Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Section on Media Lockdown

Kevin or Ryan, could one of you take a look at the Media Lockdown section? it reads extremely wierd, is anonymous, and is rather unsubstantiated. any section that starts with "I received this from a credible source today" looks highly suspicious to me. -Vina 21:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The mainstream media attention given to problems with the American electoral system is seriously disproportional to the importance and significance thereof, and this merits explanation.

The content is cited from multiple independant sources (corroborated). The original source would like to remain anonymous for understandable reasons. This is the strongest evidence that can reasonably be expected.

Regardless of people's socio-intellectual predispositions and consequent opinion on this matter, the content is a direct quotation, and the reader can choose to believe the simplest explanation or the most convoluted, according to their wisdom or weakness, respectively. Kevin Baas^talk 22:42, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Kevin, the contention is basically not borne out by facts. You are correct, MSM does not cover the recount and the controversy in nearly sufficient detail, but Ken Olberman was not fired, has not been fired, and has been talking about the issue in his blog. (even in January.) I saw this hoax (I can't call it anyhting else at this point.) a few days after the election (earliest that I found was Nov. 8), and he was suppoosedly concerned about getting fired even then. Since then, I see a lot of copy and paste reports of this wild rumor that MSM are threatening people or firing people, including an exact "people to contact" list. Olbermann's blog is at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240 - feel free to let me know when he got fired or threatened. Most specifically, his Dec 21 blog (point 7). The copy-and-paste and forward this on message quoted in the article is simply not true, and a chain-mail type of hoax. That is not to say I would object in general to a section about MSM not covering this issue properly, but I do object unsubstantiated, and unfactual assertions of conspiracy theorists. -Vina 21:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do agree this is a strange way to describe the media lockdown. Kevin, I hear your explanation, and first-hand quotations, etc., are definitely good sources, especially about an issue like possible complicity in a 'lockdown', but Vina's point is valid is well about the 'shaky' way this comes across (at best). I wonder - If this quotation can be put in context, and perhaps reduced to whatever facts we can't establish with other citations, it might make more sense. I'll try to give it some attention today or tomorrow. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree here with Ryan. I don't agree with Vina's denigrations:

• I don't consider them to be critical thinking. Vina hasn't presented any evidence against the quotation in substance, form, or origin,
• The quotation is itself the "substance".
• Regarding whether Olbermann is fired or not, that is irrelevant. The person speaks of fear of being fired, not whether or not such fear is justified. Fear is more often unjustified than justified. That is the nature of fear - I won't get into it's socio-biological function.
• I do not know how many of the multiple instances are from it being reduplicated, and neither does Vina.
• Reduplication in no way affects authenticity, provided it is copied verbatim.
• It seems to come from two sources. This is reasonable: this would be the smart way to disseminate information, while providing a way for people to check the authenticity (by redundancy), while maintaining maximum anonymousness.
• I don't appreciate being patronized ("olbermann's blog is at...")
• And in sum, to outright call something a "hoax", without any evidence whatsoever, is definetly not analysis, investigation, or critical thinking, and is definetely not usefull. An objective mind will discard/filter such prejudicial characterization immediately as noise.

Ryan, I agree, and support your constructive efforts to make the media lockdown section more substantial and informative.

Vina, I thank you for your feedback, and call to improve the quality of this section. It is difficult to self-edit, and we appreciate people who have first read this article to inform us of their impression and point out ways in which it can be improved. Kevin Baas^talk 04:03, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Kevin, this will be my last post here, as I really don't appreciate the patronizing tone that you take. (and you call me patronizing!) Olbermann has stated that he was on vacation, that he was not being fired and he still talks about the recount. More importantly, NO-ONE has heard him say that he was afraid of being fired. If he was gutsy enough to keep on blogging about the controversy, you think he would be afraid to tell people that he expects to be fired? If you think I was being patronizing by posting the link to his blog, how about me asking you whether you have googled this issue?

Indy media has been passing this verbatim from one site to another, no fact checking, no cooberation (sp?). If there is, in effect, only one source of this story, then it is NOT backed up in any way. All you have to do to change my mind about that article is to tell me who "I", "credible source" and when "today" is in the first sentence. Proof would be nice, but frankly, I'm not overly concerned with it, I can take your word. If you want to protect people's jobs, that's fine, just tell me who knows. btw, don't bother citing Peter Coyote as his post was titled 11/13, I've found other places that definitely had it 11/11 and saw one labeled 11/8. I've also seen the "credible source" being cited as Mary Mapes, who was recently fired for the Rathergate fiasco, you could, of course, claim that she was fired for attacking Bush, but that, to me, would be a big stretch.. -Vina 21:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for any patronizing on my part. I did not intend to. I don't mean to shew (sp?) you away, and would prefer it if you stayed, your perspectives can help improve the quality of this section.

I would not expect Olbermann to state fear, if he indeed was afraid, which has not been alleged, that would be uncharacteristic of someone taking the position that he is.

I agree that the earliest available sources should be used. I would be happy to see the citations fixed accordingly.

Regarding "Rathergate" and being fired - that is both ad hominem and irrelevant. FWIW, I discard that kind of argument. Those involved in "Rathergate" made a responsible effort to corroborate the material in the document before reporting it. The material of the document checked out. Afterwards, the form of the document was questioned, and they made a responsible effort to investigate. They made a mistake in not fully verifying the form, and have admitted this mistake. However, I repeat, the substance of the documents was corroborated, and this is what they reported on. Regardless, I repeat, this is both ad hominem and irrelevant, and I discard that kind of argument.

For what reason she was fired, we have only the evidence of Rathergate to go by, and I accept this in good faith, as I do people's statements generally. (Though personally, I don't believe that action was merited on those grounds.) None of this, however, affects her credibility. Kevin Baas^talk 01:12, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Relevant Media matters article: "Media gave short shrift to allegations of election irregularities" [1] Kevin Baas^talk 20:26, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Conyer's open letter

[2]

A very important clarification

Can someone with some expert knowledge and preferably some independent corroboration clarify the statement in the opening paragraph "Some of those bringing legal action claim that these irregularities, if proven, could reverse the apparent Bush victory". I think it needs to be clear if such a reversal is possible under existing electoral/consitutional law and, if it is, how such a reversal would work. Based on what I remember from school, once the Electoral College designated the president-elect, that's who will be president - absent impeachment, resignation or death.

After January 6th; after the electoral votes are counted, there is no legal precedent to overturn the election, even if it is proved that the so-called "elected" president was not actually elected. Thus, the "legal action" refered to, Moss v. Bush, was dropped on January 11th. Kevin Baas^talk 16:25, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and see How Kennedy Won Hawaii. Kevin Baas^talk 16:26, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Added to pages needing attention

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I moved recount section into new article

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)

Lists, paragraphs, additions, subtractions, policies, complaints

There is so much stuff in this article that is old uneccessary news, I will be removing it. Proposed rule: from now on everything you add u have to remove an equal or greater amount of stuff so the article no longer grows. Also, what is with the crazy bullet pointed, indented, all over the place list formatting of information? We use to have this information in nice, neatly formatted paragraphs, what happened? Paragraph form works the best. Only the in the news section should be a list, and all of those links that are no longer "current event/breaking news" related should be removed, I may do so. zen master 02:17, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you saying that a bulleted list consisting of a form like:

• This point
• Then this
• And finally, this point here

In order to clarify a point is undesirable/crazy? I'm sorry if I don't understand, but I think that's a bit overreaching, to say the least. Paragraphs are fine too, if they are crafted a bit differently than bulleted lists. Anyway, it's a negative way to express your point when a positive one will do much better... I hope you didn't mean to be insulting.

And a 'must remove to add' policy, while a nice idea, is completely impractical. We must concentrate on editing (subtractive editing), now that the intensity of the pre-Jan 6 period is over... and it's good to have you editing the doc again, but we need to remember we're a community here with a common goal (making the document as accurate and concise as possible). -- RyanFreisling @ 03:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to offend, just was shocked with this seemingly new format you were using and what the article has turned into given the fact much of the stuff is out dated/inapplicable. It also seemed like you and Kevin missed/ignored the fact user Carrp added the article to the list of ones needing attention? To me that is 1) a big deal and 2) the community talking... Also keep in mind this is an encylopedic article, not (just) a list of stuff, except for the in the news section (perhaps we got so use to adding to in the news section we used that format elsewhere) . Bullet points work well on talk pages and VfD but not in articles in my opinion. I reformatted the most egregious bullet point list areas into paragraph form, which is also I believe the wikipedia preference anyway. I believe it's written much better now, change it/fix it if you disagree. And a 187k article is way way too large, drastic action (ruffling feathers) was required, sorry if I offended you. I thought it would take me longer to even put a dent in the size, but alas no (though perhaps that is because I simply removed a fair amount of stuff). Another point: the html size of the page was over 367k when the article was ~187k, the size really should be calculated in terms of final html size, not wiki markup text size. zen master 03:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you well know, the passage of eventful days has a way of making content out-of-date, and widening the gap between the latest stuff in and the stalest stuff out. I wasn't using any new format when I added the Democrats' recent activities, just putting them in a bulleted list - and I'm not sure how bullet lists can be seen as shocking, imho, when they're being used to list similar items that are in essence, non-narrative. There have been such lists in the doc since the beginning, and in large part I agree with what I've seen of your edits to them thus far, but I wouldn't agree with your blanket rejection of such lists, nor with assigning them as 'egregious'. I do agree re: community - hopefully we'll have folks participating in that editing from that link. And again, good to see old, out-of-date info being edited out, good stuff. I didn't ignore anything, and I have no special ownership over this article, I've just been one of the few people editing/contributing lately. I would hate to perpetuate any idea that I claimed special ownership over this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Overzealous

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 Baas^talk 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)

Split In the News to election controvery timeline?

we could move the in the news section to an election controversy timeline article? Someone mentioned that section is over 90k (if so I definitely think we should move it)? we can keep a "recent news" section covering the last week or just events that are still ongoing, or something. zen master 20:08, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sounds reasonable to me. Kevin Baas^talk 21:03, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Before it is broken out, may I suggest we discuss and resolve the following issues, in light of the inevitable VfD that the new page will undergo (zen, please don't be upset by my bulleted list  :) ).

• Timeline pages are different than lists of links, they require formatting. A page of links created under the auspices of creating a timeline may be challenged even more than expected. I've been looking around at the other similar page models for ideas here.
• The links in the news section in many respects represent points or issues that may not have been properly represented (or excluded) from the body of the document. I wonder if a deeper review of the news before it moves would be helpful, so let's all browse 'news' a bit more intensely and look for aspects/issues that are not properly reflected (or are mis-represented) in the content.
• After the recent edits, I would imagine that the 'external links' and 'news' sections are about 2/3 of the document at this point.

Just my .02 -- RyanFreisling @ 23:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am a big fan of bullet pointed lists on talk pages. :-)

• The formatting of the current in the news section is actually already perfect to become a timeline, what sort of special formatting do you specifically think is required? I am not proposing a "normal" timeline of "events" dealing with election controversy, I am saying basically keep it what it already is in the broken off article which is a timeline of news events as they came in. We can add more stuff to the timeline article if things ever do get thought of from a historical perspective.
• I think we should move it first and then clean up (then move some stuff back perhaps), the key impetus for the move is to reduce the size. Any "news" older than a week or two can't be relevant to the essence of the article any longer. We should each make one pass through the in the news section looking for stuff to keep (one sentence or so blurb in relevant part of article, in paragraph form :-). Even though the article is down to around 131 or 141k (forget which) it still is like the 11th largest page on wikipedia.
• We should definitely keep the external links, that is more relevant than old in the news in my opinion. In fact, important links and/or info from the in the news section you/anyone thinks is relevant for people seeking more information can be moved to the external links section to beef it up in the main article here before we create the news to the timeline. We could still keep the last week or so of news artricle in the main article. If we did both that and went through the in the news section looking for info to add to the article would that allay your concerns?

zen master 06:01, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For some cool pages that are similar, check out Timeline_of_the_September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack and 2003_-_2004_occupation_of_Iraq_timeline. Seems like moving it would also give us a good oppt'y to fill in the 'background' news events, prior to the election. So, for a page title, are we talking about something like "Timeline_of_the_2004 U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities"?

And a 'recent news' area is fine, if we find it appropriate.

Let's just remember that there already is a summary article related to this article (the one James did, if I recall), and this is intentionally the 'detail' page. Let's not squeeze so much detail out that it undoes its own usefulness. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the page I did, at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, is still there, but I haven't kept it up to date. My vision of how to present this material was that such a comparatively succinct summary would serve as the "main" article, in the sense of a general overview; that there would be more detailed articles for each heading in that overview article; and that there might well be a further level of daughter articles (granddaughters?) where appropriate. For example, I wrote a summary discussion of the allegation that exit polls give reason to question the honesty/accuracy of official results on electronic voting machines. A daughter article might elaborate on that general relationship. That article might in turn have daughter articles that presented the detailed statistics and post-election investigations on a state-by-state basis. Eventually, I thought that the huge general "irregularities" article we're discussing now would dwindle into a redirect. I don't agree with keeping it as the "detail" page that Ryan mentions. Dumping all the details into one article isn't helpful. It would be more useful as several pages, divided by topic.

I thought we might be moving in that direction when Kevin created daughter articles to this big article and copied much of the material into them. Nevertheless, whether out of disagreement with that approach or from habit, most people have continued editing this article. For example, the first-listed daughter article, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines, has been edited only about 50 times in the nearly two months since its creation, and not at all since December 30. In the last three weeks, while that article was being completely neglected, this big one was edited more than 150 times.

I concluded that my vision for how to present this material was so radically different from that of most of the other people that I should largely stand aside from editing this article. My view is still that this article shouldn't be shortened -- it should be put out of its misery. JamesMLane 06:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I should clarify, though, that I voted against the VfD. The proposal was to delete this article and all the others. The underlying concern wasn't that the detail should be parceled out among shorter articles, but that it should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. My preference was (and is) that this article stay in place while being gradually dismantled, so that the information is preserved (only in more accessible form). JamesMLane 06:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the vision that James has for this topic. A summary article with many detailed daughter articles is much more useful than having a 60k "detail" page and daughter articles that are rarely edited. No matter how much editing is done, there's simply too much information to fit on one page. Instead of starting arguments over what detail belongs on the main page, it makes sense to turn this page into a short summary that directs people to the detailed daughter pages. Carrp 13:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, somewhere between this article shouldn't be "shortened" -- it should be put out of its misery and it makes sense to turn this page into a short summary that directs people to the detailed daughter pages is an idea I can agree with. Removing this article's detail without replacing it elsewhere I do not agree with, nor do I agree with replacing this article outright with James' boilerplate. Between that and this current article is the useful article we all seek to create. Remember that for those seeking a 'one-stop' location to this issue, perhaps in response to a user's Googling 'election irregularities' or the equivalent, need to find an appreciable, useful level of detail. I do not agree that the goal for this article should be a state with everything broken out to daughter articles so that the article is little more than a hub. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:49, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with a "one-stop" article is that too much information is usually worse than not having enough. If there's too much information on a page, people will often get overwhelmed and quickly leave in search of a more concise article. If the page errs on the side of having too little information, at least people can absord that info and then move on in search of more. My position isn't that the main page should be simple disambiguation page pointing to the daughter articles. It should give a good introduction to the topic and a brief summary of what info is contained in each daughter article. Any detail that's currently in the main article can be merged into the appropriate daughter article (with new articles being created when necessary). Carrp 19:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm the last one to argue for glut. The best producer is a reducer.

My point is, most of what's being argued for already exists, and is in progress. The most salient details and active 'tension points' of the irregularities (lines, exit polls, machines, etc.) have already been broken out in that fashion, summaries retained and streamlined. Now we're talking about the content of the summaries, an important editorial, non-structural discussion to which a structural solution does not apply, imho. A great deal of the editing to be done is reduction to the essence of the issues (as described), but retention of enough actual detail for people to come away educated. That is the goal. Surely the value lies in addressing all the concerns with good content.

Last - James, given your description of the summary article you wrote previously, and your perspective on continued involvement, shouldn't you move it to your user space, and redirect the old link right here? Your input is valued, but if that page is redundant, it prolly should go... -- RyanFreisling @ 22:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider it redundant. It's at the level of detail that many readers will want. I'm thinking in particular of a non-U.S. reader who's registered a hazy impression that there was some sort of controversy about the 2004 U.S. election. He or she is interested enough to want to know the broad terms of the concerns that have been raised, not interested enough to want all the detail that's still in this article. As for putting this article out of its misery, I think that phrasing was a little too flippant and gave the wrong idea of my position. You should focus instead on my recommendation that this article be "gradually dismantled" while its contents are distributed elsewhere. JamesMLane 22:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, in that case, I disagree strongly with that recommendation. This article should exist, and gradually replace, the article you wrote yourself. This article is the product of many differing opinions and approaches, and definitely should not in my opinion be 'squeezed out' from a narrowing role between the daughter articles and your self-appointed summary article. I would recommend you bring that content here, as is useful, or tailor your edits here, as this article moves closer to your personal vision. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll admit I was self-appointed. So was everyone else who's edited on this subject. As for replacing the article I wrote, my vision is that there should be a concise summary available for people who don't want anything remotely close to the level of detail that's here. Therefore, I can't imagine that this article would ever replace the summary. Nevertheless, if there's a summary article, plus daughter articles with all the details, then it won't do any harm to have this article here as well, in whatever form it eventually takes. For me to try to edit it to bring it closer to my personal vision would involve huge changes that would be resisted fiercely by many people who've been active here. So, why bother? We'll have the summary article. We'll have detailed articles on specific aspects of the issue. We'll have this article for the benefit of people who want this much detail on the whole issue and who want "one-stop shopping". Neither the presence of the summary article nor any edit I've made here has obstructed the development of this article in accordance with the vision that you and others evidently share. JamesMLane 02:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you see that to say 'it can't hurt' to have this article here, while assuming yours simply must exist, is an extremely biased view? The volume of effort put into this article, compared to the summary, should at least inspire you to consolidate your efforts into the whole.

The group collectively had consensus to create, and defend from VfD, daughter articles. The group did not decide that eventually all detail would filter to them, leaving this document redundant. The consensus was that this document is the core document. Your summary is your own, and your assumption that this document shall become largely redundant is not shared by me. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, your tone strikes me as combative, and I don't understand why. I voted against deleting this article. In the last 500 edits, I have precisely one, the addition of a single sentence reporting the settlement of California's case against Diebold, so I don't think I can be charged with doing anything that interferes with what everyone else is doing on this article. Why are you reacting as if I'm the enemy?

Here on the talk page, I expressed my personal opinion. You respond by characterizing it as a biased view. Well, uh, yeah, it's my opinion, not something I offered as objective fact, so I'll have to admit it's biased, pretty much by definition. Also, I made clear it was my opinion as to what should happen. Far from voicing an "assumption that this document shall become largely redundant", as you charge, what I actually said was that my vision was "radically different from that of most of the other people". That, coupled with the complete absence of any attempt by me to change this article in the direction I think it should go, should sort of suggest that I don't assume my view will prevail.

As for the summary article, I'm not just "assuming" that it should exist. I expressed my opinion and explained my reasons in support of keeping it. If you disagree, put it up on VfD. You'll probably get Snowspinner's vote. As for consolidating my efforts into the whole (by which you mean this article), I tried to do that. I was repeatedly reverted. I'm not going to bother digging through the voluminous archives to find it, but my recollection is that either Kevin Baas or Zen Master argued against the way I was going because it didn't maintain the kind of emphasis he wanted on "irregularities". My reaction was, OK, we're picturing two different articles, there's room for two different articles, so instead of wasting our time on edit wars, I'll just do a separate article. JamesMLane 05:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if you felt I was combative. I meant only to be very clear. I don't consider your opinions biased, I meant that the idea you proposed (having the summary as a fait-accompli) was. Honestly, as time goes by I see less and less need for the summary article. It really possesses a few less paragraphs, and is minus the 'organizations' and extensive links sections... so I do think the summary may become redundant in time, perhaps. Either way, it's a decision we should all reach together, much as creating a summary should have been. I don't mean to attack you when saying so, I'm speaking about the article, and the process, not you personally. I also can say that I would like to see you editing more here, as you might come to feel a better sense of connectedness to this content yourself and consider what I've said. Whichever way, I apologize for being combative. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

65k is almost 1/3rd of what the article was a few days ago, I think we've made stunning progress already. I do think there might be significant areas where we can cut down on out verbosity further. However, I do not support the multi tiered approach (grand daughter articles). Concise summaries should not come the expense of relevant citations and information. Voting machine controversies should be featured the most prominently because they have the power to steal/switch/discourage millions upon millions of voters. Everything else, except perhaps a subversive nationwide campaign of suppression against minority voters pales in comparison. zen master 03:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And to that I would add Exit Polls. Not because I believe they do/don't prove fraud, but because they have been (and continue to be) very controversial, highly publicized 'hot potatoes' for the Election Irregularities issues. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have always sided with JML on this one in creating a highly condensed article that serves as a "portal" of sorts to lead people to various topics. We already have subdivisions which warrant entire pages in themselves, I see no reason why one page must be so long when it contains an incredible amount of detail and has clear subdivisions within itself. I've just grown tired of constantly re-asserting this point. Look at Disinfopedia, many of their articles are short and to the point but highly linked towards each other. That's the beauty of this encyclopedia, is that its incredibly easy to reference similar topics through frequent hyperlinking within the document itself... we should take advantage of this ability rather than piling it on into one location which is overwhelming to say the least. --kizzle 06:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, instead of 'reasserting the point', and decrying its' length those with opinions should contribute to some of that editing. The daughter pages (again) go lightly edited, and in som peoples' opinion, this page is too lengthy. So, contribute to the process. That goes for everyone - that's the part I don't understand - why such a similar summary article is required because of an issue addressed by editing this article.

I would also add - I'm not against the idea of the article, just not sold on it. This page is the first one to come up in the current google search for 'election irregularities' or 'election controversy'... I think that, plus the history I was trying to articulate, makes it incumbent upon us to focus a lion's share of our editing efforts here, to get this article into 'encyloperfect' shape. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I have contributed to this page in the past, I attempted to clean up the discussion page by introducing permanent subdivisions of the page, but I abadoned such efforts towards cohesion due to the rate of information being added... now that bush is certified president (thank you barbara boxer for at least trying) I think we should work towards reorganization of this page to maximize information retrieval. Ideally, I think JML's plan is the best. Just like if you went to cnn.com and every story from the day was on the main page, it would be a bit too much.

We should have an entry point where people become familiarized with the general issues that surrounded the US president...like if your relative asked you what you thought about the election, you said there was a lot of shennanigans, they asked like what? You wouldn't go through this article point by point, you'd make a general statement mentioning such things as exit poll discrepencies, voter suppression, problems with e-machine voting. We should design these pages towards people like this, the reader who starts with a basic picture and wants to selectively learn more. If we combine all the information into one page, it is very easy to become discouraged with the sheer amount of opinions, news stories, and incidents. While I am flattered that "election controversy" googled returns this page, I think efficiency still should prevail. JML has some good initial sketches of a page, let us reorganize our efforts towards transforming this page into one that is more readable. We can afford to now that they got away with it. --kizzle 08:39, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Your trite dismissals of the page's very real presence on google (and therefore in net culture) aside, I reiterate my point - I don't have a problem with the existence of a summary. I have a problem with the redundancy of content and structure I see between it and this article, which is manageable of course... what I responded to here (I'll say it again) was the foregone conclusion that this article, the product of scores of authors' work, would somehow give way and become unnecessary while the summary, written by one person on their own accord, would supplant it.

I'll say it again - I don't necessarily disagree with the presence of a summary article, nor the ongoing need for improvements and structural efficiency, etc. (of course) - I've been one of the recent editors trying to make that happen. I object to the method, the assumption and the lack of consensus. -- RyanFreisling @ 13:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm sorry if anything I wrote gave you an impression that I was assuming anything or treating the dismantling of this article as a foregone conclusion. Actually, I thought it was a foregone conclusion that the article would continue to exist, in substantialy the same form as it is now. That's why, although I've made a few edits to the article, and a few suggestions on the talk page, I've chosen to spend my limited Wikipedia time on other articles I care about. Generally, I can be more productive on pages where I feel more comfortable with the overall structure.

You imply that I just went off and created a new article on my own. Given how Wikipedia works, I think someone is usually justified in simply creating a new article, without prior discussion, but I didn't do that before creating the summary (the one now at 2004 U.S. election voting controversies). My recollection is that, after some of my changes to this article were reverted, I created a sandbox on my user page, so that people could see exactly what I suggested. What emerged from the ensuing discussion was that people had two different articles in mind. Rather than trying to reconcile the two visions, I think I suggested creation of a separate article. The idea was discussed here and/or on the talk page for the sandbox. This "big" article is much shorter than it was but it's still, IMO, much longer and more detailed than many readers will want. I've given some specific examples in previous discussion. That's why I don't foresee that further editing of this article will mean that there's no value in also having a summary article. JamesMLane 19:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I did not mean to dismiss the listing on Google as meaningless, I think its awesome that its getting such recognition (I wish wikipedia had a hit counter per week or something like a top 10 chart of pages visited to show its editors how much attention each page gets)... Ideally, I would like to start out with JML's summary page and within each section link to a daughter article that incorporates all the information from the current massive article. We'd use the JML page as a starting point, then chop up the current page and use them as detail articles. It would be identical to how the GWB page is, where we go into slight detail about his foreign policy, then offer the reader a link to find out more information. I do not want to censor or remove any information available to the reader currently on this page, only alter the organizational layout so one can selectively learn more about specific topics. There would be no replacement, as it seems that you infer from my proposal.

Just to be clear (as there seems to be some misunderstanding)... I want to start with a summary page located where this one currently is that looks like JML's page. This would act as a home page of sorts where readers then can select sub-topics where they can find more information about each subject. Each of these sub-pages would contain all the information within this article word-for-word.

This is how it has been done with many pages, such as GWB and John Kerry pages, all the countries pages, and any other pages which have an extreme amount of detail necessitating an organizational breakdown of material. I don't see why this one should be an exception to this rule. --kizzle 19:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Needless to say, the way in which the summary arose was not a community decision. Imho, the summary should have stayed in JML's user space, until the group was involved in the decision. From my perspective, and without much of a record to address the decisionmaking, it comes off as unilateral, and not necessarily required by this community. It wasn't written by the community, it was written because someone disagreed with the community's writing at that time. Accordingly, based on the comments above about the intent, the summary should be a group decision, as this 'big article' is now FAR closer in size and scope to your summary as when it was penned. I don't want to have to VfD, I want the group to weigh in, and if the group decides on a summary article, for it to be a group effort. Everything else is editorial, and can be handled collectively, if people are willing to participate here. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't want just a summary article, and I don't think any information should be weeded out at all for relevancy sake, I just want there to be more than one page on this topic. Can we talk about the logistics of accomplishing such a thing rather than resorting to simply that it was not endorsed by the community? All I am doing is proposing an organizational layout idea. I don't want to remove any info, I just want there to be daughter articles specifically so that we do not have to remove content for the sake of space or clarity which is what has been happening already. I must reiterate that in every page on wikipedia where there is a substantial amount of information, we break down the page into subdivisions, offer summaries of these subdivisions which then link to daughter articles. Look at George_W._Bush, Republic_of_the_Congo, etc.--kizzle 20:29, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

There was no consensus to have a summary page. There was also no consensus to maintain this article in a state that I and several others regarded as bloated and awkwardly structured. Instead of getting into a knockdown dragout battle about it, we simply ended up with two pages. The discussion is scattered through what's now Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive3 and Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive4, not always in chronological order because of the refactoring of the talk page.

I don't see how the existence of either article undercuts the value of the other. Is there some current problem that we need to address? If we insist on achieving consolidation, we might end up with a single article that some people think is too terse, or one that other people think is too detailed, or (most likely) with a single compromise article that nobody really likes. We'd all spend a lot of time to not much purpose. JamesMLane 20:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, that's not accurate. 'We' didn't end up with two pages - you didn't feel that the edits here were to your liking, and you took it upon yourself to create the summary. The current state of this article IS consensus... by the very nature of wiki. We're not insisting on anything - I think the 'We' wasn't appropriately involved in your summary page's creation or maintenance... Unless you exercise good faith, and involve this community (whether you yourself agree or not) the entirety of my objection stands. I earnestly hope your desire to exercise good faith exceeds your desire to manage your self-ascribed summary page. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You continue to state or imply that I did something completely on my own, with no prior discussion of the idea, and that this was improper. I don't agree (on either point). I haven't gone over every detail, but from a quick review of the archives, combined with my recollection, I have not the slightest qualms that I might have done anything that wasn't in good faith. If you see it otherwise, we'll just have to disagree on the subject. So, having reached that point, let's drop it. I really don't see anything that this discussion is accomplishing. It appears that I've irritated you in some way that I don't fully understand. If so, please be assured that I didn't mean to. Putting aside what I hope is a minor and temporary friction, there doesn't seem to be any current article content dispute that needs to be addressed. JamesMLane 21:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, again again - this is not personal, you didn't irritate me. The reason I bring this objection is because of the way the summary was created, the lack of open consensus, and the reason you created it (because you disagreed with this page's edits). That's completely not wiki. And it's completely not personal. If you don't expect this article to 'go the way of the dodo', as I interpreted from 'it can't hurt to keep this article' (sic), then my bringing this to your attention was well-advised, and at least I have accomplished that. However, I haven't heard you even entertain the idea that your summary article might be redundant. I don't want to assume that's because you feel ownership over that article - I want to know why that article serves so discrete and necessary a purpose as some may claim, as I myself was not involved in the decision to create one, nor the (knee-jerk?) decision to 'deprecate' this article over time.-- RyanFreisling @ 21:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It certainly seems like there is an emotional aspect to your replies Ryan, but seriously, we're all on the same side. I think you took JML's parallel creation of a summary page a little personal, and seeing as you are one of the star editors of this page in terms of how much time you have devoted towards making this article better, I have a lot of respect for your opinion. I think JML was just trying to be a pacifist in that he didn't get much support for his idea so he removed himself from this current page to create an alternative style, which is MUCH better than some other editors who have graced our presence in the past. I think that there should eventually be one location for all of this, so let us work towards merging the two ideas together. Regardless of the circumstances of the creation of the summary page, you keep avoiding my queries as to reorganizing, not reducing the information that is currently here. I guarantee JML means well and one look at his edit history shows that he is not the type to unilaterally control or force his will over anyone.--kizzle 00:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you say 'merging the two together'. That's *exactly* what I tried to articulate as one reasonable outcome and am hoping will occur. And I did not mean to be emotional or emotionally strident, but rather very emphatic, perhaps coming off as a bit past 'brusque', when it came to the process moving forward. For that again I sincerely apologize, but I had to clarify it in light of some of JMS' earlier comments vis-a-vis the relevance of this article that in my mind, put it's future in doubt. Let's work to reconcile the two, and reorganize and reduce as we all 'experience' as correct. This is a great resource, and we can make it a stellar example of order and brevity, with all of our diligent efforts. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please let us start over and begin discussing the idea of possible reorganization, not reduction of this page as i have stated above.--kizzle 23:08, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

After re-reading your reorg comments, I'm unclear what you're suggesting.

Do you propose that we:

• maintain the same content in this article (continue edits)
• replace it with a summary and divvy it's contents to daughter articles, or
• radically thin this article (reduction)?

Or something else I don't quite visualize yet? Not trying to mischaracterize, just understand. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something close to option #2. The wonderful thing about wikipedia that got me hooked in the first place is that while I'm reading about Richard Clarke, I can easily go to Condoleeza Rice, then to Rumsfeld, then PNAC, then Wolfowitz, then Iraq, then Saddam Hussein, then Iran-Iraq war. My point is that the ability to obtain depth about any particular concept in any article through frequent linkability is wikipedia's strongest suit. I recently showed my mother this page and told her to read it if she wanted to know what the media wasn't reporting, but she (and several others I have shown it to) read a little bit of the top but didn't get too much further into it. The basic strategy in any attempt to convey knowledge to another human being is to give them a broad picture so they can build a framework into which they will assimilate future information. If you start telling someone incredibly specific details about something which they are not familliar with, it is highly probable they will lose interest. Instead, you orient them first about the general picture and work inwards towards the nitty-gritty.

JML's page is closer to what I would envision as a starting point for people who want to learn about all the controversies. Some people might be fascinated with the exit polling discrepencies but not so much about voter suppression. We, as wikipedia editors, have the ability to give our readers the power to selectively choose what they want to know more about rather than hitting them with a book.

This would seem to be the case with almost any other page that has a significant amount of information that needs to be conveyed. What if we took all the daughter articles off the GWB page and merged it into one page? It would be incredibly long, dense, and not nearly everyone who reads it would be interested in all the information.

What I propose is that we transform the main page into something close to what JML is working on in order to orient the casual reader about the various controversies surrounding the election so that they may in turn relate to others in a nutshell what people are disputing. In addition, we will cater to the highly interested readers who want to know as much as possible by providing them detailed pages in subsections that contain as much (cited) information as possible. No information will be reduced or removed. It will simply be relocated in order to accomodate both the casual and motivated reader. --kizzle 00:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I disagree completely. Reviewing this article and the other together, it's very clear that with a standard level of effort, we can make an article as concise and targeted as the summary, while retaining the benefit of it's history. I ask you both again to apply option 1, in good faith. I also think others should chime in on the topic, lest that be another 'consensus of the few'. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why specifically you are so against splitting off information rather than simply disagreeing? --kizzle 00:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Im not against 'Splitting off information' at all - the daughter articles, while unpruned, are a good model to move a lot of stuff out. That has taken place on an ongoing basis since they were first created by Keith and others. I'm against not editing this article, together, and replacing this document outright. I'm merely asking that anyone interested interpret their vision for this article as a part of the standard wiki editing process. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You just said you disagree with "divvying it's contents to daughter articles" yet "daughter articles articles are a good model to move a lot of stuff out?" I'm confused. --kizzle 00:25, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Response to RyanFreisling: I thought I had already given my reasoning as to why the summary article served a useful purpose. I said that it was "at the level of detail that many readers will want. I'm thinking in particular of a non-U.S. reader who's registered a hazy impression that there was some sort of controversy about the 2004 U.S. election. He or she is interested enough to want to know the broad terms of the concerns that have been raised, not interested enough to want all the detail that's still in this article." I've elaborated in talk that's now archived. For example, I remember commenting that there would be plenty of readers who wanted to know the gist of the controversy but who wouldn't need to that there was an organization called "BlackBoxVoting", let alone find that detail in the lead section.

And I don't necessarily disagree, as I've said - I want to get consensus about it, and hopefully see some actual editing there (as you know it remained fallow since Dec. until today's recount update).

Is the challenge going in there as well? That's pretty significant. Glad to add it, but then hey - we're getting bloatier... but it's important to the issue... and we're back at square one.) See why I think we should all discuss it, despite your own belief that it's a 'useful level of detail', others never involved may have other opinions... -- RyanFreisling @ 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to kizzle: If we wanted to transform this article into something close to the summary, we could just do a cut-and-paste. I don't see what that would accomplish. The summary already exists, and it's linked to from here. Trying to get this article down to approximately the size of the summary would obviously provoke a lot of opposition. Why bother? I'm sure there are some readers for whom this article is fine -- they want this level of detail about each aspect of the controversy (as opposed to the reader you properly invoke, who wants information on one subject but not another). Furthermore, many (perhaps all) of the daughter articles already exist. We can just make sure that they're linked from the summary article.

Response to both: The project of merging the two articles together would involve endless hassling and compromise about what level of detail was appropriate. Consider how far apart the two articles are on that score right now. If, for some reason, we absolutely had to merge them, then, if we all proceeded in good faith, and put in a lot of time and effort, we could come up with a version that just about everyone would dislike (in the sense of thinking it markedly inferior to one of the pre-merger articles). Given that there's currently no consensus to eliminate the summary article and have this long one be the only general article on the subject, and given that there's currently no consensus to dismantle this long one by distributing all its contents to daughter articles, I think that leaving things pretty much as they are is, for the moment, the best practical approach. JamesMLane 00:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's no consensus because the topic hasn't been raised. I don't wanna VfD, I wanna raise the issue multilaterally. And again, assuming you (nor anyone else) won't like the result isn't assuming good faith. that is the issue that is still not resolved for me. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JML, your point is to accomodate towards the casual reader who may be interested about several parts of this article but not the whole thing. Ryan, you want to cater towards the motivated reader and keep all the detail in . I don't for the life of me understand why you guys don't see that starting with a summary page and having daughter articles (like almost every other page with a lot of information on wikipedia) would accomodate both types of readers. In addition, if we keep the daughter articles we have now, what information goes into them and what stays here? If there are detailed sub-pages dealing with these issues, why is detail necessary in this page? And I don't want to avoid changes because of the difficulties of compromising, that's not a good enough reason to not do something if it needs to be done. But, I've said all I can say. Lets put up a vote and leave it open for like 2 weeks to get a good idea of what the community feels--kizzle 00:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

No one is arguing against the article/daughter design. The detail here can and does migrate out as appropriate. We do that by editing this document, together - not replacing it. I feel like I've said this a dozen times without any acknowledgement. Essentially, It's not correct to say that 'compromising will be difficult', when an attempt has not been made. All this effort expended here, instead of using the wiki as one should, is a waste, and informally 'voting' among those caring to respond, in order to replace an article with another, handspun one is against policy. This article has been under VfD twice, and must be the article in the article/daughter relationship. I repeat the request for all those proposing this 'vote' to instead participate as editors in good faith.-- RyanFreisling @ 01:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, I agree with JML and Kizzle that a summary and daughter pages is the best presentation of the information. There's just too much in this article right now. If all the detailed information is either moved or merged to a daughter article, how does this harm the article? Ryan, right now the article is currently 65k. An article shouldn't be more than 32k (see Wikipedia: Article size. How do you propose to reduce the size? Wouldn't it resemble the summary when it's complete? Carrp 01:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

kizzle writes: "I don't for the life of me understand why you guys don't see that starting with a summary page and having daughter articles (like almost every other page with a lot of information on wikipedia) would accomodate both types of readers." Well, I don't for the life of me see why you don't for the life of you see that what you recommend is indeed my preference. I suggested it here several weeks ago. It received some support, but also so much opposition that I concluded that there was no chance of dismantling this big article. I mentioned the idea again more recently to see if the pasage of time had changed people's attitudes. It hasn't. That's why I said, above, that leaving the status quo in place is the best practical approach.

I'll defer to RyanFreisling's request that we not vote in the poll for a while, to see what the discussion might produce. If I were voting, my choice would be a modification of #3. I see no reason to create a page similar to an existing page. I would, instead, move all worthwhile material from this (long) article into daughter articles, make this article a redirect to the summary, and include in the summary article links to all the daughter articles. I havent' pushed that idea because I thought it wouldn't go anywhere. If you want to try to overcome all the opposition and do it -- well, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Kizzle.

Response to RyanFreisling: As I told you, I made an effort along the lines of what I think you're calling for. On the talk page, I stated the highlights of my dissatisfaction with the way this long article approached the topic. Some people agreed with me, some didn't. I made some corresponding changes to the article. Someone else (maybe Zen Master) reverted them, some third person (maybe Rhobite) restored them, then they were deleted again. In response, I suggested the two-article solution, and I don't remember anybody screaming with horror. This article, the summary article, and the daughter articles could all be improved in many ways, and I'm strongly inclined to think that tackling those projects would be a better us of our time than pursuing this disagreement. JamesMLane 01:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not aware of your particular editing experience offhand, but I agree completely with your premise - and I humbly ask if you do want to try, that you try 30 small, reasoned edits rather than 1 vast one that will confront others with a massive re-read and re-familiarization... And, without any insult, to be clear - I believe funneling the content out of here into daughters and redirecting this page to your homemade summary page instead is an approach that runs counter to the wiki way. We should funnel as we said, and edit this page to a reasoned size.

Also, I had to add this... you said above, "I see no reason to create a page similar to an existing page." - can you see that to some, the rationale and process of your summary is exactly that (for reasons I've already articulated ad nauseam)? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for Reorganization of page

1. Keep the current page and have no daughter articles

2. Keep the current page and daughter articles

3. Create a summary starting page similar to 2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies with "Main Article: XXX" links to daughter articles for more detail

1. kizzle 00:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. Carrp 00:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4. Additional *specific* reorganization proposal details are needed (status quo in the mean time)

1. zen master 03:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (most "summary" attempts I've seen relating to this article have obfuscated important issues or lessened their impact)

Vote Comments

How have the previous attempted summaries harmed the article? Those who fail to learn from history... Carrp 03:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have seen many sneaky edit attempts, or the new summary focused on what I believe are non core issues, so to answer your question: yes. Do you ever attempt to convince people of your position, or, do you simply try to trick people by using cliches such as "those who fail to learn from history..."? E.g.: For my benefit could you please describe exactly what I have failed to learn from history? zen master 03:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

zen master's comment illustrates quite well why there are two articles. When he and I and others were addressing the subject a couple months ago, he wanted there to be an article that focused on what he considered to be the core issues. I wanted there to be an article that covered the waterfront of issues, regardless of who considered which ones core and which ones peripheral, and that covered them in succinct, summary fashion. zen master reverted my edits to the main article because they moved it away from what he wanted to see covered. So, rather than argue with him, I created a general summary article -- 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. Since then, I haven't tried to make substantial changes in the longer ("irregularities") article. The summary article (it would be better if people called it "the summary article" instead of "JML's article" or the like) is aimed at the reader who knows little more than that there's some sort of controversy about the election, and who wants to know the gist of the issues that have been raised. That reader may well decide to pursue more detail about some or all of the issues; I certainly don't agree with the wrecking crew on VfD that wanted all that information to be removed from Wikipedia entirely.

So, zen master, the real question is this: If I'm no longer trying to make any substantial changes in this article, is there nevertheless some way in which the mere existence of the summary article (with a prominent wikilink to this one) is harmful to Wikipedia's coverage of the election controversy? If, as I hope, your answer is "No", then let's just live and let live. Some readers will be better served by this article. Other readers will be better served by the summary. We aren't confined to one article, so we aren't called upon to decide which group of readers is more numerous. Both of them can coexist. JamesMLane 06:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As per wiki process, a 'vote' is premature. This is nothing but an academic exercise, and since JML has already stated that 'we can live and let live' and thus this article can stand as is, I give this 'vote' ZERO authenticity. This should be a 'survey' at the most, and formatted appropriately. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition, my vote comments were not moved along with this section... -- RyanFreisling @ 06:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree an informal 'vote' is appropriate. Until a good faith attempt at editing is made, wiki policy is clear - that we remain status quo and attempt to resolve in good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we have exhausted dialogue as evidenced above, and a good faith edit on my part would be a unilateral drastic change to what is there already... so I don't see much alternative. We're not disagreeing over a simple passage in the text, we're talking about two drastically different visions of organizational layout which cannot be simply edited, as I'm sure I'd get reverted in two seconds if I took JML's summary page, added main article links, and didn't even drop a single line from what's here already because I didn't have concensus from the group. So that's exactly what I'm trying to get a sense of, what the community thinks. --kizzle 01:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Assuming your edits have to be unilateral and drastic is itself bad faith. Why not actually participate, rather than 'hand down' your opinion? That's the bad faith, and it's counterproductive.

"Any edit I would do would be to effectively replace the article, so let's vote to effectively replace the article." ... An illogical/unliateral request. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assumed he meant that, if he did it solely on his own, it would be unilateral, so he wants a vote to see if there's substantial agreement with that approach. JamesMLane 02:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think making a massive structural change, that removes detail but doesn't parse it, is shortchanging the natural editing process. And the summary as it exists now is hardly a massive structural change, it's just a massive reduciton in content, which can be achieved by good faith editing here, as per usual process. If, as I recommend above to you, it's done on an incremental basis, in a way that invites discussion, no one is objecting. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, I am not removing detail, it is simply going into the daughter articles. It's not like its dropping from wikipedia altogether. Second, "Any edit I would do would be to effectively replace the article, so let's vote to effectively replace the article" is a straw man of my real argument. I want to condense this page and expand the daughter articles, so there is no replacing. Third, I cannot do such a thing on an incremental basis. I've told you exactly what I propose. It doesn't have to be JML's version word-for-word, but it should be around the same length with "Main Article: XXX" spin-offs. I haven't been vague about it. Such a request is a huge organizational change and if I were to do so, it would be trampling upon many other users here without even asking what they feel, thus my request for an informal vote. If enough people want a condensed main article with expanded daughter articles then I will make the edit. I do not want to replace your version with JML's, I think JML was attempting to simply offer up his idea of a summary, we can discuss if something was left out or something should be re-worded, all I want to take from JML is the concept of his summary page as the starting point.--kizzle 02:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

So once again, feel free to get started - incrementally in a way others can respond to. We already have the summary to refer to for the admirable and valid goal you describe. One step at a time. That's editing. Right now, as I have already said, removing the 'external links' and 'news' outright, reducing the content by ~50% will achieve exactly what you are describing. And all this is possible, has already been discussed, and agreed to - and is ongoing, evident in the progress of the page in recent days.

It's not a 'if people want it, I'll make the edit'... make AN edit, get a response. Otherwise, you are arguing away good faith, and voting for unilateral reorg. As I said, we have the existing summary, we understand the goal. Maybe you can make your edits there, to better prompt the discussion... after all that summary page is 'live'... -- RyanFreisling @ 02:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to vote for both options 2 and 3. It seems to me that people who feel that a concise summary article (with links to daughter articles) is needed could start modifying 2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies accordingly, borrowing content from here if needed. Other people could continue developing this article, or contribute to both, as they see fit. There seems to be enough difference in emphasis/vision to justify keeping this article separate from the summary article, at least at present. I think the daughter articles need to be updated under either of these options. -- Avenue 14:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'In the News' duplicate content with 'Timeline' page

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)

Venzuelan exit polls

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)

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)

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: [3] [4] [5] zen master 04:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute status

The current

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)

It seems to be a dud disclaimer. If someone puts up boilerplate like this they should raise NPOV discussion on the talk page even if none is ongoing at the time they insert it. Since I see no ongoing NPOV dispute on the talk page I'm removing the boilerplate. Please restore, and summarise why on this talk page, if you disagree. No problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carrp's unilateral removal of sources and content

Carrp, I completely disagree with the rationale behind your recent edits. You removed actual source video of Ohio voting, Greg Palast's content, Olbermann's blog, Reuters and other articles, etc., which are of important educational and contextual value to the issue.

Just because the SOURCE is POV does NOT MAKE IT IMPROPER! This article is not 'Election Integrity', it's 'Election Irregularities'. Olbermann, Palast, BBV, and others have had and continue to play important roles in this issue, and while I may agree with a few of your changes, and a few deletions of possibly 'stale' articles, your removal of the sources and articles on a 'POV' basis is completely inappropriate and ill-considered. Least of all without detailed discussion.

Participants in an event, by nature, have POV. The article can cite and evaluate their POV without itself being POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree completely with Ryan. Removal of documentary footage is especially alarming. Kevin Baas^talk 18:54, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Ryan, I have to disagree with you on several points. External links should be source material, not someone's blog or rant. As for POV, there were two links to DemocraticUnderground.com, which can't be considered a source by stretch of the imagination. As far as I know, the only source I mistakenly removed was BBV, when I removing the links to every chapter of a book Bev Harris is trying to sell. I have no problem with a link to BBV's main page.

If there were only a few external links, I would have no problem with letting some unnecessary ones remain on the page. As has been discussed at length, this page needs massive editing. I was doing my part to help with this editing. Personally, I would like to see the justification for every link in the external links section. I think quite a few more are candidates for removal. Instead of reverting the page, let's discuss why a link should be included. Carrp 18:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies on the other side. Kevin Baas^talk 18:59, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

(More...) ::Page size has been dramatically reduced, to about 1/3 of its original. There is general acceptance that the effort to reduce size is no longer urgent.

The external links section is abnormally large in large part because their has been an abnormal proportion of relevant infomation dissemenated through the internet in comparision with the more traditional mediums. To mantain representative proportion both consistent with other wikipedia articles and with the distrubition of information for this particular topic, one should thus expect this section to be abnormally large.

This does not, however, mean that there is not room to reduce this section or otherwise alleviate problems posed by its length. It means, however, that both the urgency of reduction and the extent to which it should be reduced, if any, are overstated. A greater degree of conservativism in editing is merited, and excising without consensus (explicit or implied, de jure or de facto) is not, and without substantial justification may be legitimately construed as censorship. However, I assume in good faith that this was not Caarp's witting intention. Kevin Baas^talk 19:32, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Yes, Carp's removal of links was very suspicious since his checkin comments didn't actually match what he did. Censorship is not the correct way to go about "fixing" alleged POV problems. If someone repeatedly make an unevidenced claim thank many links are "unnecessary" then I agree with Kevin that burden of proof is definitely on that person. Carp also fails to realize the article underwent massive editing just recently, from 181k down to 65k -- what remains is of core importance. Though, we should clean up and update, and perhaps feature more prominently the summary election controversies article, I may work on that. zen master 19:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Carrp that some of the external links could be removed, but I also agree with others that the way he went about it was generally not productive. Removing the links to individual chapters of Bev Harris' book seems justified. But wholesale removal of others with a misleading edit summary was not. And for an article about a controversy such as this, it can be useful to document or link to less authoritative claims or more extreme viewpoints. Kevin makes a good point in noting that much of the material has been released over the internet and not through more traditional channels. -- Avenue 00:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carrp - you're removing sources again for the same rationale as before. Each of those links is to a group, site or organization that has had important involvement in this issue. If POV of the source is your objection, can those be sectioned appropriately? Because in my opinion, those are valid external references. Others, with detailed analysis, can be put there instead, if you'd prefer.

Here they are:

• truthout.org
• whatreallyhappened.com
• disinfopedia.org
• EFF.org the Electronic Frontier Foundation
• [6] Democratic Underground
• Keith Olbermann's blog

and

• [7] Democratic Underground discussion board on the topic

Do they warrant a 'disclaimer' section?

And I reverted your removal of a specific blog thread dealing specifically with this issue. It's not 'evidence', it's a 'reference' for discussion, by a group involved in the grassroots investigation of fraud in the election. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I listened to your concerns from the last time I edited and instead of editing multiple links in one edit, I am editing one at a time and providing justification in my edit summaries. While some do have POV issues, the main reason reason for removal is that the links had little to nothing to do with the article. You'll notice that the vast majority of the links are untouched. I'm not looking to replace them them with conservative sources, just to prune the ones that would not be helpful to a reader. Seriously, someone reading the article would be lost if they arrived on a site like EFF. The 2004 election is a tiny part of what that organization deals with. Link to one of their articles as a source when necessary, but including them as an external link is somewhat silly. Carrp 02:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's better etiquette to summarize your reasons here, and if possible, put them here for consideration. Otherwise, after some flurry of work, folks will have to do deep history reviews. Summaries shouldn't be unaccompanied in talk, given the concerns raised already. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see the groupthink is alive and well here. Two months down the road and this article is still ponderous and unreadable. Why does Keith Olbermann's blog have any place in the article? The EFF home page? That nut site whatreallyhappened.com? Rhobite 02:38, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

KO was reporting the Election Irregularities when no-one else was, had the major figures (including Blackwell) on his program, and for many who are still obsessed with this topic, he was the sole source of mainstream media. The EFF is involved in investigation of Election Fraud (or was at the time the source was added). I know less about whatreallyhappened, but from looking at it just now, it houses a significant volume of material (whether you agree with it's conclusions or not) relevant to the issue. Your attribution of 'nutcase' lets me know your likely opinion. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll refresh your memory, WhatReallyHappened is the "Israel did 9/11" site. Not exactly a pillar of journalistic integrity. It's a conspiracy theory site, it's irrelevant to this article, and it shouldn't be linked. Rhobite 03:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

In reference to Ryan's re-addition of the DU discussion, please keep in mind that although Wikipedia is not paper, it's also not a junkyard. Just because a discussion could be marginally useful to a reader doesn't mean it needs to be included as an external link. The POV doesn't amtter. I also believe it would be of little use to readers to include a link to a FreeRepublic discussion. Carrp 02:45, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Length of debates on objection to Ohio's votes

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 [8] 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. [9] [10] Does anyone know when they began? -- Avenue 00:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)