Talk:Nedap

message: hello LeonK and others,
if you feel like there's more to nedap than voting machines then add this information and don't just delete what's already there, otherwise it's vandalism. you're welcome to add any reasonable information.
--Taintain 10:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Taintain. You are referring to vandalism in cases where one could talk about corrections. My point is that the article in it's current form is not about the company, but about voting machines. Information of that kind should be directed to a seperate page. I guess the article on nedap should hold information about the company, and not so much about it's products and possible issues with that type of product, as is the case right now.  Regards, --Leon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.251.122.183 (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's about nedap voting machines which are produced by nedap so it belongs here. these machines are making headlines in several countries so it belongs into wikipedia. and making a seperate page for nedap election systems is not worth it because those two pages wouldn't be big enough (as is the case with f.e. diebold).  --Taintain 19:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not propose to setup a seperate page for nedap voting systems, but to add the information into the paragraph on "Documented problems" on the page on voting systems. --LeonK (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  a short note on the nedap hack is already there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRE_voting_machine#Demonstrated_Laboratory_Attacks . the "documented problems" is rather problems appearing in real elections. Anyway the nedap-issues belong on the nedap-page, compare f.e. Premier Election Solutions. The "shareholders" are less important then the problems so i put the again behind them. But You're right, "electronic voting" isn't the right term because nedap only produces software driven "voting computers". It's also of no use to include the names of some managing directors behind the weblinks. Just look at other companies pages, do You find it anywhere ? You should anyway inform Yourself about wikipedia since You obviously work for Nedap and regularly try to remove negative information about Your company. Please start reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view --Taintain (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: This entry has been edited by Mr. Hans van Wijk, who is Nedap's election expert. This was done after Nedap had been caught removing criticism from another entry. The edits remove a link to and then upload a damagine letter from a business associate in a deliberately unreadable resolution. Taking out:
  These include the proposal by Nedap to be bought by the Dutch
  government, otherwise the company would stop to support the next
  elections.
and replacing by:
  This proposal and its following communications has been interpreted
  in a rather biased way by the "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet"
  foundation.
And mostly just adding miles and miles of text that has no place in a Wikipedia-entry.
I am the founder of the "we do not trust voting computers" foundation and we are, among other things, involved in a legal battle to get the Nedap voting computers decertified. So I am probably not the right person to make any edits to the article itself. The article, IMHO, now needs a cleanup.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rop Gonggrijp (talk • contribs) Sep 14, 2007
:Ron, obviously there's an issue here and thank you for taking it to the talk page. I've removed the line "This proposal and its following communications has been interpreted in a rather biased way..." as it was obviously opinion regardless of any reference. Though this is a bit of a difficult spot as I cannot translate what it actually said in the letter or the Dutch and German references. I agree the article needs some clean up and I'll do what I can. I'll also see if I can shop around for an editor with some expanded language skills. --Electiontechnology 14:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Dispute

message: One September 18 an anonymous user edited the above comments to include: "when you look into the history you can see that the first contrib from Mr Hans van Wijk is from the date 7 august, the article you refering to is from 5 september, so it must be before. Don't mess with the truth!" The user clearly disagrees with the timeline of edits by Mr. Hans van Wijk offered by Rop Gonggrijp.
--Electiontechnology 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous Dispute of POV Dispute

message: Hi, after trying to read through this article I noticed some of it was directly copied and pasted from marketing material from Nedap. As this is prohibited according to Wikipedia rules, I have deleted the following text (under the horizontal line). I apologize for deleting so much information, but I think the article in its current form is, except for being disputed, impossible to read.   
I suggest to select undisputed, non copyright texts, from this page to add them to the article. Furthermore I would suggest to keep the contents of this article narrowed down to the facts about the company itself, without going into much details on whether they are, or aren't, part of a large scale election fraud. It would be wise to create a seperate wikipedia page that handles everything related to "Wij-vertrouwen-stemcomputers-niet", the electronic election machines, and Nedaps role in this. 
One more thing to add: the current article had an almost exclusive focus on just one part of their business: election machines. This doesn't sound right, Nedap is also active in the business of tagging and identifying animals, goods and humans. All the fuss about the election machines could be moved to a special article, where it could be combined with information and news on other election machines vendors.
LeonK 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text intro 

message: This part has nothing to do with Nedap:
Using the Dutch Freedom of Information Act the "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" foundation received correspondence between of the Dutch Electoral Council and Nedap in February 2007. These include the proposal by Nedap to be bought by the Dutch government, otherwise the company would stop to support the next elections.
It must be:
Using the Dutch Freedom of Information Act the "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" foundation received correspondence between of the Dutch Electoral Council and Groenendaal in February 2007. These include the proposal by Groenendaal to be bought by the Dutch government, otherwise the company would stop to support the next elections.
But then again it has nothing to do with Nedap, it is an insult that is not true!
So i suggest to remove the part.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electionexpert (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some parts have nothing to do with Nedap 

message: 1) This company is listed on Euronext & as such qualifies for a listing on a major exchange; any company meeting guidelines by being listed on a major exchange is pretty much notable by definition.
2) The election disputes documented here aside, the security equipment is neqr-ubiquitous in some locales and would alone make the company notable.  Therefore, the "notability" tag should be removed; its mere presence is arguably POV.  2600:1004:B16D:AA57:8CD3:5012:FECB:ECE3 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability?