Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 7

message: I've added this pages to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The entry can be found here Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/History#History. This page has grown so large and has so much information that it would be good to have more users editing. Carrp 20:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: by more users editing you mean editing for size?  Does the 187k include images? The image at the very top is 67k, seems a tad large.  The ohio image in the middle of the article is 68k.  That is 2/3rds of the size problem right there.  zen master 21:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing for size is a big part of what needs to be done. I don't believe that images are counted in the 187k, but I'm not 100% certain. I do know is that it's necessary to hit the Page Down button over 70(!) times to reach the end of the page. This article is the 5th largest page on Wikipedia while the voting machine subpage is 13th. Much of the size is due to the huge number of links, many of which are redundant and/or outdated. In general this page needs more people working on it than the handful that are currently involved. Carrp 22:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a quick test and the 187k does not include images unfortunately.  I will now work towards cutting down on size, especially links.  There should be a second size calculation which includes images too, this article is probably at least as high in that ranking too.  zen master 22:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, the article has seemingly become a big mess size wise recently (maybe I haven't checked it in a few days), I almost don't know where to begin.  Maybe it's time for another split or 3.  Looks like Kevin (and perhaps others) have been erroring on the side of verbosity...  I think I am going to get rid of the html organizations chart because of size concerns.  And I think there are some links that are duplicated even.  zen master 22:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As has already been discussed, the links in the 'External Links' and 'In the News' sections make up half the page's length (97k). Splitting them out will halve the page size. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:12, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The page's size is now ~60k, and the readability is improved significantly, due to a large number of insightful edits. Does the page still warrant this tag? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:01, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is much better after the editing. However, 60k is still about twice the 32k size that is recommended for an article. There are many sections that need lots of work. Some excerpts and quotes are way too long and the external links could probably be cut down a bit (for example: a link to Bev Harris's book instead of to each chapter). Since there are sub-pages that examine some topics (exit polls, voting machines, etc..) in great detail, it might be best to include only a concise summary on this page. Also, many sentences are still written in the present tense. Finally, although there are no blatant POV issues, I suggest that the "POV check" tag (as well as the "Needs attention" tag) remains until more editing is completed and a comprehensive balance check can be done. Carrp 01:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to pages needing attention 

message: 2004 U.S. presidential election recount, still could use some cleanup and links back and forth between main article.  I did it thinking the recount is even more historical than the main election controversies article currently, I hope everyone is ok with it. zen master 00:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I moved recount section into new article 

message: Zen, I think some of the trimming is a little overzealous.  not too big a problem - other contributors can look through the changes and reestablish what they think should be kept.  But still, for example, the media lockdown section, you could have retained at least a link to the information purportedly from a former congressman/woman.  that's the most direct and specific info i've encountered, and it is also the most prominent on a google of "media lockdown". (that's how i found it in the first place)
We will have to do at least another daughter article, from investigations, official positions, external links, in the news.  That's ultimately what'll make the biggest difference in tightening up this article, not trimming. Kevin Baastalk 16:20, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
:Overzealous I admit it, if the article was not 187k I wouldn't have done it.  If anyone had reverted any of my changes I wouldn't have minded.  I removed that section because it seemed borderline hearsay, unnecessary/redundant (kept evidencing same lengthy point about how the MSM isn't covering the issue, which is pretty much a given) and was seemingly written in the third person about what other people said, didn't seem journalistic/good quality.  We can add a smaller version of it back, there is no need to have such huge quotations everywhere to get the points we are trying to convey across (this is actually probably my main criticism and may apply to other sections).   We should focus on clarify in sentences that describe the quotations and citations, not just listing everything verbosely.  But since I seem to have ruffled too many feathers, and the fact the article is now down to around 131k, I will be far less zealous (back to normal :-). zen master 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overzealous

message: After noticing the 'in the news' section was moved to the new page, I just noticed that January's text exists in both places. Can the links in this main article for January be some kind of include, so all editing takes place on the timeline? Right now, it's going to take a lot of work to just keep them sync'ed. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'In the News' duplicate content with 'Timeline' page

message: As Ryan pointed out I should put comments on the talk page, I do have a flair for check in commentary, though it was Avenue that kept putting the venezuela stuff back in the article.  Anyway, from the articles I've read I believe the venezuelan exit poll number discrepancy issue has been debunked.  The discrepancy charge may have come from a right wing US group (or a right wing venezuelan group with ties to a US group) which is encouraging the overthrow of chavez.  The "official" exit polls, at least the ones endorsed by carter and other international observers, had chavez winning by the official results margin.  It should also be noted Venezuela uses open architecture voting machines I believe which provide three! separate paper trails which are each vote counted individualy.  The separate counts matched in the final election from the articles I've read.  I can provide links. Maybe the issue is confused between the recall election and the subsequent regular election.  Because of controversies around the recall election they may have made the subsequent election super fair, using open architecute voting machines with the paper trail(s).  Carter and other observers were there for the subseuqent election, not the recall election I believe though. zen master 20:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also been guilty of not commenting on the talk page - sorry. My edit was mainly aimed at restoring improvements I had made to coverage of the Ukrainian exit polls, which had been reverted to a version with the wrong tense. Zen-master, I thought from the edit summary that your reversion was mainly aimed at the Hispanic paragraph, and I guessed that the Venezuelan information might have been deleted by mistake. Clearly I was wrong - my apologies. I would be interested in reading the articles on the Venezuelan polls, if you have the links handy. I thought those results illustrated an important point, namely that the accuracy of exit polls is not always accepted by external observers, but I may be confusing the two elections as you suggested. Avenue 09:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All "independent" observers endorsed the Venezuelan election results (Venezuela's electronic vote machines seem to offer much more auditability than the ones we have here in the USA, perhaps because there is also a paper trail separate from the electronic machines)  Here are some URLs, first one from Jimmy Carter:     zen master 04:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venzuelan exit polls 

message: The current 
	This article may not conform to the neutral point of view policy.  A Wikipedian has nominated this article to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.
  requires that the assigner:
:"Use this boilerplate when there is no discussion of a dispute on the talk page, but the article does not appear to conform to NPOV guidelines. You should explain what's wrong with the article on the talk page."
So, what is the current status of POV complaints? I don't see any to merit the tag in the talk content above, but that's not to say there isn't one someplace. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute status 

message: Maybe this is a minor point, but I'm having trouble establishing whether the House debate and vote took three hours or four. This article  suggests four:
:"Senate debate took just over an hour, while the House — including an unusually long roll call to accommodate traveling lawmakers — used almost three more."
And this one states:
:"The normally perfunctory ceremony of counting and certifying Electoral College votes was delayed for about four hours as Democrats unsuccessfully challenged Ohio's votes for Bush."
But the House and Senate votes ended less than two hours apart.  
Does anyone know when they began? -- Avenue 00:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'two hours' comes from the legal requirement of a maximum of two hours of debate per objection. It refers to the actual amount of time each member of Congress speaks (5 mins each this time). So, just like a football game, that two hours of debate can last 2.5 hours, or 4 hours, based on how many members speak, and a lot of stuff that happens while the clock is 'not running', like the roll. Honestly, I'd spend my neurons on other things. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 00:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of debates on objection to Ohio's votes