Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Nothing on exit poll discrepancies?

I just glanced at this article and it doesn't mention any of the numerous exit poll discrepancies at all?? The way this article is written it kind of seems like a perhaps intentionally confusing whitewash of the voting controversy issue, it does not convey the fact that Kerry likely won the election and/or at least the fact that 99% of the discrepancies favored bush, a random statistical impossibility. I think links in other articles should point to the detailed article instead of this one though I suppose someone will tell me its way too late now. zen master T 12:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading your comment I'm still not clear exatly what you are talking about. Initial reports of a Kerry lead were wrong for various reasons (or simply reflected that different groups of voters voted at different times of day). The final report noted problems of "Within Precinct Error" and weighting of male/female voters (in Kerry's favor). The final tally, after the proper adjustments were made meets the electoral outcome. The full report is viewable on the NEP website (pdf). Rkevins82 05:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That is effectively disinformation, NEP is in on the election fraud apparently. It takes like 2 weeks to go through all the data, see 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls and [1] and [2] zen master T 06:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that you quickly eyeballed this article looking for a lengthy screed on the subject. Remember that this is intended as a summary article, for readers who just want to know what the issues were without spending two weeks going through all the data. Before you say that there's no mention of exit poll discrepancies, use your browser to search the text for "exit" or "discrepancies". It's true that you won't find the reams of data, but you'll find the summary. The major (though not sole) concern about exit poll discrepancies was in connection with EVM, so it's covered in the last paragraph of that section, with the reference to "widespread discrepancies between exit polls conducted during Election Day and the officially reported results", followed by a very brief explanation of why this was an issue.

The links elsewhere should point to both articles. Some readers will want all the data and others will just want the quick-and-dirty. We should make both versions easy to find. JamesMLane 07:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to Zen-Master. You suggest that the NEP is in on fraud? Come on. The NEP represents ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC and was conducted by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. They're all in on it? Rkevins82 08:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's Edison and Mitofsky that are more definitely in on it, NEP at least a bit; their arguments and reports are not using exit polling science to defend their methods, they are only ever attacking people that allege with evidence there was massive election fraud. You'd think 2+ experts in statistics and exit polling having a debate would be boring, yet Mitofsky's reports do nothing but misdirect and attack and are seemingly only designed to confuse the exit poll/statistics layman. Judging just from his reports Mitofsky is obviously hiding a whole lot and the massive 2 weeks worth of evidence data makes a very plausible case that there was massive election fraud. zen master T 13:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, other polling firms ( e.g. Zogby ) think that the explanations that Mitofsky's explanation as to why their numbers were so off kilter ( the "reluctant responder" ) are, I quote, "preposterous". I don't know if they're "in" on "it", but I do think they're covering their asses. There were interesting articles on this issue in recent editions of Harpers and Rolling Stone ( the RS article specifically talks about this ). - 60.46.251.160 00:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget Timothy Griffin's vote caging scheme. Nicholastarwin (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voting

• made refs wiki
• "A voter using a paper ballot, a punch-card ballot, or an older lever-type voting machine has much greater ability to ensure that his or her vote has been recorded accurately." -- Seriously? Clearly POV, but also grossly inaccurate.
• "Government agencies buying the machines were often denied access to the software by the manufacturer, whose internal memos often referred to unrectified faults or lack of security testing. Even when the software was available for review, there were concerns that the agencies lacked the technical expertise to find problems or to monitor changes to the software, and that unauthorized software changes and unidentified patches were used in some instances during the live election." -- These are so pretty strong accusations that are pretty specific without sourcing. They are moved here until sources are available.
• Corrected GAO report information
• Edited the vote flipping paragraph to read more like an encyclopedia and less like an add for Freepress.org authors...
• The BBV paragraph is a bit of a stretch referencing only message board posts with broad discussion for a very specific claim.

--Electiontechnology (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

potential merge information to include

As discussed in a related afd, I would like to merge all relevant data from 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression into this article while still keeping the article concise. Below are links and other information i feel is worth salvaging.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/14/MNG0E99AO91.DTL Reason: Is a reference for the following claim: Some officials rejected voter registration forms on grounds that were contested, such as a failure to use paper of a particular weight (Ohio) or a failure to check a box on the form (Florida)

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=105234 Reason: Supports claims of wrongdoing by ACORN http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200412\\POL20041208b.html 'Reason: Supports this quote "Dirty tricks occurred across the state, including phony letters from Boards of Elections telling people that their registration through some Democratic activist groups were invalid and that Kerry voters were to report on Wednesday because of massive voter turnout. Phone calls to voters giving them erroneous polling information were also common"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-10-23-ohio-ballots_x.htm Reason: Discusses democrat v. blackwell lawsuit that is not covered here. I think this should be included.

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0367p-06.pdf Reason : text of the final judicial decision of above.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=17471 Reason: another lawsuit, if we work some kind of lawsuit section, this could be potentially useful.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=708327 Reason: Discusses distribution of voting machines.

http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/html/eng/2209-AA.shtml Reason Seems useful.

We dont have to include any of it, but in my opinion, the above is the extent of useful information from the contested article. Bonewah (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the vote suppression article to see if there's any additional material that qualifies as "useful information". Even assuming there's nothing except what you've listed above, it would still be too much detail for this article. It's probably worth adding a brief reference to litigation, but the elaboration of the contentions in the lawsuits and the results, along with other vote-suppression details, is best presented in a separate daughter article.

Of course, if the vote suppression article is deleted, then we'll have no alternative but to start incorporating details into this article. Same with the exit poll and voting machine articles. Thus, this article will cease to be a useful general summary and introduction, and will become instead a sprawling battleground. JamesMLane t c 06:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we wait for the AfD to finish before deciding what to do here? It will be awkward to discuss it otherwise, because we'll have to consider both what to do if the articles are deleted, and what to do if they're not. -- Avenue (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem waiting for the AFD to close, i think thats the only fair thing to do. However, many of the links should be added irrespective of the the afd decision because they provide reference to things already claimed in the article. Having said that, no harm in waiting, but consider what i have said for later. Bonewah (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An admin has closed the AfD in favor of deleting all the daughter articles as well as the highly detailed main article -- the alternative that I characterized as turning this summary article into a sprawling battleground. Opinion on whether to delete the daughter articles was almost equally divided. I have called to the closing admin's attention the obvious absence of consensus: User talk:David Gerard#Your close of the AfD on election controversy articles.

I for one don't intend to undertake the enormous editing job involved, let alone try to get involved in the "Bonewah et al. versus Kevin Baas et al." edit wars, until it's absolutely clear that this ridiculous path is the one we'll be following. I'll wait and see how the closing admin responds concerning the absence of consensus, and I may wait for the outcome of the DRV that will probably be initiated. JamesMLane t c 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't delete anything. Feel free to merge in some of the information from the redirected articles if you like, but it seems to me, and to many others, that it's either 1) already there, 2) insignificant, poorly expressed details, or 3) crap. Anything that is not in one of the above categories can be moved right in there. I think everyone, with a single exception, agreed the the daughter articles had serious problems. Besides, isn't one battleground better than 5? -18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by R. fiend (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 April 2008

My opinion is that five battleground talk pages are better than one, because it's easier to keep track of the separate issues. I invite your attention to Talk:2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities and its voluminous archives. That's what happens when you try to cover the entire subject in one monster article. JamesMLane t c 19:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if we all use our heads this wont become a battleground. My experience with the vote suppression article tells me that once all the poorly sourced claims are removed, there isnt that much information to merge. As for what the admin says, it really doesnt matter, even if the vote was keep, i would still systematically remove all the bad references and claims from the daughter articles and, as i said above, they would most likely be deleted anyway. As for the work, ill be happy to do my part, if anyone has a problem with my edits, ill be here to discuss. Bonewah (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with removing all bad references and claims. The fundamental problem is that editors have different views about what material merits retention. You refer to your experience with the vote suppression article -- doesn't that history prove my point? You and Kevin Baas were reverting each other over huge chunks of material. This is really a content dispute, and has been for almost four years. The AfD did not establish that there's a consensus in favor of the view that you and Phil share, namely that Wikipedia policies preclude most of the references and claims that Kevin favors and that you oppose.

There's a separate, and much more tractable dispute, about how to present this information: (1) in one big article; (2) in a summary article with wikilinks to daughter articles; or (3) with the combination of the foregoing. Most of the AfD participants favored #2 or #3, but the AfD close implemented #1. JamesMLane t c 21:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to take up the case that web logs are a reliable source, then feel free to do so. For my part, i feel that WP:SPS is clear, no sources of this type, especially when better ones can be found. This is presidential election we are talking about, there is no reason to base anything off the say so of some random guy on the internet. Bonewah (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How to merge

Currently we have an AfD decision (merge and redirect) which has been partially implemented (redirects only). Doing the merges will be messy. I suggest the most direct approach is to copy and paste the material from the subarticles (in a simple text dump merger), then copy anything from other main article (2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities) that has been omitted, and after that begin the process of cleanup (e.g. removing duplications or poorly sourced material, reorganising, etc). Obviously the article will be a mess during the process, but this seems the clearest way of ensuring the decision is implemented, and can be seen to be implemented. Any objections? -- Avenue (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I object to that idea. One of the sentiments that was echoed by many of the afd participants was the feeling that the deleted articles were a stylistic mess and that this article is noticeably better. Making this article into one giant mess would be a step backward. For my part, i think the best way to proceed is deal with each sub-article in turn, ensuring that only verifiable information is added back in. Bonewah (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one reason this article was noticeably tidier than the others was that it had the clear aim of providing a short summary, and thus excluded much detail. It could get away with that by linking to a more detailed treatment, but that option has been foreclosed for now. I suspect that no matter how we merge, it will probably be a backward step for this article.

One problem I foresee with merging in one subarticle at a time is that the article will seem quite unbalanced during the process. For instance, the exit polls article was twice the size of this one, with virtually no overlap. (There are only a couple of sentences here on exit polls.) While I expect the verbiage there could be cut substantially (perhaps by half or more), it would still loom much larger than the current coverage here of any other topic. But if this is only temporary, maybe it doesn't matter. -- Avenue (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding comment by Avenue. JamesMLane t c 14:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to a text-dump merge - the now-obscured content was awash with POV, OR, novel synthesis, and undue weight. A text dump merge is not going to improve this article, and, given the abject failure of articles on this topic to clean up even remotely in the last four years, I see little reason to think that it would meaningfully move towards improvement after the text dump.

Furthermore, I point out that the closer's comment, "move whatever content is recoverable," coupled with the closer's declining to do so suggests that the intent of the close was not a text dump merge.

I would suggest a much slower merge that is based on a principle of massively rewriting the individual sections - the old citations provide an excellent starting point, but I do not think the prose in the merged articles is, by and large, worth salvaging. It would be better to look at the sources cited and ask "OK, what here is actually a major, encyclopedic issue?" And then take those sources and describe them from a NPOV context that situates the information in a context other than a data dump of supposed irregularities.

This is undoubtedly a slower process. However, unlike a text dump merge, it will not lead to this article coming under fire again in the future. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Phil, I take your point about the "move whatever content is recoverable" comment. I don't see copying then cutting back as very different in spirit to moving bits piecemeal, but I'm happy to go with the apparent consensus. More importantly, the right test is not whether we all agree that "what['s] here is actually a major, encyclopedic issue"; it's enough that the content is neutral and verifiable. -- Avenue (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not forget "original research." This was one of the largest problems with the existing articles - they assembled small incidents into a novel synthesis. I do not, off the top of my head, remember which policy notes that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that incidents that happened, were reported on, and were forgotten should not be included, but it is definitely there. Adding lone facts and oddities, therefore, that do not connect to a clear and significant viewpoint about a controversy in the election is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I think the original research policy often needs to be applied with some common sense (see e.g. the WP:NOTOR essay), but I agree it has an vital role to play here. -- Avenue (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I just took a quick look over at the Ohio article as it was before the redirect [3], and I gotta say, I don't see all that much that really warrants a merge. Much of it is graphs and pictures. The pictures of lines don't really add much and the graphs and charts are quite poor. Many serve no purpose, many don't have proper keys, some make little sense, some are largely illegible, and I'm not convinced hardly any of them are from reliable sources. Then there's stuff like lits of press releases, letters, etc.; a pointless and overdone "In the news" section; charts of organizations' actions that say very little but take up space; it just goes on and on with poorly organized facts piled on one another. I'd say there's maybe a couple paragraphs worth of salvageable material. There shouldn't be much trouble fitting it in here. -R. fiend (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a potential for unnecessary acrimony if some editors act as if the AfD revealed a consensus in favor of their views on this long-standing content dispute. It did not. The charge that Wikipedia policies preclude many of the statements in the various articles was raised as a reason for deleting all of them, but that suggestion was rejected by a majority of the AfD participants. JamesMLane t c 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now looking at the Ohio article (I think it's best to tackle these one at a time as much as possible) what do you think from that article is reliably sourced, NPOV, and significant enough to be placed in this article? I'm of the opinion that there is little, but I'm open to suggestions. Most people (even you) did agree that the articles had serious problems, and while there may be some legitimacy to the claim of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, now the opportune time to retrieve that baby, or at least parts of it. But let's leave that dirty water in the gutter. -R. fiend (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the concerns that have been expressed about adding isolated facts, I think we'd need to incorporate related material from other articles at the same time (e.g. the last two substantive sections in 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities). Wouldn't it be better to start merging the most general articles first, for this reason? -- Avenue (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't think order really matters too much. I'll take a look at that one next. I'm not sure information for more than one article needs to be added at once. Not doing so will likely lead to organizational problems, but they can be worked out as we go. If 5 articles can stay in the state they were in for 4 years, we can have some poor organization in this one article for a few weeks. But I am interested in getting people's take on the Ohio article, just because it seems to me to be chock full of unclear, misleading, or useless graphs and charts, and I'd like to hear what its defenders say. -R. fiend (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First thing that i see in the Ohio article is a lot of the same sources that were bothering me in the vote suppression article. The section on Franklin county near the top of the Ohio article is sourced mostly with links to weblogs and other citations that are going to illicit a verifiability fight with me, so lets just deal with it now. Does anyone care to add citations from weblogs, message boards, or some other SPS? If so, justify it here or above so we can resolve the problem, if not, about a third of the Ohio article can be ignored.

Moving down the article, the section on knox county seems too obscure to mention and the juxtaposition of the two claims strikes me as OR. The next section, covering provisional ballots has some use. As i mentioned above, i think we should add information here about the various lawsuits which is what this section covers. Please note that the information in this section is identical to the same claims made in vote suppression, except that it provides a link to what happened with the PFAW lawsuit. If we can deal with these two questions then we will have dealt with a good third of the Ohio article and the rest of vote suppression, which would be significant progress. Bonewah (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Ohio article, I have issues with the vast majority of the article. I'll pick a single representative example: "In Cuyahoga County 141 reports of long lines were recorded. This amounts to an average of 0.098 per precinct, over eight times the average outside of Cuyahoga. Likewise, reported long line incidents were more than eight times as high per person as outside of Cuyahoga. Voter turnout in Cuyahoga was 4.5% less than the rest of the state."

This is sourced, it seems. I haven't looked at the source for reliability, because the issue here is who cares? What is the significance of this fact? How does this fact fit in with a significant and mainstream presentation of the issues of voting controversies in Ohio? Who thinks this is significant, and what do they think is significant about it? What claims were made, and by who?

Presenting strings of facts like this with no organizing context and no attributed viewpoints regarding these facts is a violation of NPOV (undue weight) and NOR (novel synthesis). Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If there is a significant viewpoint about voting controversies in Ohio, that viewpoint should be presented. Specific things they remark on should be mentioned in the context of the significant viewpoints about them. But this presentation of random isolated facts absent any context is not acceptable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically in complete agreement with both of you. That's why I think this one is an easy merge. Of the 89 gigabytes of information, there's about a paragraph of useful, verifiable information. The rest can be tossed. -R. fiend (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend, would it be fair to say that your approach is almost exactly identical to what would've been done if there had been a consensus in favor of the proposed deletion (after the delisting of this article)? This is why I see a problem. There was no such consensus. I haven't looked at every line of every article to see how much is properly encyclopedic, but that long-standing dispute wasn't resolved by the AfD. JamesMLane t c 01:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am suggesting merging in some information, which presumably wouldn't happen if the article was deleted. But the fact remains, the article is rife with problems that have been pointed out repeatedly. The only response I seem to be getting goes little beyond "it's fine! Really!" and "but there's no consensus to delete!" I've asked for input from these articles' defenders about what here really does justify inclusion, in light of all the issues pointed out by myself and others, and I've gotten bupkis. So let's address the actual content here, shall we? -R. fiend (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not stopping you, but I'm still inclined to pursue a DRV that might mean all your merger work has to be undone. I mention this only so that you won't feel blindsided if that happens. JamesMLane t c 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll consider more prudent courses of action here. I've just gone through two more of the old articles - vote suppression and voting machines - and both have the exact same problems - reams of statements with no context. There is no programmatic presentation and no addressing of the question of "who cares?" These articles need to be rebuilt from the ground up. The previous forms meet no inclusion standards, and have no consensus to remain as they were - the discussion was split between "they're doomed, delete them" and "fix them, don't delete them." There was not much for "Keep them as is." The current situation allows them to be fixed in this fashion - if new spin-off articles become required for the verifiable content that can be attributed to significant points of view, we can cross that bridge then - I don't think anybody involved in this discussion will object to splitting the article up into sub-articles if it shows that it warrants it. But the articles need a significant rebuilding, and to take it to DRV as though the previous situation was an acceptable or tenable one is foolish and will not improve the articles. There are, right now, an unusually large number of people who seem actually interested in trying to salvage content and make it work. Why spit on that? Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally not one for spitting, but I'd be tempted to spit on any suggestion that the AfD should be treated retroactively as having adjudicated the content dispute. Why not undelete the articles (given that there was a roughly even division of opinion and an absence of consensus defaults to keep) and then go through the process you describe as to each article? As to any particular article, if the elimination of unencyclopedic content leaves it so scanty that there's no reason to maintain it as a separate article, then deletion could be sought on that basis.

I think your answer to "why not go through that process as to each article" is "because the people who disagree with me about the content will resist the effort". That's probably true but it's not a basis for deletion, especially a deletion that's contrary to policy.

The basic point is that, for all these criticisms of the other articles, there is no process of fixing up the content that can be conducted post-deletion that couldn't be conducted just as well with the articles in place. JamesMLane t c 06:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Going left) It just seems to me that there's a working process here, and that a DRV is going to be an ugly fight that would short-circuit that process. If the two processes will produce similar results, take the less contentious one. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The dispute got more contentious in the first place because of the "ugly fight" at the AfD. I regret that energy was diverted to the deletion process instead of to improving the articles, but that wasn't my decision to make. Given that the deletion process was initiated, it should be resolved properly. As a practical matter, my experience with other articles has been that a close such as this one gets invoked, down the road, as having established a particular outcome. Such a misreading will make the fight even uglier. Better to nip it in the bud.

If you think "there's a working process here", then undertake the exact same process on the daughter articles. Go through line-by-line (as you're talking about doing anyway) and identify content that doesn't meet Wikipedia standards (as you're talking about doing anyway). You'll find it more convenient to have several talk pages available for the inevitable discussions, rather than one, because it will be easier to segregate what's contentious from what isn't. (For example, pursuant to R. fiend's comment above, maybe the pruning of the Ohio article will be relatively uncontroversial.) No one has explained to me why that process would be more contentious than what you envision doing here.

I conclude that the real reason you prefer the AfD result is a psychological one -- that it seems to establish total deletion (your preferred alternative) as a baseline. That's purely psychological because, in substance, there's no automatic presumption that a particular statement in one of the daughter articles should remain. Any challenged statement must be justified under Wikipedia policies, whether the issue is "remove this from the daughter article" or "add this to what used to be the summary article". JamesMLane t c 15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

James, if you want me to say that you dont agree with the merge decision, then fine, i acknowledge that. But as it stands, we have two choices 1) merge 2) DRV. If you want to persue a DRV, go for it, but dont use the possibility of such to hold things up. Bonewah (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not stopping anyone from adding information to this article. I would rather see the article remain a relatively succinct summary, with detail in the daughter articles. Nevertheless, I agree that, unless and until a DRV succeeds, that's not the course being taken. As of now, editors are justified in making edits that counter the original purpose of this article. If such edits are made, I promise not to revert them on the grounds that they add detail that should be in the daughter articles (even if I believe that to be true). Any AfD is subject to an immediate or long-delayed DRV. I'm not trying to use that possibility to hold anything up; I simply thought it was a courtesy to other editors to let them know that the fight begun by the commencement of the AfD isn't necessarily over. JamesMLane t c 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the AfD result because it keeps POV original research material from being served up to our readers today. It does not put the removal of that material off in some nebulous future. That's the central issue here - the content of those articles did not meet basic content standards. Were they restored they would need to almost immediately be cut to 5-10% of their current length, and, in some cases, to stubs to remove the OR. That would set off a half-dozen edit wars. I oppose moves that cause us to serve up OR and POV. It is better to add good content slowly over time than to subtract OR over time. In fact, subtracting OR over time is outright unacceptable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that we're in agreement on something -- namely, that the "central issue here" is a content dispute. JamesMLane t c 18:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should simply be deleted. Because these articles are a mess, we need to look beyond the immediate inline citations for the sort of sources Phil Sandifer and Bonewah want. The "External links" section has a few. For instance, the Harper's Magazine story covers the linked topics of voting machine shortages and long lines, specifically mentioning Franklin County: 'The first phase of malfeasance entailed, among many other actions, several months of bureaucratic hijinks aimed at disenfranchising Democrats, the most spectacular result of which was “a wide discrepancy between the availability of voting machines in more minority, Democratic and urban areas as compared to more Republican, suburban and exurban areas.” Such unequal placement had the predictable effect of slowing the voting process to a crawl at Democratic polls, while making matters quick and easy in Bush country: a clever way to cancel out the Democrats' immense success at registering new voters in Ohio. ... This was not a consequence of limited resources. In Franklin County alone, as voters stood for hours throughout Columbus and elsewhere, at least 125 machines collected dust in storage. The county's election officials had “decided to make do with 2,866 machines, even though the analysis showed that the county needs 5,000 machines.”' -- Avenue (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to take a stab at adding that information to the main article, please do so. Im a bit hesitant to rely on a single article for so many claims, but I think some time with google would be helpful here. Bonewah (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of discussion here, why doesn't someone pick one of the redirected articles and start slowly merging in the information that is relevant, reliable, properly sourced, and meeting all WP requirements? If there is an issue with any of it, we can discuss it here, and try to sort out differences. I'd put my money where my mouth is, but I'm not the one who is anxious to see most of this put back. That, at least, would give us something concrete, rather than discussing a couple megabytes of information spread out across 5 articles in an abstract sense. -R. fiend (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing and merging, moving forward.

Ok, it seems that the DRV, afd, and other disputes have cooled, so Im back to editing this article. Ive added some of the links below, but not the links related to lawsuits. Im going to try and salvage what i can from [4] next and perhaps link this page to [5].Bonewah (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was holding off on doing a DRV. You and other editors had confidently asserted that all the properly encyclopedic information from the deleted articles could be incorporated into this one without destroying its usefulness. I disagreed but I was giving the deletionists the chance to prove me wrong. Enough time has gone by without any action on that promise that a DRV would've been fully justified, and I would've started one if I hadn't been too busy with other things.

The publication of a recent book just on the Ohio problems is further indication that the subject can't reasonably be covered in one article. I'll continue my policy of standing back for a while to see what the deletionist camp does, but I strongly suspect that whatever you produce will then be edited by the addition of more material (some of it information from the deleted articles that didn't make your cut but satisfies other editors, and some of it new information that isn't even in those articles). This article will then have to be split. We will be marching the king's men up the hill and marching them back down again. I still believe that we'd reach roughly the same end result by overturning the blatantly improper deletion and then editing the restored articles. JamesMLane t c 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is it the job of the "deletionists" to incorporate the information you want into this article? The redirects (which, by the way, are not deletions, making a DRV inappropriate) were made with the understanding that properly referenced, NPOV material that was not original research could be brought into this article at any time. No one has made even the slightest effort to do so, leading me to believe that there is very little material from the redirected articles that qualifies. No one has done anything to prove otherwise. Nearly everyone who participated in the AFD discussion agreed that there were very serious problems with a great deal of the content of said articles. To restore them en masse without addressing these issues is certainly not the way to deal with it. I'm more than willing to examine and discuss any information that people wish to incorporate into this article. I'm reasonably content with this article as is, so it is hardly my job to go about "fixing" it. Why not expand the section on Ohio using this new book you mention instead of the current travesty pulled from a handful of partisan amateur blogs? If it does indeed get too long we can split it off. Or, if you really think there is enough pertinent information that is suitable for an encyclopedia article (encyclopedia articles are meant to be rather concise overviews of a subject, not the first and last word) you may want to consider writing a brand new article that doesn't have all the problems of the previous one. Using an actual book would be a great place to start. R. fiend (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

James, what do you think of the changes ive made so far? In your opinion, are we moving forward or backwards? Bonewah (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

R. fiend: I'm amused to see that, up above, I was urged not to hold things up, "things" being the desire of those who prevailed in the AfD to improve this article; but now I'm being upbraided for supposedly saying it was their job to improve the article. If you don't want to improve it, that's your choice, obviously. It's not surprising that you're content with the status quo, because you wanted complete outright deletion; now, in the absence of any merging, that's what you have. I favor separate articles. Those who favor having only one article would, IMHO, improve their chance of achieving that result if they did some of the merger work, but you're absolutely correct that they have no obligation to do so. As for the DRV being inappropriate, if someone now created an article on "2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio", I'm sure it would be speedily deleted as violative of the AfD close; the DRV would clear the way to have a separate article on that important topic.

Bonewah: Your changes make some improvements in the references. That's moving forward, or maybe inching forward, but it doesn't address the issue that there's information that once was readily available on Wikipedia in an article and now is buried in history. JamesMLane t c 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I would do some of the merging myself, but I see very little worth merging. If you think there is much to merge, please start doing it. People keep insisting that there is plenty of good information in the old articles, but when asked "where?" the silence is deafening. As for your insistence that a new article on the Ohio controversy would be speedily deleted, I have to take issue with that. Since the original article was not deleted, no one could justify a speedy for a new article under the same title. Furthermore, a new article that is substantially different from a deleted article is not a speedy candidate. Presumably any such article that actually uses real sources would be quite different from the previous excuse for an article. Go ahead and start an article using this book you speak of as it's main source. If it's deleted I'll take it to DRV myself. R. fiend (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounding only a slightly more cautious note, assuming the book is a reliable source, I am all for this. Any potential Ohio article shouldn't be a coatrack for a summary of a book we would not normally cover as a reliable source or as a notable publication in its own right. (For instance, if the book is the Phillips Witness to a Crime book, you've got to be kidding me.) But on the other hand, as I have said, I have no issues whatsoever with the prospect of lengthy, detailed coverage of these issues. I just have an issue with lengthy, bad coverage of these issues. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As for this alleged "deafening" silence, we get back to the question of allocation of jobs. Is it my "job" to go through a deleted article that shouldn't have been deleted and identify valid sources? or is the job of the objectors to identify specific inappropriate material (which they could do much more efficiently by editing the article)? I wasn't heavily involved in editing most of these articles, but just looking at the References list in the Ohio article, I see some sources I'm not familiar with (so I can't assess their reliability), but I also see the Detroit Free Press, Harper's, the office of the Ohio Secretary of State, an Ohio court decision, the Associated Press, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

I might just as well complain about the silence from your side. I see plenty of generalized rhetoric about "coatrack" and "blogs" and "POV" but precious little specification. Looking at the entire edit history of the article, I see no edits by R. fiend, no edits by Bonewah, and no content edits by you (Phil), only the additions of tags. Looking at the article talk page, I see no edits by any of you. Obviously, there are some editorial disputes and talk-page discussions involving other people, but I find it telling that the last edit to the talk page before the AfD was to ask for a specification of the POV concerns that justified the NPOV tag -- a question that went completely unanswered.

So, do you want me to just start adding all the MSM information from the Ohio article into this one, and when something offends your sensibilities you'll remove it? This seems like parking a car by backing up until you hear glass and metal crunching, but I suppose it's doable. It's just a hell of a lot more work than if people had properly edited the initial article. At best, if the effort were successful it would turn what was supposed to be a summary article into a lopsidedly Ohioan discussion. JamesMLane t c 18:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't want you to just add MSM information from the Ohio article. For example, one of the references is an utterly mainstream and reliable article about a Franklin County voting machine that gave nearly 4,000 extra votes to Bush. I have no doubt that this information is true, reliably sourced, verifiable, etc. But in the article, it is not doing anything - it's just in a bulleted list of "other problems." This raises a significant number of questions - does this information matter? Is it part of a larger whole, or an isolated incident? The old article lead said that "Statistical analysis of the demographic distribution of these problems and how strongly, in the aggregate, they favored one candidate over another, have led some critics, authors, statisticians, politicians, and concerned citizens to suspect coordinated election fraud throughout the state." That's a big claim - what is the relevance of the Franklin County incident to it? What critics, authors, statisticians, politicians, or concerned citizens commented on the Franklin County incident and its relationship to the larger pattern of irregularities the article alleges by dint of its very existence? Without this information relating the well-sourced information to some larger topic the information has no place in an article. So no - I am not simply looking for "well sourced" information to be added. I'm looking for an article that builds from secondary sources and constructs an actual narrative of what mainstream, reliable sources have said *about the topic of larger controversies* as opposed to a catalog of minor incidents that are not arranged as support for a larger claim about a topic.

An encyclopedia article is a form of argument. It has a lead section that makes a claim about a topic - "X are the major aspects of Y." Then it supports that claim with evidence. What is lacking in things like the Franklin County fact are the clear, sourced relationship of that fact to the larger topic. When such information is systemically lacking from an article one can be forgiven for questioning whether there actually is a larger topic, or if the article is a set of isolated incidents with no reliable coverage connecting them. And that's what has to change if coverage of these issues is to return - every claim, every fact, every statement has to have a clear relationship to a larger topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your response makes crystal-clear the correctness of my objection to the AfD process: It was being used to resolve (or sidestep) a content dispute. I agree with the general principles of reliability, NPOV, etc., without endorsing every word of your response. The demand for sourcing can reach unreasonable levels. To take the example you've given, this source from the article is a column by a professor (a Ph.D. in political science and a J.D.), who's the author of seven books. His overall conclusion is: "Evidence is mounting that the 2004 presidential election was stolen in Ohio. Emerging revelations of voting irregularities coupled with well-documented Republican efforts at voter suppression prior to the election suggests that in a fair election Kerry would have won Ohio." He buttresses that with specific examples, including Franklin County. Now you come along and ask, "What critics, authors, statisticians, politicians, or concerned citizens commented on the Franklin County incident and its relationship to the larger pattern of irregularities the article alleges by dint of its very existence?" I answer, "Bob Fitrakis, for one." His article is cited in the article in a different context but he discusses several of the problems, including Franklin County.

I hope you can understand my practical problem here. R. fiend says it would be perfectly OK to create an article on "2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio" provided that it "actually uses real sources [which] would be quite different from the previous excuse for an article". Is Fitrakis a real source? I'd say Yes, but maybe some people would say No. If a new article cites Fitrakis, does that make it a re-creation of deleted content, subject to speedy deletion? The current setup contemplates that the validity of citing Fitrakis would be argued out in the course of a discussion on AfD or DRV, rather than in the talk page of the relevant article. Of course, Fitrakis's take on Franklin County is only one of a multitude of specific examples. JamesMLane t c 19:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article had been written such that it had a lengthy section on Fitrakis that established his argument and discussed his evidence, as opposed to a disconnected system of facts, and then went on to cover other notable views on the election in Ohio, it never would have been deleted. It was not "cover for a content dispute." It was a poorly written article that had never been good and showed no sign of ever being good. Write one that's good, or at least working towards good. I won't speedy it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we'll just have to disagree about the meaning of the term "content dispute". To my mind, your entire comment is based on your view of the content dispute. JamesMLane t c 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I do wish you'd stop bandying terms like "the deletionist camp." It's quite unhelpful. I, for one, was always quite content to let people with more interest in and knowledge about the subject revise the articles. My sole concern is that they not become indiscriminate collections of POV facts again. If NPOV, verifiable coverage based on secondary sources that does not involve stitching together isolated instances into some implied whole takes more than one article, that's fine. But the previous collection of articles did not meet our basic content standards. If an article that does meet our basic content standards requires splitting, split away. Phil Sandifer (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What's unhelpful about it? It's a verbal shorthand. I suppose I could instead say "The people who wanted these articles deleted and made multiple attempts to do so until they finally succeeded by virtue of finding an admin who was willing to close the AfD in blatant violation of the AfD closing guidelines". I'm too lazy to type that repeatedly, though. From now on, just read that into "the deletionist camp" or the like if the shorter phrase somehow offends you. And, by the way, the AfD did not establish the correctness of your derogatory opinion of the content of the challenged articles. (I know you didn't, on this occasion, claim that it did, but sooner or later someone will make that claim, so I'm trying to head it off.) JamesMLane t c 08:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ill take inching forward. Its quite a bit more useful then grousing about some AfD.Bonewah (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifics of the Ohio article

Okay, let's go over some specifics from the Ohio article, in order. The intro is fine, and covered in this article already. Voting machines and long lines are covered as well, in the Practical Impediments section. If you want to make a specific note about Cuyahoga county go ahead, it's an easy edit to make. The details, as they appear in the original article, are largely uncited. There is a footnote to this, but I question the reliability of the source. A broken link is also a prominent source.

We should lose all the graphs and charts. I don't think any are from reliable sources, some are unclear or misleading, and they in general do not add much to the article. Much of the further information on the various counties is poorly sourced, and in any case does not add much more than "and there were long lines in this African-American neighborhood, and this African-American neighborhood, and this African-American neighborhood..." etc. It's tedious, and covered best with an more succinct overview of the problems. With any nationwide endeavor as significant and all-encompassing as a Presidential election, there will be screw-ups. It is not Wikipedia's job to cover each and every one.

The Provisional ballots section seems pretty well sourced and notable. It's covered briefly in this article already, but if you wanted to expand it to the level of the Ohio article that's fine with me. That would be the addition of about 2 more sentences. The Ballot spoilage section is unsourced, but if you can find good sourced it could warrant mention here.

The Other Problems section seems a bit nitpicky to me, but could be expressed in a few sentences or a brief paragraph, which would be preferable to a bulleted list. The Individuals and Organizations section seems like a pointless list. Badly written too. Most of the rest of the article is just a long, senseless list of every tiny incident imaginable. Much is a useless timeline, and very poor form. If someone wants to try to separate any potential wheat from the chaff there and put it in prose go ahead. I'm not going to bother. I don't think it's worthwhile.

So I, at least, see quite little from the Ohio article that belongs in this article and isn't here already. A merge is much easier than a restoration of a bad article that would need to be pruned with a chainsaw. R. fiend (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That shadowbox link isnt going to fly with me. I went to great lengths to get that purged from the vote suppression article because it is an unreliable, self-published source. Likewise with the graphs, also from shadowbox, also unreliable.

the provisional ballot section is sourced ok, but the text of it is highly misleading. At its heart, this is about a lawsuit that could be covered better here [6] and linked from this article, in my opinion, anyway. I guess i should mention that ive seen most of this information before, in the vote suppression article, and that is a point which needs to be stressed again, most of these articles are the same junk over and over. Remove the junk and what you have left is one or two points and a few links. Bonewah (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There seems precious little from the Ohio article that warrants being added here, and looking at the other articles they seem as bad or worse. The voting machines article is an unreadable mess, and mostly block quotes. The exit poll article could likely be summed up in one paragraph, and the vote suppression article seems to repeat much of the Ohio article, with all the same problems. The very idea of restoring these articles should be unthinkable. Expanding this article is a good idea, but using these articles is not the way to do it. R. fiend (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe as "unthinkable" an option that had the support of roughly half the editors who responded to the AfD. I also feel moved to point out, again, that the AfD did not resolve the dispute between those who believe that the articles have only "one or two points and a few links" that are properly encyclopedic and those who think there is much more in them that belongs in Wikipedia. Perhaps there's no other way to resolve that than via the extensive merging of disputed content into this article, followed by multiple simultaneous wrangles on this talk page. JamesMLane t c 15:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What half the editors in an AFD said is of little consequence if it contradicts the core policies of Wikipedia, and most of the content of the articles in question does. Now, I think I pretty well outlined the Ohio article above. If I'm wrong, point out where. If I summed up the situation accurately, then we're looking at a merge of a few paragraphs into this article, which can be done uncontroversially at any time. If there is, as you say, "much more in them that belongs in Wikipedia" then merge it into this article, or at least point out what it is. So far no one has, after repeated requests to identify this phantom information. Can you point out specific paragraphs or section from the Ohio article that belong in this article and that are not covered already? R. fiend (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there have indeed been "repeated requests" that we resolve the content dispute by taking content from all the other articles piece-by-piece and adding it here. I've also repeatedly explained why I think that's a bad procedure. It would be very inefficient. Unfortunately, so would the principal alternative, namely the DRV (followed by proper editing of each individual article).

I agree with you that the core policies of Wikipedia must be honored. Those policies aren't self-executing, however. Reasonable editors can (and frequently do) disagree as to whether a particular phrase, paragraph, section, or article is acceptable. JamesMLane t c 16:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's any help this is a very rough idea of what the Ohio article were to look like if even just minimal changes were made. Removing all unsourced and poorly sourced statements, POV, and irrelevancies. About half the length of the article was the stupid timeline of events that basically added nothing. I was going to leave in the big section on Individuals and Organizations, but not only was there very little relevant material there, what was there was horribly dated, discussing actions that will be taken in December, 2004. That should give some idea of how carefully these articles have been maintained. What's left is largely included here already, as I stated. even then, it's still a mess. R. fiend (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a help, although when I've done something like this I've begun by copying the entire original article into the "example" page, so that people can see the deletions without having to do a back-and-forth comparison. Just sticking with the Franklin County example, Fitrakis writes:

The Columbus Dispatch confirmed an Election Day Free Press story that far fewer voting machines were present in predominantly black Democratic inner-city voting wards than in the recent primary election and the 2000 presidential election, with their lighter turnouts. The reduced number of machines caused voters to wait up to seven hours and wait an average of approximately three hours. One Republican Central Committee member told the Free Press that Damschroder held back as many as 200 machines and dispersed many of the other machines to affluent suburbs in Franklin County.

In your version that appears as "the county sparked particular attention due to allegations that lines were disproportionately long in poor and African-American communities." I don't see this as adequate. Saying that there were "allegations" without noting any of the evidence cited in support makes the allegations seem fringe or purely partisan.

More broadly, do you see your example as a prototype for an "Ohio" section in this article, or as a prototype for a re-created Ohio article? JamesMLane t c 17:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think enough of the Ohio article is redundant with this one that it is unnecessary to have both. Besides, my trimmed example is short enough to be merged with this one, in any case. If it were expanded enough (and by expanded I do not mean reinserting the crap I cut, but getting relevant expanded information from reliable sources) I could see justification for a separate article, but there is quite a ways to go before that needs to happen. Additionally, I don't like the organization of the old articles. They should either be done by issue (voting machines, suppression, etc) or by geography (Ohio, elsewhere), but to do both is to repeat too much. If there are to be separate articles, my preference is for based on issue, with Ohio featured most prominently in each of those articles (likewise I prefer Ohio to be covered within the existing sections in this article, rather than an Ohio section, but that's my personal preference). However, lest we put the cart before the horse here, I see no imminent reason for separate articles, given what we have so far.

As for the insufficient statement in my version about the long lines, that's verbatim from the original. I may have removed the Fitrakis quote if it was unsourced, but from a quick scan of the very long original I didn't notice it there. If it's cited I likely wouldn't have any problem with its inclusion. -R. fiend (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also say that, as above, if, and i stress if, we were to split these things back up, doing so by issue makes more sense. In any event, we should try and put them all here first because if, as i believe, there is too little information there to warrant a separate article, then we would be done. If there is too much information to fit in this article, we will at least have everything we need to write a summary and perform the split. I dont think anyone is opposed to multiple articles per se, just multiple articles as a vehicle to avoid wiki's rules. Weather we have one article or multiple ones, the only way we are going to get there is to filter out the junk and deal with what's left. Bonewah (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On R. fiend's organizational point, I oppose unnecessary repetition, but I wouldn't make a fetish out of that consideration. Some readers will want information about vote suppression, wherever it occurred. Other readers will want information about the problems in Ohio, of whatever nature. Having two separate articles, with the material on vote suppression in Ohio repeated, is better than forcing all these readers to wade through one mammoth article that has quite a bit they don't want.

On Bonewah's procedural point, my objection, obviously, is that we already have everything we need to write the summary; indeed, we already have the summary. Do you really want to add in Ohio stuff to this article, fighting about specifics for inclusion or exclusion, then use it to create a new article and restore this one to its summary status? while simultaneously engaging in edits and talk-page threads about disputed material in all the other articles? That's the roundabout procedure that seems wrong to me. If, instead, we re-created the Ohio article as it stood before the AfD, then R. fiend could edit it by removing the material s/he finds objectionable, explaining the edits on the talk page for that article. (I note again that no one made such edits to the Ohio article before the AfD, which, to my simple mind, would have been the obvious way to proceed if there were objections to the sourcing of some of the content.) JamesMLane t c 22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes James, i really want to add in all the Ohio stuff thats encyclopedic then split it off if its too large. Your avoiding the real issue here, there is no real information to include. Look, if you really want to end this argument then prove me wrong, include all the really encyclopedic information from the Ohio article and lets just see how big everything gets. As for the claim that i never edited the Ohio article, while technically true, isnt relevant. I edited the nearly identical vote suppression article, which leads me back to my point, show me the encyclopedic, non-redundant information from those articles and lets talk specifics, rather then spilling much ink on how we should, or should have proceeded. Bonewah (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you did edit that article. By this edit, with an ES of "Blogs still not reliable", you removed several passages, including some that were cited to the Plain Dealer, the Guardian, and the Free Press. Kevin Baas restored all the material, including some that really was cited to blogs. You and Kevin got into a long, detailed discussion on the talk page about one of your points of difference, namely whether Wikipedia should present in chart form data that the Ohio Department of State provided in tabular form. You two had made little progress toward reconciling your differences when the process was cut off by the AfD.

I have no reason to believe that either of you has had a change of heart about the material removed by that edit. Kevin probably still wants it all in, you probably still want it all out, and I'd want some of it in and some of it out. That's why my preference is to re-create the article and hash it out there. If the end result is an article that's so short that it could easily be merged here, fine, we could do it then, and without an AfD process.

This messy business about differences of opinion is what you slide past when you write, "Look, if you really want to end this argument then prove me wrong, include all the really encyclopedic information from the Ohio article and lets just see how big everything gets." What constitutes "really encyclopedic information" is not self-evident. General standards must be applied to specific facts. Reasonable people can differ. It's not some kind of simple clerical process. JamesMLane t c 02:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well jeez, james, would you like to talk about vote suppression? I mean, we have a whole discussion section dedicated to what i thought should be taken from that article. How about Ohio, can we talk about the subject of this subsection, because I will James, if you want to talk specifics about that article, ill do it. Voting machines? We now have both a discussion section on that, and a new participant! Lets go down there and talk about what should and should not be included vis-a-vie voting machines. Come on, James, what is it going to take to get you to talk about the actual subject of this article? You say What constitutes "really encyclopedic information" is not self-evident, but surely its evident to you, right? Share with us what is and what is not encyclopedic. You say reasonable people can differ, but how can we, James, if you wont even discus the material at hand? Hell, i welcome a disagreement, so long as its about the actual article and related subject matter, but can we please just get past the AfD? Bonewah (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If you favor merging all these articles into one, feel free to go ahead and start merging. I said in April that I wasn't stopping you. I repeat now that I'm not stopping you. As I've explained several times, though, I'm reluctant to try to talk about the specifics of vote suppression and Ohio and electronic voting machines and exit polls all on one talk page, discussing an article that will feature simultaneous edit disputes on all these topics. As I've also explained, I'm reluctant to undertake a lot of work that will, in large part, eventually have to be undone (IMO). My current inclination is to wait a bit to see what kind of merger the pro-merger faction produces. For the moment, I'm even going to refrain from reverting those of the anon's changes that are clearly wrong. JamesMLane t c 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that we in favor of a merge/rediect should be the ones to merge. Fine then. As one such person, I consider the merger to be complete. It was complete before the AfD even began, really. It was done when various users attempted to make one decent article out of the monstrosity that was this mass of crap of several articles, all basically the spawn of one user with an axe to grind and time on his hands. I believe you were one of the people who made this one decent article, and thank you for that, but by all appearances when that happened you salvaged about the only good information from that multi-mega-byte rambling travesty. In my Ohio example, I got what was a 53+ KB article down to less than 10. Probably half to a third of that 10 KB is already included in this article. Of the remaining 5+ KB probably another third to a half of that is not important enough to the topic to warrant inclusion, though, as it's sourced and meets the bare minimum criteria, that is certainly open to discussion. So we're probably looking at an merger of a few KB of material into this article. And you're worried about it getting too long and having to be broken out again? Is there enough reliable information out there to write a separate articles for some of these topics? Maybe. But not from their previous incarnations. Any such article would basically have to be written from scratch. Restoration of old articles is not part of the process of writing new ones. Expanding this article is the way to go. If by chance it does get too long, we can worry about separating it out then. That's a long way off. R. fiend (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your clarity and honesty. You're saying that you're treating the AfD result of "merge and redirect" as being the functional equivalent of "delete". That's completely consistent with the position you took in the AfD discussion. Given your position, I agree that you're under no obligation to perform a more substantial merger. JamesMLane t c 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could call it a "functional equivalant" to an extent, yet it is not a delete in that nothing has been deleted. It remains in the history and acceptable parts can be merged (though they have yet to be indentified). Here's one thing I could consider, though I can't speak for anyone else: restoration of the Ohio article to the expurgated version of my example (or something very similar) something along the lines of my heavily abridged example, from there you and other users can build it up to the article you envision. This would not be restoration as it existed just prior to the AfD, I have to stress. I think we need to start small and build up, rather than start big and tear down, and I cannot condone restoration of an article that everyone (with one exception) agreed ranged from highly problematic to a travesty. At least 4 very long articles were in need of complete overhaul for 4 years, and I'm simply not going to buy "oh they'll be fixed this time! Really!" Now, if we can get a consensus to install the highly abridged version, it would be with the understanding that it can be merged with this if it is not of sufficient length to warrant its standing alone, once redundancies with this one are taken into account. If that works we can follow a similar plan with the other articles. We should also discuss organization, as some of us feel an article on the problems in Ohio would be redundant with an article on the specific problems through the country. R. fiend (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation for "hacking"

An anon has demanded a citation for the reference to "hacking" of voting machines.

96.241.120.84, you're evidently new to Wikipedia (welcome, by the way!) and you aren't aware of the unique problems that have afflicted our coverage of the 2004 elections. This was originally a summary article. Details, including citations, were provided in a different article, 2004 United States presidential election controversy, voting machines. Some users argued for merging that article into this one. The admin who closed the discussion favored that outcome and directed a merger, but then the people who'd been calling for merger didn't do it.

On this particular point, it's very easy to find citations. There are quite a few in the detailed article that's now readable only in the history (see, for example, this version). For example, "a cadre of computer scientists showed a year ago that the software running Diebold's new machines can be hacked with relative ease." [7]

In general, we don't put citations in the introductory section, anyway. Uncited material can remain in the introductory section if it's a fair summary of material that appears in the body of the article (where it should be appropriately supported).

The immediate practical problem is that there's a great deal of information in the former text of 2004 United States presidential election controversy, voting machines that's not now available on Wikipedia except to those of us insiders who know to go digging in the page history of a redirect. If you look at the preceding threads on this talk page, you'll see extensive discussion of that situation (focusing on Ohio but that was just one example). JamesMLane t c 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I wouldn't call it a "demand" as much as a request. The issue I take with the content is that there are a few implications here that are somewhat inaccurate. First, the implication that "hacking" did occur is entirely without refernce (scientific study is not a source for actual hacking). Second, the "especially those employing electronic voting" bit (which is what I initially took issue with) is really not correct. The source references potential hacks with a paper based optical scan system, so it's at best misleading. --96.241.120.84 (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

First, the article doesn't assert that hacking occurred; it asserts that the issue was raised. Second, as to the Mother Jones story, that reference was one I grabbed quickly from skimming the quasi-secret article. There may be better ones in that article, though I dispute your specific objection; our article on Electronic voting expressly includes optical-scan voting systems, an inclusion that accords with common usage.

The real problem is that this article was written to summarize the other articles, which is where the citations and detailed explanations can be found. As I noted above, there's one school of thought that calls for going through that article (2004 United States presidential election controversy, voting machines) and merging it into this one. Another school of thought (mine) says that would be a terrible idea. The underlying problem is a disagreement about how much of the material in that article is properly encyclopedic. If you choose to take a stroll through this minefield, one way you could begin to do so would be to follow the link and decide how much of what's in that article is, in your opinion, proper Wikipedia content. JamesMLane t c 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If your looking for something other then the potential for wrongdoing, the article linked there will be painful to you. The reason it got deleted in the first place is because it is just a house for speculation and conjecture. By all means, read that article, and if you find anything noteworthy, include it here or this article. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[this] article from the voting machines article is worth saving, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This article talks about what Ohio thinks of electronic voting machines today. Could also be useful. Bonewah (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting machine security Could be used as well. Bonewah (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Skimming over the voting machines article (that thing is basically unreadable) it seems that the vast majority of it is not about the 2004 election, but about the machines and the companies that make and use them (it's also mostly block quotes, which is poor form). If such information belongs anywhere, it's in an article on electronic voting in general, and if that gets too long, a separate article on the controversies around this new technology (if there isn't one already). It seems that an overview of these machines and claims they affected the outcome of the 2004 election would not be difficult to incorporate into this article, without all this detail about the machines and companies themselves. Likewise with the exit polling article, is there really all that much more to say than that exit polls are usually very accurate, but were substantially off in 2004, and some people think the polling was done poorly, while others see it as a sign of election fraud (with some specifics thrown in, off course)? How much good information is there in these articles that actually pertains to the 2004 election? R. fiend (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bonewah wrote, "The reason it got deleted in the first place is because it is just a house for speculation and conjecture." The AfD did not resolve any of the content disputes about whether specific statements in the article complied with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (If you meant your statement solely as a characterization of the motives of those favoring deletion, however, then it's probably correct.) JamesMLane t c 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems maybe we're getting a little off track. The general public usually does not understand that both punch card systems and paper ballot opscan systems fall under the term "electronic voting" (hence my claim of misleading). Regardless though, the claim that these issues of accuracy, reliability and "hacking" are wholly unfounded. Impirical studies have shown non-electronic voting machines to be hugely inaccurate unreliable. This is not a question of whether you think electronic voting is good or bad, it's simply the accuracy of WP. --96.241.120.84 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So your issue is (at least in part) the use of the term "electronic voting" to refer to new touch-screen systems, when it actually means all voting systems with electronics? Im all for taking out the offending sentence or changing it to read "newer" in there. Bonewah (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to say (and obviously doing a poor job of it) is that there were very significant issues "newer" and "older," electronic and non-electronic voting systems. Ohio which might have been the breaking point in the 04 election was primarily using a paper punchcard system, which people went to jail over. The "especially" bit is not necessary and largely inaccurate. --96.241.120.84 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

96.241, you need to read WP:NPOV if you haven't already. We're not going to write this article so as to say, in effect, that there's a controversy but this side is right and that side is wrong. We can report facts about opinions -- so-and-so expert says the claims are wholly unfounded -- but we do so in a balanced way, reporting all significant opinions, not just those favored by Wikipedia editors. Furthermore, we report the opinions without adopting any of them. The article is simply not going to assert that some people raised wholly unfounded claims about electronic voting machines.

Furthermore, you should bear in mind that this article isn't about whether electronic voting is superior or inferior to other methods. It's about controversies that were raised concerning the 2004 vote. If there were controversies raised about non-electronic voting machines, we can include that information here. Generalized discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting belongs in the Electronic voting article, however, except to the extent that a summary may be necessary to explain a particular 2004 controversy. (The Electronic voting article currently discusses both the advantages and the disadvantages of such systems, but I'm sure that the discussion could be improved.)

With regard to what Bonewah calls "the offending sentence", I think that its current wording is an apt summary of the issues that were raised about the 2004 vote. Some of the criticisms targeted optical-scan ballots, but some referred to other forms of electronic voting.

As for "especially", here again we hit the problem that this article is a summary. That comment is a fair summary of the material that can't now readily be read. The article certainly makes clear that there were problems other than those related to electronic voting, but in terms of issues that were raised concerning the voting methods, most of them were about electronic voting. Also, I'm restoring "hacking" because the term is widely used; note that "hacked" is in the Mother Jones article. JamesMLane t c 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Instead of the Mother Jones article, I used a couple of the sources from the original articel: [8] and [9]. You'll note that the latter refers specifically to touch-screen voting, to clarify that the problem isn't limited to op-scan machines. (By this edit I'm just augmenting the problem that we have citations in the introductory section, which is not the best setup, but we can fix that when and if the much larger problems of our election coverage are addressed.) JamesMLane t c 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There still is the matter of the word, especially, as in, electronic voting is more prone to error then non-electronic. Bonewah (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is saying "especially" is inaccurate and no sources support that. If anything "especially" should be added to jurisdictions using punch card systems. --96.241.120.84 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

96.241, you appear somewhat overzealous in protecting Diebold here. The article doesn't say that these systems are especially vulnerable. It says that these were the issues raised. Well, that's a simple fact. I'm not aware of intense controversy from 2004 concerning lever voting machines. To say "especially" or "notably" and then provide a laundry-list of different types of electronic voting systems is much less helpful to the reader. At some point, I hope, that detailed information will be in the body of the article and this introductory section can go back to being an introductory section. JamesMLane t c 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

JamesMLane, your awareness aside, I too hope more detailed information can be included in the body of the article, but I also hope the introductory section will remain accurate. I have absolutely nothing positive to say about Diebold. My zealousness is for WP accuracy. --96.241.120.84 (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exit poll article is almost worthless

The exit poll article is worthless except for this link. Use this section if anyone else feels there is something worth saving. Bonewah (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also a CNN article. Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to review the whole article now, but a quick glance reveals: the Freeman study, the Morris comment, Mitofsky's explanation, the difference between raw data and weighted data, and Mitofsky's refusal to release the former. JamesMLane t c 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And what would that do? Reinforce the statement that "Expert opinion was divided concerning what implications should be drawn from the cited discrepancies." We're not going to cover every theory on the internet because the most that can be proven is people disagree. Dont forget WP:NOTE Bonewah (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are many points (on non-election-related subjects) on which people disagree and we can't prove which side is right. Yes, we could just tell our readers that "experts disagree". It's more useful, however, to go beyond that, by summarizing each side's arguments and noting the facts that each invokes in support of its positions. JamesMLane t c 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, things have to be notable to be included in wiki. Lets just link to some of the papers at the end. If people really care what this weblog and that weblog had to say, they can follow up themselves. Bonewah (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this controversy should be covered in Wikipedia in accordance with general Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices. I oppose making exceptions in either direction. JamesMLane t c 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTE. "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines.

Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."

The only reliable sources from that article all the say the same thing: nothing to see here. Bonewah (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The requirement is not for verifiable objective evidence of the accuracy of one side's contentions. The requirement, as you yourself have quoted it, is for "verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability". The article in the New York Times says, in effect, that a lot of people have raised this issue but they're all moonbats. That's objective evidence of notability. Anyway, if the subject were not notable, then the outcome of the AfD would've been deletion, and I've been told on this page that the outcome of the AfD was not deletion. JamesMLane t c 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Come now James, how much coverage do you think this really needs? I have no problem linking to some highlights, but documenting the ramblings of weblogs is not wikipedia's job. Bonewah (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the continuing controversy over the 2004 election constitutes "a short burst of news reports", then you and I are pretty far apart in our assessment of the situation. Just to mention two points that occur to me off the top of my head: The article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?", appeared in 2006; and, as I noted above, a book just about the Ohio controversies came out earlier this year. Neither of these sources falls in line with the "nothing to see here" theme. JamesMLane t c 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As i said, I think its enough to link to the papers about the subject. The notability here is not about all the 2004 controversies, but rather the amount of space dedicated to exit polls. It is enough, in my opinion, to note the existence of some controversy and direct users to more information, which we have done here. People wanting more information can read the actual papers and decide for themselves. Bonewah (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply linking to papers about the subject is not our normal approach for reporting on controversy. If you look at the Shroud of Turin article, you won't find it saying simply, "The Shroud of Turin is a cloth venerated by many Christians as the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. (Links) Skeptics, however, consider it a medieval forgery. (Links)" Instead, the article summarizes each side's arguments and discusses which facts are agreed and which are disputed -- hardly a unique approach among Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects. That's why I argued above that the election controversy "should be covered in Wikipedia in accordance with general Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices. I oppose making exceptions in either direction." One problem that's affected these articles is that the principal sides -- the "Bush stole the election" editors and the "nothing to see here" editors -- have both apparently been subjected to the temptation to make exceptions.

I do, however, agree with your concern about "the amount of space dedicated to exit polls." To provide a thorough treatment of that topic would require that it be given considerable space, unbalancing this article (unless all other topics were treated comparably here, in which case this article would become too long). We'll have to ponder how we might resolve that difficulty. (OK, I admit that sarcasm is usually to be avoided, but skimming the RFK article left me more frustrated than usual about how much important information is currently missing from Wikipedia.) JamesMLane t c 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Shroud of Turin is well know for being controversial, here the controversy exists in the minds and blogs of a few. Notable enough for a mention and a link, but not much more, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting old. The article, including but not limited to the exit polling section, has multiple citations to mainstream media sources (some of which you added yourself, thus improving the article). There's also the Conyers report. There are other sources in the original article and in the 200+ footnotes to Kennedy's piece. There have been at least four books on the subject of the 2004 election problems (by Miller, Freeman/Bleifuss, Fitrakis/Wasserman, and Phillips). The ritual incantation of the word "blogs" at every opportunity will not change these facts. If you choose to continue to believe that the controversy exists only in the minds of a few, well, I probably can't say anything beyond what I've already said. JamesMLane t c 23:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Come now, I dont really have to explain WP:UNDUE to you. What more do you think should be added to this article, with regards to exit polling? Bonewah (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Come now, I don't really have to repeat things I've already said. Somewhere on Wikipedia (preferably, of course, not in this article), the reader should be able to discover the numerical bones of the critics' argument, the "reluctant responder" explanation offered by Mitofsky (surely a prominent spokesperson on matters of polling), the characterization of that explanation as "preposterous" by Zogby (also surely a prominent spokesperson on matters of polling), the Freeman study, the CalTech/MIT study, the criticism of the CalTech/MIT study based on the difference between raw data and weighted data, and Mitofsky's refusal to release the former. JamesMLane t c 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Addendum: Just to clarify, this comment doesn't change what I wrote two days ago -- that I haven't reviewed the whole article, and this list is compiled just off the top of my head. Mention of some points here doesn't mean I favor expunging from Wikipedia everything else in the original article. JamesMLane t c 11:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitofsky paper Caltech study Freeman study, I cant find the Zogby stuff.Bonewah (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick Brady critique MysteryPollster Bonewah (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Zogby stuff (just one comment) relates to the explanation propounded by the "nothing to see here" crowd. They explain the discrepancy between exit polls and official results by saying that the official count was right and the exit polls were wrong. That compels them to come up with some sort of explanation for this sudden and unprecedent collapse in exit-poll accuracy:

According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd -- displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry's favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.

Industry peers didn't buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation's leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky's "reluctant responder" hypothesis is "preposterous." (from the RFK Jr. article)

This matters because, if the exit polls were indeed as accurate as they've been in the past, then the official count was wrong. We should report the facts about both Mitofsky's opinion and Zogby's opinion. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem writing a summary of the exit polling data. It should take one or two paragraphs and link all the stuff i put above. Im not going to write up some conspiracy theory about corrected numbers vs. uncorrected numbers, nor are we going to wind up with an article saying the official count was wrong. We can say that exit polls are accurate if you like, after all, they successfully predicted Bush's victory, and were right in all the states they were used. We can detail to some extent the claims made in the reports above, as they, by in large, deal with both corrected and uncorrected numbers and explain their own points. But i dont see the point in detailing an elaborate conspiracy theory just because RFK, jr believes it. Bonewah (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You've reinforced my conviction that there's not much point in further discussion between us. We're just too far apart. If by "conspiracy theory" you mean the claim that the exit poll numbers that were released publicly were corrected to conform to the official count, I don't know of any reliable source that contradicts that claim. If you can find one we should certainly include it. My understanding is that such "correction" is the standard practice in the industry, but maybe I'm wrong. There are also numerous reliable sources contending that the exit polls did not "successfully predict Bush's victory", but rather predicted a Kerry victory. That's precisely why the discrepancy arose that Mitofsky then felt compelled to try to explain. Again, if you can find a reliable source that says Mitofsky was wrong and there was no discrepancy, let's report that view, too.

I of course agree that the article should not say that the official count was wrong. It should report that point of view (for which Kennedy is a prominent spokesperson) without adopting it. Nor should the article adopt the opposing point of view that the official count was correct and that any contention to the contrary is a conspiracy theory. JamesMLane t c 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, i dont believe that we are that far apart. At least not so far as to end discussion. As far as I know, correcting the polling numbers based on the official count is standard practice. Fine, so far. We already have some links that claim the exit polls did not successfully predict Bush's victory, again, fine. My problem starts when, as you say, "Nor should the article adopt the opposing point of view that the official count was correct and that any contention to the contrary is a conspiracy theory." this is undue weight. To the best of my knowlege, the democratic party doesnt hold that opinion, John Kerry doesnt hold that opinion, the news networks that subscribe to Mitofsky dont hold that opinion. Lets just link to the RFK piece (and freeman paper) and let the readers decide for themselves, rather then recap all the "Everything was rigged except the pre-corrected numbers which kinda show Kerry leading" theories. Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with reporting whatever can be reliably sourced concerning prominent spokespersons (such as the media corporations) that disagree with Kennedy. (Make sure any Kerry quotation is up-to-date. I have the vague impression that, a considerable time after the election, he intimated that the charges had more substance than he had at first thought, although I don't think he outright agreed that the election was stolen.) I still completely disagree with your approach of merely giving links and letting the reader try to wade through the material. This isn't Google or dmoz. If you're concerned that a full development of the point in this article would give it undue weight, then you might consider the approach stated in the actual policy concerning undue weight: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

Perhaps, though, we are making some progress in determining whether it is indeed "a tiny minority". You've progressed from "we shouldn't cover something that's supported only by bloggers" to "we shouldn't cover something that's supported only by bloggers and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr." Perhaps at some point we can discuss whether Wikipedia should cover something that's supported by bloggers, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the authors of other magazine articles, the authors of several books, academic studies, pleadings in lawsuits, the Conyers report, etc. We have a ways to go but, if you're at least inching away from the "bloggers" mantra, that's a start. JamesMLane t c 19:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess if we are offering up insults disguised as compliments, then I note that you've gone several posts where you actually talk about the subject and without whining about the AfD, i take that as progress. Would you care to link the updated Kerry opinion on the matter? That would be a useful link here, i would think. When you say this is included in pleadings in lawsuits, do you mean lawsuits that actually went somewhere, or meaningless PR suits like Moss v. Bush? When you say academic reports, do you mean other then listed already? Also, what do you think of my first attempt at a re-write? Bonewah (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, you really should read Blumental's analysis of RFK's article. Again, im not sure how much of all this should be in Wikipedia, but if you are convinced of RFK's correctness, its worth understanding the counter-arguments. Bonewah (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've mentioned the lawsuits and the Kennedy article as indicia of notability. We keep coming back to this point -- you think the critics' theories lack merit, and that that's a reason not to report them in detail. I believe that we should report on notable controversies, even if some Wikipedia editors think one side is clearly wrong. Indeed, even if you, R. fiend, Kevin Baas, and I all agreed that the critics were moonbats, that wouldn't affect by one iota the notability of the dispute. For that reason, my opinion, like yours, is largely irrelevant. (If you're curious, though, my opinion is that it's hard to reach any sound conclusion on this subject without access to the raw data. The Judiciary Committee should hold hearings and subpoena the data. The evidence already available suffices to show the existence of, at the minimum, a legitimate subject of inquiry. The critics are not all moonbats.)

As for what you've done so far, it's information that certainly should be available on Wikipedia. (Just in case you overlooked it, by the way, the 96.241 anon removed your statement that the revised CalTech/MIT paper used pre-corrected data. I believe that statement to be false, but I was willing to leave it in for a reasonable time with the "citation needed" tag.) I'm afraid I can't go into more detail about my reaction without forfeiting your recent praise for my lack of whining. With the limited time I have to devote to Wikipedia, I'm just not going to give a high priority to this area in its current form. You mentioned the NEP report, so I'll stick in the information about one main point of contention there, but I still don't feel motivated to try to edit this one article so that it includes all the information on the subject that should be in Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm fine with the change from "claimed." If memory serves this was the original language in the article, but regardless no harm intended. I've added back the bit about the updated VTP paper (with the citation needed) and clarified the authorship. That was an unintentional removal. I think the revised summary is accurate, concise and accurately covers both the facts of the situation as well as any controversy (without giving undue weight). --96.241.120.84 (talk)

We don't always stick precisely to source language if Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (such as Wikipedia:Words to avoid direct otherwise. The problem with "claim" is that it has a connotation of disbelieving the statement. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim. That's why I've removed it from the references to Freeman and to CalTech/MIT.

As for the current summary, it's accurate as far as I know (except for the sentence you've restored, which is probably bogus, but I don't object to restoring it to give Bonewah a chance to source it). Concise? Too much so -- this summary is nowhere near adequate to inform the reader about this dispute. JamesMLane t c 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Qualifications of a source

According to an edit summary by Bonewah, John Allen Paulos is "some random guy". Say what? He's some random guy who's a professor of mathematics (and being quoted on a mathematical subject), who's won an AAAS award, who's written several books, and who has a Wikipedia article. In fact, one of his books has a Wikipedia article. We're quoting a piece he wrote that was published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, a very well-known mainstream newspaper.

Which is to say, that I am opposed to knee-jerk dismissal of anyone who gives any credence to the allegations about the election. Paulos's qualifications are sufficient. I believe that the reference should be restored. (This particular reference is for what should be a totally noncontroversial point, anyway.) JamesMLane t c 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, he isnt really an expert on exit polling (exit polling and mathematics being different) and he doesnt really say anything about the implications of the exit polls, only why they might be off. But i dont think its worth getting worked up about, I mean, we're referencing Rolling Stone, at least this guy has a PhD. Bonewah (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)