Talk:2004 Washington gubernatorial election

message: Seems to me that it's rather POV to have two pages explicitly calling for a revote, and one that did in the past. I thought about linking to a particular SP post about the election, and adding a HorsesAss.org post from a similar time, but that didn't strike me as terribly encyclopedic.--SarekOfVulcan 23:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that SoundPolitics is the only organization that is doing active, verifiable research by posting public documents online. Are they POV? Who isn't? But their evidence is indisputable. Readers who want to be informed on what really happened need to read SoundPolitics. Jgardner 23:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ... --SarekOfVulcan 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion pages 

message: Looking at the link for Michael Nelson, I see that it's got nothing to do with the Libertarian candidate - the article is about a British footballer.  Being that this is my first time doing anything with editing wikipedia, I wasn't sure if I should edit it right out, or post this first and wait for someone of a higher authority (e.g. someone who has edited this article a lot!) to approve it...
Either way, I believe the link should be removed.
--Hoborocks 18:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Nelson? 

message: Until recently Dino Rossi had been tagged for cleanup since January of 2005.  I tried by best to clean it up, but it still is paltry.  Considering this article's featured status, shouldn't his article be a little more substantial? I would appreciate help in this from those who know. — Scm83x talk  04:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the guy's biggest accomplishment was losing an election, which ain't much.  he's a tiny historical footnote at this point.  Justforasecond 03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dino Rossi]] article 

message: I don't think that this article makes appropriate NPOV usage of the entities involved. Any instance of "Republicans" should be replaced by "The Republican Party" and any instance of "Democrats" should be replaced by "The Democratic Party". In my opinion, phrasing like "The Republicans did such and such" or "The Democrats did such and such" is too informal to be used, and the more appropriate long form should be used. Opinions? I made changes to the first paragraph before realizing that most of the article had these malapropisms. --Jeff 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no. Saying (for example) "the Republican Party" filed suit is not the same thing as saying "the republicans" filed suit. The former means specifically that the Republican Party was named in the lawsuit (when, in all likelihood, it was Dino). You are proposing to change it to something which is factually incorrect. Raul654 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'm not familiar with the intracacies. MAyhaps the instances of "the Republicans" and "the Democrats" should be replaced with the proper noun describing the person whom the sentence depicts, rather than the loose form. --Jeff 18:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it should be changed to Dino Rossi and his gang of goons, not left as "the (amorphous entity formerly known as) republicans"  Justforasecond 20:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of "Republicans" and "Democrats" 

message: I've never seen wikilinks from the bold part of an article, but in this case I expected to see, up front, some explanation of what a US State Governor is, and what and where Washington State is. I've added links from the first use of these terms after the bold bit, but the way the introduction has been written, these links come quite a few sentences into the article. Ideally, the terms would be linked sooner, IMO, but I can't work out how to tweak the wording to do this. Also, I wanted to link the term gubernatorial to an explanation. The best link on Wikipedia that I could find to explain "gubernatorial" was Governor#Etymology, but again, I can't find a suitable place to put this. Despite the word "gubernatorial" being used in the title, the word is only used twice more in the article, and is not explained at all! For lack of a better place, for now, I've linked the first use of the word "gubernatorial" to the Etymology link I provided above. Maybe a "See also" section should link to Governor#United_States and Governor#Etymology? These were the first questions that I asked on reading this article. I thought this was basic stuff, and was surprised to see such links or explanations missing from a featured article. Carcharoth 09:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, those links had occured earlier, must have gotten lost in the editorial shuffle somewhere. But I don't have any problem with the placement of Governor and Washington links, I think they're immediate enough to serve the purpose.  Though I agree in regards to gubernatorial, I would like to see a link for that placed in the intro, if there is a more informative link to be placed.  I didn't turn one up in a quick search, gubernatorial redirects to governor with no explanation on that page, and I don't think that etymology link really explains the term.  Gubernatorial is simply the adjective of governor, gubernatorial is to governor as presidential is to president, I suppose that's a bit that should be on the governor page somewhere, I'm not quite confident enough to determine where to place such a minor note though, I'll leave it up to someone else if its deemed needed. Gheorghe Zamfir 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just after posting, I thought of checking the page history. Should have checked it first. Earlier versions do include the links. I did find an entry on wiktionary for gubernatorial, though it is essentially the same information as the other link. A link to wiktionary can be done like this, I think gubernatorial, so maybe that could be used instead? Carcharoth 11:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also an earlier link to Governor of Washington, which redirects to a list of Governors of Washington. I think the Manual of Style says the entire phrase (here, "Governor of Washington") should be linked if possible, and people can then follow the links for governor and Washington from that list. I'll make the change, and change the link at Governor of Washington to go to the US governors bit of Governor. Carcharoth 11:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinks in bold part? Explaining "gubernatorial". 

message: What does that mean, saying they "ran to the store to get milk?" -Litefantastic 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that anywhere.  Must have been some random vandalism. In colloquial American English, it means the speaker was gone for a short time.  Ted 17:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Running to get milk?

message: I think that this is a very bad idea to put such a vandal and conspiracy prone article on the front page of Wikipedia. We in Washington State have been listening to the rants and conspiracy theories about our close but legal election for years now and having this article in a high profile and unlocked is going to bring about a whole new wave of vandalism.
--8bitJake 18:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also live in Washington, and I see no objection to having the article on the front page. I note that, despite much argument, and many hard words, there has been no noticable violence.  In how many locations, countrywide and worldwide could that be so? Too Old 02:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here come the freepers. 

message: What is this statement trying to convey?
:"Conservative columnists suggested that felons were more likely to vote for Gregoire, but most of the felon-voters resided in counties won by Rossi."
It is nice that it has citations, but I still don't follow the logic.  I think this is another ecological fallacy, which is ironic.  However, the statement that "most of the felon-voters resided in counties won by Rossi" is still useful in the next paragraph because it would be in opposition to the Republican's "proportional reduction" plan (in the argument building up to the ecological fallacy).  Or am I just reading this wrong? Burzum 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure the cited source supports the claim that most felons resided in counties won by Rossi.. The Horse's Ass cite says over 900 felons were submitted by the Republicans and the Dems submitted a list of 750ish felons. At most the cite says the margin between Rossi and Gregoire might increase, but that does not mean that most lived in counties Rossi won. Many of those felons could reside in counties Gregoire won, but in precincts she lost. *shrug*  All in all, could definitely do with a rewrite. --Bobblehead 00:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was an attempt to misdirect people.  The Secretary of State removed nearly 1000 felons that they have verified as illegal from the statewide database in June.  More are being further researched for possible deletion. It doesn't matter who you THINK illegal voters voted for, it is the fact that they were allowed to vote, and that the clearly illegal votes were counted, that is the real issue. If that illegal voter was Democrat, Republican, or Independent doesn't matter.  The fact that one party wants to keep allowing them to vote does. --Coz 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentially misleading statement

message: Please explain to me how the following, added as the only edit by , is not linkspam:
* WA Gov series - day-by-day, county-by-county analysis of the vote count and recounts on DailyKos, by "N in Seattle" (also summarized on his Peace Tree Farm blog)
Thanks. -- Jonel | Speak 13:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wiki definition at Linkspam:  "the practice of deliberately and dishonestly manipulating search engines to increase the chance of a website or page being placed close to the beginning of search engine results, or to influence the category to which the page is assigned in a dishonest manner."   I went to the dailykos page -- it seems to be all about the election.   Where's the dishonesty there?  Is this really an attempt to manipulate search engine results?  Justforasecond 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was using linkspam with the idea of "links that are added to promote a site" in violation of the Wikipedia:External links guidelines.  Sorry for any confusion over terminology.  In this case, the links are also in conflict with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as unattributed (to a real name), personal, partisan websites.  -- Jonel | Speak 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspam

message: I'd like to change the title to conform to what I see as a naming standard for elections like this.  My proposed title is "Washington State Gubernatorial election, 2004".  Comments?  Chadlupkes 19:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which naming standard are you referring to? Most other gubernatorial elections have '<State> gubernatorial election, 2004' In the case of 'Washington State' it seems to be wiki standard to refer to the state as simply Washington and to have other political breakdowns fully written out, such as Washington, D.C., Washington County, Washington, Arkansas, etc. --Bobblehead 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a formal standard, or is this just an adopted convention?  Chadlupkes 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just point you to the Washington discussion page. The topic has gone round and round and referring to the state simply as Washington has won out.--Bobblehead 04:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible move? 

message: seems like the %ile map is better than the map up top.   unlike the presidential election, this isn't winner take all.    the %ile map is still flawed, since it doesn't show how many people live in each county, but its better than the other.
Justforasecond 18:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking both are equally uninformative without the population, but if you want to switch their positioning I don't see why that would be a problem.--Bobblehead 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I left a note on the image creator's talk page. Thanks for noticing the error. --Bobblehead 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  maps 

message: This is one of the more interesting aspects of this election, if you ask me, and it's (a) buried awfully deeply in this article, and (b) there's a sentence inserted in the middle of it all that doesn't make any sense to me whatsover:
:Furthermore, in precincts with voting machines that were repaired within two weeks of the election, Rossi had a touch screen advantage in 56 out of 58 (96.6 percent). The average margin for Rossi at these polling places was 11.58 percent more favorable than the absentee votes, and averaged 10.8 percent more than Gregoire on Election Day. However, the Republicans countered this by stating that among 90 precincts with no reported machine problems, 44 had touch screen vote counts more favorable to Rossi than the paper ballots from the same precinct, while 46 had a touch screen count that favored Gregoire. This raises serious questions as to whether the machines requiring repairs were tampered with to improperly assign votes to Rossi.
This is the sentence that I can't figure out: 
:However, the Republicans countered this by stating that among 90 precincts with no reported machine problems, 44 had touch screen vote counts more favorable to Rossi than the paper ballots from the same precinct, while 46 had a touch screen count that favored Gregoire.
Even if you grant that this is true, what does it have to do with the main point: How is it a "counter"?.  And why is it inserted immediately before this sentence: 
:This raises serious questions as to whether the machines requiring repairs were tampered with to improperly assign votes to Rossi.
The flow of logic in the paragraph is totally disjointed. 
-- Doom 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  evidence of tampering with touch screen machines 

message: I cannot seem to make any sense out of this sentence:
:"As the early results of the manual recount showed a single-digit vote lead for Gregoire, both sides expected the inclusion of the discovered ballots to increase their respective candidate's lead."
It seems unlikely that the Republicans expected any advantage from more King County votes, and if they did, why did they sue to have those votes restrained? Also, it would be illogical for each party to expect to increase their candidate's lead when only one candidate had the lead. I am inclined to delete the sentence rather than try to repair it. Can anyone defend it?--Geometricks 13:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  both sides expected? 

message: Rossi suing to get the election overturned, and losing 4 votes in the process -- 12.116.162.162 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define irony 

message: This article doesn't seem to comply with the featured article criteria any longer, particularly criteria 1c. While this article does have a reference section, 15 inline citations is woefully low and there are large swathes of the article that do not have any references at all. I'm going to start throwing sources in as appropriate and fixing some of the MOS issues, but I could definitely do with some assistance.  This article seems to be rather comprehensive in its coverage of the 2004 election, so it would be a shame to have to send it through WP:FARC for something as "minor" as poor sourcing. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly sourced 

message: the campaign section seems to be awfully slanted toward gregoire, especially in the first part of the section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide specific examples of why you feel the section is POV and ideally what you feel would make the section less POV in your opinion.  You can't just fling the POV tag on the section and then leave a single sentence saying you thin it is POV. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  campaign 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Washington gubernatorial election, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616084235/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com:80/html/localnews/2002145420_recount08m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002145420_recount08m.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Washington gubernatorial election, 2004. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525071425/http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0523/050608_news_electiondecision.php to http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0523/050608_news_electiondecision.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907012554/http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/Results/MeasuresByCounty.aspx?e=a3501711-c318-45f4-8a03-1d926ac839b7&m=372d3436-4b4e-407a-b1b4-30d2288e0566 to http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/Results/MeasuresByCounty.aspx?e=a3501711-c318-45f4-8a03-1d926ac839b7&m=372d3436-4b4e-407a-b1b4-30d2288e0566
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820072352/http://www.thestranger.com/current/city4.html to http://www.thestranger.com/current/city4.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724235340/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002108596_webgov03.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002108596_webgov03.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619040625/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/politics/webrejectedballots14.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/politics/webrejectedballots14.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211071956/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002128454_canvass23m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002128454_canvass23m.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201072212/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002210205_felons17m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002210205_felons17m.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706034924/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002319056_webverdict06.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002319056_webverdict06.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080804125213/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002284497_trialnotes.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002284497_trialnotes.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316035454/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003615329_mckay13m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003615329_mckay13m.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060220043630/http://vote.wa.gov/general/recount_resultsbycounty.aspx to http://vote.wa.gov/general/recount_resultsbycounty.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724161221/http://seattlepi.com/election2004/ to http://www.seattlepi.com/election2004/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180647/http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/election2004/ to http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/election2004/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060908092644/http://vote.wa.gov/general/ to http://vote.wa.gov/general/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050819101411/http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/scj/scj1.htm to http://www.co.chelan.wa.us/scj/scj1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion