Talk:2004 United States presidential election in Florida

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Merge controversies article

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

It seems as if the content of both of these articles should be in one place, preferably here, since this seems to be the "main" article discussing the 2004 Election in Florida. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think perhaps the article should instead/also be merged 'back' to the main irregularities article, 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's fine with me. However, I think this article should at least have a subheading with a few paragraphs devoted to the controversy along with a link to the main article. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I originally created this and the ohio article back when we had only one gi-normous article. My intent was to find a way to split up the content. into subarticles. now we have the machines-suppression-polls-legal actions break down which seems to work pretty well. I was actually hoping these articles would be deleted in the vfds, but i think merge is actually more ideal. this article predominately deals with vote suppression. i suggest merging this and ohio into 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression. I'm fine with the idea of a subheading and a few paragraphs, with a link. Kevin Baas^talk 17:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with Kevin_baas. See here for my answer (there is the same debate on the Ohio page).--Revas 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

To make sure there's no confusion: I suggested merging 2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida and 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio into 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression. In any case, we all seem to agree that there should be a subheading and a few short paragraphs on this page, w/an appropriate link. Kevin Baas^talk 18:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Alternatively, one could do the reverse and split/merge 2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression into 2004 United States election voting controversies, Florida and 2004 United States election voting controversies, Ohio. I never liked the redundancy. Kevin Baas^talk 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, i misunderstood, sorry, my English sucks...--Revas 18:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

No, it's my fault, and it's my bad english. I didn't suggest - i meant to suggest. I thought this was the talk page for the irregularities article when i wrote that. Let's start on a draft for the section and link in this article. Kevin Baas^talk 18:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Draft controversy section

Arbitration Motion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic