Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about 2004 United States election voting controversies. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Clint Curtis, et. al.

Link: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/120604Madsen/120604madsen.html

Description: White House-linked clandestine operation paid for "vote switching" software

Discussion

This one's a whopper... can anyone find the original affidavit or is this just BS? --kizzle 23:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

The affidavit can be found here and the general story was broken here. Note that I'm not saying it's completely bogus, disinformation, nor valid. Exercise your own judgment, this is the U.S.A.! -- RyanFreisling @ 01:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Damn, this one looks pretty good so far. Anybody find out more information about Curtis please post it. --kizzle 04:27, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Its already in the journal. Madsen is generally not taken seriously by some sources but the story is. Its being investigated. Watch blackboxvoting for updates on this one. meantime its already in the pages with appropriate caveats as to potential question of trustworthiness and supportive views. Dont sweat over it, it would be nice but dont hold your breath, theres other activity too. FT2 04:38, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Did you spot this gem of unlikeliness...?

"Feeney and other top brass at Yang Enterprises ... wanted the prototype written in Visual Basic 5 (VB.5) in Microsoft Windows and the end-product designed to be portable across different Unix-based vote tabulation systems"

Clue - VB5 for unix would be possibly the single LAST thing anyone would program in, its almost impossible to find a LESS suitable means.

Er, I don't see the problem. VB is a perfectly good prototyping "language" (if you can call it that, probably RAD tool might be better), while the end product could have been written in something entirely different. What's so hard to get about that? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a computer programmer myself, I can corroborate this. First clue is that Microsoft and Unix are antithetical. But it's quite possible the client was a layman and didn't know this. Kevin Baas | talk 20:01, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I'm not defending the veracity of the claim, but based on my knowledge of the capabilities of the VB5 IDE it's not implausible to imagine if, for whatever reason:

VB5 and Windows was the desired platform for ALL source code
flexibility to provide unix executables might be needed for some environments
open source was undesirable (due to many reasons)
and most importantly, that the source code never leave Windows.

If I understand the VB5 IDE, that would fit the profile, as it can compile exec's to run under unix, but its' source code unavailable except in Windows VB5. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I interpret the sentence as meaning "building a workstation whose *output* is compatible with Unix-based..." Which is only good systems design, and therefore unworthy of mention, so maybe I'm wrong. -- Baylink 22:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think Madsen's full of shit, wasn't he the one who wrote about the Saudi financing and the $29 million pricetag on the election? However, I don't see any mention of VB5 or Unix or the quotation you provide in the actual affidavit...? Curtis and the affidavit seem pretty rock solid so far. --kizzle 02:19, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Apologies guys - I'm taking back my comment on Visual Basic. After reading the RawStory article it seems this impression I had that Microsoft VB and Unix were not suited for each other, was flawed. Now more information is available, I've updated the article to reflect what now appears to be a more accurate version of what the sources have said. FT2 21:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

cleanup header inappropriate for the article

Please list general article comments, clean up possibilities and/or POV problems with the article here. The cleanup header is woefully inappropriate in my opinion, especially considering the fact there are few open talk page discussions and the article just overwhelmingly survived VfD with a vote of keep (was not a vote to keep only if cleaned up). zen master 06:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disputed

Firstly, I think this article is great, and I've fought to keep it. So please don't attack me for asking questions! Anyway here they are:

Many critics of electronic voting...

"The 2004 election brought new attention to these issues. In particular, many critics of electronic voting machines pointed to widespread discrepancies between exit polls conducted during Election Day and the officially reported results. They argued that the official results were more favorable to Bush than were the polls, and that these discrepancies were more likely to arise where electronic voting machines were in use and/or in swing states. They concluded that the exit polls showing a Kerry victory were probably correct and that the official totals from the machines were wrong. Expert opinion was divided concerning what implications should be drawn from the cited discrepancies."

Which critics? Who argued these facts? We need to know so we can verify what they are saying.
Expert opinion: why experts? I'd like to know!

The entire section on 'exit polls' and the subsequent child article are the places where you can find these answers. Detailed there are various media and independent agencies associated with the exit polls, the researchers involved (the Caltech, Berkeley, Freeman, 'Wired' magazine studies, etc.) and the general chronology of the studies and their counters. Your question probably points to a need to address this in the main article narrative a little more clearly, however. Good one! -- RyanFreisling @ 15:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Embarrassing

Can someone please delete this page? It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed to even have wikipedia.org in my bookmarks, while this page is here. I can see how one or two pinkos couldn't handle the outcome of the election, but there is no excuse for an encyclopedia embarrassing itself this way. Not to mention all those blurbs in Current Events that no other respectable news source gives any attention to (irrespective of political orientation).

copied from the top of this page:

This article was listed twice on votes for deletion. Peter O. (Talk, automation :: script) 05:25, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. For a November 2004 deletion debate over the deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy.

What's embarrasing is the 2004 U.S. presidential election, as this article elucidates. Kevin Baas | talk 22:52, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

three things that are certain in this world, death, taxes, and ignorance. --kizzle 23:03, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Look, there are hunderds of millions of voters in US. OF COURSE, there will be some black man who got run over by a truck on his way to the polling station. Just think of the number 100,000,000. Think of how big this number is. Shit happens. Black people tend not to vote to begin with. That doesn't make the election invalid. Kerry himself CONCEDED already, and had no second thoughts about it. Let it go. (As a side note, if you ask me Dems have only themselves to blame for nominating a loser candidate. All the money in the world couldn't get him elected. He didn't have charisma, clear platform, or the will to fight muslim terrorists. It was clear that he only went to Vietnam just so that he could betray his comrades and crap all over their sacrifices for political gain. People like that need to be court-martialed, not elected leaders of the free world. But I'm digressing. Just delete this page pinkos, you are embarrassing yourselves more than you are embarrassing the wikipedia community). This unsigned comment left by 68.107.102.129 19:18, 12 Dec 2004, who also edited others' poor indents

"Greatness means leading the way: No stream is large and copious of itself, but is fed and guided by so many tributary currents. So it is with all intellectual greatness: it is simply a matter of 'pointing the way' suggested by so many affluents, not whether one was richly or poorly gifted originally." -Fredrich Nietzsche Kevin Baas | talk 23:26, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

"Hope is a state of mind, not of the world. Hope, in this deep and powerful sense, is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously heading for success, but rather an ability to work for something because it is good." - Vaclav Havel -- RyanFreisling @ 02:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask yourself just *why* it embarasses you. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) 00:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should ask yourself why no news organization is carrying this. Why is Comrade Baas forced to link to some PDF and a measly calendar entry on some racialists' web site.

Personal response:

I think you're under a misapprehension here, and its one that many Americans' ancestors sacrificed their lives for, so listen carefully. First off, those contributing are not "losers" or "pinkos" or any other personal attack. They are by and large, people who think America is slightly more important than the politicians, and that democracy and doubt over votes isnt an "embarrassment" or "sore heads" but fundamental to your liberty and theirs. They are concerned that although there are issues in every election, this election has a floodgate of them, more than any election before - and that not one or two, or 50%, or even 70% of them seem to be one sided, but that almost all the big ones where theres evidenced questions are. They have said repeatedly, if there is evidence that these are minor issues, add it to the article, don't just complain about it, and you know what? Nobody has come up with sources saying that the issues raised by various investigations, experts and affidavits is untrue.

The evidence (which you clearly haven't bothered thinking about) is in affidavits and House documents, official State documents and records, and public testimonials. About 40,000 of them at the last count. It's based upon the fact that Secretary of State in Ohio and election officers in Florida are dancing as hard as they can to avoid being made to testify. It's based upon the fact that not one and not two, but every computer specialist who examined the voting machines says they are childs play to hack and that there is strong computer evidence that they have been hacked during elections. Thats a little more than trivial.

As for me, Im not affected by the election, so I don't give a rats **** if Bush wins or Kerry. What i do care about is that there is a lot of strong evidence that this vote was affected in an improper manner, and that your comment suggests you prefer a nice uncontroversial life to an honest one. Do you value America? Are you proud of its democracy and freedoms? Do you realise people died for the right to vote and have their votes count? This isn't about Bush or Kerry. This is about what those hard-won rights mean, and at the first hurdle, to say "Oh I dont want this discussed because its embarrassing" is a bit like having aids and not telling your partner because you might upset them. Its fatal, and wrong, no matter how hard. FT2 01:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Lets see. In a few posts we have:

"pinkos"
"Black people tend not to vote to begin with"
"silly lefties"
"lunatic radical racialist" (j. jackson)
"losers"

I guess you didnt read WP:NPA yet. That's okay, but its noted. FT2 01:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

The article could use trimming, but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Anything that's been the subject of studies from MIT, Caltech and Berkeley has to be worth having an encyclopedia article on. Johnleemk | Talk 07:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the spirit of the holidays

News

(copied from above)

The news articles relate to all of the pages really. To keep the main article tight, what about moving the news section on Wikinews, with a permanent link from the articles to it for readers of wikipedia to catch their daily updates? Would that make sense? Or a page on its own? FT2 06:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Cleaning up talk page. If anyone else wants to help clean this page up, feel free. Either move sectins to daughter pages or to archive, preferably the former.

Also, FWIW, the main discussion topic right now is what to do regarding in the news, the talk page section being titled something like "day-by-day chronology...". Kevin Baas | talk 19:00, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

We may be better served simply archiving most/all of the current talk page and starting discussions fresh, with concise clarity in mind. zen master 19:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

News flash

Cliff Arnebeck brough his case before ohio supreme court today, but i can't find an article specific enough. All I got are these two: [1] [2] Kevin Baas | talk 20:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Gotcha. Added. [3]

That's a copy of [4]. What I mean is that there are only two different stories being circulated in the press. Kevin Baas | talk 21:19, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

I thought you wanted corroboration of the piece being run, in this case on abcnews. I'll keep my eyes open. I'm sure we'll hear more about it if/when the Court responds, as well. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

News

We really need a topical chronology for this stuff. I think that should be the priority right now. A lot of significant stuff has happened and is going on that people need to read the news articles to get any clear idea of, including:

many public hearings in ohio
2 congressional forums in ohio
2 recounts efforts in ohio
lawsuit about provisional ballots
lockdown of public records
obstruction of Freedom of Information requests
protest against electoral ballots being cast
congressional requests for ohio not to cast electoral ballots
electoral ballots cast whilst recount is ongoing
evidence of attempt of fraud in recount

I really think these need write-ups in the article. A new section, "Chronology", until a better title can be found or solution worked out? Kevin Baas | talk 21:44, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Do we have an Ohio Recount page? --kizzle 22:49, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

We have an Ohio page, which could use a better recount section. If the idea is "yet another page", i'd suggest a problems in ohio, and legal actions in ohio (including recount) page. Perhaps a "recount ohio page" could be written up as if it would be stand alone, and then put into the ohio page? The ohio page isn't yet linked to the main article. (BTW, the florida page should be deleted, IMHO, insufficient info.) Kevin Baas | talk 23:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Alert

A radical keeps removing this from ongoing events. Kevin Baas | talk 23:28, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

News of recount fraud called "superfluous" and removed form current events by Carrp. [5]

I'm on a (self-imposed) 2 revert per day per page limit, so someone else has to handle this. Kevin Baas | talk 23:58, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

There's nothing to "handle" on the current events page. I realize this is a major issue for you, Kevin Bass, but it's isn't for the vast majority of the US, let alone the world. There's a link on the current events page to a story on the electors casting their votes. This is an ongoing story and deserves to be included. The other link was superfluous and was therefore removed. Please do not add it back. Carrp 00:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The day that evidence of preparation for recount fraud is superfluous, is the day that we are royally f****d. I will not see that day. Kevin Baas | talk 00:07, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

In addition to that story being superfluous, it's also ridiculous. BreakForNews is about as credible a source as The Onion. It's a left-wing conspiracy theory site that should not be included as a serious source. The "evidence" is the hearsay of one anonymous informant. Perhaps this is why the mainstream media isn't interested in the story. Carrp 00:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's true the MSM (mainstream media) isn't really interested in the story. It's also true that lots of people aren't interested in the story. However, it's not true that the story is 'bs' or partisan. David Cobb said what he said and alleged what he alleged in a public hearing before members of Congress. It is noteworthy and a real event that's on the record, regardless whether the first link posted was from a 'left-wing' site or not. It just happened today, so further corroboration and links need to be, and have already been provided. However, I'm not going to go so far as to say it belongs on 'Current Events', much as I respect Kevin's passions and conviction. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just checked out 'Current Events' and yeah, it certainly isn't less important than the South Korea cannibal conviction. It currently reads:

2004 U.S. presidential election:
- All members of the Ohio delegation of the Electoral College cast their ballots for George W. Bush while a legal recount is still ongoing. (ABC)

Which is good for me. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The mainstream media consistently reports much more drastic claims on less evidence than this.
I know little about the source, but political characterizations of a new source mean nothing to me, except that:
1. it shows that the person making the characterization judges by prejudices, rather than reading comprehension and critical thinking
2. it discredits the person making the characterizations
you do not dispute that the event did indeed happen, so why do you question the "credibility", when you in fact believe the story whole-heartedly?
Would you believe the U.S. government if it told you? Have you been listening? The U.S government has been listening and speaking. Let's test your reading comprehension, who hosted the forum? What were they investigating?

that's enough for now. Kevin Baas | talk 00:29, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to me, and it never will: putting all bias, predispositions, and prejudice aside, i.e., taken at face value, is it not significant, in any circumstance, that:

[x presidential candidate] cited one case detailed by an --as yet anonymous-- informant, that a [x company] employee had told staff at the [x county] County Board of Elections office to inconspicuously note a prepared recount result, then report this data irrespective of the actual recount. The [x company] representative had also tampered with [voting equipment made by x company] in the offices.

"This is going on, all over the state," [x presidential candidate] told the [congressional judicial] hearing.

Maybe when I'm senile I'll understand. Kevin Baas | talk 00:44, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I think in a nutshell it's this - the process is unchanged. The hearings were held, and a suit was filed, but there has been no official impact on the process of the Election thus far. This is not to say itmay not be coming. It's also true that a bunch of people are pleased with this Election's result (what % varies based on who and what Republican-owned voting machine company you ask) and want nothing to do with any hint that 'their team' could have rigged it - to whatever conscious extent, the victory justifies the means. It's no more complex than that. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand this. I understood it by myself; the explanation was unneccessary. Simplicity is no justification. The election results are not the issue. The election process is the issue. I know it is difficult for them to come to terms (read the liberal/conservative empathy link in the article), but that fact has no logical validity, and no place in a critical debate. The sooner they become disillusioned, the less painfull for them. Again, I understand the psychological impetus, and I think that the best way to deal with it is by drawing the borderlines where they should be and holding them there. Kevin Baas | talk 01:13, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Thank you Rathergate, for cowing the media into not reporting anything highly controversial, and thus defining anyone who dares speak such blasphemy as a liberal whackjob... truly we thank you. --kizzle 10:15, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

possibly sections 1-12, and 14-21 can go? Kevin Baas | talk 23:46, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

yes, with the possible exception of #1 (ask kizzle/james). Also, the archive should continue to be in time range terms, e.g.: Archvied discussion from date X to date Y (discussion that were inactive as of date Y). I can do it later perhaps. zen master 02:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zen master, thanks for mentioning me in connection with section 1, but my thoughts on that subject became section 19, Need for a concise generalized summary article. The summary article exists at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. As long as that article remains for readers who want an encyclopedic summary, I'm not going to press my disagreements with the way this long, detailed article is organized. Therefore, I don't object to the archiving of anything on this page. JamesMLane 02:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archivage completed per Kevin's proposal, archive 5 created, moved inactive discussions as of dec 13 2004 part 2. zen master 05:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disappearing sources

With time many if not most of this article's links to external sources will break (sometimes due to a reorganization of the external web site, but often because the external articles are deleted). I know that there are copyright issues involved, but is there any way we could archive this external information so that the main article does not become gradually useless as its sources become unverifiable? noosphere 10:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Pick sources more carefully. Reliable ones generally don't disappear for at least long enough to be indexed by the Wayback Machine. --Korath ^会話 14:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say 'a few, perhaps some', certainly not 'most'. Most of the sources cited are long-running established news organizations, and others can certainly be condensed as the editing continues. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To save source articles that this page links to, use archiverProxy, at http://logicerror.com/archiverProxy . It is a proxy that you run on your local machine, which then archives every web page (and all versions of that webpage, time-stamped) you view, saved into a local archive which can be later viewed. The script may have a few bugs; test thoroughly before depending on it. Under Linux, I had to make some minor changes to get it to work; it may work as-is under Windows.

Anonymous contributor, please sign your comments with ~~~~. In any event, this is no more useful than manually saving the page with your browser - you can still view it, but others cannot. Even if you then serve it to the net at large (a glance at archiverProxy seems to indicate it does not), the credibility of the source is compromised. --Korath ^会話 08:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

relevant RFC listing

User:Carrp has been listed on WP:RFC here. Kevin Baas | talk 21:01, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Cleanup Needed

This article is in dire need of a cleanup. I'll list the major problems for now:

Page size: The page is currently 126KB. Articles over 32KB should be reduced or split. It's quite difficult to read or navigate an article that's so large.
News: It's great to have links to sources but this is overkill. Older links should be deleted if newer ones have more up to date information.
POV issues: I know this a sensitive subject, but this is an encyclopedia article and should be as unbiased as possible. Some examples:

Introduction: "Unofficial results currently indicate a victory for George W. Bush over John Kerry." The electoral college voted for President Bush on December 13. The article should reflect this fact (as well as when they are certified on January 6th).
Controversial or irregular aspects of the 2004 election: "...that Bush's apparent win in Ohio was so narrow..." The Florida 2000 election was narrow. Ohio 2004 was not.

Redundant information: There are already pages for exit polls and voting machines. There's no need to have so much information on this page. A short synopsis with a link to the sub-pages would suffice.

I understand that it will take some time to get this article in shape, but the time to begin is now. Carrp 23:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carrp... good stuff. And if these are the major problems, I consider this article in great shape! A question - is this a heads up/request, or are you gonna roll up your sleeves and join the unwashed ranks of the editors?

The first bullet I agree with. With 'External Links' and 'News' gone, the page size becomes around 70k, a much easier volume to get one's head around. It's important to note this because that ~70k is where the editing needs to be - the external links / news section is much more bibliographic.
The second I do not agree with (I believe removing old articles doesn't serve the historical function that section was created for) but I support intelligent placement on news elsewhere (news currently adds around ~300 links to the page total).
Yep, NPOV is crucial, and sometimes perceived POV arises from outdated info, like your first example, etc... The POV concerns you cited:

'unofficial' = I agree with your comments. I took a crack at it. What do folks think?
'so narrow' = 116,000 votes is narrower than many states, less so by far than others. You have a point - Done!

Redundant info - I agree it's dense, possibly redundant. Why not jump in and edit it? If you'd rather not because it involves moving content from one page to another, and you'd like your edits to be transparent, that's understandable. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suggest the logical place for the news bullets should be (naturally!) on wikinews, listed as an ongoing item. This can then be sourced by any wikipedia articles referencing the election controversy. Not only it will save much space, but these things are in fact news, and ongoing, and wikinews is new. FT2 08:00, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Help me understand, will they appear as a consolidated list, or be scatted amongst other events? -- RyanFreisling @ 15:44, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've edited the introduction to make it a lot tighter and less redundant. It contained way too much specific information. The article and sub-pages go much more in-depth, as they should. Carrp 19:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

News Sources / Data Mining

Excellent source!: [6] Kevin Baas | talk 04:23, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Excellent, comprehensive source with data on fraud by numerous means, specific examples:

http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html

http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm

(I'm gonna mine it soon)

Also, someone posted this detailed list/issue summary at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x188497

-- RyanFreisling @ 06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Watch the POV

Watch the POV Carrp. I, as the others, appreciate your efforts in cleaning up the article. However, ommitign things like "votes for kerry were registered as votes for bush", and adding "allegedly" to the statement about diebold knowing about the machines counting backwards for at least two years, when diebold has fully admitted that they knew and there is hard documentary evidence, and other such edits, are, and I hope you can see this - slanting to misrepresent the credibility and the severity of the irregularities, which by any measure cannot be considered NPOV. Kevin Baas | talk 21:07, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I'm sure there were also cases (reported or not) where Bush votes were registered as Kerry votes. The whole point of the voting machine section is to show that they are currently not very secure or reliable. Perhaps it can be restated as "The voting machines have, at times, registered votes for the wrong candidate." As for the issue of adding "allegedly", it originally said "...manufacturer ES&S are said to have known about (but not rectified) this issue for two years..." The link was broken and it sounded very much like it was alleged, not proven, that ES&S knew of this issue. Please edit this sentence if this is not the case. Carrp 21:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the first issue you brought up: Quite right, carrp. There were 2 cases reported where Bush votes were "alledgedly" registered as Kerry votes. It will take some time to find the source for this again. Basically someeone took the time to go through all the records at voteprotect.org.

On the second issue, I understand; I can see how it reads that way. I have some other issues i'm working on, but i'll get back to that if someone doesn't beat me to it. In the meantime, just be carefull, please. A lot of what's written is written by people who have read a lot about this, and the wording is specific. But we don't want this to become a clutter of citations, so it might not be cited. In any case, if it is cited, that's something to double-check edits against.

Keep up the good work. Kevin Baas | talk 21:30, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Caarp, here's the source for the 2 cases. As I said, 2 reports of a vote for bush going to kerry, info compiled from voteprotect.org (EIRS). [7] Kevin Baas | talk

legal actions

Looks like we got a lot of catch-up work.

Read about litigation in Ohio here and here.

maybe this section warrants a daughter-article, so we can make this article smaller?

On second look, some of that is pre-election or on election, and, although relevant, is disputable whether it warrants content. And in any case, 4 sub-articles would be pushing it. I'd be very reluctant to go beyond 4, and am reluctant to go to 4 in the first place. But the scroll bar on my browser is maxed out, so we probably do need to revisit this issue, whether in regards to in the news, official positions etc., or both.

In the news is about a 1/4 of the page and is a subsection of "external links" which is 1 of 5 main topics, but constitutes roughly 2/5 of article, though promoting the "in the news" header would not be unreasonable and would make the ratios more proportional. Kevin Baas | talk 06:27, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Ya, Carrp's work is very helpful in making this article more concise, but we probably need to work with that as well. FT2 seems quite interested in WikiNews, and the reservations seem to be centered around the novelty (embryonic-ness) of WikiNews, partly because, and this has not been mentioned yet, last time I checked there wasn't an article for the controversy there, as there isn't a lot of articles there yet.

A possible compromise would be to have this page still have a in the news section, but drastically cut down to include something between twice to five times as many events as have been or will be listed in current events, or to constitute some roughly fixed proportion of this article, and a link to a wikinews article, which would have a full list of events.

A concievable alternative is, if we do make a new article regarding "remedies" (official positions, legal actions, etc.), we could split the news between the two as is relevant. Most of the new news would then be on the remedies article, and it could be effectively considered a remedies/in-the-news sub-article. Pending other suggestions, perhaps this is sufficient to have a survey? Kevin Baas | talk 06:44, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Voting machine improprieties

Carrp, some good edits today - but one issue caught my eye. You removed a very significant portion of the voting machines stuff (see the diff) - if it's because the source was 'commondreams' (a 'left-wing' website), removing it was too draconian. The examples raised have been corroborated in numerous sources, and exist throughout the article(s) themselves. And an outright removal of the content removed a good part of the value that section. Can we discuss these things on 'talk', so the article's hard-researched conclusions don't simply evaporate based on one editor's assessment of the 'validity' of the source? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I deleted some of the section wasn't because I felt it was inaccurate or worthless but because it is already discussed in great depth on the specific voting machine sub-page. This article needs extensive pruning and it makes sense to have the main page discuss the major points while leaving the specifics to the sub-pages. A section that's too long can harm the value just as much as one that's too short. Carrp 00:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is my mantra. "The best producer is a reducer". However, what was left did not communicate the value of what was taken away. Yet another issue with 'subpages'... the balance bet. parent article and child. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Review

I've left this article alone deliberately for a few days, to think about it and get some perspective. I think a look from 1st principles matters, if this article is to come under better quality and closer compliance to wiki standards.

When this article started, the subject was murky, undocumented. There had been no investigations, no affidavits, no media coverage except a large number of odd reports that together suggested there were "irregularities". In that climate, it was important to document everything, because the only rebuttal of claims of sore losership was to nail down the facts. There were irregularities, there was evidence, it was of wide interest, it did cover many interlocking areas. To an extent, it still is controversial of course, but I think now it's safe to say we are well past those days. The matter is now documented in more legal ways, more formal ways. Those interested are now political coallitions, house committees, and investigatory organisations.

Whilst everything in the article is accurate and valid as far as it goes, I would like to propose a complete reworking project on the side, of what needs to be said with regard to the entire election controversy situation, covering all 6 articles.

The aim of this will be:

To re-think what belongs and what doesnt: Never mind what we have all written so far. What would a well designed article say now on these topics? That should be our standard
Use and quantity of evidence: The articles have a lot of research material of value to everyone. But it is now no longer needed to cite it all in big paragraphs. It was before. Now we can summarise a whole issue in a few lines with references, and it will be credible.
What can be assumed: To keep this article in a good state, what can we now assume is not so controversial, and therefore can be summarised or omitted in a shorter space?
What articles are needed: We have 6 articles, I think. 7 if we split out news. Do we need these? Is this the best organisation?
Types of issue: Since the election, some aspects of the issue are now more mainstream, and we are not under pressure to "justify" them as much. Nor are we a news page (as the "anti-bloggers rightly say) to list every blow by blow accouunt without summarising. Some issues can be stated sourced and done. Others, such as voting machine company ownership records and such, are less well known, and may still need to be included at more length, perhaps in an article called "2004 Election controversy (other issues)" or "(connected controversies)". So we need to think what aspects are given what space too.
News: how and where news should go, to avoid article sprawl
Duplication and omission: With multiple articles, sometimes an item is in one article that is relevant to another (eg a news item on voting machines in ohio should technically be noted on 3 articles. This hasnt't been well co-ordinated or managed so the articles have to an extent not served their full purpose as they could. Planning would help.
Wikipedia guidelines: In what ways does the article not meet wiki standards? What do we plan to do? Which ones will we address now, which will we let time take care of so as not to remove information needed at this moment, and which are inapplicable to this article at present?

I would invite anyone interested to contribute to this review, those who have worked on this page and its connected articles and added so much, and those who watched in dismay as it grew. And especially, those who feel doubts in certain areas, perhaps we can find a way to address those to, if they are concisely stated.

The link for the review page is here TO BE ADDED, and once a draft framework is set up, I'll add the link. Note that I am setting it up in my user space, but that doesn't mean I consider myself to "own" it. Its just a place we can thoroughly review this article and its fellows from scratch, what belongs, what doesn't, without everyday talk issues intruding. FT2 01:16, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Doubleplusgood. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I took the initiative. As with FT2's proposal, so to this, in my namespace: User:Kevin_baas/2004_us_presidential_election_controversy_review. Kevin Baas | talk 23:28, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Quickpoll: in the news

Things are moving too slowly. I'm ready to just make an article "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, in the news" article. Can I get some consent/dissent first? Kevin Baas^talk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Yay.

Kevin Baas^talk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Nay.

Wait until the FBI starts arresting people before creating a new article I say. Either way it will all be over in 1.5 to 4 weeks (so save your energy). This article (having overwhelmingly survived 2 recent VfDs) is the "safest" place for now I bet anyway. zen master 19:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nay. Too slowly for whom? It's premature to just subpage it off now, I think. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not if it's just the collection of links cut and pasted from here. Trim them—and especially, be more careful about what's added—instead. Many, such as those dealing only with the gubernatorial recount in Washington, are weak tangents at best, and the editorials and opinion pieces really don't belong. —Korath ^会話 03:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm also ready, at that point to make a category called "U.S. presidential election, 2004, controversy" to be a sub-cat of "U.S. presidential election, 2004". Kevin Baas^talk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Yay.

Kevin Baas^talk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
I like this idea but titles peferably should not contain commas, certainly not two. zen master 19:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looks good - but if you're gonna just go ahead and do it, why are we voting? :) -- RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nay.

Done. Category is "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities". Feel free to check it out and discuss includes/excludes. Kevin Baas^talk 20:42, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Three more vote topics: Kevin Baas^talk 20:42, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Should a template be created for the see also section of this article and daugther articles? (this would save trouble synchronizing them)

Yay.

Nay.

Given the category created, can we be more lax on article count, such that we can create a 2004 ohio recount page to complement the moss v. bush page (and seeing also that this is a relatively big thing in the news)?

Yay.

Nay.

Should a new article be created for officials views, investigations, legal actions, etc., including recounts and contests, called something like "remedies", and summarized herein, as was done with voting machines, exit polls, vote suppression?

Yay.

Nay.

Hocking County

As much as I am confident there was massive fraud, and as much as I would like as much as possible to in some form be discovered so that something can be done about it, being a computer tech myself...

From what I've read, the computer in question is an old PC, like the one in front of you right now, but older. There's nothing special about it. You cannot modify the data on the computer by dismantling it. You can't even access the data. You can take the hard drive out and put it in another computer, but you have to turn that computer on and access the data through software. Data must be accessed through software.

What can be done with dismantling a PC and messing with the hardware: you can change the video card, soundcard, lan card, etc. You can change out disk drives, at best, but see above.

Now from what I've read, he replaced the "battery", which was dead, (not uncommon for computers that are old) and entered some info into the computer. There is only one "battery" in a PC, and that's the "CMOS" battery. It stores information about the hardware setup of the computer so that it can boot and access the hardware properly. It provides power to memory that stores: processor speed, memory type and quantity, AGP or PCI video, what disk drives are in the system, boot order (what drive to boot first, CD-ROM, floppy, hard drive), and stuff like that. It does not access data or software on the harddrive. it does not touch the hard drive. you dont' need a hard drive in your computer to get to the BIOS (Basic Input-Output Service) setup, where you set these things. On most computers, you just press F2 or DEL while your computer's booting. It will usually say "Press [key] to enter setup."

Since the battery was dead, the setup information was lost, and could not be preserved, so the computer wouldn't boot properly. So he had to replace the battery. It's a little circular wafer about the size of a quarter. Then he had to put the information in the BIOS setup such as processor speed, hard drive capacity, etc.

That seems to be, at least, the official story, and it's plausible and makes sense. Now that he was unattended? Well, one can only guess. Kevin Baas^talk 01:37, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

The article I read about that situation (like 1-2 weeks ago) claimed (and people testified to this at conyer's ohio hearings I believe, in more than one precint, regarding more than one technician) there were election workers willing to testify in a court of law that the supposed "battery" repair persons were in fact up to no good. The techician(s) asked and was told which precints were involved with the 3% recount (something they have no business asking about) and they then "reprogrammed" the machine allegedly to make the recount look like nothing was out of place. I believe per ohio election law it is a felony for these technicians to even have be messing with election equipment after an election, even if it was just "battery" related. I can find that article if you want me to, i think it was on democraticunderground.com. zen master 07:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They may have called it a ¨battery¨, but it may well have been the power supply (which, with some imagination, could look to the uninitiated like a car battery, and it powers the computer)... or maybe the PC was powered by a real external battery. However, since the people observing the technician were most likely completely computer illiterate that ¨battery¨ could really have been anything, including the hard drive itself, which stores the data.

Furthermore, even if the hard drive wasn´t replaced it could still have been accessed by the technician from his own machine without taking it out (ie. by connecting to it via an IDE/SCSI cable). Unless the observers were well versed in what the internals of a computer looked like any of this could have easily happened.

Personally, as a professional, senior UNIX sysadmin, I would not trust that the original voting data on the machine was intact unless there was a tamper-proof physical seal on the machine (ie. the kind the IAEA uses to secure nuclear weapons and power plants) and it was unbroken; and unless the machine was otherwise inaccessible physically, over the network, or through a modem; and unless the software and hardware was open to public scrutiny, had undergone multiple independent security reviews and could in some way be verified as being on that particular machine at the time of the vote and recount; and unless there was a voter-verifiable paper trail which could be counted by anyone, anytime, and for any reason.

As far as I know none of the voting machines or vote tabulation machines meet even a fraction of these requirements, and the electronic voting machines probably meet none of them. So to me no matter what these people do or say the Nov 2 election was easily hackable, unverifiable, and therefore illegitimate. noosphere 12:09, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Uhh..

I'm an interested reader, so I don't know exactly where to put this, but here goes. I like that there's a page on this issue, but this is just bull.

"Kerry's results were deliberately withheld in order to create the illusion that he was actually losing. While Bush's results came in thick and fast, Kerry's came in painfully slowly. Listening to the CBC's (Canadian Broadcasting Commission) election coverage, I found that Kerry was stuck for a long time on 112 electoral college votes while Bush's total continued to rise. After what seemed an inordinately long time, Kerry's figures rose to 188, but only after Bush had gone to 200. Kerry then stayed on 188 while Bush climbed to 204, then 210, then 238! At no stage were results released in an order that would lend the least credibility to the idea of a Kerry victory. While Democrats agonized over the strategic delays, the Republicans turned on miracles in two states which at best looked like being extremely close, Florida and Ohio. In the case of Florida, the results from the most heavily Democratic counties came in last. By reporting only the results for the other counties, the illusion was created of a pro-Bush trend."

This section of the article makes me cringe anytime I see it. The reason why Kerry 'stuck' was because all of his support was on the West coast and Northeast. See, there's these things called time zones. The polls in the West closed later than those in the East, thus the reason why Kerry's electoral count 'stuck' at 112 while the Midwest results came pouring in. While the linked article might have a point when it comes to Florida and Ohio, the inane drivel prior just undermines their position. Please remove this link and quote - it's embarassing to read, even for a Kerry supporter. (I'd do it myself, but it's the only complaint I have, and making an anon edit doesn't feel right.) --24.163.47.13 01:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur with anon. I've had similiar qualms with that section since I first became aware of it. Does anyone object to it's removal? Kevin Baas^talk 02:03, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

I didn't contribute this content, and I'm not sure about the widespread acceptance of the source, but the updating of changes to the electoral count was alleged by some in this roiling controversy to have been conspicuously manipulated. Can we sum it up with a 'Some alleged that the timing of announced changes to the electoral count was rigged.' or the equivalent? This seems a good oppt'y to replace a paragraph and excerpt with a sentence, as we discussed a few weeks back. And our job is not to cull the stuff we disagree with, but rather describe the length, width, breadth and depth of the salient facts of this ever-changing issue as concisely as we can, along a continuing path of reduction. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I was fully expecting an objection of this sort, and was prepared to suggest marginalizing the allegation to the exit poll article. Kevin Baas^talk 03:01, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Marginalization works. My problem is that the linked article/quote put forth a conspiracy theory yet convienently ignored the fact of the differing closing times. So it's not as much of a personal disagreement, but that unmentioned fact makes this quote look glaringly dumb - which drags the rest of the page down with it. I'm very interested in seeing these issues played out, but I'd much rather see more credible/important events prominently quoted/linked rather than this one. I suspect the linked source isn't terribly.. knowledgable, but I don't have the time/expertise to analyze it in detail. --24.163.47.13 05:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) Editted --24.163.47.13 07:07, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What say you, Ryan? There are three combinations: summarize into a sentence, move to exit polls, or both. Perhaps putting some balancing comments on the theory in the article as well (if moved), so as to isolate it, and thereby keep it from affecting the credibility of the rest of the article? Kevin Baas^talk 06:15, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

In the next edit, those two bulletpoints (prior to the bbv section) can be reduced to a single sentence, and the excerpts removed, imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. Kevin Baas^talk 08:14, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me - I don't object either. FT2 10:36, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Moyer

And off topic: FWIW, the "and denigrates the lawsuit that he claims to be impartial to" is completely factual and objective. Moyers claims that he is impartial to the lawsuit, and he does, in that same article "attack[s] the character or reputation of" the lawsuit. (As well as the Contestors.) Every word and every sentence structure was completely factual, and presented the facts in a clear and straightfoward manner. That's what he did. Period. Ya, what he did was oxymoronic and taboo, but that doesn't change the fact that he did it, and doesn't make stating it POV. That's my reasoning for that wording. Again, FWIW. Kevin Baas^talk 03:13, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Might I add, too, that his denigration was on fully erroneous grounds. The Verified Election Contest Petition contains multiple specific, explicit, and obvious assertions (stronger than "suggestions") that "Ohio election officials engaged in illegal conduct", in direct contradiction to what Moyers stating in the ruling. Kevin Baas^talk 03:17, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Describing his behavior as 'denigrating' the lawsuit is not nearly so npov as quoting the actual case, imho. 'Denigration' implies an undue debasement, which itself implies a judgment as to the appropriateness of his decision - which is, as yet, undecided - and thus pov. also imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word "denigrate" as defined here, does not include or imply the condition "undue". Nonetheless, my second paragraph clearly demonstrates the denigration in question is, from a logical (and thus legal) standpoint, undue. This is not an opinion. Kevin Baas^talk 03:32, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

One does not 'denigrate' something if it does not possess worth. Only something of value can have its' value' denigrated. Describing the judge's actions as 'denigrating' the case is a valid point of view, but it's a point of view nonetheless. You are entitled to believe his rulings are denigration of the cases brought to him, but that's not an objective, factual assessment unless the truth is borne out that he is applying an undue debasement to the merits of their case. That's not our call to make for the community yet. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Self-correction (resolve edit conflict): on the bottom of the page cited it defines denigrate as "to charge falsely or with malicious intent". Nonetheless, the I'd ask any sane and rational person to attempt to sincerely dispute my second paragraph, and thus the fact that it is undue. Kevin Baas^talk 03:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

With regards "call to the community", then perhaps we should juxtapose the judge's statements regarding the content of the filing and the actual content of the filing? Kevin Baas^talk 03:39, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

You lost me :) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was being rhetorical anyways. I said that theoretically, the best way to provide npov would be to place the judge's statements regarding the content of the filing, and the actual content of the filing, side-by-side, for the reader to compare. Kevin Baas^talk 03:45, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda figured out what you meant - something like a "The judge determined the case, which contains evidence and affidavits ranging from [...] was 'wholly without merit'" etc. etc.? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One would have to put the relevant things side-by-side. But the problem is it would take up too much space. And although statements like "the claims include specific allegations of Ohio election officials engaging in illegal conduct" in a summary of the filing document would be considered NPOV, somehow when it is placed next to a news article stating that "justice Moyers states that "the claims do not include specific allegations of Ohio election officials engaging in illegal conduct" it magically transforms into POV. Kevin Baas^talk 03:54, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

I'll mull it over, but I think doing just that is the right tack towards npov, not more pov. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm just complaining about the logical incoherence of what I percieve to be a popular rubric of "truth" assesment. As much as I'd like to introduce as little noise to the information channel as possible, I'm conscious and wary of the psychological aspects of interpretation. As Nietzsche says, it is not that people do not like being decieved, in certain cases they prefer it. It is that people do not like the occasionally damage caused them by deception. Where deception is less painfull than non-deception, to the extent of what affects a person psychologically, that person readily recognizes such deception as the "truth". (Nietzsche also points out that there is always something arbitrary in a philosopher "stopping here"; not investigating further into the "truth".) As a friend of mine puts it: people don't want the truth, they want answers. But I digress, I'm happy with whatever you put. Kevin Baas^talk 06:03, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Not totally happy with it, but i put something there. Maybe I'll refresh my memory and we'll put 'comprises ~30 separate points, etc.' -- RyanFreisling @ 06:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the article that you just found interesting, the court case is "American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. et al v. Blackwell" [8], more cases involving blackwell can be found here. Kevin Baas^talk 03:59, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

We happy few, we goalies of the memory hole. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Electoral college

I think there should be a section about how this controversy is manifest in events surrounding the electoral college, such as the protests and the contests. Kevin Baas^talk 19:42, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Current events presence merited?

Ohio, Moss v. Bush: Contestee George Bush's election campaign asks Judge Moyer to dismiss the election contest. [9]

Kevin Baas^talk 17:48, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

It's too premature to discuss, imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Section on floor debate

I think the objection and the debate merit a section in the article. Perhaps under recounts and suits? Anyone want to initiate this? Kevin Baas^talk 17:12, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Ryan, do you think that content you just added could go under the new section i created in the recounts and election contests section? Kevin Baas^talk 22:17, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Section on Media Lockdown

Kevin or Ryan, could one of you take a look at the Media Lockdown section? it reads extremely wierd, is anonymous, and is rather unsubstantiated. any section that starts with "I received this from a credible source today" looks highly suspicious to me. -Vina 21:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The mainstream media attention given to problems with the American electoral system is seriously disproportional to the importance and significance thereof, and this merits explanation.

The content is cited from multiple independant sources (corroborated). The original source would like to remain anonymous for understandable reasons. This is the strongest evidence that can reasonably be expected.

Regardless of people's socio-intellectual predispositions and consequent opinion on this matter, the content is a direct quotation, and the reader can choose to believe the simplest explanation or the most convoluted, according to their wisdom or weakness, respectively. Kevin Baas^talk 22:42, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Kevin, the contention is basically not borne out by facts. You are correct, MSM does not cover the recount and the controversy in nearly sufficient detail, but Ken Olberman was not fired, has not been fired, and has been talking about the issue in his blog. (even in January.) I saw this hoax (I can't call it anyhting else at this point.) a few days after the election (earliest that I found was Nov. 8), and he was suppoosedly concerned about getting fired even then. Since then, I see a lot of copy and paste reports of this wild rumor that MSM are threatening people or firing people, including an exact "people to contact" list. Olbermann's blog is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240 - feel free to let me know when he got fired or threatened. Most specifically, his Dec 21 blog (point 7). The copy-and-paste and forward this on message quoted in the article is simply not true, and a chain-mail type of hoax. That is not to say I would object in general to a section about MSM not covering this issue properly, but I do object unsubstantiated, and unfactual assertions of conspiracy theorists. -Vina 21:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do agree this is a strange way to describe the media lockdown. Kevin, I hear your explanation, and first-hand quotations, etc., are definitely good sources, especially about an issue like possible complicity in a 'lockdown', but Vina's point is valid is well about the 'shaky' way this comes across (at best). I wonder - If this quotation can be put in context, and perhaps reduced to whatever facts we can't establish with other citations, it might make more sense. I'll try to give it some attention today or tomorrow. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree here with Ryan. I don't agree with Vina's denigrations:

I don't consider them to be critical thinking. Vina hasn't presented any evidence against the quotation in substance, form, or origin,
The quotation is itself the "substance".
Regarding whether Olbermann is fired or not, that is irrelevant. The person speaks of fear of being fired, not whether or not such fear is justified. Fear is more often unjustified than justified. That is the nature of fear - I won't get into it's socio-biological function.
I do not know how many of the multiple instances are from it being reduplicated, and neither does Vina.
Reduplication in no way affects authenticity, provided it is copied verbatim.
It seems to come from two sources. This is reasonable: this would be the smart way to disseminate information, while providing a way for people to check the authenticity (by redundancy), while maintaining maximum anonymousness.
I don't appreciate being patronized ("olbermann's blog is at...")
And in sum, to outright call something a "hoax", without any evidence whatsoever, is definetly not analysis, investigation, or critical thinking, and is definetely not usefull. An objective mind will discard/filter such prejudicial characterization immediately as noise.

Ryan, I agree, and support your constructive efforts to make the media lockdown section more substantial and informative.

Vina, I thank you for your feedback, and call to improve the quality of this section. It is difficult to self-edit, and we appreciate people who have first read this article to inform us of their impression and point out ways in which it can be improved. Kevin Baas^talk 04:03, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Kevin, this will be my last post here, as I really don't appreciate the patronizing tone that you take. (and you call me patronizing!) Olbermann has stated that he was on vacation, that he was not being fired and he still talks about the recount. More importantly, NO-ONE has heard him say that he was afraid of being fired. If he was gutsy enough to keep on blogging about the controversy, you think he would be afraid to tell people that he expects to be fired? If you think I was being patronizing by posting the link to his blog, how about me asking you whether you have googled this issue?

Indy media has been passing this verbatim from one site to another, no fact checking, no cooberation (sp?). If there is, in effect, only one source of this story, then it is NOT backed up in any way. All you have to do to change my mind about that article is to tell me who "I", "credible source" and when "today" is in the first sentence. Proof would be nice, but frankly, I'm not overly concerned with it, I can take your word. If you want to protect people's jobs, that's fine, just tell me who knows. btw, don't bother citing Peter Coyote as his post was titled 11/13, I've found other places that definitely had it 11/11 and saw one labeled 11/8. I've also seen the "credible source" being cited as Mary Mapes, who was recently fired for the Rathergate fiasco, you could, of course, claim that she was fired for attacking Bush, but that, to me, would be a big stretch.. -Vina 21:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for any patronizing on my part. I did not intend to. I don't mean to shew (sp?) you away, and would prefer it if you stayed, your perspectives can help improve the quality of this section.

I would not expect Olbermann to state fear, if he indeed was afraid, which has not been alleged, that would be uncharacteristic of someone taking the position that he is.

I agree that the earliest available sources should be used. I would be happy to see the citations fixed accordingly.

Regarding "Rathergate" and being fired - that is both ad hominem and irrelevant. FWIW, I discard that kind of argument. Those involved in "Rathergate" made a responsible effort to corroborate the material in the document before reporting it. The material of the document checked out. Afterwards, the form of the document was questioned, and they made a responsible effort to investigate. They made a mistake in not fully verifying the form, and have admitted this mistake. However, I repeat, the substance of the documents was corroborated, and this is what they reported on. Regardless, I repeat, this is both ad hominem and irrelevant, and I discard that kind of argument.

For what reason she was fired, we have only the evidence of Rathergate to go by, and I accept this in good faith, as I do people's statements generally. (Though personally, I don't believe that action was merited on those grounds.) None of this, however, affects her credibility. Kevin Baas^talk 01:12, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Relevant Media matters article: "Media gave short shrift to allegations of election irregularities" [10] Kevin Baas^talk 20:26, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Conyer's open letter

[11]

A very important clarification

Can someone with some expert knowledge and preferably some independent corroboration clarify the statement in the opening paragraph "Some of those bringing legal action claim that these irregularities, if proven, could reverse the apparent Bush victory". I think it needs to be clear if such a reversal is possible under existing electoral/consitutional law and, if it is, how such a reversal would work. Based on what I remember from school, once the Electoral College designated the president-elect, that's who will be president - absent impeachment, resignation or death.

After January 6th; after the electoral votes are counted, there is no legal precedent to overturn the election, even if it is proved that the so-called "elected" president was not actually elected. Thus, the "legal action" refered to, Moss v. Bush, was dropped on January 11th. Kevin Baas^talk 16:25, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and see How Kennedy Won Hawaii. Kevin Baas^talk 16:26, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Added to pages needing attention

I've added this pages to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The entry can be found here Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/History#History. This page has grown so large and has so much information that it would be good to have more users editing. Carrp 20:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

by more users editing you mean editing for size? Does the 187k include images? The image at the very top is 67k, seems a tad large. The ohio image in the middle of the article is 68k. That is 2/3rds of the size problem right there. zen master 21:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Editing for size is a big part of what needs to be done. I don't believe that images are counted in the 187k, but I'm not 100% certain. I do know is that it's necessary to hit the Page Down button over 70(!) times to reach the end of the page. This article is the 5th largest page on Wikipedia while the voting machine subpage is 13th. Much of the size is due to the huge number of links, many of which are redundant and/or outdated. In general this page needs more people working on it than the handful that are currently involved. Carrp 22:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just did a quick test and the 187k does not include images unfortunately. I will now work towards cutting down on size, especially links. There should be a second size calculation which includes images too, this article is probably at least as high in that ranking too. zen master 22:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the article has seemingly become a big mess size wise recently (maybe I haven't checked it in a few days), I almost don't know where to begin. Maybe it's time for another split or 3. Looks like Kevin (and perhaps others) have been erroring on the side of verbosity... I think I am going to get rid of the html organizations chart because of size concerns. And I think there are some links that are duplicated even. zen master 22:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As has already been discussed, the links in the 'External Links' and 'In the News' sections make up half the page's length (97k). Splitting them out will halve the page size. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The page's size is now ~60k, and the readability is improved significantly, due to a large number of insightful edits. Does the page still warrant this tag? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is much better after the editing. However, 60k is still about twice the 32k size that is recommended for an article. There are many sections that need lots of work. Some excerpts and quotes are way too long and the external links could probably be cut down a bit (for example: a link to Bev Harris's book instead of to each chapter). Since there are sub-pages that examine some topics (exit polls, voting machines, etc..) in great detail, it might be best to include only a concise summary on this page. Also, many sentences are still written in the present tense. Finally, although there are no blatant POV issues, I suggest that the "POV check" tag (as well as the "Needs attention" tag) remains until more editing is completed and a comprehensive balance check can be done. Carrp 01:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I moved recount section into new article

2004 U.S. presidential election recount, still could use some cleanup and links back and forth between main article. I did it thinking the recount is even more historical than the main election controversies article currently, I hope everyone is ok with it. zen master 00:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lists, paragraphs, additions, subtractions, policies, complaints

There is so much stuff in this article that is old uneccessary news, I will be removing it. Proposed rule: from now on everything you add u have to remove an equal or greater amount of stuff so the article no longer grows. Also, what is with the crazy bullet pointed, indented, all over the place list formatting of information? We use to have this information in nice, neatly formatted paragraphs, what happened? Paragraph form works the best. Only the in the news section should be a list, and all of those links that are no longer "current event/breaking news" related should be removed, I may do so. zen master 02:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you saying that a bulleted list consisting of a form like:

This point
Then this
And finally, this point here

In order to clarify a point is undesirable/crazy? I'm sorry if I don't understand, but I think that's a bit overreaching, to say the least. Paragraphs are fine too, if they are crafted a bit differently than bulleted lists. Anyway, it's a negative way to express your point when a positive one will do much better... I hope you didn't mean to be insulting.

And a 'must remove to add' policy, while a nice idea, is completely impractical. We must concentrate on editing (subtractive editing), now that the intensity of the pre-Jan 6 period is over... and it's good to have you editing the doc again, but we need to remember we're a community here with a common goal (making the document as accurate and concise as possible). -- RyanFreisling @ 03:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to offend, just was shocked with this seemingly new format you were using and what the article has turned into given the fact much of the stuff is out dated/inapplicable. It also seemed like you and Kevin missed/ignored the fact user Carrp added the article to the list of ones needing attention? To me that is 1) a big deal and 2) the community talking... Also keep in mind this is an encylopedic article, not (just) a list of stuff, except for the in the news section (perhaps we got so use to adding to in the news section we used that format elsewhere) . Bullet points work well on talk pages and VfD but not in articles in my opinion. I reformatted the most egregious bullet point list areas into paragraph form, which is also I believe the wikipedia preference anyway. I believe it's written much better now, change it/fix it if you disagree. And a 187k article is way way too large, drastic action (ruffling feathers) was required, sorry if I offended you. I thought it would take me longer to even put a dent in the size, but alas no (though perhaps that is because I simply removed a fair amount of stuff). Another point: the html size of the page was over 367k when the article was ~187k, the size really should be calculated in terms of final html size, not wiki markup text size. zen master 03:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you well know, the passage of eventful days has a way of making content out-of-date, and widening the gap between the latest stuff in and the stalest stuff out. I wasn't using any new format when I added the Democrats' recent activities, just putting them in a bulleted list - and I'm not sure how bullet lists can be seen as shocking, imho, when they're being used to list similar items that are in essence, non-narrative. There have been such lists in the doc since the beginning, and in large part I agree with what I've seen of your edits to them thus far, but I wouldn't agree with your blanket rejection of such lists, nor with assigning them as 'egregious'. I do agree re: community - hopefully we'll have folks participating in that editing from that link. And again, good to see old, out-of-date info being edited out, good stuff. I didn't ignore anything, and I have no special ownership over this article, I've just been one of the few people editing/contributing lately. I would hate to perpetuate any idea that I claimed special ownership over this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Overzealous

Zen, I think some of the trimming is a little overzealous. not too big a problem - other contributors can look through the changes and reestablish what they think should be kept. But still, for example, the media lockdown section, you could have retained at least a link to the information purportedly from a former congressman/woman. that's the most direct and specific info i've encountered, and it is also the most prominent on a google of "media lockdown". (that's how i found it in the first place)

We will have to do at least another daughter article, from investigations, official positions, external links, in the news. That's ultimately what'll make the biggest difference in tightening up this article, not trimming. Kevin Baas^talk 16:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Overzealous I admit it, if the article was not 187k I wouldn't have done it. If anyone had reverted any of my changes I wouldn't have minded. I removed that section because it seemed borderline hearsay, unnecessary/redundant (kept evidencing same lengthy point about how the MSM isn't covering the issue, which is pretty much a given) and was seemingly written in the third person about what other people said, didn't seem journalistic/good quality. We can add a smaller version of it back, there is no need to have such huge quotations everywhere to get the points we are trying to convey across (this is actually probably my main criticism and may apply to other sections). We should focus on clarify in sentences that describe the quotations and citations, not just listing everything verbosely. But since I seem to have ruffled too many feathers, and the fact the article is now down to around 131k, I will be far less zealous (back to normal :-). zen master 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Split In the News to election controvery timeline?

we could move the in the news section to an election controversy timeline article? Someone mentioned that section is over 90k (if so I definitely think we should move it)? we can keep a "recent news" section covering the last week or just events that are still ongoing, or something. zen master 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sounds reasonable to me. Kevin Baas^talk 21:03, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Before it is broken out, may I suggest we discuss and resolve the following issues, in light of the inevitable VfD that the new page will undergo (zen, please don't be upset by my bulleted list :) ).

Timeline pages are different than lists of links, they require formatting. A page of links created under the auspices of creating a timeline may be challenged even more than expected. I've been looking around at the other similar page models for ideas here.
The links in the news section in many respects represent points or issues that may not have been properly represented (or excluded) from the body of the document. I wonder if a deeper review of the news before it moves would be helpful, so let's all browse 'news' a bit more intensely and look for aspects/issues that are not properly reflected (or are mis-represented) in the content.
After the recent edits, I would imagine that the 'external links' and 'news' sections are about 2/3 of the document at this point.

Just my .02 -- RyanFreisling @ 23:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am a big fan of bullet pointed lists on talk pages. :-)

The formatting of the current in the news section is actually already perfect to become a timeline, what sort of special formatting do you specifically think is required? I am not proposing a "normal" timeline of "events" dealing with election controversy, I am saying basically keep it what it already is in the broken off article which is a timeline of news events as they came in. We can add more stuff to the timeline article if things ever do get thought of from a historical perspective.
I think we should move it first and then clean up (then move some stuff back perhaps), the key impetus for the move is to reduce the size. Any "news" older than a week or two can't be relevant to the essence of the article any longer. We should each make one pass through the in the news section looking for stuff to keep (one sentence or so blurb in relevant part of article, in paragraph form :-). Even though the article is down to around 131 or 141k (forget which) it still is like the 11th largest page on wikipedia.
We should definitely keep the external links, that is more relevant than old in the news in my opinion. In fact, important links and/or info from the in the news section you/anyone thinks is relevant for people seeking more information can be moved to the external links section to beef it up in the main article here before we create the news to the timeline. We could still keep the last week or so of news artricle in the main article. If we did both that and went through the in the news section looking for info to add to the article would that allay your concerns?

zen master 06:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For some cool pages that are similar, check out Timeline_of_the_September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack and 2003_-_2004_occupation_of_Iraq_timeline. Seems like moving it would also give us a good oppt'y to fill in the 'background' news events, prior to the election. So, for a page title, are we talking about something like "Timeline_of_the_2004 U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities"?

And a 'recent news' area is fine, if we find it appropriate.

Let's just remember that there already is a summary article related to this article (the one James did, if I recall), and this is intentionally the 'detail' page. Let's not squeeze so much detail out that it undoes its own usefulness. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the page I did, at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, is still there, but I haven't kept it up to date. My vision of how to present this material was that such a comparatively succinct summary would serve as the "main" article, in the sense of a general overview; that there would be more detailed articles for each heading in that overview article; and that there might well be a further level of daughter articles (granddaughters?) where appropriate. For example, I wrote a summary discussion of the allegation that exit polls give reason to question the honesty/accuracy of official results on electronic voting machines. A daughter article might elaborate on that general relationship. That article might in turn have daughter articles that presented the detailed statistics and post-election investigations on a state-by-state basis. Eventually, I thought that the huge general "irregularities" article we're discussing now would dwindle into a redirect. I don't agree with keeping it as the "detail" page that Ryan mentions. Dumping all the details into one article isn't helpful. It would be more useful as several pages, divided by topic.

I thought we might be moving in that direction when Kevin created daughter articles to this big article and copied much of the material into them. Nevertheless, whether out of disagreement with that approach or from habit, most people have continued editing this article. For example, the first-listed daughter article, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines, has been edited only about 50 times in the nearly two months since its creation, and not at all since December 30. In the last three weeks, while that article was being completely neglected, this big one was edited more than 150 times.

I concluded that my vision for how to present this material was so radically different from that of most of the other people that I should largely stand aside from editing this article. My view is still that this article shouldn't be shortened -- it should be put out of its misery. JamesMLane 06:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I should clarify, though, that I voted against the VfD. The proposal was to delete this article and all the others. The underlying concern wasn't that the detail should be parceled out among shorter articles, but that it should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. My preference was (and is) that this article stay in place while being gradually dismantled, so that the information is preserved (only in more accessible form). JamesMLane 06:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the vision that James has for this topic. A summary article with many detailed daughter articles is much more useful than having a 60k "detail" page and daughter articles that are rarely edited. No matter how much editing is done, there's simply too much information to fit on one page. Instead of starting arguments over what detail belongs on the main page, it makes sense to turn this page into a short summary that directs people to the detailed daughter pages. Carrp 13:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, somewhere between this article shouldn't be "shortened" -- it should be put out of its misery and it makes sense to turn this page into a short summary that directs people to the detailed daughter pages is an idea I can agree with. Removing this article's detail without replacing it elsewhere I do not agree with, nor do I agree with replacing this article outright with James' boilerplate. Between that and this current article is the useful article we all seek to create. Remember that for those seeking a 'one-stop' location to this issue, perhaps in response to a user's Googling 'election irregularities' or the equivalent, need to find an appreciable, useful level of detail. I do not agree that the goal for this article should be a state with everything broken out to daughter articles so that the article is little more than a hub. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with a "one-stop" article is that too much information is usually worse than not having enough. If there's too much information on a page, people will often get overwhelmed and quickly leave in search of a more concise article. If the page errs on the side of having too little information, at least people can absord that info and then move on in search of more. My position isn't that the main page should be simple disambiguation page pointing to the daughter articles. It should give a good introduction to the topic and a brief summary of what info is contained in each daughter article. Any detail that's currently in the main article can be merged into the appropriate daughter article (with new articles being created when necessary). Carrp 19:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm the last one to argue for glut. The best producer is a reducer.

My point is, most of what's being argued for already exists, and is in progress. The most salient details and active 'tension points' of the irregularities (lines, exit polls, machines, etc.) have already been broken out in that fashion, summaries retained and streamlined. Now we're talking about the content of the summaries, an important editorial, non-structural discussion to which a structural solution does not apply, imho. A great deal of the editing to be done is reduction to the essence of the issues (as described), but retention of enough actual detail for people to come away educated. That is the goal. Surely the value lies in addressing all the concerns with good content.

Last - James, given your description of the summary article you wrote previously, and your perspective on continued involvement, shouldn't you move it to your user space, and redirect the old link right here? Your input is valued, but if that page is redundant, it prolly should go... -- RyanFreisling @ 22:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider it redundant. It's at the level of detail that many readers will want. I'm thinking in particular of a non-U.S. reader who's registered a hazy impression that there was some sort of controversy about the 2004 U.S. election. He or she is interested enough to want to know the broad terms of the concerns that have been raised, not interested enough to want all the detail that's still in this article. As for putting this article out of its misery, I think that phrasing was a little too flippant and gave the wrong idea of my position. You should focus instead on my recommendation that this article be "gradually dismantled" while its contents are distributed elsewhere. JamesMLane 22:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, in that case, I disagree strongly with that recommendation. This article should exist, and gradually replace, the article you wrote yourself. This article is the product of many differing opinions and approaches, and definitely should not in my opinion be 'squeezed out' from a narrowing role between the daughter articles and your self-appointed summary article. I would recommend you bring that content here, as is useful, or tailor your edits here, as this article moves closer to your personal vision. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit I was self-appointed. So was everyone else who's edited on this subject. As for replacing the article I wrote, my vision is that there should be a concise summary available for people who don't want anything remotely close to the level of detail that's here. Therefore, I can't imagine that this article would ever replace the summary. Nevertheless, if there's a summary article, plus daughter articles with all the details, then it won't do any harm to have this article here as well, in whatever form it eventually takes. For me to try to edit it to bring it closer to my personal vision would involve huge changes that would be resisted fiercely by many people who've been active here. So, why bother? We'll have the summary article. We'll have detailed articles on specific aspects of the issue. We'll have this article for the benefit of people who want this much detail on the whole issue and who want "one-stop shopping". Neither the presence of the summary article nor any edit I've made here has obstructed the development of this article in accordance with the vision that you and others evidently share. JamesMLane 02:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you see that to say 'it can't hurt' to have this article here, while assuming yours simply must exist, is an extremely biased view? The volume of effort put into this article, compared to the summary, should at least inspire you to consolidate your efforts into the whole.

The group collectively had consensus to create, and defend from VfD, daughter articles. The group did not decide that eventually all detail would filter to them, leaving this document redundant. The consensus was that this document is the core document. Your summary is your own, and your assumption that this document shall become largely redundant is not shared by me. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, your tone strikes me as combative, and I don't understand why. I voted against deleting this article. In the last 500 edits, I have precisely one, the addition of a single sentence reporting the settlement of California's case against Diebold, so I don't think I can be charged with doing anything that interferes with what everyone else is doing on this article. Why are you reacting as if I'm the enemy?

Here on the talk page, I expressed my personal opinion. You respond by characterizing it as a biased view. Well, uh, yeah, it's my opinion, not something I offered as objective fact, so I'll have to admit it's biased, pretty much by definition. Also, I made clear it was my opinion as to what should happen. Far from voicing an "assumption that this document shall become largely redundant", as you charge, what I actually said was that my vision was "radically different from that of most of the other people". That, coupled with the complete absence of any attempt by me to change this article in the direction I think it should go, should sort of suggest that I don't assume my view will prevail.

As for the summary article, I'm not just "assuming" that it should exist. I expressed my opinion and explained my reasons in support of keeping it. If you disagree, put it up on VfD. You'll probably get Snowspinner's vote. As for consolidating my efforts into the whole (by which you mean this article), I tried to do that. I was repeatedly reverted. I'm not going to bother digging through the voluminous archives to find it, but my recollection is that either Kevin Baas or Zen Master argued against the way I was going because it didn't maintain the kind of emphasis he wanted on "irregularities". My reaction was, OK, we're picturing two different articles, there's room for two different articles, so instead of wasting our time on edit wars, I'll just do a separate article. JamesMLane 05:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if you felt I was combative. I meant only to be very clear. I don't consider your opinions biased, I meant that the idea you proposed (having the summary as a fait-accompli) was. Honestly, as time goes by I see less and less need for the summary article. It really possesses a few less paragraphs, and is minus the 'organizations' and extensive links sections... so I do think the summary may become redundant in time, perhaps. Either way, it's a decision we should all reach together, much as creating a summary should have been. I don't mean to attack you when saying so, I'm speaking about the article, and the process, not you personally. I also can say that I would like to see you editing more here, as you might come to feel a better sense of connectedness to this content yourself and consider what I've said. Whichever way, I apologize for being combative. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

65k is almost 1/3rd of what the article was a few days ago, I think we've made stunning progress already. I do think there might be significant areas where we can cut down on out verbosity further. However, I do not support the multi tiered approach (grand daughter articles). Concise summaries should not come the expense of relevant citations and information. Voting machine controversies should be featured the most prominently because they have the power to steal/switch/discourage millions upon millions of voters. Everything else, except perhaps a subversive nationwide campaign of suppression against minority voters pales in comparison. zen master 03:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And to that I would add Exit Polls. Not because I believe they do/don't prove fraud, but because they have been (and continue to be) very controversial, highly publicized 'hot potatoes' for the Election Irregularities issues. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have always sided with JML on this one in creating a highly condensed article that serves as a "portal" of sorts to lead people to various topics. We already have subdivisions which warrant entire pages in themselves, I see no reason why one page must be so long when it contains an incredible amount of detail and has clear subdivisions within itself. I've just grown tired of constantly re-asserting this point. Look at Disinfopedia, many of their articles are short and to the point but highly linked towards each other. That's the beauty of this encyclopedia, is that its incredibly easy to reference similar topics through frequent hyperlinking within the document itself... we should take advantage of this ability rather than piling it on into one location which is overwhelming to say the least. --kizzle 06:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, instead of 'reasserting the point', and decrying its' length those with opinions should contribute to some of that editing. The daughter pages (again) go lightly edited, and in som peoples' opinion, this page is too lengthy. So, contribute to the process. That goes for everyone - that's the part I don't understand - why such a similar summary article is required because of an issue addressed by editing this article.

I would also add - I'm not against the idea of the article, just not sold on it. This page is the first one to come up in the current google search for 'election irregularities' or 'election controversy'... I think that, plus the history I was trying to articulate, makes it incumbent upon us to focus a lion's share of our editing efforts here, to get this article into 'encyloperfect' shape. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I have contributed to this page in the past, I attempted to clean up the discussion page by introducing permanent subdivisions of the page, but I abadoned such efforts towards cohesion due to the rate of information being added... now that bush is certified president (thank you barbara boxer for at least trying) I think we should work towards reorganization of this page to maximize information retrieval. Ideally, I think JML's plan is the best. Just like if you went to cnn.com and every story from the day was on the main page, it would be a bit too much.

We should have an entry point where people become familiarized with the general issues that surrounded the US president...like if your relative asked you what you thought about the election, you said there was a lot of shennanigans, they asked like what? You wouldn't go through this article point by point, you'd make a general statement mentioning such things as exit poll discrepencies, voter suppression, problems with e-machine voting. We should design these pages towards people like this, the reader who starts with a basic picture and wants to selectively learn more. If we combine all the information into one page, it is very easy to become discouraged with the sheer amount of opinions, news stories, and incidents. While I am flattered that "election controversy" googled returns this page, I think efficiency still should prevail. JML has some good initial sketches of a page, let us reorganize our efforts towards transforming this page into one that is more readable. We can afford to now that they got away with it. --kizzle 08:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Your trite dismissals of the page's very real presence on google (and therefore in net culture) aside, I reiterate my point - I don't have a problem with the existence of a summary. I have a problem with the redundancy of content and structure I see between it and this article, which is manageable of course... what I responded to here (I'll say it again) was the foregone conclusion that this article, the product of scores of authors' work, would somehow give way and become unnecessary while the summary, written by one person on their own accord, would supplant it.

I'll say it again - I don't necessarily disagree with the presence of a summary article, nor the ongoing need for improvements and structural efficiency, etc. (of course) - I've been one of the recent editors trying to make that happen. I object to the method, the assumption and the lack of consensus. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm sorry if anything I wrote gave you an impression that I was assuming anything or treating the dismantling of this article as a foregone conclusion. Actually, I thought it was a foregone conclusion that the article would continue to exist, in substantialy the same form as it is now. That's why, although I've made a few edits to the article, and a few suggestions on the talk page, I've chosen to spend my limited Wikipedia time on other articles I care about. Generally, I can be more productive on pages where I feel more comfortable with the overall structure.

You imply that I just went off and created a new article on my own. Given how Wikipedia works, I think someone is usually justified in simply creating a new article, without prior discussion, but I didn't do that before creating the summary (the one now at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies). My recollection is that, after some of my changes to this article were reverted, I created a sandbox on my user page, so that people could see exactly what I suggested. What emerged from the ensuing discussion was that people had two different articles in mind. Rather than trying to reconcile the two visions, I think I suggested creation of a separate article. The idea was discussed here and/or on the talk page for the sandbox. This "big" article is much shorter than it was but it's still, IMO, much longer and more detailed than many readers will want. I've given some specific examples in previous discussion. That's why I don't foresee that further editing of this article will mean that there's no value in also having a summary article. JamesMLane 19:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I did not mean to dismiss the listing on Google as meaningless, I think its awesome that its getting such recognition (I wish wikipedia had a hit counter per week or something like a top 10 chart of pages visited to show its editors how much attention each page gets)... Ideally, I would like to start out with JML's summary page and within each section link to a daughter article that incorporates all the information from the current massive article. We'd use the JML page as a starting point, then chop up the current page and use them as detail articles. It would be identical to how the GWB page is, where we go into slight detail about his foreign policy, then offer the reader a link to find out more information. I do not want to censor or remove any information available to the reader currently on this page, only alter the organizational layout so one can selectively learn more about specific topics. There would be no replacement, as it seems that you infer from my proposal.

Just to be clear (as there seems to be some misunderstanding)... I want to start with a summary page located where this one currently is that looks like JML's page. This would act as a home page of sorts where readers then can select sub-topics where they can find more information about each subject. Each of these sub-pages would contain all the information within this article word-for-word.

This is how it has been done with many pages, such as GWB and John Kerry pages, all the countries pages, and any other pages which have an extreme amount of detail necessitating an organizational breakdown of material. I don't see why this one should be an exception to this rule. --kizzle 19:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Needless to say, the way in which the summary arose was not a community decision. Imho, the summary should have stayed in JML's user space, until the group was involved in the decision. From my perspective, and without much of a record to address the decisionmaking, it comes off as unilateral, and not necessarily required by this community. It wasn't written by the community, it was written because someone disagreed with the community's writing at that time. Accordingly, based on the comments above about the intent, the summary should be a group decision, as this 'big article' is now FAR closer in size and scope to your summary as when it was penned. I don't want to have to VfD, I want the group to weigh in, and if the group decides on a summary article, for it to be a group effort. Everything else is editorial, and can be handled collectively, if people are willing to participate here. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't want just a summary article, and I don't think any information should be weeded out at all for relevancy sake, I just want there to be more than one page on this topic. Can we talk about the logistics of accomplishing such a thing rather than resorting to simply that it was not endorsed by the community? All I am doing is proposing an organizational layout idea. I don't want to remove any info, I just want there to be daughter articles specifically so that we do not have to remove content for the sake of space or clarity which is what has been happening already. I must reiterate that in every page on wikipedia where there is a substantial amount of information, we break down the page into subdivisions, offer summaries of these subdivisions which then link to daughter articles. Look at George_W._Bush, Republic_of_the_Congo, etc.--kizzle 20:29, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

There was no consensus to have a summary page. There was also no consensus to maintain this article in a state that I and several others regarded as bloated and awkwardly structured. Instead of getting into a knockdown dragout battle about it, we simply ended up with two pages. The discussion is scattered through what's now Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive3 and Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive4, not always in chronological order because of the refactoring of the talk page.

I don't see how the existence of either article undercuts the value of the other. Is there some current problem that we need to address? If we insist on achieving consolidation, we might end up with a single article that some people think is too terse, or one that other people think is too detailed, or (most likely) with a single compromise article that nobody really likes. We'd all spend a lot of time to not much purpose. JamesMLane 20:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, that's not accurate. 'We' didn't end up with two pages - you didn't feel that the edits here were to your liking, and you took it upon yourself to create the summary. The current state of this article IS consensus... by the very nature of wiki. We're not insisting on anything - I think the 'We' wasn't appropriately involved in your summary page's creation or maintenance... Unless you exercise good faith, and involve this community (whether you yourself agree or not) the entirety of my objection stands. I earnestly hope your desire to exercise good faith exceeds your desire to manage your self-ascribed summary page. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You continue to state or imply that I did something completely on my own, with no prior discussion of the idea, and that this was improper. I don't agree (on either point). I haven't gone over every detail, but from a quick review of the archives, combined with my recollection, I have not the slightest qualms that I might have done anything that wasn't in good faith. If you see it otherwise, we'll just have to disagree on the subject. So, having reached that point, let's drop it. I really don't see anything that this discussion is accomplishing. It appears that I've irritated you in some way that I don't fully understand. If so, please be assured that I didn't mean to. Putting aside what I hope is a minor and temporary friction, there doesn't seem to be any current article content dispute that needs to be addressed. JamesMLane 21:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, again again - this is not personal, you didn't irritate me. The reason I bring this objection is because of the way the summary was created, the lack of open consensus, and the reason you created it (because you disagreed with this page's edits). That's completely not wiki. And it's completely not personal. If you don't expect this article to 'go the way of the dodo', as I interpreted from 'it can't hurt to keep this article' (sic), then my bringing this to your attention was well-advised, and at least I have accomplished that. However, I haven't heard you even entertain the idea that your summary article might be redundant. I don't want to assume that's because you feel ownership over that article - I want to know why that article serves so discrete and necessary a purpose as some may claim, as I myself was not involved in the decision to create one, nor the (knee-jerk?) decision to 'deprecate' this article over time.-- RyanFreisling @ 21:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It certainly seems like there is an emotional aspect to your replies Ryan, but seriously, we're all on the same side. I think you took JML's parallel creation of a summary page a little personal, and seeing as you are one of the star editors of this page in terms of how much time you have devoted towards making this article better, I have a lot of respect for your opinion. I think JML was just trying to be a pacifist in that he didn't get much support for his idea so he removed himself from this current page to create an alternative style, which is MUCH better than some other editors who have graced our presence in the past. I think that there should eventually be one location for all of this, so let us work towards merging the two ideas together. Regardless of the circumstances of the creation of the summary page, you keep avoiding my queries as to reorganizing, not reducing the information that is currently here. I guarantee JML means well and one look at his edit history shows that he is not the type to unilaterally control or force his will over anyone.--kizzle 00:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you say 'merging the two together'. That's *exactly* what I tried to articulate as one reasonable outcome and am hoping will occur. And I did not mean to be emotional or emotionally strident, but rather very emphatic, perhaps coming off as a bit past 'brusque', when it came to the process moving forward. For that again I sincerely apologize, but I had to clarify it in light of some of JMS' earlier comments vis-a-vis the relevance of this article that in my mind, put it's future in doubt. Let's work to reconcile the two, and reorganize and reduce as we all 'experience' as correct. This is a great resource, and we can make it a stellar example of order and brevity, with all of our diligent efforts. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please let us start over and begin discussing the idea of possible reorganization, not reduction of this page as i have stated above.--kizzle 23:08, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

After re-reading your reorg comments, I'm unclear what you're suggesting.

Do you propose that we:

maintain the same content in this article (continue edits)
replace it with a summary and divvy it's contents to daughter articles, or
radically thin this article (reduction)?

Or something else I don't quite visualize yet? Not trying to mischaracterize, just understand. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something close to option #2. The wonderful thing about wikipedia that got me hooked in the first place is that while I'm reading about Richard Clarke, I can easily go to Condoleeza Rice, then to Rumsfeld, then PNAC, then Wolfowitz, then Iraq, then Saddam Hussein, then Iran-Iraq war. My point is that the ability to obtain depth about any particular concept in any article through frequent linkability is wikipedia's strongest suit. I recently showed my mother this page and told her to read it if she wanted to know what the media wasn't reporting, but she (and several others I have shown it to) read a little bit of the top but didn't get too much further into it. The basic strategy in any attempt to convey knowledge to another human being is to give them a broad picture so they can build a framework into which they will assimilate future information. If you start telling someone incredibly specific details about something which they are not familliar with, it is highly probable they will lose interest. Instead, you orient them first about the general picture and work inwards towards the nitty-gritty.

JML's page is closer to what I would envision as a starting point for people who want to learn about all the controversies. Some people might be fascinated with the exit polling discrepencies but not so much about voter suppression. We, as wikipedia editors, have the ability to give our readers the power to selectively choose what they want to know more about rather than hitting them with a book.

This would seem to be the case with almost any other page that has a significant amount of information that needs to be conveyed. What if we took all the daughter articles off the GWB page and merged it into one page? It would be incredibly long, dense, and not nearly everyone who reads it would be interested in all the information.

What I propose is that we transform the main page into something close to what JML is working on in order to orient the casual reader about the various controversies surrounding the election so that they may in turn relate to others in a nutshell what people are disputing. In addition, we will cater to the highly interested readers who want to know as much as possible by providing them detailed pages in subsections that contain as much (cited) information as possible. No information will be reduced or removed. It will simply be relocated in order to accomodate both the casual and motivated reader. --kizzle 00:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I disagree completely. Reviewing this article and the other together, it's very clear that with a standard level of effort, we can make an article as concise and targeted as the summary, while retaining the benefit of it's history. I ask you both again to apply option 1, in good faith. I also think others should chime in on the topic, lest that be another 'consensus of the few'. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why specifically you are so against splitting off information rather than simply disagreeing? --kizzle 00:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Im not against 'Splitting off information' at all - the daughter articles, while unpruned, are a good model to move a lot of stuff out. That has taken place on an ongoing basis since they were first created by Keith and others. I'm against not editing this article, together, and replacing this document outright. I'm merely asking that anyone interested interpret their vision for this article as a part of the standard wiki editing process. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You just said you disagree with "divvying it's contents to daughter articles" yet "daughter articles articles are a good model to move a lot of stuff out?" I'm confused. --kizzle 00:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Response to RyanFreisling: I thought I had already given my reasoning as to why the summary article served a useful purpose. I said that it was "at the level of detail that many readers will want. I'm thinking in particular of a non-U.S. reader who's registered a hazy impression that there was some sort of controversy about the 2004 U.S. election. He or she is interested enough to want to know the broad terms of the concerns that have been raised, not interested enough to want all the detail that's still in this article." I've elaborated in talk that's now archived. For example, I remember commenting that there would be plenty of readers who wanted to know the gist of the controversy but who wouldn't need to that there was an organization called "BlackBoxVoting", let alone find that detail in the lead section.

And I don't necessarily disagree, as I've said - I want to get consensus about it, and hopefully see some actual editing there (as you know it remained fallow since Dec. until today's recount update).

Is the challenge going in there as well? That's pretty significant. Glad to add it, but then hey - we're getting bloatier... but it's important to the issue... and we're back at square one.) 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... -- RyanFreisling @ 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to kizzle: If we wanted to transform this article into something close to the summary, we could just do a cut-and-paste. I don't see what that would accomplish. The summary already exists, and it's linked to from here. Trying to get this article down to approximately the size of the summary would obviously provoke a lot of opposition. Why bother? I'm sure there are some readers for whom this article is fine -- they want this level of detail about each aspect of the controversy (as opposed to the reader you properly invoke, who wants information on one subject but not another). Furthermore, many (perhaps all) of the daughter articles already exist. We can just make sure that they're linked from the summary article.

Response to both: The project of merging the two articles together would involve endless hassling and compromise about what level of detail was appropriate. Consider how far apart the two articles are on that score right now. If, for some reason, we absolutely had to merge them, then, if we all proceeded in good faith, and put in a lot of time and effort, we could come up with a version that just about everyone would dislike (in the sense of thinking it markedly inferior to one of the pre-merger articles). Given that there's currently no consensus to eliminate the summary article and have this long one be the only general article on the subject, and given that there's currently no consensus to dismantle this long one by distributing all its contents to daughter articles, I think that leaving things pretty much as they are is, for the moment, the best practical approach. JamesMLane 00:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's no consensus because the topic hasn't been raised. I don't wanna VfD, I wanna raise the issue multilaterally. And again, assuming you (nor anyone else) won't like the result isn't assuming good faith. that is the issue that is still not resolved for me. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JML, your point is to accomodate towards the casual reader who may be interested about several parts of this article but not the whole thing. Ryan, you want to cater towards the motivated reader and keep all the detail in . I don't for the life of me understand why you guys don't see that starting with a summary page and having daughter articles (like almost every other page with a lot of information on wikipedia) would accomodate both types of readers. In addition, if we keep the daughter articles we have now, what information goes into them and what stays here? If there are detailed sub-pages dealing with these issues, why is detail necessary in this page? And I don't want to avoid changes because of the difficulties of compromising, that's not a good enough reason to not do something if it needs to be done. But, I've said all I can say. Lets put up a vote and leave it open for like 2 weeks to get a good idea of what the community feels--kizzle 00:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the article/daughter design. The detail here can and does migrate out as appropriate. We do that by editing this document, together - not replacing it. I feel like I've said this a dozen times without any acknowledgement. Essentially, It's not correct to say that 'compromising will be difficult', when an attempt has not been made. All this effort expended here, instead of using the wiki as one should, is a waste, and informally 'voting' among those caring to respond, in order to replace an article with another, handspun one is against policy. This article has been under VfD twice, and must be the article in the article/daughter relationship. I repeat the request for all those proposing this 'vote' to instead participate as editors in good faith.-- RyanFreisling @ 01:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I agree with JML and Kizzle that a summary and daughter pages is the best presentation of the information. There's just too much in this article right now. If all the detailed information is either moved or merged to a daughter article, how does this harm the article? Ryan, right now the article is currently 65k. An article shouldn't be more than 32k (see Wikipedia: Article size. How do you propose to reduce the size? Wouldn't it resemble the summary when it's complete? Carrp 01:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

kizzle writes: "I don't for the life of me understand why you guys don't see that starting with a summary page and having daughter articles (like almost every other page with a lot of information on wikipedia) would accomodate both types of readers." Well, I don't for the life of me see why you don't for the life of you see that what you recommend is indeed my preference. I suggested it here several weeks ago. It received some support, but also so much opposition that I concluded that there was no chance of dismantling this big article. I mentioned the idea again more recently to see if the pasage of time had changed people's attitudes. It hasn't. That's why I said, above, that leaving the status quo in place is the best practical approach.

I'll defer to RyanFreisling's request that we not vote in the poll for a while, to see what the discussion might produce. If I were voting, my choice would be a modification of #3. I see no reason to create a page similar to an existing page. I would, instead, move all worthwhile material from this (long) article into daughter articles, make this article a redirect to the summary, and include in the summary article links to all the daughter articles. I havent' pushed that idea because I thought it wouldn't go anywhere. If you want to try to overcome all the opposition and do it -- well, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Kizzle.

Response to RyanFreisling: As I told you, I made an effort along the lines of what I think you're calling for. On the talk page, I stated the highlights of my dissatisfaction with the way this long article approached the topic. Some people agreed with me, some didn't. I made some corresponding changes to the article. Someone else (maybe Zen Master) reverted them, some third person (maybe Rhobite) restored them, then they were deleted again. In response, I suggested the two-article solution, and I don't remember anybody screaming with horror. This article, the summary article, and the daughter articles could all be improved in many ways, and I'm strongly inclined to think that tackling those projects would be a better us of our time than pursuing this disagreement. JamesMLane 01:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of your particular editing experience offhand, but I agree completely with your premise - and I humbly ask if you do want to try, that you try 30 small, reasoned edits rather than 1 vast one that will confront others with a massive re-read and re-familiarization... And, without any insult, to be clear - I believe funneling the content out of here into daughters and redirecting this page to your homemade summary page instead is an approach that runs counter to the wiki way. We should funnel as we said, and edit this page to a reasoned size.

Also, I had to add this... you said above, "I see no reason to create a page similar to an existing page." - can you see that to some, the rationale and process of your summary is exactly that (for reasons I've already articulated ad nauseam)? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Reorganization of page

1. Keep the current page and have no daughter articles

2. Keep the current page and daughter articles

3. Create a summary starting page similar to 2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies with "Main Article: XXX" links to daughter articles for more detail

kizzle 00:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Carrp 00:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4. Additional *specific* reorganization proposal details are needed (status quo in the mean time)

zen master 03:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (most "summary" attempts I've seen relating to this article have obfuscated important issues or lessened their impact)

Vote Comments

How have the previous attempted summaries harmed the article? Those who fail to learn from history... Carrp 03:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have seen many sneaky edit attempts, or the new summary focused on what I believe are non core issues, so to answer your question: yes. Do you ever attempt to convince people of your position, or, do you simply try to trick people by using cliches such as "those who fail to learn from history..."? E.g.: For my benefit could you please describe exactly what I have failed to learn from history? zen master 03:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

zen master's comment illustrates quite well why there are two articles. When he and I and others were addressing the subject a couple months ago, he wanted there to be an article that focused on what he considered to be the core issues. I wanted there to be an article that covered the waterfront of issues, regardless of who considered which ones core and which ones peripheral, and that covered them in succinct, summary fashion. zen master reverted my edits to the main article because they moved it away from what he wanted to see covered. So, rather than argue with him, I created a general summary article -- 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. Since then, I haven't tried to make substantial changes in the longer ("irregularities") article. The summary article (it would be better if people called it "the summary article" instead of "JML's article" or the like) is aimed at the reader who knows little more than that there's some sort of controversy about the election, and who wants to know the gist of the issues that have been raised. That reader may well decide to pursue more detail about some or all of the issues; I certainly don't agree with the wrecking crew on VfD that wanted all that information to be removed from Wikipedia entirely.

So, zen master, the real question is this: If I'm no longer trying to make any substantial changes in this article, is there nevertheless some way in which the mere existence of the summary article (with a prominent wikilink to this one) is harmful to Wikipedia's coverage of the election controversy? If, as I hope, your answer is "No", then let's just live and let live. Some readers will be better served by this article. Other readers will be better served by the summary. We aren't confined to one article, so we aren't called upon to decide which group of readers is more numerous. Both of them can coexist. JamesMLane 06:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As per wiki process, a 'vote' is premature. This is nothing but an academic exercise, and since JML has already stated that 'we can live and let live' and thus this article can stand as is, I give this 'vote' ZERO authenticity. This should be a 'survey' at the most, and formatted appropriately. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition, my vote comments were not moved along with this section... -- RyanFreisling @ 06:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree an informal 'vote' is appropriate. Until a good faith attempt at editing is made, wiki policy is clear - that we remain status quo and attempt to resolve in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we have exhausted dialogue as evidenced above, and a good faith edit on my part would be a unilateral drastic change to what is there already... so I don't see much alternative. We're not disagreeing over a simple passage in the text, we're talking about two drastically different visions of organizational layout which cannot be simply edited, as I'm sure I'd get reverted in two seconds if I took JML's summary page, added main article links, and didn't even drop a single line from what's here already because I didn't have concensus from the group. So that's exactly what I'm trying to get a sense of, what the community thinks. --kizzle 01:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Assuming your edits have to be unilateral and drastic is itself bad faith. Why not actually participate, rather than 'hand down' your opinion? That's the bad faith, and it's counterproductive.

"Any edit I would do would be to effectively replace the article, so let's vote to effectively replace the article." ... An illogical/unliateral request. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assumed he meant that, if he did it solely on his own, it would be unilateral, so he wants a vote to see if there's substantial agreement with that approach. JamesMLane 02:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think making a massive structural change, that removes detail but doesn't parse it, is shortchanging the natural editing process. And the summary as it exists now is hardly a massive structural change, it's just a massive reduciton in content, which can be achieved by good faith editing here, as per usual process. If, as I recommend above to you, it's done on an incremental basis, in a way that invites discussion, no one is objecting. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, I am not removing detail, it is simply going into the daughter articles. It's not like its dropping from wikipedia altogether. Second, "Any edit I would do would be to effectively replace the article, so let's vote to effectively replace the article" is a straw man of my real argument. I want to condense this page and expand the daughter articles, so there is no replacing. Third, I cannot do such a thing on an incremental basis. I've told you exactly what I propose. It doesn't have to be JML's version word-for-word, but it should be around the same length with "Main Article: XXX" spin-offs. I haven't been vague about it. Such a request is a huge organizational change and if I were to do so, it would be trampling upon many other users here without even asking what they feel, thus my request for an informal vote. If enough people want a condensed main article with expanded daughter articles then I will make the edit. I do not want to replace your version with JML's, I think JML was attempting to simply offer up his idea of a summary, we can discuss if something was left out or something should be re-worded, all I want to take from JML is the concept of his summary page as the starting point.--kizzle 02:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

So once again, feel free to get started - incrementally in a way others can respond to. We already have the summary to refer to for the admirable and valid goal you describe. One step at a time. That's editing. Right now, as I have already said, removing the 'external links' and 'news' outright, reducing the content by ~50% will achieve exactly what you are describing. And all this is possible, has already been discussed, and agreed to - and is ongoing, evident in the progress of the page in recent days.

It's not a 'if people want it, I'll make the edit'... make AN edit, get a response. Otherwise, you are arguing away good faith, and voting for unilateral reorg. As I said, we have the existing summary, we understand the goal. Maybe you can make your edits there, to better prompt the discussion... after all that summary page is 'live'... -- RyanFreisling @ 02:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to vote for both options 2 and 3. It seems to me that people who feel that a concise summary article (with links to daughter articles) is needed could start modifying 2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies accordingly, borrowing content from here if needed. Other people could continue developing this article, or contribute to both, as they see fit. There seems to be enough difference in emphasis/vision to justify keeping this article separate from the summary article, at least at present. I think the daughter articles need to be updated under either of these options. -- Avenue 14:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clint Curtis, et. al.

cleanup header inappropriate for the article

Disputed

Many critics of electronic voting...

Embarrassing

In the spirit of the holidays

News flash

News

Alert

Archiving

Disappearing sources

relevant RFC listing

Cleanup Needed

News Sources / Data Mining

Watch the POV

legal actions

Voting machine improprieties

Review

See also section: template? Category?

Quickpoll: in the news

Hocking County

Uhh..

Moyer

Electoral college

Current events presence merited?

Section on floor debate

Section on Media Lockdown

Conyer's open letter

A very important clarification

Added to pages needing attention

I moved recount section into new article

Lists, paragraphs, additions, subtractions, policies, complaints

Overzealous

Split In the News to election controvery timeline?

Vote Comments