Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 2

message: Perhaps have section that study particular states, such as Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvannia?
And speaking of Florida, how do we put this into the article?: Kevin Baas | talk 00:52, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
I am hugely supportive of that idea KB, I think even if lets say Diebold or Op-scan occurs in multiple states, the evidence we need to build will still be dependent upon calculating on a per-county basis of expected/registered voters versus actual votes and compare them to distribution of e-voting machines and types.  --kizzle 01:24, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Sure sounds like kizzle wants to do original research. No POV there of course. 216.153.214.94 03:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Case studies of states

message: Keith Olbermann reports "the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that officials in Warren County, Ohio, had “locked down” its administration building to prevent anybody from observing the vote count there.
Suspicious enough on the face of it, the decision got more dubious still when County Commissioners confirmed that they were acting on the advice of their Emergency Services Director, Frank Young. Mr. Young had explained that he had been advised by the federal government to implement the measures for the sake of Homeland Security.
Gotcha. Tom Ridge thought Osama Bin Laden was planning to hit Caesar Creek State Park in Waynesville."
I wanted to add this, but I'm not sure where it would go.  I think the layout of the page needs to be discussed, as I feel somewhat its starting to take a feel of randomness to it.  Any thoughts on whether it needs to be re-organized at all, and if so what it should look like? --kizzle 21:29, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
:I don't like the current organization very much.  I agree with you about the feeling of randomness.  One possibility would be to have one article about electronic voting machines and one article about all other voting controversies. They'd link to each other, of course, and the one about controversies in general would summarize the facts about voting machines, without presenting the maps or otherwise getting into such detail.  That would make it easier for readers to find specific topics.  If the subjects are all to remain in one article, the beginning should be rewritten; the quotation about machines should be moved down to the machines section, and the reader given a more general overview of the scope of the article. JamesMLane 21:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding incident + discussion of organizational layout 

message: As long as this article is titled "2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities", the acts of violence fall under this topic. 216.153.214.94 22:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The acts of violence you keep adding fall under the category of voter intimidation, which is already in the list of key issues. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did actual violence occur?  I know there were some republican challengers etc present, but didn't know anything about violence.  Pakaran. 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing reported inside voting places, all stuff cited was external to voting, though tangentially related. Zen Master 22:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts of violence 

message: Rex (216.153.214.94), please do not keep on adding stuff to the article when there's consent that your edits are inappopriate; rather, discuss your proposed edits here on the talk page. Thanks. -- Schnee 22:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This latest episode by Rex/216 has been added to the evidence in the arbitration proceeding.  See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Further misconduct as anon IP.  We've now entered our fourth month of adding evidence. JamesMLane 22:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So is there any reason to keep this locked?  Pakaran (ark a pan) 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: :(this section contains a LIST of reasonable edits to process once the PROT tag is removed. These are edits which have gained broad (> 50% but not necessarily 100%) agreement as reasonable by those who contributed and voted on them. It does not contain the edits, but just an indication what's been agreed)
http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/index.html - Judiciary democrats are starting to look into it.  Can this have consensus?  Or if not move it to another section, before I abuse my sysop privs and get impeached.  J/K Pakaran (ark a pan) 22:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff AGREED BY CONSENSUS to do, when PROT tag comes off

message: Not many people have chimed in on this issue, but my impression is that there's more agreement than disagreement about inserting the word "voting" to make clear that tax cuts and suspicious bulges aren't the kind of controversy being addressed here.  Also, inclusion of "irregularities" in the title seemed to have no strong defenders.  Accordingly, I'd like to move this article to "2004 U.S. election voting controversies".  I'll do so in several hours unless comments here indicate a need for further discussion. JamesMLane 21:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Phooey, I should've just done it instead of being collaborative.  Now this title is fixed until the protection ends. JamesMLane 20:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I happened upon this picture, which shows the correlation between states that "voted" for Bush, and the states where slavery was legal before the Civil War. I thought some of you might find this amusing. Lachatdelarue (talk) 23:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  on a side note 

message: *2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Florida
*2004 U.S. Election voting controversies, Ohio
Or should they be true subpages?
*/Florida
*/Ohio
(I already started Florida, so we'd have to delete it if we go true subpages route.) Kevin Baas | talk 21:14, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
:In my humble opinion we should keep the article one page until its eventual switch to more of a historical context.  Zen Master 21:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Subpages are deprecated (see WP:SP), so they shouldn't be used. -- Schnee 21:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New pages created

message: Someone is messing with the totallydisputed header image? Zen Master 23:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The stop hand totallydisputed image is BUSH? wtf 

message: I have requested this page be protected. Far too many reverts. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The dubious tags are a better option. If they don't get reverted I'll remove my request. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: dubious sounds good to me. Zen Master 07:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: In the section about Floridian tallies actually
going down for the democratic contender,
the candidate is given as "Gore". Whether this
is sneaky vandalism (and, no, I will not check
the history for it) or whether the whole quotation
and/or section is a spoof, it probably had best
be soonest mended by someone who gives a fig. 
-- Cimon 19:57, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
:I investigated and it turns out that quotation referred to the 2000 election, clarified it and changed header to "Recent historical election irregularities". Zen Master 20:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Might we aggree that it is Kerry not Gore in this election