Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities
Part of the problem here is that the subject is really, REALLY personal for people.  This is akin to editing the Abortion article.  People believe very strongly that the 2004 election was hijacked by Bush et. al.  Consequently they try very hard to find sourced that agree with that feeling.  That is a problem, because it (obviously) violates POV, but it also leads to a shortage of sources in these articles.  Most academics aren't going to stick their necks out and suggest that Diebold delivered the 2004 elections to the republicans because that's not the kind of people they are.  They didn't get to be academics by making bold claims when the evidence didn't support it.  they got to be academics by amounting masses of evidence for tentative claims on limited subject areas.  Consequently, the academic research is going to be mixed.  However, that doesn't mean that there aren't other sources--reliable publications, films, and other non-academic sources--to be mined.  We are kind of stuck between people who didn't think that bush stole the election (and who consequently will label people who do as ) and people for whom the theft is glaringly obvious.  I don't think Phil is nominating these articles in bad faith.  there isn't any evidence to suggest that and no real motive--for that matter he has behaved exceedingly well in the face of accusations.  However, I don't share his view of the articles themselves and I think his words on the subject are instructive.  Consider the Estate_tax_in_the_United_States|Estate Tax.  Editors who add the "arguments against" section without the same demand for rigor as the rest of the article are ''shocked'' that the section is tagged for being unverified.  surely it is common knowledge that the estate tax is morally wrong, impacts farmers, etc.  One needs to only provide a hint out sources for these claims, just like the population of a town is sourced.  for them, the proposition is uncontroversial.  for people who think the debate over the estate tax is a republican canard, just the opposite is true.  None of this means that either side is wrong.  It means that we are going to have a rough time coming to consensus, but it isn't hopeless
— User:Protonk, 17:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)