Talk:2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression

message: This page needs cleanup and NPOVing for reason stated on this page (see further down), as well as details mentioned at its VfD, which wre never addressed. -R. fiend 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: What do you think about replacing the Kerry Support vs. Turnout graph with this one? A scatter plot is the usual way to show correlation. And a weighted regression is really needed to determine whether
all those odd outliers in the lower-right quadrant of the graph are really significant.
rerdavies 06:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Machine shortages, Cuyahoga County

message: Does this sentence make sense: "This means that, where support for Kerry was high, the voters didn't turnout, for whatever reason"? If the voters didn't turn out, then how was support for Kerry "high"? We have no real data to use to gauge Kerry support except voter turnout. -R. fiend 2 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
:Voter registration, past voting history, pre-election polls. And most specifically, vote spread (kerry<->bush).  support for kerrry in contrast to bush. Kevin Baastalk: new 21:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: While the data may be cited, the presentation of the data is this format is indeed the orginal work of the artist who made the graphs. If those graphs have not been previously piblished by a reliable source, then then are a WP:RS violation. Please see the entry for How to Lie with Statistics and read the book. The manner of rpesentation of information for controversial topics is fraught is questions of validity. This is why we seek sources notable, reliable sources for the items we post. I strongly object to the use of these graphs. 216.239.38.136 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The graphs were not made for this site, and therefore are not original research.  I believe their sources are provided.  They played a significant role in the controversy (and still do). Kevin Baastalk 22:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying things like this, but unless you provide some sort of sources, your say-so really doesn't matter. Where did they play a significant role in the controversy? Who cited them? Phil Sandifer 22:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The graphs are a [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:RS]] violation 

message: Based on a review of the subject material current in the article, the name "2004 United States presidential election controversy, vote suppression" is not accurate. I move that this article be renamed "2004 United States presidential election, Ohio allegations". I say this because almost all the information (and certainly the great bulk of the disputed graphs) is about Ohio and allegations pertaining to complaints from there. 216.239.38.136 19:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, there already is a page on irregularities in Ohio.  Secondly, the use of the word "allegations" would be misleading, because there aren't very many allegations in the article.  It's mainly verifiable data. Kevin Baastalk 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name of the article is not accurate 

message: ...but unsurprising, that this article does not include the tire-slashing incident in Wisconsin, where Democratic activists, including a congress member's son, slashed tires of GOP get-out-the-vote vans.  A2Kafir 18:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprising because that incident did not result in the suppression of any votes.  And would it have, the number of votes suppressed would pale in comparison to any event listed in the article.  So yes, it is quite unsurprising that that is not in this article.  It is, however, in a somewhat more prominent place: the main article. (2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities)  However, I personally don't find the fact that it's not in this article all that interesting, given the reasons I just described. Kevin Baastalk 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting,... 

message: This section contains no real facts that are relevant here.  The section asserts that fraud could have happened, not that it actually did.  Additionally, the wording is a POV problem, in my opinion.  Why is it relevant that the sorters were ex-felons?  It looks like an attempt to bolster non-verifiable or non-factual opinions.  65.29.77.247 00:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant because it jeopardizes the reliability of the vote count.  Which is why it shouldn't happen.  I'm not even sure it's legal.  Kevin Baastalk 16:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are no claims that anything illegal happened here, just supposition that it could happen.  The linked article says that the states have audit procedures to check the vote counts.  Nothing here but supposition. Bonewah (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove subsection intitled Absentee ballots and Diebold (Postal issues) 

message: This section is just a press release for a lawsuit, why is it relevant? 65.29.77.247 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put back in.  It's relevant because it's about vote suppression, which is the topic of this article. Kevin Baastalk 16:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply filing a lawsuit does not mean that ones claims have any merit, this lawsuit was dismissed, so why is it relevant? Bonewah (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove subsection Voter registration in Ohio 

message: I feel that the line "Joining him in the appeal as a citizen intervener was Thomas Noe who would become the key figure in Coingate." is irrelevant to the discussion of the blackwell lawsuit.  Should i be just editing the material or is it appropriate to discuss first?  Im relitivly new to this. 65.29.77.247 00:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's relevant to the discussion of the blackwell lawsuit because he joined in the appeal; he played an integral role in the lawsuit. Kevin Baastalk 16:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not very many people joined in the appeal.  As far as I know, just him.  Joining in an appeal is a rather uncommon legal thing to do.  What role did he play that was so integral?  Well, the people usually only join in an appeal because the appeal would otherwise fail.  So that's a pretty integral role - keeping the appeal from failing.  I can't think of anything more integral.  The relevance of his involvement in coingate is his immorality; his criminal behavior, in the government sector.  That's the relevance. That should be obvious enough.  Kevin Baastalk 01:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  there is no evidence that the appeal would fail if he did not join.  What role did he play that the other two joiners did not?  This and coingate are unconnected so none of the sections i removed were useful. Bonewah (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit: Democratic Party v. Blackwell 

message: #2 http://dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2004/09/29/20040929-A1-01.html
#4 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041018-093522-3974r
#6 http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1098783094159330.xml
#8 http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/nation/10032170.htm
#13 http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/stories/20041102/localnews/1522938.html
#15 http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/10166750.htm
#19 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PROVISIONAL_BALLOTS_OHIO?SITE=NYSTA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
#20 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
#25 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
#27 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
#29 http://shadowbox.i8.com/Suppression/ohio/ohiomachines.htm
#31 http://www.tampatribune.com/MGBOPBXS5WD.html
#32 http://www.bradenton.com/9298887.htm
65.29.77.247 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use the wayback machine to fix them. Kevin Baastalk 16:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following links go nowhere or are broken 

message: The section Misdirection of voters relies on this link http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200412\\POL20041208b.html
as a citation.  I dont believe the NAACP is really a reliable source for information on this subject.  Comments?
Bonewah 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Do they have an agenda in this matter? Are they partisan? And even so, why should we not trust information from them? Just wondering since I don't know this organization. --ojs (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread the link and noticed that the NAACP actually sent their own election monitors.  My original concern was along the lines of how would they know the information claimed, but if they had people on the ground then they would know.  As for the NAACP having an agenda, they do, but as far as I know, that shouldn't disqualify them as a source.  What do think about changing this section to read "According to NAACP election monitors, voters in some areas were told that their voting day was two days later on November 4, after the election. [8]"  Useful change or just pedantic?  Bonewah (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds useful. The NAACP doesn't really have an "agenda," beyond assuring political representation and activity among its constituent group, but saying the information was according to their election monitors, I think, would work. Apartcents (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the NAACP a reliable source for vote related information? 

message: First, i feel this section contains mostly unsourced speculation such as 
This could be because Democrats were targeted
and 
But most expectations were for him to make up several thousand votes, since the majority of provisional ballots might have been in certain Dem-heavy precincts in those counties
Second, the only source here is dkosopedia.com and just contains a breakdown of provisional ballots.  I dont think dkosopedia.com is reliable and even if it is, it doesnt support the text of this section. Id like to remove this whole section Bonewah (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, I agree with you that this is a problematic section, but removing it totally is perhaps a bit to easy solution, lets try to find reliable sources for this section first (I agree that another wiki is not a reliable source since the source they cite is no longer there) and rephrase it so it is NPOV. --ojs (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition section has lots of speculation and possible source problem.