagree, and disagreement is the beginning of understanding. It's unfortunate that you won't be participating in the process, and helping the article to improve. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you have to state the same thing multiple (oh so multiple), times, the inability to converse with said person is shown. Along those same lines, my previous comment was that it was my last attempt to explain that particular point. I've been around far too long to allow myself to be run off by tediousness. This is also related to the parroting of the assume good faith et al, above. My comment about the inevitable edit war that would follow, which seems to have been verified by the following conversation, wasn't an attempt at slandering you. It takes two to tango, and I would have been the second. I really think much of our conversation could have been much condensed if we both read each others comments more thoroughly. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Rather than a meta-conversation about our conversation, or accusing me of 'parroting' a core principle of wiki (to participate in good faith as an editor), I would only direct you again towards editing as the only real outlet for your wistful 'would-have-been' ideas. This is in no way an edit war between us and proves nothing of the sort. Instead of circular 'talk', why not try contributing your ideas to the article? If your difference of opinion is really centered around the relationship of the WA election and the Presidential election (as was only voiced by you after numerous requests for you to be specific with your concerns) it seems to me that there are many ways you could constructively contribute - and in no way have you been dissuaded from participating. Make your own choice. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Sadly, it doesn't seem as though you took my advice of reading comments carefully to heart. Parroting (ie repeating) of a core principle is exactly what occurred, not bad in itself, yet quite tedious. I never stated -this- was an edit war, just that it has certainly confirmed that one would occurr had I edited. I've answered the rest previously ad nauseum. Please, read what I type, not what you think I'm trying to say. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

I did - and I did not accept your premise. My response did not reflect a lack of consideration with your point, just a disagreement. That's where the value is - not in personal attacks (of which I am not accusing you). -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Ok people, clearly the point isn't getting across. Lets make it a bit simpler.

1. Bro wants to put in info about WA Democrat fraud allegations in the Gubernatorial Election.
2. This page = Presidential Election
3. Bro's info = Gubernatorial Election
4. Bro's info = Out of scope of this page (from 2 and 3)
5. Bro's info = Is about the General Election
6. However, this page = Only Presidential Election

--kizzle July 7, 2005 01:33 (UTC)

This really isn't this difficult. The election in WA, it was the PRESIDENTIAL AND GUBERNATORIAL (and others) election. They are one and the same. No difference. Can you tell me a difference between ballots cast in the gov. race and the pres. race? Were they the same ballots? Same election? -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 01:49 (UTC)

To say there are no differences between the two elections (one including the entire U.S. and the other the highest state office) is patently, utterly false. Besides the obvious fact that the population of Washington is not the same voting population as that of the U.S., and that the campaigns, figures of note, etc., were and are decidedly different (and in this article, included on the basis of relevance to the Presidential election), ballots are not by any means the entirety of an election, and the irregularities in this article are not exclusive to balloting. Be fair - the vast majority of issues described in this article are fundamentally different in their applicability to the WA governor's election and the Presidential election. That's why the article focuses on the Presidential election, and does not include detailed coverage of issues specific to the WA governor's race. This article must be more specific - it is not here to cover the complete set of elections conducted during the general election. It is the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article. Some overlap on specific issues and irregularities, yes... that's just logical, and if the relevance is there, that info belongs! Make the case for those examples! -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

This is another reading conflict. The issue is the irregularities in the WA election that occurred on Nov. 2nd. This included the Gov. race, the reason it became so big is because it was so close. This does -not- somehow corner it to being specific only to that race. Here, I'll toss out the first link google spit along with a quote. [[8]]

An unknown number of provisional voters, some of whom may not even have been registered to vote, improperly put their ballots directly into vote-counting machines at polling places, King County's elections superintendent said yesterday. Once those ballots went into the machines, there was no way to separate them from legitimate ballots.Provisional ballots are given on Election Day to voters who show up at the wrong precinct or whose registration is in question. The ballots are supposed to be put inside two envelopes, with the voter's name, address and signature on the outside, and counted only after the voter's status is verified.Officials may never know exactly how many provisional ballots were improperly fed into voting machines, but a current review of polling-place records will give some indication of how widespread the problem was, county Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens said.

As you can see, these are problems with the -election-. Which is to say the Presidential Election and all the others that were going on. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Again, your attribution that I misread you is false. Can you help me understand why you wouldn't include this, properly written in the article? Your citation of this example is relevant to the presidential election. Are there any updates since this article was published in January? -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

The misreading part isn't some condemnation, just an acknowledgement that you are arguing against something I've not said. I've already addressed my reluctance to edit the article directly many times. I would be there are quite a few updates on that specific piece. There are also many more allegations regarding the election problems there. If you wish to read up on them, try keywords such as 'washington election fraud' or 'king county election fraud' etc. Theres bunches and bunches. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

While I appreciate the google advice, your reluctance to edit is to the detriment of the article. -- RyanFreisling @ 7 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

That's actually very nice of you. Heh, a good demonstration of why I'm reluctant, would be the GWB article. Ran into quite a little skirmish when I added content from a link that was already in the article (not put there by me). Thought that would be as uncontroversial as possible, but it seems everything is argued when there are so many people of differing POV's around. Anywho, that was nice of you. -bro 172.168.154.58 7 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

I think you're both right. I agree with bro that the challenges arising from the Washington gubernatorial election should be included in Wikipedia. I agree with RyanFreisling that this article has been set up to concentrate on more limited issues. The Washington race is described in detail in Washington gubernatorial election, 2004. Based on that article, I've added a link and a one-sentence summary to the 2004 U.S. election voting controversies article, which has wider but shallower coverage. Incidentally, Kerry won Washington by more than 200,000 votes. That margin couldn't possibly have been overcome by any of the arguments the Republicans raised in the gubernatorial race. As a result, I don't think anyone contends that any irregularities or improprieties in Washington affected the allocation of the state's electoral votes. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Well, firstly I didn't know that this article was suppose to address issues that may have changed the outcome only. Secondly, I don't know how its possible to seperate overall voting irregularities into effecting this or that race only. Now that I know that the other article exists, I'd actually like to see this, and the WA gov. article merged with it. But I'm not going to push it. -bro 172.172.46.106 7 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Sproul

Need to ensure we accurately represent this breakdown of Nathan Sproul's malfeasance - [9] [10]

holy crap. nice one, ryan. --kizzle July 5, 2005 19:20 (UTC)

"In the months before the 2004 presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registration drives in at least eight states, most of them swing states. The group--run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party--had been hired by the Republican National Committee.

"Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms.

"The scandal got a moderate amount of local coverage in some states--and then the election was over. Now anyone who brought up Nathan Sproul, or any of the other massive crimes and improprieties committed on or prior to Election Day, was shrugged off as a dealer in "conspiracy theory." It seems that Sproul did quite a lot of work for the Republicans. Exactly how much did he do? More specifically, how much did the RNC pay Sproul & Associates?

"If you went online last week to look up how much money Sproul received from the Republicans in 2004, you would have found that, according to the party (whose figures had been posted by the Center for Responsive Politics), the firm was paid $488,957. In fact, the RNC paid Sproul a great deal more than that. From an independent study of the original data filed by the Republicans with the Federal Election Commission, it is clear that Sproul was paid a staggering $8.3 million for its work against the Democrats.

"{...} there are some big surprises buried in the paperwork. It turned out that the RNC paid Sproul not only for their pre-election work, but also paid them for work after the election. According to their Year-End Report, filed on Jan. 28, 2005, the RNC paid Sproul for "Political Consulting" in December--long after all the voter registration drives had ended. And two months later, when the RNC filed their amended Year-End Report on May 3, the dates of those December expenditures mysteriously changed. A payment of $210,176, once made on Dec. 20, was changed to Dec. 22. A payment of $344,214, initially recorded on Dec. 22, was changed to Dec. 9. As to why Sproul was being paid in December, and why the dates were changed, one can only speculate. But it may be worth noting that the Ohio recount took place from Dec. 13 through Dec. 28.

Because these amendments were made in 2005, the Center for Responsive Politics' website mistakenly allocated that money to the 2006 cycle. When we informed them of these missing numbers yesterday, CRP was quick to adjust them. They also included two more expenditures: a $323,907 payment for more "Political Consulting" (10/12/04) and $450,257 for "Mailing Costs" (10/04/04). The documents also suggest that the RNC may have changed the dates of nine payments to suggest expenditures in 2005, thereby shifting focus from the 2004 election. Even if that mistaken date is just a typo, it is, to say the least, not likely that they made the same mistake in nine uniquely dated items for 2004.

In any case, all the payments by the RNC to Sproul add up to a whopping $8,359,161--making it the RNC's eighth biggest expenditure of the 2004 campaign."

I went to the Las Vegas Sun website and searched their archives for "Voters Outreach of America" and for "America Votes". They had the stories of the October 2004 discovery of the trashing of Democratic forms, but no story since Election Day. Does anyone know whether the investigation has gotten anywhere? Back in October there was talk of criminal prosecution. JamesMLane 7 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

OHIO

I always wondered why, when I know for a fact, that early voting is allowed in the state of ohio, if done by absente ballot, and why when 90% of the people I called to register, 2 weeks before the elcetion had already voted by ballot, why were the absentee ballots disregarded as insignifigant?? other than the fact that most of these people had voted for kerry? - (anon) 14:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Noe, Lucas County and Ohio

Here's a report of Lucas County's irregularities, by and for Blackwell's administration, which points to some serious wrongdoing by Bernadette Noe, the wife of GOP fundraiser Bill Noe, now embroiled in the 'coingate' scandal. pdf

Bernadette Noe, who served dual roles as chairman for the Lucas County Republican Party and the Lucas County Board of Elections, sent twelve "partisans" into a warehouse on Election Day, according a memo authored by Ohio's Director of Campaign Finance Richard Weghorst who was present at the time.

The assertion is part of a comprehensive investigation prepared for Ohio Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell regarding reports of irregularities in Lucas County. The report found gross failures on the part of Ms. Noe's board in preparation for and administration of November's election.

{...}When the volunteers refused to leave the premises, Weghorst called the police, who then escorted the group away from the warehouse. It later emerged they had come at Ms. Noe's request.

A Diebold employee, Robert Diekmann, was also present at the warehouse that night.

Noe an advocate for Diebold

Ms. Noe was an advocate of Diebold's optical scan software as chair of the Lucas County Board of Elections. In April 2004, she and another fellow Republican board member voted to approve a $350,000 contract with Diebold to lease machines for the election. The county was forced the lease the equipment after a deadlock and a rebuke from Blackwell.

"It's going to cost us more than we thought it would, but it's going to be a fair election," Ms. Noe said at the time. "I am confident with the system we will have with Diebold."

"Every vote is going to get counted, and it is going to be an efficient election," she added.

The contract was no-bid. After Democrats on the board revealed a cheaper bid from another company, the Lucas County board was forced to open the contract for bidding, over Ms. Noe's objections.

Possibly involved with ballot tampering

Reminiscent of the ballot sticker controversy in Clermont County, Ohio, Ms. Noe was involved in an incident through which Republican volunteers were brought in to "assist" processing returned voter confirmation postcards. On her authority and that of several other board members, partisan volunteers were allowed to copy the returned cards.

They were subsequently caught by a Lucas County Democratic official peeling the return stickers off the voter confirmation cards, and were told to leave. Weghorst's inquiry found no evidence they had been supervised.

The investigator's report was submitted in April 2005.

Rep. Conyers' response

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is expected to ask the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel today.

"The facts that have come out indicate a culture of corruption in the Ohio Republican Party," Conyers in a statement to RAW STORY. "An investigation such as this, which is rife with conflicts of interest, begs for the appointment of an independent prosecutor who would be immune from the partisan gamesmanship we have seen so far."

Conyers' letter to the Justice Department will be posted shortly. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

More

This seems to be a good overview of many problems in this. election.[[11]] 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 [12], [13], [14]. -- 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 [15] 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 [16], [17],[18]. 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. [19]-- 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 [20],[21]. Then you proceeded to delete dead links, and a few live ones [22]. 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 [23], 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. [[24]] 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 [25], 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 [26]).

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)