Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 3

message: Just ran across this, we should add some of it to the page somehow, sorry it's so big:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=45003&mesg_id=45003
(full text removed.  Copyright status indicates this should not be copied here verbatim)
:Netoholic, you must take great pleasure in messing with what other people post, and frankly in total your behavior is unacceptable by a member of the wikipedia community even though this specific incident isn't that big of a deal.  Someone publically requesting comment and dissemination of their public research can not possibly be a copyvio, and I suspect the threshold for copyvio's on talk pages is much much much higher.  Do you even have a partial understanding of copyright law?  What about wikipedia's guidelines you love to errantly refer to?  You are by far the most trollish user I've seen in my admittedly relatively short time here on wikipedia (this is not an insult, if you disagree then by all means request arbitration, I dare you).  
:I would appreciate it if in the future you would post your issues first and wait for responses, rather than acting unilaterally, especially in regard to other user's posts on talk pages.  I would likely have removed the content myself if you asked nicely, I won't add the content back for now only because it is huge (if that was your real reason for removing it then you should have stated that reason from the beginning, in fact, you should always give your real reason for doing whatever you are doing [and you need more verbose, accurate checkin comments] rather than hide, as you do, behind obviously false accusations of wikipedia guideline violation). Zen Master 00:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed NC election result irregularities analysis 

message: With all of this alleged dependence on weblogs, & unverifiable internet sources (I'm using weasel words here because I haven't taken the time to trace every source quoted in the article), why hasn't anyone bothered to quote or cite Greg Palast, an investigative reporter who writes for the BBC & the Guardian? AFAIK, he's the prime source for material on this topic -- & I remember hearing him on Air America Radio not only set forth the evidence for incidents in both states on 3 November, but he also claimed that there were irregularities in New Mexico that were suppressed by the "So-Called Liberal Media". Some of his writings can be found on his website. -- llywrch 18:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good info, it should be added.  We've gotten bogged down just trying to keep the page alive.  There was a systematic effort to damage and delay improvement of the page by people uniterested in debate through: removing links to the page, listing images for deletion, claiming parts/all of it violate wikipedia policy but not debating detailed counter arguements (acting unilaterally in the belief the page is "all wrong"), listing custom header for deletion, vandalism attacks, revert wars and the VfD which is hopefully the last trick in the people that are against the article's bag.  Not to mention the more standard: lengthy talk page discussions, added text POV [in both direction] problems, structure and organizational disagreements, title disagreement and changes, etc. Zen Master 18:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greg Palast Info

message: We should add this info but I am not certain how and where.  Basically an electronic vote machine company gave 4 years free to Reno Nevada just prior to the election in August: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04490.html
Zen Master 10:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequoia Gives Away E Vote Machines in Swing State 

message: I've scraped a list of sources from here , and it currently resides at User:RyanFreisling/SourceDigest. Take a look! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Digest of News Sources

message: Removed Diebold’s election-systems division is run by a registered Democrat" and source URL , which points to an article on Diebold's site  which merely repeats the statement without naming the Democrat. if this passage refers to Radke, it can be re-insered and edited properly. Source? -- RyanFreisling @ 05:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Diebold's Registered Democrat

message: I made a correction. The 'dixiecrat' phenomenon is not part of the Caltech study. It is a valid issue, and belongs in the document, but not in that section. -- RyanFreisling @ 11:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it to the Intro Section  -- RyanFreisling @ 11:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dixiecrat

message: Just ran across this, we should add some of it to the page somehow, sorry it's so big:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=45003&mesg_id=45003
(full text removed.  Copyright status indicates this should not be copied here verbatim)
:Netoholic, you must take great pleasure in messing with what other people post, and frankly in total your behavior is unacceptable by a member of the wikipedia community even though this specific incident isn't that big of a deal.  Someone publically requesting comment and dissemination of their public research can not possibly be a copyvio, and I suspect the threshold for copyvio's on talk pages is much much much higher.  Do you even have a partial understanding of copyright law?  What about wikipedia's guidelines you love to errantly refer to?  You are by far the most trollish user I've seen in my admittedly relatively short time here on wikipedia (this is not an insult, if you disagree then by all means request arbitration, I dare you).  
:I would appreciate it if in the future you would post your issues first and wait for responses, rather than acting unilaterally, especially in regard to other user's posts on talk pages.  I would likely have removed the content myself if you asked nicely, I won't add the content back for now only because it is huge (if that was your real reason for removing it then you should have stated that reason from the beginning, in fact, you should always give your real reason for doing whatever you are doing [and you need more verbose, accurate checkin comments] rather than hide, as you do, behind obviously false accusations of wikipedia guideline violation). Zen Master 00:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed NC election result irregularities analysis 

message: *Overzealous reading list. 
*News, news news...  
:I don't see a problem with putting news sources like the reading list in the article. They contain lists of articles from verified sources. I'd say add them to the in the news section, or the 'other' section (since it's a digest). Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 23:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: still more info

message: :Significant portions of this article relate directly only to electronic voting and should be moved there. This would significantly reduce the size of this page, and allow the information pertaining directly to the 2004 Election controversies be covered here. Much of the background research provided here does not belong. In addition, the POV of what remains truly needs to be cleaned up.  --Radioastro 22:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what would happen after 2006 or 2008?  The article on electronic voting couldn't accommodate this level of detail about every election.  It should be a general overview of the subject.  It can refer to disputes in particular places in particular years, but only in summary fashion to illustrate a point.  The better solution would be to move a lot of this detail to a new article along the lines of 2004 U.S. election electronic voting controversies.  The current article would cover other kinds of voting controversies, and would include a summary of the EVM issues, with of course a link to the new article. JamesMLane 02:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There must have been some confusion, that is not what I meant, anything specific to a particular election would not be appropriate in the electronic voting article, I agree.  Just the "expert testimony" and the specific criticisms of electrionic voting machine companies and technology sections could be mostly moved there, nothing more than that.  Zen Master 17:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiastro's Merge Proposal 

message: The article is getting too big, too redundant and the organization unwieldy, I propose we create a new wikipedia article to the effect of "Criticisms of voting machines" or "Criticisms of Diebold voting machines" or "Criticisms of electonic voting machines" or all of the above.  With the titles to be decided by whoever actually creates those pages.  Note: those articles would be general/historical criticisms and not cover the 2004 election, that stuff would still belong in this article.  Zen Master 23:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: General material about electronic voting machines could go to the existing electronic voting.  That would leave behind anything about non-electronic voting machines, but that's not a problem.  What's making the article unwieldy is the huge amount of information that relates specifically to electronic voting machines in the 2004 election.  I think that's what should be spun off to a daughter article. JamesMLane 23:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to split part of page to new article "Criticisms of electronic voting machines" 

message: (dormant?)
Minus votes from the 12 or so states with data irregularities how many votes did bush and kerry each receieve?   Is there evidence of smaller degree of fraud/irregularity in the other 38 states?  Maybe I will perform that calculation myself.  Zen Master 22:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I want to do is for someone/me to create an election results chart per state that assumes the non weighted exit polls were correct (i.e. Kerry has 2% more of FL's vote than bush sp we should adjust the vote totals accordingly for this excersize).  What would the final vote counts look like if the exit polls were right?  Then we can compare the difference in % support for bush and kerry between the states with data irregularity and the rest (this could be interesting).  I.e. it might be suspicious if this unweighted data exit poll result chart showed bush and kerry with the same percentages nationally.  I.e perhaps the exit polling data will show Kerry received 52%+ in the 12 or so data irregularity states, and 52%+ everywhere else.  It will also be interesting to compare with 2000, 1996 and before. Zen Master 22:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margin in non-irregularities states? 

message: The addition of the NYT piece is valid. It is an important piece of the story. Not for it's assertions, but for it's existence. The media reaction to the reports of irregularities has, itself, been a story. And this editorial, not merely a commentator but the Sunday editorial of the NYT itself, is seen as an important event in the media response to the irregularities reported across the country.-- RyanFreisling @ 22:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NYT Opinion Pieces

message: You archived a new info sub section I just posted...?  Some of the other discussions were recently active... Zen Master 21:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  overzealous archivage? dormant?

message: Does anyone know where I can find any of the following?
#list of counties where op-scan (or any other diebold machine) is used in Florida and Ohio
#list of counties with democrat and republican registrations in Florida and Ohio (similar to Keith Olbermann's comparison)
#*you an get this from my overelaborate and data-packed ohio excel file. Kevin Baas | talk 22:54, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
#list of counties with no e-voting whatsoever
#*These, you can find on the EIRS site ,, and other sources as well. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We're all editors. I think that's a great idea! -- RyanFreisling @ 22:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Information

message: In addition the article is getting too long, and much of it is just "backing reference information".  Whilst this information is necessary for now, since there are multiple perceptions and uncertainty regarding much of the detailed information needed to review this controversy, and what information is sourced and verified versus rumour, I am concerned that the sheer volume is detracting from an encyclopaedic approach. I'd like to suggest with the archiving of much of the talk page, and the end of the VfD issue, that collaborators give serious consideration to siphoning a lot of the backing information into a separate article, "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy (summary of sources)".
Stuff that could go in there = most of everything that is "source material re-repesented" as opposed to "encyclopediac summary of the issues and information known at this time". 
The main article would then reference this sources article for much of its substantiation and detail.
Comments? FT2 17:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
:agree, we can move the text of the citations,to shorten the length. We may also want to move the news sources, etc. The certification stuff is great, but also a bit deep for the article. Likewise I think the discrepancy stuff can be cited, and the remainder cleaned and scrubbed, and 'exported' . We may see that some of the subsections translate nicely into subsections. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 22:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving/exporting background references