Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 6

message: Please list general article comments, clean up possibilities and/or POV problems with the article here.  The cleanup header is woefully inappropriate in my opinion, especially considering the fact there are few open talk page discussions and the article just overwhelmingly survived VfD with a vote of keep (was not a vote to keep only if cleaned up). zen master 06:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup header inappropriate for the article 

message: Firstly, I think this article is great, and I've fought to keep it. So please don't attack me for asking questions! Anyway here they are:
===Many critics of electronic voting...===
"The 2004 election brought new attention to these issues.  In particular, many critics of electronic voting machines pointed to widespread discrepancies between exit polls conducted during Election Day and the officially reported results.  They argued that the official results were more favorable to Bush than were the polls, and that these discrepancies were more likely to arise where electronic voting machines were in use and/or in swing states.  They concluded that the exit polls showing a Kerry victory were probably correct and that the official totals from the machines were wrong.  Expert opinion was divided concerning what implications should be drawn from the cited discrepancies."
* Which critics? Who argued these facts? We need to know so we can verify what they are saying. 
* Expert opinion: why experts? I'd like to know!
:The entire section on 'exit polls' and the subsequent child article are the places where you can find these answers. Detailed there are various media and independent agencies associated with the exit polls, the researchers involved (the Caltech, Berkeley, Freeman, 'Wired' magazine studies, etc.) and the general chronology of the studies and their counters. Your question probably points to a need to address this in the main article narrative a little more clearly, however. Good one! -- RyanFreisling @ 15:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: "The 2004 election brought new attention to these issues.  In particular, many critics of electronic voting machines pointed to widespread discrepancies between exit polls conducted during Election Day and the officially reported results.  They argued that the official results were more favorable to Bush than were the polls, and that these discrepancies were more likely to arise where electronic voting machines were in use and/or in swing states.  They concluded that the exit polls showing a Kerry victory were probably correct and that the official totals from the machines were wrong.  Expert opinion was divided concerning what implications should be drawn from the cited discrepancies."
* Which critics? Who argued these facts? We need to know so we can verify what they are saying. 
* Expert opinion: why experts? I'd like to know!
:The entire section on 'exit polls' and the subsequent child article are the places where you can find these answers. Detailed there are various media and independent agencies associated with the exit polls, the researchers involved (the Caltech, Berkeley, Freeman, 'Wired' magazine studies, etc.) and the general chronology of the studies and their counters. Your question probably points to a need to address this in the main article narrative a little more clearly, however. Good one! -- RyanFreisling @ 15:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Many critics of electronic voting...

message: Cliff Arnebeck brough his case before ohio supreme court today, but i can't find an article specific enough.  All I got are these two:   Kevin Baas | talk 20:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
:Gotcha. Added. 
::That's a copy of . What I mean is that there are only two different stories being circulated in the press. Kevin Baas | talk 21:19, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
:::I thought you wanted corroboration of the piece being run, in this case on abcnews. I'll keep my eyes open. I'm sure we'll hear more about it if/when the Court responds, as well. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: News flash

message: possibly sections 1-12, and 14-21 can go? Kevin Baas | talk 23:46, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
:yes, with the possible exception of #1 (ask kizzle/james).  Also, the archive should continue to be in time range terms, e.g.: Archvied discussion from date X to date Y (discussion that were inactive as of date Y).  I can do it later perhaps.  zen master 02:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen master, thanks for mentioning me in connection with section 1, but my thoughts on that subject became section 19, Need for a concise generalized summary article.  The summary article exists at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies.  As long as that article remains for readers who want an encyclopedic summary, I'm not going to press my disagreements with the way this long, detailed article is organized.  Therefore, I don't object to the archiving of anything on this page. JamesMLane 02:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Archivage completed per Kevin's proposal, archive 5 created, moved inactive discussions as of dec 13 2004 part 2. zen master 05:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: With time many if not most of this article's links to external sources will break (sometimes due to a reorganization of the external web site, but often because the external articles are deleted).  I know that there are copyright issues involved, but is there any way we could archive this external information so that the main article does not become gradually useless as its sources become unverifiable? noosphere 10:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
:Pick sources more carefully.  Reliable ones generally don't disappear for at least long enough to be indexed by the Wayback Machine. --Korath会話 14:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say 'a few, perhaps some', certainly not 'most'. Most of the sources cited are long-running established news organizations, and others can certainly be condensed as the editing continues. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Anonymous contributor, please sign your comments with ~~~~.  In any event, this is no more useful than manually saving the page with your browser - you can still view it, but others cannot.  Even if you then serve it to the net at large (a glance at archiverProxy seems to indicate it does not), the credibility of the source is compromised. --Korath会話 08:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing sources 

message: Excellent source!:  Kevin Baas | talk 04:23, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)
Excellent, comprehensive source with data on fraud by numerous means, specific examples:
:http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
:http://web.northnet.org/minstrel/youngstown.htm
:(I'm gonna mine it soon)
Also, someone posted this detailed list/issue summary at DU:
:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x188497
-- RyanFreisling @ 06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  News Sources / Data Mining 

message: Carrp, some good edits today - but one issue caught my eye. You removed a very significant portion of the voting machines stuff (see the diff) - if it's because the source was 'commondreams' (a 'left-wing' website), removing it was too draconian. The examples raised have been corroborated in numerous sources, and exist throughout the article(s) themselves. And an outright removal of the content removed a good part of the value that section. Can we discuss these things on 'talk', so the article's hard-researched conclusions don't simply evaporate based on one editor's assessment of the 'validity' of the source? Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my mantra. "The best producer is a reducer". However, what was left did not communicate the value of what was taken away. Yet another issue with 'subpages'... the balance bet. parent article and child. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting machine improprieties

message: Things are moving too slowly.
I'm ready to just make an article "2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, in the news" article.  Can I get some consent/dissent first? Kevin Baastalk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
Yay.
#Kevin Baastalk 19:34, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
#
#
Nay.
#Wait until the FBI starts arresting people before creating a new article I say. Either way it will all be over in 1.5 to 4 weeks (so save your energy).  This article (having overwhelmingly survived 2 recent VfDs) is the "safest" place for now I bet anyway. zen master 19:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quickpoll: in the news

message: *Ohio, Moss v. Bush: Contestee George Bush's election campaign asks Judge Moyer to dismiss the election contest. 
Kevin Baastalk 17:48, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
:It's too premature to discuss, imho. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current events presence merited?