User talk:JamesMLane/2004 U.S. election voting controversies - lead

Repeated word

I don't like having "private citizen" and "private organizations" in the same sentence. Can anyone suggest an improvement? JamesMLane 12:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

(The following comment by Zen Master was moved here from the main sandbox page.)
This is better than what I reverted but still fails to capture the essense of the article which are the various "data irregularities" (hence that word in the title). If it wasn't for the mathematical analysises I would agree with the article's detractors that there would be little point in even having the article on wikipedia at all, so the introduction should reflect this fact. Also, you have little/no direct mention of the exit poll discprepancies which are a huge portion of the body of the article. "concerns were raised" does not sound like the right phrasing for an article like this, "allegations" is much better. The tone of the intro/article should be more mathematical as the article strives to be just a mathematical analysis, either there was fraud or some data needs an explanation. It's completely unnecesary to mention that Kerry was criticized for conceding, there is nothing legally binding in the Constitution that wouldn't make kerry the prez if massive fraud is discovered (and law enforcement acts). The point of the article is to point out potential problems in the voting process, not to criticize Kerry. The intro should also mention blackboxvoting.org and their freedom of information act requests submitted on election night. They are the spear head of 2004 election controversy investigation. Also, you seem to be downplaying the potential for massive fraud by just hinting it only matters in Ohio because of the small margin of victory there (which simply isn't true, there are massive discrepancies is many states, larger than the margins of victory), I absolutely do not agree with what you seem to be saying there. FL, NH, NC, and other states should be mentioned. There is no mention of the registration stats vs results for some florida counties issue. Zen Master 15:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, your comment is helpful in illuminating where we differ about the article. It suggests that we need at least two articles.

1. You see a primarily mathematical analysis of certain data. Your view is that "the article strives to be just a mathematical analysis...."

2. I see an article that reports on the controversy that's arisen (before and after November 2) about various aspects of election procedures. That event is significant enough to merit a Wikipedia article. It would merit such an article even if it weren't for the mathematical analyses.

Perhaps there should be one article for "data irregularities" and another for "voting controversies", each linking to the other?

Most of your criticism is of matters omitted. I'm not "downplaying" any particular piece of evidence. I just want a lead section that tells the reader what the issues are, without trying to set out any of the evidence pro or con on any one of them. All that evidence should come later in the article. The reason to mention Ohio is that, among the non-Wikipedians who suggest or argue that Kerry actually won, Ohio is the example that's being given the most attention. Here again, my focus isn't on analyzing the election data, but on reporting what's going on in society. JamesMLane 19:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal to split in principle but all other non data irregularity related controversies can fit inside pre-existing election articles so it's a moot point. Only statistical analysis is so large as to require its own article. Historically we've tried to keep mention of those other issues brief, which is why I am so against much mention of them in the introduction, statistical analysis are the main issues, all other issues are sub issues of that. If there are to be 2 articles, non stats controversies should be thought of as a daughter article of the current election controversies article (2 pages separate but unequal). Please see additional response points I've made on the article's talk page. Zen Master 19:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I emphatically do not agree. There are serious election issues being discussed -- by politicians, media, etc. -- that are unrelated to the statistical controversies. They would merit an article even without the mathematical analysis. The material would be too lengthy for the current articles on the elections. Anyway, articles aren't marked as "parent" and "daughter", so we don't need to decide officially who gets to ride in the front seat. I suggest two different articles, each linking to the other and both linked from U.S. presidential election, 2004. If you want to think of one of them as a daughter article, feel free to do so, but keep it to yourself.  :) Does that work for you? JamesMLane 19:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That may be fine. Your new article could be "2004 U.S. election general controversies" or something like that, current article can perhaps change to "2004 U.S. election data irregularities" thought that doesn't sound strong enough, "2004 U.S. election statistical analysis" could work. The current article title should redirect to the data irregularity article, since that is the meat and potatoes of the current article. The current article deals with data irregularities more heavily than all other controversies, that is why I had so much problem with your introduction. I think we should perhaps propose the split on the talk page? consensus among 2 is always easiest and I want to think about it some more, it's nice to have one central article for all election controversies. The data irregularites are potentially so much larger in potential that all the other issues combined, I do not see a POV violation if the articles(s) reflect this fact importance wise. Also, (assuming it happened) in many ways such a massive fraud would be related to the other controversies, we should not infrastructurally separate related criticism needlessly. If we do split we should define the scope of each article and go over exactly what is to be moved to the new article. Zen Master 20:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One more point, all my other numerous criticisms would still apply for the split off article's introductions. ;-) Zen Master 20:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't want the new article to be "general controversies". The title needs to say "voting" or some such. Whether Kerry violated the rules by taking out a pen during the debate, or whether various 527 groups violated the laws governing their activities, would qualify as "general controversies" but shouldn't be addressed in the article I envision. I don't much care where the current article redirects to, because all wikilinks to it should be changed anyway (changed to link to both new articles or to just one or just the other, depending). I agree with proposing the split on the talk page. I'm prepared to wait a while longer before doing so if you want to think more about the titles. Yes, it would be nice to have one central article for all this stuff but it's just too big. We can split it out and take advantage of hyperlinking. It's not like someone will have to walk back to the shelf and get a different volume of a printed encylopedia. (Pause to sneer at archaic technology.)

I don't understand your comment, "The data irregularites are potentially so much larger in potential that all the other issues combined, I do not see a POV violation if the articles(s) reflect this fact importance wise." How would the articles reflect it? Each would link to the either. Neither would say, "Of course, the really important stuff is at ___, what you're reading here is just a sideshow." The readers can make up their own minds about what's important. As for what would be moved, we should avoid wholesale duplication but, with two related subjects, there's bound to be some overlap. For example, I added the fact of Nader's request for a recount in New Hampshire. That information definitely belongs in the new article about the controversy. It's not a mathematical analysis, so maybe you don't think it belongs in the "2004 U.S. election statistical analysis" article; but Nader's letter mentioned exit polls, so maybe you want to include it. Having something like that in both articles doesn't seem to me to be a problem.

What I really don't understand is your statement that your criticisms of the proposed lead section in the sandbox here would still apply to the split off article. Most of your criticisms related to the draft's omission of evidence about the exit polls/machine voting issues. In the article I envision, those issues would be summarized briefly, with a wikilink to the "statistical analysis" article. In general, the organization of the new article would follow the listing of issues in this sandbox draft of the lead section. Each issue would have its own section. There'd be no reason to present evidence about any of them in the introduction. JamesMLane 21:14, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this version, when can we get it live? Rhobite 23:59, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

rhobite: you obviously did not read this and the article's talk pages or you would have noticed we've come up with many new proposals and ideas like spliting the page in two, rendering the proposed text inapplicable. Zen Master 00:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I "obviously" did read it and I think the intro text in this sandbox should go into the election controversy article as it is. I'm glad that you "welcome" my comments on talk pages, but forgive me if I don't accept "too bad" as an answer. Rhobite 00:12, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

The comments here are a small part of the discussion, see the election controversy article's talk page. too bad == status quo will be mainted when there is an edit dispute controversy, correct? You seem to support and emulate Netholics guerrilla tactics against the election controversy article, there are major problems with the article I agree, but the ends do not justify the means. Zen Master 00:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First off, please stop assuming I haven't read the discussion in full. I have read the discussion and I want to voice my approval of this version. Is that allowed? Are you going to quote me any more rules? I know of no rule that states "status quo will be maintained when there is a dispute." Anyone is free to edit an article. I hope someone else will come along and fix the intro, since you and I have already reverted a bunch. Rhobite 00:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Please forgive me then, from your actions it seemed apparent you hadn't actually read the discussions. No comments were made by you, and as James also points out, those discussions led to the proposed text being unapplicable [unapplicable is my word, not necessarily james'] because of the concerns and new proposals included therein. Zen Master 00:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The two-article solution

Sorry, but I disagree with both of you about the lead section from this sandbox.  :) I don't think this text is inapplicable, as Zen Master states. On the other hand, I'm not trying to apply it to an article that will be a mathematical analysis of the irregularities. One of my problems with the current article (in the main namespace, not the sandbox) is that the explosion of all these calculations and numerical averages and charts and graphs and whatnot makes it hard to do a good narrative presentation of the other election issues. There's simply too much stuff here. That's why I'd like to see two separate articles. The lead section from this sandbox would be used to begin the "2004 U.S. election voting controversies" article. The introduction for the "2004 U.S. election statistical analysis" article would presumably be modified somewhat from the current version (by which I mean the one that Zen Master reverted to; it's current as I write this). We would delete that introduction's references to specific issues that would be covered elsewhere, and replace them with a one-line notice with a link to the other article. Any complaints of POV about the introduction would, of course, still be on the table for discussion on that article's talk page. Rhobite, is the two-article solution OK with you? JamesMLane 00:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suppose the two-article proposal is OK with me, but doesn't the statistical article mostly constitute original research? Most of the stats in the current article are simply speculations and original analysis by Kevin baas, and copyvio'd charts and graphs. I think the statistical article would be very short, but I'd be happy if it kept Kevin and Zen from reverting changes on sight in the "controversies" article. Many wikipedians voted 'keep' but expressed their feeling that there are numerous POV problems. I'd like to help fix these, I think your intro is an excellent start, but a few users are preventing any positive change to the article. Rhobite 00:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Please read the article's VfD page for many debunkings of the original research theory. FT2 even listed a detailed explanation why it was not original research on the article's talk page (perhaps now archived), but Netoholic never responded to it and thus began his guerilla tactics against the article. Zen Master 01:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2 is wrong. Statistical analysis is original research. Rhobite 02:55, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Others on the VfD page seem to disagree with you. It's not statistical analysis for the sake of original analysis, it exists as a criticism of official election results. Exit polling has been used to uncover election fraud in other countries. Zen Master 03:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

They do no such thing.

• Siroxo: "Keep and clean the article of original research"
• Me (Rhobite): "This article constitutes original research"
• JamesMLane: "Concerns that particular portions of the article might constitute original research or otherwise be inappropriate should be addressed through comments on the talk page and through RfC, both of which are already in progress"
• Niceguyjoey: "Some of this could qualify as "original research,"
• Chmod007: "This should be done without original research and in accordance with the NPOV policy. If you think that the article contents violates these policies, modify it"
• Delirium: "A particularly poor article, but should be fixed (and cleansed of original research)"
• RyanFreisling: "the ONLY criterion voiced as {potentially} applicable in the 'May Require Deletion' section is thus far 'Original Research', which can of course be addressed in process"
• Dr Zen: "The article is a dog and the editors who are claiming this is a "serious investigative effort" need to remind themselves that Wikipedia does not serve as a medium for original research"

In fact, you and FT2 are the only people on the VfD page who voiced the opinion that it's not original research. Rhobite 03:59, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

There's no harm done if you guys want to discuss the "original research" question here. I just don't know how many people will see it. Who knows who else is watching this sandbox talk page? Probably better to be on the main talk page. Anyway, I suspect that the whole issue of original research will be moot in a couple months at most. The ideas will have been either discredited (and we remove them) or widely picked up (and we cite mainstream media sources). JamesMLane 04:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Responding to rhobite] Ok you have a good point, I was referring to the bottom comments but you are right those are almost all FT2's. But no one has addressed the original research issue exactly, they just assume it is without refuting FT2's specific guideline referencing counter claim. And since they are all voting to "Keep" then it should be kept, right? Should all criticism sections of articles be fair game for deletion? The people that put the info there were not a party to creating the research, they just reported on third party analysises of election results, that is all the article is, third party analysis of election results. Seems like people unhappy for whatever reason with the page are errantly trying to gut it using wikipedia technicalities, please refute FT2's view that it is not original research on a point by point basis? It's a mathematical proof, what is the original idea that is being presented? Surely election fraud has been around longer? If you strongly disagree then I propose a re-vote or specific discussion somewhere higher trafficed (as James suggests) to determine everyone's thoughts on exactly the original research issue and what it means to be labeled original research when most everyone is voting to keep it. There were many more keepers than not that did not cite original research as a problem. Surely you aren't saying the introduction section contains original research?

• Keep. What FT2 said below. Neutrality (hopefully!) 02:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There was a 2004 election. It had controversies. It had irregularities. I'm not sure in what fantasy world the 2004 election happened and there were no controversies or irregularities, but in the real world, there were controversies that have been noted by far more than "the Internet rumor mill", and there is no reason to delete an article which describes them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as far as I'm concerned the Secretary of state and attorney general of ohio both stating that over 90,000 votes had been discarded is verification enough for me that some weird sh-- is going on. Just because CNN and ABC are in on the scam doesn't mean we need to be.Keep/fact-check/verify/expand/nominate for Featured status when finished and finish asap Pedant 03:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the points made in the summary of the opposing view. It has been mentioned in the media and it's a valid subject. Deleting because the article isn't perfect does not follow current deletion guidelines. If it's bad it should go to cleanup or some American WikiProject. Mgm|(talk) 09:10, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. An incredibly well sourced article. Not all sources stand up as reliable but at least by giving sources it allows the reader to judge for themselves on its reliability. Definitely an article we should keep. FearÉIREANN 14:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If The 2004 U.S. Election is good enough for wikipedia then 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities is also good enough. --Marco 20:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zen Master 04:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)