Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

(5 days have passed)

This has been a tough one for me to do. I'm normally quite leary of the VfD process, but I think we need to confirm some of our principles here. Let me start out by saying this is not about partisan issues - it is about how we at Wikipedia want to handle "current events" and the danger of doing so.

This article was split off from a section in U.S. presidential election, 2004 into it's own page. Unfortunately, that move has opened it up to massive expansion - overshadowing the real impact of this issue as reported in external sources.

(correction-this article was at no time a split off - FT2)'

(also note: Netoholic modified significantly a whole section from the U.S. presidential election, 2004 article [1]) - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do not use this vote to debate the sides of the issue. The problem as I see it is in the approach this article is taking. The way this article stands, it seems to only be here as a "conclusion searching for evidence" and we are simply adding to an internet blog rumor mill by performing our own "investigation".

A summary of the problem points (more expansion on these given on its Talk page):

• Wikipedia:Verifiability - that the "raw data" used comes from dubious sources (partisan websites, blogs, and even, yes, images uploaded to ImageShack with no traceability). Remove that, and we are left with is a collection of scattered, unlinked reports of problems which are typical of all elections.
• Wikipedia:No original research - some of our editors have produced charts and graphs based on the dubious data. Statistical analysis is outside our scope. It is our responsibility to summarize the conclusions of others, not to formulate them. This article is nothing but an essay.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - from the article title to the content, this page draws a conclusion for our readers that there is a conspiracy, rather than problems faced during most elections.
• Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links - This article is essentially linking to every minor report and rumor on the 'net. While there is "nothing wrong with adding both lists of links and lists of on-line references you used", this article is not using those links as references, but rather as evidence of its conclusions.

I ask that it be deleted, so that outside agencies do not use the bold speculation of a few of our editors as corroborating evidence. Making the history of the article unavailable is the only sure way to do that. We can start over by re-adding a summary of the speculations to the main election article in a responsible way. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Summary of opposing view

This is being placed here to show the counter view — something the original author saw fit to remove from this page. Might as well show the opposition to the delete as well. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Article

The reasons for VfD are incorrect - the article and its sources:

(1) Meets "Verifiability" in a big way - sources are House Committee letters, Federal Expert testimony, Official poll results, etc

(2) Meets "Cite Sources" guidelines in respect of any weblogs or other less formal sources

(3) Is explicitly within the terms of "Original research". Not only the article does not propose any original idea, but also the guideline states specifically:

"However all of the above constitute acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape, for example if ... the ideas have become newsworthy [or] they have been repeatedly and independently documented..."

(4) Advocates no position but merely states evidence (to which opposing evidence can be added).

Talk page consensus: "The neutrality criteria is (1) that the information contained must be accurate capable of verification, and must be sourced, and (2) that evidence of irregularities and evidence that there were not irregularities are both fairly represented.

... Should any person on either side wish to add any kind of evidence that the election was not in fact irregular, evidence that the voting machines were in fact not subject to irregularities, evidence that any item on this article is inaccurate, or evidence that any expert statement is implausible and suspect, then that should be added to this article."

(5) In respect of "a mere collection of rumors":

To describe matters that respected House Committee members saw fit to write not one but two letters within 4 days to the GOA expressing alarm, where Federal Hearings have heard expert testimony as to the seriousness and potential for these issues, which can be found in the reputable printed national papers of many countries, where many thousands of individual American voters have stated they witnessed incidents that suggested the same personally, and where official data of the US government itself suggests an significant issue, as "a mere collection of links", "every minor rumor" and "partisan junk" might suggest Netoholic is highly partial in this matter.

Delete

1. At this point, none of the issues raised in this article have been proven. I think it relies on speculation and conspiracy theories rather than verifiable facts. And, as was pointed out below, the references are highly partisan in nature. Until it can be proven that the election was somehow fixed, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Finally, I'm also concerned that some of the statements regarding the electronic voting machines may be libellous. - Jmeola75 23:43 UTC, 15 Nov. 2004.

   You are certainly entitled to your vote. Here's a response, because you raised some important issues.

   1. The article does not constitute proof of fraud, or an attempt to prove fraud. It is a collection of information describing the most prominent irregularities and controversies (and their context) that surround the 2004 Election. If it were 'Proof of Election-Rigging by xxx'., I would agree with you completely. If there are allegations of fraud, please point them out / edit them accordingly. The same applies for conspiracy.
   2. It is a work in progress, to be sure, for all of us to (hopefully) inform with fact, just as the Election is not complete. Partisanship is POV, and the article strives for NPOV. Can you provide some facts or edits to help the document become a true reflection of these irregularities and controversies?
   3. Can you cite/edit libelous phrases? Those certainly do not belong in the Wikipedia. Thanks. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2. Netoholic @ 20:01, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC) -- I myself am on the side of Kerry, and am reasonably sure some irregularities happened - but no more than other elections and not enough to warrant this article.

   Other American elections I hope you mean. Even Canukistan runs more robust elections than yours (other than the mechanised municipals some of the provinces have sunk to). Kwantus 17:16, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

3. Uncleanupable, and therefore without potential to become encyclopedic - just getting the link for this off of Template:In the news caused a massive revert war on the main page involving at least two admins. See history starting at 17:27, Nov 10, 2004, when Neutrality made the addition. - RedWordSmith 20:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

   I was one of the admins. I have ceased trying to include it as news (I made a mistake in judgement over this one), however this should not affect whether the article is kept or not. Please vote on whether to keep the article over its own merits, not on the edits done for related articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   • Is Wikipedia supposed to be an activist, partisan website? Because even those who want to keep the article seem to want to do so because it's "an important story" that the "major media" isn't covering. Put the page up next month, when the issues have all been resolved. Three quarters of the assertions are unatributed opinion without any citation or link. The statements that ARE cited come from unreliable, partisan internet websites. I'm sorry, but democraticunderground and commondreams are not wikipedia quality resources. --anon

   • Contributor - please sign! Also, check out other articles that were kept on VfD. See Christian views of women. Also note that we have potentially partisan and explosive articles like the one on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. These have been constantly editted to NPOV, and are not going to be removed any time soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   • A large part of the motive for wanting the article is to have a neutral reference for evidence on both sides, as this controbversy goes on, whereby those who become interested in the question (and there will be many who want to prove or refute it) can find accurate impartial information so far as we're able as a community. This is well within the bounds of wikipedia, if we can reach consensus on subjective matters such as homosexuality, abortion and euthenasia, then we can surely summarise in a NPOV way purported evidence relevant to a debate as we don't even have to draw conclusions to do so. Thats my motive - a clean sourced article that I can read as time goes on to understand the issue, and that grows and reflects what is best known by many people, and its qualified sources. I can't speak for others. FT2 06:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

4. Delete for now. This article might be fixable someday but today, it's pointless speculation which is distracting good editors from more important articles. I recommend that we wait a few months and let the official investigations do their work. Then someone can write a clean and comprehensive article without all the disputes. Rossami (talk) 05:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) moved to correct place
5. I appear to be fighting the tide here, but I agree that this article should be started over from scratch, with careful attention paid to anonymous edits. --Slowking Man 09:24, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
6. Jmarler 21:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) - I agree that this page should be deleted. Read some other blogs like WizBangBlog where the argument is made "... If you allow disinformation in an "encyclopedia" then what good is it? Can a small but vocal group of people rewrite history as they see fit for partisan gain?"

   Let me see if I understand that; one of the premises on which this article was VfD'ed in the first place was the assertion that there were no actual controversies or irregularities about the election, except in the minds of bloggers who thought they saw controversies or irregularities. That assertion is provably false; the House Committee members who wrote to the GAO asking for an investigation might, conceivably, also be bloggers, but even if so, the idea that there is no credible controversy is not reality, it is willful wishful thinking on the parts of those who got what they wanted and aren't concerned that they might have gotten what they wanted only by dishonoring democracy and depriving other Americans of their sacred right to vote and to have that vote counted. Now you are presenting the opinions of bloggers that the article is all "disinformation" and is "rewrit[ing] history for partisan gain", and you're saying those bloggers should be taken seriously unlike the other bloggers? That's your argument for deletion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   user Jmarler has one edit. this. Can you say troll wind up??? Mozzerati 00:24, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

   Oh please! will people stop with the counting of edits already? Netoholic is doing exactly the same thing with the keep side of the vote. For the umpteenth time: low edits does not necessarily mean they are sock puppets (or trolls)!!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   I agree that a low number of edits does not necessarily mean sock puppets or trolls. What I'm more concerned about is people who are acting in good faith but without an accompanying understanding of Wikipedia -- for instance, this vote by Jmarler (which is still his sole edit) seems to rely on the assumption that POV content in an article justifies deletion rather than improvement of the article. And even if everyone on this vote is acting in good faith, I don't think we want to set a precedent that future votes can be swayed by calling in people from outside Wikipedia to suddenly become Wikipedians and immediately start weighing in on its course. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Hmm.. actually, my comment was more directed to Antaeus to not take this guy so seriously than against Jmarler himself. Someone who gives one negative reference to an ultra-right blog then says 'wikipedia is doomed forever' is probably joking (`winding you up'.. does that translate from en_UK?). Anyway.. I kind of apologise for the unqualified one vote comment since this vote may be the wrong place for them, but in general, it's important for undestanding the "consensus" to know who is who and what background they have. We are not carrying out simple majority voting. Voices with more experience should carry more weight. Only a person who has seen a NPOV article made from a controvercial POV one can easily see that this material is going somewhere useful. Someone who hasn't been watching wikipedia for long enough to see that shouldn't be voting delete (or for that matter keep). Remember; everything that is added to this article which is incorrect is going to be used later to prove that people over-reacted and/or covered up. The history of this article and the claims made in it are going to be very useful in analysing the people making the claims (either for or against election fraud)Mozzerati 19:19, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

7. Another vote for deletion. This article reads like a conspiracy theory in progress, and not an honest, factual look at the situation. It's an embarassment to a site that calls itself an encyclopedia. This page belongs elsewhere, such as a site where claims are investigated on a daily basis, something that an encyclopedia should not do. - [24.10.172.190] 17 Nov. 2004.

Merge

1. Significant portions of this article relate directly only to electronic voting and should be moved there. This would significantly reduce the size of this page, and allow the information pertaining directly to the 2004 Election controversies be covered here. Much of the background research provided here does not belong. In addition, the POV of what remains truly needs to be cleaned up.--Radioastro 22:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   • This user has 6 edits, all after tihs vote began. func(talk)
2. This article is a veritable breeding ground for half-truths, conjecture, and Michael-Moore-like propaganda. This is not a real controversy in the news so it shouldn't be covered in depth. 2000 was different...that was a huge controversy and should have been covered in detail. Most of this info should be trimmed to be a small, succinct part of the main U.S. presidential election, 2004 article or whatever pertinent articles. --Doctorcherokee 00:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Merge most of the information with the main 2004 US election article and the rest with the article on electronic voting (there is no need to independantly discuss the same issues twice). I've already offered to do this in Wikipedia's IRC room myself after I get over a recent surgery. I believe that once all of the strawmen, unreliable/unverifiable sources and numerous POV statements are removed and a bit of condensing is done it will easily fit under its own header on the main article. Information as it comes in can then be added as it is verified. If merging it with the main article becomes impossible, I also agree with another user that said this page needs to be renamed to "2004 U.S. Election Voting controversies" (or something similar). In any case the page is in sore need of a cleanup and de-POVing before it goes ANYWHERE. Reene (リニ) 07:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

   • Merger of a lot of detail about one specific election wouldn't be suitable for electronic voting; I've elaborated at Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities#Radiastro's Merge Proposal. It's also too much detail for U.S. presidential election, 2004. As for de-POVing, I've added one expert's argument about how the exit polls could go wrong even without voting machine fraud. There's certainly much more work that could be done to improve the article, and it's unfortunate that so much time is being diverted to this VfD listing instead. JamesMLane 17:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

4. Merge into U.S. presidential election, 2004. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 20:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Please don't delete it. There is information in the article that merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Tim Ivorson 23:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) (duplicate, listed twice also under "keep")

• Please count both votes. This is not a duplicate. This is for merging, but the other is for keeping. I am not cheating, but voting for two opposing options. Tim Ivorson 13:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep. This page is a systematic examination of an unexplained phenomenon. Irrespective of who won it is important to look at the integrity of the process itself. There is no political language in this page that I can see. Only a closer statistical discussion of teh discrepancy between the exit polls and tabulated votes.
2. Keep the article. It is astounding that people in this country are not asking more questions and choose to ignore the facts. This article is a MUST KEEP. We cannot allow Republican propaganda and fears to drown the facts, which this article presents in a straightforward manner; the truth has got to be revealed.
   • Voter, please sign! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Keep it. The mainstream media has whitewashed and glossed over this incredibly important issue. The only place to keep this potentially vital discussion alive is online. Electronic voting is already critical in deciding the fate of the United States, yet the public is misinformed or ignorant on the issue. (unsigned func(talk))
4. Keep and clean the article of original research. This is certainly something that has gained national attention. (Not as much as 2000, of course). Just monitor this article closely and make sure it stays out of the realm of original research, and within the realm of verifiability. —siroχo 20:16, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
5. Keep. This article constitutes original research, and it needs to be gutted and torn apart. However there is some valid information here, so it shouldn't be deleted. Rhobite 20:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
6. Keep, but rewrite in an NPOV fashion. RickK 20:25, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
7. Kevin Baas | talk 20:26, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
8. Keep, the article is not original research as FT2 explains in depth on the talk page. Some clean up is warranted. There seemingly has been a systematic attempt to damage various aspects of the article using every "wikipedia trick in the book" for the last 18 hours or so. Zen Master 20:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. Keep. Important and interesting issue. The article could benefit from some cleanup and should be checked for NPOV problems. Martg76 20:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
10. Keep. This article constitutes original research, and it needs to be reviewed. But in a world without a paper trail, math or Stat proof is all that is available and with the results of the math now being done this article has potential to become encyclopedic. There is valid information here, so it shouldn't be deleted. user:papau (This is papau's only edit. func(talk))
11. Keep, but clean up. This is indeed a national issue, and is real. The article right now is a bit of a mess, but far from irrecoverable. This falls in with Netoholic's all-or-nothing attitude about this article in other areas as well (see his bid to delete the Controversial3 template). --Spud603 21:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Spud has 6 edits, all after this vote began. func(talk)

12. Keep the article but, once this foolish VfD listing is disposed of, move it to 2004 U.S. election voting controversies. There's been discussion on the article's talk page about the title. Improper capitalization should be removed; the addition of "voting" is to exclude controversies like the bulge under Bush's jacket in the debate. As for the substance, the subject obviously merits an article. It's been extensively discussed in the media. Ralph Nader has formally demanded a recount in New Hampshire, based in part on one of the issues addressed in the article, the discrepancies between exit polls and Diebold machine results. [2] (I'll add this to the article.) 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. JamesMLane 21:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article is well researched, and this information needs to be known, ESPECIALLY with the mainstream media burying the story. --(unsigned. func(talk))
13. Keep.kizzle 21:20, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
14. Keep. I found the article to be useful and it's certainly a valid topic. Most of the objections raised by the submitter could be addressed by sending this article to cleanup. —Psychonaut 21:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
15. Keep, but needs some work, especially in POV. Some of this could qualify as "original research,"; (and needs to be fixed in that regard) but the article itself is not entirely such. NiceGuyJoey 21:29, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
16. Keep. If (and IMO 'when') the election fraud issue is resolved, the pertinence of the page will become eminently clear. In the meantime, that there is a conflict is certainly on topic for a reference site. Yes, it needs some work. Yes, finding someone relatively neutral to shepherd that work won't be easy. No, those two things taken together do *not*, IMO, constitute a valid reason to delete the page. Does Wikipedia really want to contribute to "History is written by the winners"? Baylink 21:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Baylink has edits going back to December of 2003. func(talk)
17. Keep. Definitely...Problems were widely expected before the election, so it is important to have an article that describes what did and did not cause problems. 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, but I cannot understand how one can believe that deletion is the way to solve this problem. — David Remahl 21:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
18. VfD is a bad place to make editorial decision. The question is not the article is good or bad, but is whehther we need a parmanent deletion for some particular reason like copyright-vio. -- Taku 22:24, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
19. Keep. It is very important to keep this article on here, when the mainstream media will not cover it. It's the truth and nothing but. MinnyBean 22:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    MinnyBean's 3 contributions are all to this page. func(talk)

20. Keep. anthony 警告 21:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
21. FT2 22:39, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
22. Keep: This is important information not readily available elsewhere. Hollymark (moved to correct location)

    This is Hollymark's only contribution. func(talk)

23. Keep. If the data is inaccurate someone should fix them. However, these are ongoing events and with any ongoing event there is alway inaccuracies and misinformation. To not cover these stories, correct or incorrect, would be to go against the spirit of Wikipedia in my view. --Butter 23:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Butter has 6 contributions, going back to October of this year. func(talk)

24. Keep for the reasons I've already outlined on the article's talk page. Shane King 23:41, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
25. Keep --Stewie Wiki 23:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

    Stewiki has 1 edit unrelated to this vote, from October.

26. Keep Ducker 00:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep BlahBlah42 00:07 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) (no such user. func(talk))
27. Keep It is appropriate for wikipedia to note the existence of controversies and the issues they involve. While I agree that much work needs to be done on this article (especially in the NPOV area), I think an improved article on the subject would be an appropriate thing for wikipedia to carry. --Mosesklein 00:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Mosesklein has 5 edits unrelated to this vote, going back to Aug of 2003. func(talk)

28. Keep Most references from reputable sources (directly or calculations based on official counts) - no valid reasons given to list the page content as "inacurate" (and even less to qualify it as "junk") - Content important for future reference to electronic voting machines and associated problems. Might need some editing. Eric514 00:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Eric514 has 9 edits, all made on the same day he cast this vote.func(talk)

    I'm a long time reader and a new user. What rule prevents beginners form casting a vote ? Are you trying to disenfranchise voters ... for a vote about removing a page on vote irregularities ? Eric514 20:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    Allow me to repeat what I say in the comments section: Please read our policies regarding deletion policy, deletion guidelines for administrators, and sock puppets. I am not suggesting that your vote is improper or was made in bad faith, but it does look questionable, which makes the side that you are voting on look bad. (I am on that same side, by the way). func(talk) 20:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

29. Keep This page has excellent potential for a resource regarding the 2004 election. Would anyone argue that the 2000 Florida recount not be included?? Of course, editing, updating, and additional sources for raw data would be helpful. But there is obviously and certainly no cause for complete and irreversible deletion. jwouden 00:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    This is Jwouden's only edit. func(talk)

30. Keep, alas. Accusations like this will be flying for some time, ungrounded though they may be, and we might as well have a place for them. Of course it will be a magnet for POV pushers and troublemakers, but in its absence so would the main 2004 election page, so no loss there. VeryVerily 00:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep As long as it is dealing with documented sources, it should be here. We have plenty of articles with thinner documentation and larger margins of error. 66.30.79.242 01:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
31. Keep There is nothing wrong with this article existing. It needs cleanup however. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
32. Keep. What FT2 said below. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 02:01, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
33. Keep. Solid article. Elizabeth D 8:20 CST Nov 11 2004

    elizdelphi's 2 contributions are to this page. func(talk)

34. 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)
35. 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 asapPedant 03:07, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
    • Keep. It looks like the guilty side is whining about having a hand caught in the cookie jar. If, after all the investigations are finished, they are innocent (not likely), then edit as needed. Otherwise, please keep it up. The public has a right to know. Also, Netoholic's track record seems sketchy at best.Shelly S. 5:08 HST Nov 11 2004 (no such user. func(talk))
36. Keep. A particularly poor article, but should be fixed (and cleansed of original research), not deleted. --Delirium 03:15, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
37. Keep. Bad article, good issue. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 07:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
38. Keep. The article requires cleanup and caretaking, but the subject matter is not a "conclusion searching for evidence". Whether real or simply a massive "internet blog rumor mill", it is notable either way. func(talk) 07:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. (unsigned. func(talk))
39. I say keep it. It is certainly a poor page now, but it might mature into a proper article in the fullness of time. [[PaulinSaudi 09:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]
40. Keep Essential for the world to have fair info on what happened in a country which says it wants to be a model of democracy for the world. Essential for wikipedia. Of course it should be written fairly, with verifiable information, and this will need time. --Pgreenfinch 11:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep I believe the point of this article is to point out controversies in the election process. The fact that these controversies do exist should be reason enough to keep this article until this national debate concludes. --anon 206.253.219.206
41. Keep Needs some ironing out, though, but I see no reason for deletion. -- AlexR 14:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
42. Keep. Given how many blogs have been reporting this, it's definitely not NPOV if we don't have an article on this. There's certainly enough information here for this topic to merit its own article, though I do agree some things ought to be merged with other articles. Outright deletion isn't a good idea, though. Even if the information is inaccurate, we're supposed to cover as many POVs as possible fairly, regardless of their veracity (i.e. Holocaust revisionists). Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
43. Keep --Tagishsimon (talk)
44. Keep although this article is premature now, in six months time, tracing down the information will be much harder. In the meantime, I addied a {{current}} tag. That should stay until some serious studies are available and at least until GWB is finally made president (assuming they manage to hide the fact that all the voters actually voted for Nader :-). (feel free to revert if this is against some policy) Mozzerati 21:58, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
45. Keep. RyanFreisling 17:06, Nov 12, 2004 (EDT) Based on the criterion on Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, deleting this entire page is an absolutely unreasonable response to contested content. The entire page does not warrant deletion, in that 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. Methods and Processes exist for discussing the issues intelligently (esp. scrubbing invalid, original research), and opting for deletion is not a reasoned response to the natural differences in interpretation and opinions that make up this Wiki article. Honestly, I think this request is ill-considered. (this was my, unsigned vote.)
    • RyanFreisling has only about 20 edits, registering for this discussion. -- Netoholic @ 07:31, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
      • User is an acceptable contributor in my view. For the admin who votes, please take this into account. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you for not removing my vote altogether, but I fail to see why that is relevant. Examine my contributions. I believe your posting this here, short of any inference of my eligibility to vote, and despite the extent or NPOV of my contributions here (since I registered), is against the spirit of Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Why is your observation at all relevant? It's a bit offensive to me. I am no sock puppet. -- RyanFreisling 07:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
46. Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
47. Keep Why not list arguments for the opposing view (that there is no controversy) in the article instead of listing them in a vote for deletion? And if there's significant evidence that the controversy theory is a minority view, cite sources. Charm 02:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Article does a fine job of being unbiased and bringing to light important issues related to the 2004 presidential election. --Vote by an Anon user

    Anonymous votes do not count. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 02:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

48. Keep is important issue, will be cleaned up and made encylopedic over time - Drstuey 05:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
49. Keep. 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, but there is controversy and there were irregularities. Report them as bald facts and leave the interpretations to the bloggers. May I add a note of deprecation for Netoholic? Listing a page for deletion because you were losing a fight over its content is not the wiki way. There's way too much heat expressed in this debate and very little light, and you've been pumping the bellows! BTW, I'm a fairly new editor, no one's sockpuppet and I'd like my vote to be counted.Dr Zen 07:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
50. 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. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 09:10, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

    I think the article needs a lot of cleaning up, but sending it to cleanup doesn't automatically produce results. The issue is whether anyone spends time fixing it. The energy that has generated 70kb of talk here could've gone far in that direction. Yet, I'll admit, I'm weak-willed -- as long as this food fight is going on here, I'll read the VfD in preference to doing real work. JamesMLane 03:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

51. Keep. I am not a sock puppet. CheeseDreams 11:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
52. 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)
53. Keep. While I think the article could be better written (for example, it omits pre-election criticism of poll results, perceived bias in the "So-Called Liberal Media", recount requests in Ohio & Florida and any mention of Karl Rove), this is a topic that very much needs to be handled, no matter how controversial. One may dismiss this as just another conspiracy theory, but many people are currently interested, & will be in the future, if only to understand just what was eventually shown to be mistaken. -- llywrch 17:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
54. Keep. Article may not be perfect, but entire Wikipedia is a work in progress anyway. -- Nils 20:40, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
55. Keep. I am not a sock puppet. A"shii"baka ✎ 21:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
56. Please don't delete it. There is information in the article that merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Tim Ivorson 23:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
57. Keep. Mote 15:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
58. 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)
59. Keep. -- Schnee 00:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
60. Keep. A good way to resolve controversy might be to split the topic into "Evidence For" fraud and "Evidence Against" fraud and link the two together point by point. That way people on each side of the question have their own space and could hone their own pages for accuracy without having somebody from the "other side" of the question damaging their work. This entry represents an incredible amount of work and should not be just deleted. jamboi 00:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    I agree with the idea of a possble split of some sort, but it cannot be in terms of evidence against fraud. Fraud by definition cannot be proven against. Claims of fraud are brought up, and dismissed or validated and prosecuted. Also remember that while some are looking for fraud, the article generally refers to all manner of irregularities or controversies, even unintentional, that are in the public's sphere as regards the 2004 Election. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

61. Keep. Interesting, balanced and informative. Keep it! -Exigentsky
62. Keep Potentially important historically, even if current version contains flaws. -- Infrogmation 05:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep The net offers us an opportunity to all write the history books. This page is a living testimony to collective effort and community activism. Wikipedia should embrace free in all its manifestations and let the document evolve as the facts become clearer., (unsigned, func(talk))
    • Keep I didn't vote for either major party candidate. I think voting should be fair. Please keep this page., (unsigned, func(talk))
    • Keep, (unsigned, func(talk))
63. Keep, this is not a political issue, people are legitimately concerned about events of the election. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
64. Keep but the article obviously needs more work and some countervaling views (which are beginning to take shape at the bottom it looks like) User:RyanSammartino
    • Keep, we need information not subpression, (unsigned, func(talk))
    • Keep, this should not be suppressed, (unsigned, func(talk))
    • Keep, (unsigned, func(talk))
65. Keep, The only thing I've seen as reasons to delete the page are general accusations, if general accusations would be followed I could nominate 50+% of wikipedia for deletion. Let the person who originally opted this page for deletion give specific instances for each accusation. edit: BTW it should be easy to find counter evidence if it is really a non subject as has been suggested by Netaholic.
    • Voter, please sign! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • ok where'd did that link go? Velthuijsen 12:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
66. Keep. I think there is enough there to justify a seperate article. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
67. Keep This article provides a nice compilation of controversies and irregularities in the 2004 election. This is definately a pertinent issue that will be getting more and more press as the recounts take place. I'd love to see information of this kind for past elections in the US! 69.5.156.179 05:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
68. Keep This is a complex issue and all information and POVs should be available for study 209.102.162.188 06:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
69. Keep I'm a new user, but not a sock puppet. My reasons for voting to keep are detailed in the Comments section below. Noosphere 07:30, 16 Nov (UTC)
70. Keep The voting machines had no way to verify and were not secure running on unpatched windows. With access to 1 machine the entire election could have been invalidated.
    • Voter, please sign! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
71. Keep This article will eventually be changed and modified by countless contributors in such a way it will be representable of a valid issue. --Ratatouille 10:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
72. Keep There are definitely controversies around the election worthy of an article. The current article is not perfect, but has improved greatly over the few days I have been reading it. I am a new user, not a sock puppet. - Avenue 10:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
73. Keep I'm a freelance journalist who is researching this topic and I can confidently say that the author has taken great pains to present a NPOV piece. An earlier comment in the Delete section asked whether we had the right or ability to edit history: the truth is, as all have heard, history is written by the victors. The victors in this case have the mass media on lock-down (http://www.rense.com/general59/ememd.htm) and are trying to edit away this part of the election's history. In the interests of pursuing the truth, we shouldn't allow that sort of behavior to affect what is published here. Also, I believe that one of Wikipedia's great powers and advantages is that it can cover current events. However, any coverage (which I believe a good and necessary thing) will virtually by definition appear to some as original research, no matter how good and thorough the sources used. This issue must be addressed. And for the record, I am a long-time reader, but until this issue arose I never felt the need to contribute. letsryan
74. Keep and cleanup. Korath 15:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
75. Keep Controversy over keeping this article clearly shows that there is a real controversy over this election, and thus it warrants an entry. With time and the eventual release of further evidence, this article will evolve with objectivity. Cortonin 18:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
76. Keep The possibility of fraud is enough to warrant an entry in WikiPedia. To delete this page would amount to censorship and would hamper the pursuit of truth. Besides, the press concerning this page in the outside media has brought new attention to WikiPedia, which is always a good thing. PizzaDriver 12:40 PST 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
77. Keep I agree with critics claiming that current events are difficult to fit into the Wickipedia philosophy. That being said, the expression 'history is written by the winners' is only true as long as the winners control the documentation of facts. I think there's concrete, substantial evidence that something's fishy with the '04 US election. For example, there's a Scientific American article (Jan 19 2004) anticipating the current controversy surround voting technologies. rmbh 00:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
78. Keep at0 00:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voting Summary and Decision

VfD policy states that:

"At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" (what a rough consensus is is not set in stone, a few do consider a 2/3 majority a "rough consensus") has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains."

Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article. But now the 5 days is up, and the votes cast are:

Delete = 6 including proposer

Merge = 4

Keep = 61+ (minimum, more if some of the unsigned are counted)

In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them.

So the 5 days being up, I have closed the voting. I don't know if it is the right of anyone but a sysop to do so, but VfD does not indicate that a sysop's judgement is needed when the votes are this strongly for "keep" after the stated period. So far as I can see, the decision is made by the above rules on VfD and these are objective and can be applied by anyone in this kind of consensus. Frankly I dont see the article being deleted so it seems a conclusion to me.

Please could some admin do any cleanup and confirm this if its correct, or alternatively formalise the apparent consensus and correct me if I'm mistaken. I hope this is appropriate [WP:BB], since I don't see it likely to be decided for deletion now the voting window is done and voting complete. FT2 00:54, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, FT2, the procedure is that an admin closes the voting and takes the appropriate action. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Furthermore, you posted your comment 4 days, 4 hours and 53 minutes after the listing. If I were an admin, I'd wait the full 5 days, especially on so contentious a subject.

I'm afraid your "closing" of the vote is a complete nullity. It would probably be a good idea for you to strike it through; if you delete it instead, feel free to delete this response. JamesMLane 02:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like I misread the hours. I thought it was 5 days 4 hours, not 4 days 4 hours. My apologies to all if I did, a genuine apology. That said, its still mostly as it was. VfD Policy does not state that closure is reserved to an admin unless it's a close thing or a vote to delete. The rules are very direct and objective: if (days > 5) and (keep % > 2/3) then (dont delete). Maybe it should state if only an admin can formally close the vote whatever the verdict? As the vote is now (6 delete // 4 merge // 70+ keep) with 4 days 23 hours 45 minutes gone, it seems not much has changed. If I'm mistaken please someone correct it, as this would not be my intent. FT2 19:47, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the previous two comments. Even if you were an admin, FT2, you would need to recuse yourself because you have been quite involved in this vote (similar to how I have recused myself from admining the page) - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep this article please. It's rather important to inform the public about this ongoing news item.

Comments

This was moved by Netaholic to the talk page, however the talk page doesn't show up on VfD! This is highly misleading, so I'm putting it all back in again. Another unilateral move by this user. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• This VfD isn't formatted in the regular way, and some possible choices, such as redirect, aren't listed. Should someone reformat it? Rhobite 20:23, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Choices on VfD are either Delete the article and history, or Keep and make suggested fixes (merge, redirect, etc.). This format makes votes on either side of that line easier to tally. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't be focussing on tallying vote counts, we should be focussing on reaching consensus. anthony 警告 21:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure we can't.  :-{ Baylink 21:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Anthony about consensus. The VfD is diverting energy from the normal process of improving the article. When Netoholic was urged to raise his concerns on the article's talk page, he responded: "I've tried that in the sections above. Now users are re-adding those sections and dubious data and removing my disputed tags. That is why I have lost patience with this group. I have requested outside comment on this article, and if that does not work, then I will ask for deletion of this partisan junk." [3] His RfC had been posted at 17:59. [4] Netoholic then made this VfD listing at 20:01. Apparently, he "lost patience" with the RfC process about two hours after he began it. JamesMLane 21:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • If you refer to the actual talk pages and user history pages in question you will see that Netoholic's claims about engaging in debate are simply false, he engaged in absolutely no debate and acted unilaterally with the full knowledge that others disagreed with him and played games damaging all aspects and sub aspects of the page. He only went through the semblence of debate after he was rebuked and many noticed his actions. His history and the timeline of events can convince you more than anything I can say here. Zen Master 22:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with this. You should note that I wrote the following on Netoholic's talk page:
      • Further to this (I notice you archived this after like 1 hour on your page!) Perhaps you could stop making unilateral moves like blanking the page and redirecting it to a similar yet not quite related page [5]? Also, more things to look out for: don't just revert with the same edit summary (see [6], to which ZenMaster asked you to "rv please discuss your changes on the talk page and give proper time for others to respond" [7], to which you (ironically) reverted again with exactly the same edit summary [8]. You forced me to revert you because you didn't bother to discuss this to come to some sort of consensus. Then you moved this text to the talk page [9]: however you could have copied it into talk and not removed it. This was reverted [10], and you again reverted this with the text "(rvt. do not re-insert un-verified data. source it in the Talk, and then re-add)" [11]. You then reverted again, only this time you were so eager to revert that you altered removed another users edits! [12] I note that you wrote: "(rvt. I am here to protect WP's data integrity)". I find this ironic. Later on you did it again!!! [13] Stop that! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• If I may, I think the unsigned keep vote above is very telling: "this information needs to be known, ESPECIALLY with the mainstream media burying the story." People, however well intentioned, seem to be confusing us with Indymedia. We're not. We're not a news sources. We're not a forum for debate. We are trying to build a freely available encylopedia. There's an article on electronic voting that could use some solid NPOV editing with general information on the subject. This doesn't help. - RedWordSmith 21:52, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to say that we must only listen to "conventional" news media either. There is nothing that says that we should value conventional media information higher than community-driven media either. — David Remahl 21:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with this request for deletion, but I agree with Netoholic that certain users are making it hard to remove POV from the article. Rhobite 21:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • You're right, we aren't a news source. Thats been done by House COmmittees, a few zillion web pages and online media, expert witnesses and probably about 1/2 the worlds media outside the USA. What we are is an encyclopedia, and I say if we can provide an article on subjective matters such as gayness then we can for sure find a way to present the information available in the relevant sources without advocacy or opinion. FT2 06:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Do we need to organize the votes? There appear to be two additional votes for 'keep' outside the Keep/Delete structure (Anthony's and possibly the one below this comment).
  • Also, the comments that the opinions are 'activist' and 'partisan' are erroneous and do not contribute to the dialogue. Posting information that has not been disproven which demonstrates irregularity in favor of a certain candidate, especially in the absence of evidence of similar irregularity favoring the other candidate, is not activism or partisan, it's the ongoing effort to separate truth from fiction. My apologies if this comment is in the wrong location/page. (66.108.161.196)
  • I would recommend *manually* numbering the votes, so that removed votes are clearly obvious.
• I find it immensely amusing that here we have Netoholic, using what one person calls "every trick in the book to get the article either discredited, tagged as disputed or outright deleted, and who manually moves the opposing point of view to the very end of the VfD so nobody will read the responses to his VfD smokescreen -- because he wants to delete an article which lays bare evidence of voting irregularities!  ;) FT2 00:38, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Look, I supported Kerry, and strongly oppose Bush, and think there may well have been voting irregularities. But this article is pure crap, and embarrassing to Wikipedia. It's a bunch of amateurish correlations posted on blogs by people who obviously have no idea what they're doing. Causal claims are then suggested from these relationships without any attempt to correct for demographic factors; for the rural/urban distribution of voting machines; or for really anything else. There is no analysis of possible explanations and their relative likelihoods; there is really nothing at all except some random correlations. There is a high correlation between rates of ice cream consumption and murder too, but that's a meaningless statistic. Likewise with these statistics. To reiterate, I think there may well have been vote fraud, but that needs to be demonstrated with some respectable studies, not some random guy with a geocities webpage and an ImageShack account who obviously doesn't know the first thing about statistical analysis. --Delirium 03:29, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to delete. These issues can be fixed. Being "embarrassing to Wikipedia" never stopped things like Holocaust denial, and these were cleaned up to be quite respectable. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I didn't vote to delete. =] I do think 90% of the material in the article is not worth keeping though, and it should essentially be rewritten from scratch. This will probably be easier to do in a few weeks when more detailed analyses have been performed by non-Wikipedians. --Delirium 11:20, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

While I appreciate that I may hold a minority view in this vote, it is still my view that this article (not the issue itself) is a scourge on Wikipedia. Warriors are in charge of it, removing tags indicating the specific dubious information, and using attacks on me rather than addressing the article's problems. Even those voting Keep here are expressing major concerns. I ask now that in the interest of congeniality, that all personal comments stop now. Discuss the article and its merits. I am open to personal discussion with anyone here, so long it is not from an attacking posture. I stand by my history with this article, which shows attempts to fix and communicate the problems. -- Netoholic @ 04:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

I agree. Though we can't talk to you about this properly because you keep insisting on removing comments from your talk page when people want to discuss things with you. You won't even let me place it on my page, forcing me to protect it archive1, archive2, archive3 and archive4. My final word on the matter. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic - The problem with your approach to this article has been explained several times now, at least 5 or 6 by myself alone, with each point meticulously sourced and verified, and several times by others. My question is, I would like to know which aspects of it are "pure crap". The letters (two in 4 days) sent by the House Committee asking with alarm for a GAO investigation? The official polls of .gov websites showing voters who don't exist? The experts who testified on their identical concerns? The overseas press? Or what? Please justify the "its pure crap", on the talk page, because in my book you haven't even come close to beginning to make a case for it.

The only cases you've made have been to overlook every wiki policy page you've quoted - Verifiability, Cite Sources and Original Research. All inadequately drawn upon, each one of them. Mix that in with a load of blatent deletes and labels that others dont see as you do, a template TFD and now an article VfD, and thats why you are getting the short end of it right now.

What I want is fact not weasel. Go to the talk page. List out now, the exact sources in the article which you feel are misrepresented right now as more reliable than they are. List any data or presentations (maps etc) that are apparently unsourced. List the information claimed which actually is unverifiable. Do it now. Do not add tags, do not delete, learn to work with us, and if there is merit in your ideas, when examined neutrally, be asured there will be people who will see that. If they fall apart under scrutiny and people feel that actually its OK by Wiki standards when you doubt it, then you may have to accept their opinion and ask questions instead of just going it alone". You've found that doesn't work, both in the article, the talk page, the template deletion attempt, and now here. Then we will have good quality debate.

Part of that debate will be to stop jumping to "let's go delete it" but to instead go "lets see if we can find better evidence to substantiate and fix it". Or maybe "lets label it so the source we do have is clear". You need to help do that, too. If evidence or information exists relevant to this question, its your job as a wiki-ist to give it the fairest presentation it can have too. This is not an attack. I want people to work with you. But if you're a rogue wiki-ist and can't or won't, then this will be how others will respond. So far the response for whatever reason is about 10-1 against. FT2 06:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Responding to Netoholic: Personal comments are referring to your history in this matter, and are not "personal attacks". I welcome your criticism of the page, but the techniques you employed to harass and damage every aspect of the article were unacceptable. You ignored or didn't even bother to check for talk page decisions, listed everything for deletion, revert warred with many people, and were rebuked by people that don't care about the page -- I could go on. If you have valid concerns with a controversial article then you should be spending more time on the talk page, and less time making unilateral changes. The "prime directive" of wikipedia is debating your point of view on a talk page when there is controversy, not making unilateral changes because you believe your interpretation of wikipedia guidelines is the correct one. The ends do not justify the means. Zen Master 06:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Note: He's at it again!!!! Netaholic shifted both FT2 and my own text to the bottom of the page!!! I had to roll his edit back! Netaholic, seriously, you aren't helping your case in any way! And I wasn't terribly interested in this article when I started out (with the exception of the talk page reverts that I now regret). I'm certainly interested in this article now. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't insert your comments in between mine, please. Respond in your own section. -- Netoholic @ 06:53, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
    • I can and will. I'm not breaking policy by doing this. Neither is FT2. We will do so if we feel we need to correct the record. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:56, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Other than the fact that I have asked nicely. Please just stop fighting. You're winning this vote, leave my statement exactly as I presented it, please. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
        • I'm not trying to win!!! I'm trying to present facts and gather consensus. I would like to work this out civilly, but you keep removing sections and blanking that page. Not only that, but all discussion with you is impossible because you keep removing all comments on your talk page where you perceive people are criticising you. This makes it impossible to have a normal dialogue with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • It's my understanding that an article deletion is not a contest to be won by any means necessary. [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 07:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic, the initiator for this VfD gives four major reasons for his request:

Wikipedia:Verifiability - Contrary to Netoholic's claims there are just two sections which contain references to "raw data": "Exit Polls vs. Machine Tallies, by State (9 States)" and "Misrepresentation of exit poll data". The vast majority of the article is does not rely on this "raw data", and is sourced by quite reliable sources, such as: reputable news agencies such as the NYT, CNN, and the Economist; the official government web pages; and a multitude of other Wikipedia articles. But even when blogs and non-mainstream news sources are used they are allowed, per the Wikipedia:Verifiability guideline:

"Sometimes a particular statement can only be verified at a place of dubious reliability,
such as a weblog or a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then
just remove it - don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth.
However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question."

I don't think it could be argued that information that could affect the outcome of an American Presidential election is "unimportant" or "of limited interest". Therefore, in those instances where the only source is that of a weblog or non-mainstream news source, keeping it and appropriately attributing it seems the right thing to do.

Wikipedia:No original research - This is a good point. There is original research in the article, but it can be removed, as others have suggested. This is not a reason to delete the whole article, most of which does not constitute original research.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Netoholic writes, "from the article title to the content, this page draws a conclusion for our readers that there is a conspiracy, rather than problems faced during most elections". The fact is that there are controversial elements to this election. That some people maintain that the election was fair and orderly, while others maintain the opposite proves that there is controversy. This is not to mention the dozens of sources in the article itself. The article does not draw a conclusion there was a conspiracy, simply that there was controversy. Finally, I don't see how whether these problems were faced during most elections is at all relevant to whether this node should be deleted or not. Netoholic's unsubstantiated allegation does not impact on whether the article is writted from a NPOV.

Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links - The contention that this article is merely a list of links is plainly false. The vast majority of it consists of expositions on, summaries of the contents of, and quotes from the articles linked to. They may be organized in a less than ideal manner, but provide a useful resource, and certainly much more than "a mere collection of external links".

Finally, the article is not a "conclusion searching for evidence", as no conclusion is ever drawn. The evidence is presented, both pro and con, and the reader is allowed to make up their own mind on the issues raised within. noosphere 07:30, 16 Nov (UTC)

As a newly registered account I'd normally never would have voted (to prevent looking like a sock puppet) were it not for the fact that Netoholic was going around like a fanatic trying to surpress what was on this page while claiming his PoV was neutral and the other side was not( fanatics are in my PoV never neutral).

He should also notice that not a lot of topics that are this emotionally charged start of as neutral. The only way to get it there is have one side get their PoV on the table, get counter evidence (repeat these two steps ad nauseum), get into a debate on what is true, then slowly revise the page with what is true.

What not works is trying to kill of the work of one side, the only thing that that does is make them look more reliable there by hurting your own side.

Instead of having done the list of bad behaviour that was easily restoreable and traceable he'd gotten a much better solution out of it by actively giving counter evidence. That way the relative strength of the ideas he is opposing would have been reduced, while at the same time he would have gotten more respect for standing up for his convictions which in turn would have gained him credit which might have helped him in removing some of the lesser parts of the page.

Now, Netoholic, by not doing this but performing what can best be termed as vandalism strengthed the ideas he opposed. This by making it look like there is no counter evidence and his behaviour being the only way to get rid of the things he didn't like. He also reduced his standing as a good Wikipedia to such a degree that people have been actively working to get rid of him.

Velthuijsen 14:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Handling sock puppet votes

There are obviously a large number of Sock puppet votes in this VfD (users with far less than 100 edits). Should we list them here, or mark them on the main vote page? -- Netoholic @ 07:33, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

It is possible to recognize possible sock puppets by apparent new users who know their way around the Wikipedia system and who may vote on articles for deletion or vote on issues, for example, in their first few edits. -- from Wikipedia:Sock puppet

When did we go from "possible sock puppets" (emphasis in original) to "obviously ... Sock puppet[s]"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Newbie votes are legitimate. There is a difference between newbies and multiple account cheaters. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I know that I'm assuming bad faith here, but the author has an agenda. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Essentially, "I know I'm not supposed to assume bad faith, but I am." That's kind of a poor argument. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:16, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

True. The author has an agenda. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mo0 counts the votes So... based solely on red link userpages, that leaves 28 keep votes there. And unless there are about 25 sock puppets (which I highly doubt), the overwhelming consensus still stands. What's the point in this case? [[User:Mo0|Mo0[talk]]] 07:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that I am not a new user. I have a red link because I never got around to editing my page, but I've been on Wikipedia from the beginning. --Butter 18:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Butter has 3 edits from before this vote began. Special:Contributions/Butter It makes a vote look really bad when so many "new" people start voting on it... please don't do it. (Kind of ironic, don't you think, given what the vote concerns?!?!?!) func(talk) 19:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had forgotten my password for the longest time and I have made contributions anonymously, if you can check my ip addresses you can see for yourself. --Butter 19:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, fine, but I don't understand why you are persisting with this. Please read our policies regarding deletion policy, deletion guidelines for administrators, and sock puppets. I am not suggesting that your vote is improper or was made in bad faith, but it does look questionable, which makes the side that you are voting on look bad. (I am on that same side, by the way). func(talk) 19:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

delay and obfuscation? Preventing improvement of the actual page (remember that? If not, it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities --RyanFreisling

Author knows many tricks to try to change the voting pattern. One of them was moving this to the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We've discovered where all of the brand new usernames are coming from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=41925&mesg_id=41925

Which 'we' do you mean, is that Hillary's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Me thinks thou dost divulge too much... --RyanFreisling

Every single new username and anon vote that is on this page voting "Keep" should therefore be discounted if not deleted entirely.

And may I say, from a personal perspective, that this was disgusting on the part of whichever one of you did it. Since we can't exactly prove which one of you did, feel lucky. And you accuse Netoholic of somehow tainting the vote or acting unethically while this crap is going on? Reene (リニ) 09:08, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

From the profile page of that poster, they are "Member since Nov 10th 2003", "Number of posts 2647", "Gender female", "City Naples", "State Florida", "Country US", "Hobby animal lover". -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Please point to policy that says that they are not allowed to vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:13, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia:Sock puppet, in case you've missed it. From the page: "When in doubt, follow the 100-edit rule. While sock-puppetry accusations may be irksome and, at times, hasty, accounts are not considered to be immune to such accusations until they have acquired 100 edits, with preferably nontrivial variation. (If, say, 150 edits were made to the same page by an account, it might actually validate presumptions of sock puppetry.)" Also, "Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets are not permitted to vote in any Wikipedia election, nor are they allowed to participate in any similar procedure, such as polls and surveys or the discussions at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Voting by sock puppets is disruptive and unnecessary for any potentially legitimate use of sock puppets. Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes." --Slowking Man 09:24, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

There's no dispute over the policy of Sock Puppets, but what no one has demonstrated is how it's applicable here. Under the fractious logic above, all new users are assumed to be Sock Puppets if they come here from another site. How is this different? If that link pointed new users here in order to vote, and individuals do so intelligently and according to the WikiWay, and in so doing contribute to the final accuracy and informed-ness of the page itself, how does that make them Sock Puppets? Help us understand how that is 'disgusting', 'ballot stuffing', etc. >yawn< --RyanFreisling, early/late in the morning. (5am EDT)

• A vote about Election Irregularities is subject to ballot stuffing. And they say Americans don't do irony.

The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time. -- Larry Laudan,.

I'd vote, but whats the point? This one's going to the Supreme Court any moment now. -- GWO

There's been plenty of irony to go around here. Challengers on the ground, keeping the lines long and the process broken. I hope it does get resolved soon, because we need to focus on fixing/modifying/clarifying/informing the page itself. Isn't that the goal, rather than erasing all discussion of the issue? --RyanFreisling

The irony is not lost on me, I assure you. However, this is a matter of some seriousness. That someone decided it was a good idea to artificially inflate the votes for their own personal interests and the fact that a newbie admin is backing it up simply because his own POV is supported by it is dangerous for Wikipedia. My faith in the objectiveness of the system and especially in the admins to be fair and NPOV whenever possible has certainly been shattered.

I have no doubt this will end up getting tossed out without consideration, though, due to the actions of some users. The vote is tainted. At the very least there should be a redo...And somebody still needs to go through and delete the unmarked/anonymous/sockpuppet votes. Perhaps I should. Reene (リニ) 10:11, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I politely request that you do not remove votes according to your own attribution as Sock Puppets or otherwise, as your input is a matter of record for the Admins' consideration. If the NPOV is broken, let's fix it there and stop this parallel conversation in the votes page. We now have 4 different pages where one ought to serve Wikipedia best. If that is an important goal, I suggest we stop talking about a tainted vote to delete an entire wikipage, and instead improve that wikipage. That is the WikiWay. Let's try to observe Wikipedia:Civility and a sense of mutual commitment to the truth. Every 'tactic' in the book seems to have been brought out to sideline work on the main page, and that is what is dangerous for wikipedia. This page is not a political battleground, it's supposed to be a resource. --Ryan Freisling

Renee, I think that there is a clear misunderstanding of what a sock puppet actually is. A sock puppet isn't a newbie user, a sock puppet is a user who more than likely is a duplicate account holder. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's a matter of rule that you must sign your vote and that anonymous users cannot vote. Why shouldn't I at least go through and delete these? Please give me one valid reason.

Please point me to this "rule". You won't be able to, because there is no such rule. It is up to the discretion of the administrator who does the final count whether or not to count the vote. Personally, I wouldn't, but it's up to individual admins to ork this out. Also, even if there was a rule that anons cannot vote, that is no reason to remove the anon's vote if they aren't counted anyway! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

because as I understand it, the rule is that anon votes don't count, not that they can be removed by someone with the inclination, nor that anonymous votes cannot be submitted. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Admins can make those decisions (which votes count) in the course of their ponderances. --RyanFreisling

RyanFreisling is correct. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many attempts have been made to improve the page by removing POV and links/information of (sometimes highly) questionable veracity in favor of waiting for information on the topic that is of a less dubious nature. Due to a handful of users' personal vendettas against Netoholic, most were reverted for no good reason (though edits by other users seemed to stick better). The issue was also discussed exhaustively on IRC, where a certain user took to resorting to personal insults and attacks whenever the conversation was getting back on the track of actually improving the article by refining it and removing what most in the room agreed to be questionable content. I myself was called a "racist" completely out of the blue and for no good reason during the course of this.

I believe the WikiWay here is that a user doesn't just remove / eradicate / shift whole areas of content that are attributable nor refutable to your satisfaction, you work to better attribute or refute it. That's how these issues are to be dealt with. I didn't participate in much of that earlier (Zen, Neto and others), but it really ought to stop. We have a 3-revert rule and other good community-building habits that should guide our behavior. We should be constructively working on the encyclopedia entry, not arguing here about these things and seeking to obliterate articles, votes, ideas and comments. Also, I don't think the content of offline IRC conversations are salient here, except in seeking to avert or end personal attacks, which should be taken to mediation. Claiming what's going on here is a vendetta against Netoholic to me seems incomplete at best, dismissive at worst. Can we all mutually [put this edit war behind us] and move on to the task of making the wikipedia entry itself better?--RyanFreisling

Also, the only admin here has already made it quite clear he has no intent on being objective or NPOV in this situation, not to mention he's personally involved in the article. When I'm able I intend upon asking several other admins that are not involved to come and handle the issue. I believe Ta bu shi da yu for this reason would agree and should resolve not to use his abilities as an administrator to alter the article further or this page in any way. I hope you'll agree that's fair given the circumstances. Reene (リニ) 10:39, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this is not fair. Are you saying I'm not allowed to edit the main article or this page? If you think this, I'm rather afraid you are wrong. Perhaps you could read Wikipedia:Administrators before saying such things. You also need to be aware that I will not be the person who counts the vote, nor have I ever wished to do this. If you knew me better, you would see that every time I have gotten involved in a VfD that I have asked another administrator to perform admin tasks on the article and on the VfD page. You should also be aware that I am the one who asked Netoholic to place this on VfD [14] (though others also suggested this). I think that your characterisation of me as the big bad administrator who uses his powers for evil ends quite unfair. I suppose that this is the price one must pay for being an admin however, so I won't complain. I'll just state how I feel about your characterisation of myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are we negotiating administrators? I don't think that's for users to demand. I look forward to Ta's response here. So, don't delete anyone else's contributions wholesale until he can, okay? I'm sure you'll agree that's fair as well. --

My comment: I will not be doing any administration work on this page. I will not be ending the vote, nor will I block it. I might do a rollback, but that's only because its convinient. I will be using this page as a normal editor, as is my right. I think that perhaps Renee is new here, because as Wikipedia:Administrators says that "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility". I think that accusing me of not being objective is quite unfair and I would ask Renee to stop saying this, though I won't stop her or change her edits if she does say this and it's her POV. I am, however, definitely allowed to express my opinion. Just because I've been given admin access does not stop this. If it had, I would have refused it. I actually think I've been more than fair, however. I certainly haven't been the editor who has moved the comments to the talk page so those viewing the VfD page can't see it! I only put these back because I view such edits as an attempt to subvert the VfD process. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice I'm not voting to delete the article entirely. It's a valuble article (though perhaps best merged with the main if possible) with potential. At this point, though, starting with a relatively blank slate would be a Good Thing. I'm not trying to remove this entirely, quite the contrary, I want to refine it and make it into a good article. I tried really really hard to come to an agreement that would please everybody. I still am. But people artificially inflating votes and whatnot isn't helping matters.I requested that he not use his admin abilities in this matter because he's inherently biased due to his involvement in the article. As admins are supposed to be just like ordinary users, merely with special abilities, I think I'm well within my right to request such a thing. I also agree the childishness needs to stop (and seems to have for now at least). Personal attacks don't get anybody anywhere, and that's where much of my irritation with this whole issue comes from. Reene (リニ) 11:17, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Renee, I appreciate that you are just trying to fix up the page. I agree that it needs fixing. But this is the Votes for deletion page. Though I don't oppose Netoholic for putting it here, I do oppose that we remove the page. I am not a lone voice in this however. Even without the new users, the vote so far is not one of general consensus to delete. I also ask you to stop requesting that I stop admin this page, because I have not been "admining" the page using any special actions (except for rollback, and it's trivial for any other editor to do something similar). I have no intention of doing the final count, because I am well aware that I have a conflict of interest here. Please assume good faith over this! Allow me to make this crystal clear: I have no intention of admining this page! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I was referring to the page in question as well, however, not merely this VfD entry. At least for a short period of time. You admit there's a conflict of interest- that's big of you, thank you.

You must realize that every time I've tried to assume good faith on this issue I've been burned rather badly. Hence why I'm temporarily abandoning assume good faith unless I see a good faith effort being made first. I see you making one, that is good enough for me. Reene (リニ) 01:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

The actual effect of this whole deletion process is to keep the "This page has been listed for deletion." notice on top of the article to cast a shadow of doubt over it's whole content during the process. As the author of the VfD intended it to be, this effectively prevents the page from being used as a reference on the subject. Since the page is now well indexed by Google ( http://www.google.com/search?q=2004+election+irregularities ), the main message it conveys is : this is just another internet hoax. This maneuver is a dirty trick that exploits the reputation of Wikipedia to damage the whole investigative effort that is currently being conducted, and this should be an important concern. IMHO, this whole VfD constitutes a procedure abuse by a single individual. Please consider it's fast resolution as an emergency. Eric514 21:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seconded and added to with a request:

1. The vote seems obvious, and neutrally no guidelines are breached. Can we close this VfD sooner rather than later?
2. If anyone sees a post on any message board out there asking people to "vote" for it to not be deleted, you have my permission to add a post in my name as follows:

"As the originating author of this article, I would ask people not to vote either way who arent actually wiki-ists already. It skews the vote and frankly thats wrong whatever side you're on. I wrote this article, and even so, if it is genuinely and rightly voted for deletion then it should be deleted. I believe it has merit and I believe it will be voted as a "keep". But however annoying (or even spurious), there is a right on Wikipedia for a vote to be called, and that right has been exercised. Please respect it, and let it play out untampered. - FT2" FT2 22:36, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well it's good to know other people agree that kind of behavior isn't acceptable. Reene (リニ) 01:16, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Small quote to think about, from WP:NPOVD:

Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually was acceptable NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing controversial had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough. Probably, such people simply do not understand the NPOV policy. FT2 02:04, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

• From trenace: There's nothing wrong with presenting some alternate information clearly as such, but making such appear to be an overall analysis of a thing, in this case the legitimacy of the election results with implicit view that abnormal, fraudulent, or disenfranchising irregularities occurred, is in my opinion not worthy of an encyclopedia. Now, having long been a Wikipedia reader but not wishing to edit where I didn't have the basis to, I have only one set of edits, on a mathematical subject. And above it's been pretty clearly stated that therefore even a vote from such as me is "suspect." But does this mean I have no interest in Wikipedia maintaining a high standard and good name? This case is unfortunate. It appears to me a partisan effort from the start, frankly. It appears to me that any effort by anyone to make this article more neutral, to achieve anything like a full balance of "alternative" points on the one hand and on the other, facts from election officials and conclusions from sources generally considered authoritative that results are correct, lawful, and legitimate is likely to result in partisan efforts to recast the article back into delegitimizing the election; and so many, while seeing the problems, will not wish to so edit. I would not care to, for example. It seems clear to me that the author and others wish to present as strong a case as possible for calling the election into doubt, and to give nearly as little weight as can be to far weightier -- by any ordinary standard -- evidence of legitimacy. Why have an edit war, or have feelings that edits for the purpose of greater balance, a more mainstream view, will be attacked or are unwelcome? Why not instead retitle this page to something making clear that it is attempting only to explain how some people have some accusations, but even there, in an even-handed way within the text strongly acknowledging that this is not the accepted judgment of either election officials or major news organizations.

Because the election is not over. The voting is. This is the time where examining issues like this is appropriate, and so this is now part of the national dialogue. A controversial part, hence the rationale for the page's existence. Recounts, provisional and absentee ballot counts, etc., are a part of this 'discovery' process, and results have not been certified, nor a President inaugurated, so it's not true to say there is an 'accepted judgement of elected officials'. And the country is experiencing unprecedented numbers of election irregularities of all description. There are dozens and dozens of cited news sources reporting these irregularities. And in fact, the lack of media attention at the outset, in light of some of these irregularity reports, is itself controversial (libel chill and other reasons), and is a growing part of the story [15]. A recount has been requested and granted in NH, not on the basis of a close result, but rather due to reported irregularities. If it's reason for NH officials to grant a recount, the reason for this page is clear. At least until the Electoral Votes are delivered, it's premature and perhaps complementarily partisan to outright label this a 'partisan effort'. The issue is not 'casting something into delegitimizing the election'. There are legitimate issues with the election's legitimacy that are currently under legitimate investigation. -- RyanFreisling @ 12:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ironically, I agree with most of the sentiments of Ryan. Like Ryan (who voted keep) I don't agree with deleting the whole page. The page needs significant NPOVing and cleanup. At the same time, those who are trying to do this (like Netoholic) need to stop making unilateral edits and learn to use the talk page more! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree it needs NPOVing and cleanup. With regard to New Hampshire, my understanding is that the "reported irregularities" weren't the basis for the decision by officials to grant the recount. They were the basis for Nader to request one. The officials granted it on the basis that a candidate had exercised his legal right to request it and had forked over the check. Still, the formal conduct of a recount is another objective indication of a notable controversy that would deserve an article even if the election had actually been a model of fairness and accuracy. JamesMLane 12:41, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To further clarify what Ryan and James, among others, have expressed well -- the existence of the article is not an "implicit view" that "abnormal, fraudulent, or disenfranchising irregularities occurred", as Frenace misunderstands it to be. Wikipedia has an article on the Loch Ness Monster and the existence of the article is not an implicit statement that the monster exists. Deleting the article, however, is an implicit statement that such controversies and irregularities did not exist; it's a statement that that negative has been proved and that the issue is not even in doubt except by kooks and "partisans". Is that how you are classifying the House Committee members who have written the GAO asking for an investigation? If you truly believe that every cited irregularity and controversy does in fact have a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation, then fine; please improve the article by explaining why each irregularity looks suspicious when it's not. But voting to delete the article is asking Wikipedia to endorse the implicit view that David Icke's conspiracy theories of reptilian humanoids manipulating humanity are more credible than any theories of wrongdoing in the 2004 election; his theories are discussed, even if they're treated with skepticism, but a delete vote is saying that the irregularities of the 2004 election, like voting machines counting backwards, do not even deserve discussion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let me please concur entire with what Antaeus says above; this is the clearest expression I've seen yet of my own opinion as to why the page should not be deleted. Clearly, the voting on *this* issue *does* constitute a mandate (:-); how long are such VfD's supposed to be left open, and can we close this one now and delete the notice? Baylink 18:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An article's listing on VfD must be kept open for at least five days. (Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Lag times). This listing was begun at 20:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC), so it must stay open for at least a couple more days. JamesMLane 18:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RyanFreisling quoted trenace as saying "It seems clear to me that the author and others wish to present as strong a case as possible for calling the election into doubt, and to give nearly as little weight as can be to far weightier -- by any ordinary standard -- evidence of legitimacy."

Don't impute motives trenace. Instead, contribute by citing other evidence from the hearing in which Security experts testified to the Feds that the voting machines were secure, evidence that the 4000 voters in Gahanna 1-B really existed, evidence that the mysterious differences in exit polls which a lifelong republican pollster described as "incredible" and which mainly happened in swing states were actually well within normality. Contribute by adding to the talk pages or article, the "far weightier (by any ordinary standard) evidence" you feel is omitted (and substantiate a judgement that it is "far weightier" rather than just using weasel words). FT2 19:12, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

From Trenace - This page requested specifically, "Please do not use this vote to debate the sides of the issue." Acccordingly I did not cite examples or debate the particular issues, but simply spoke of the general matters. Now, the impression I have of the article, is the impression I stated. You may believe it wrong, but it appears that way to me. I didn't see what I felt was a significant or fair reply to any point I made with regard to balance or retitling of the article to match what it is presenting, which I continue to feel are valid points. As for your using terms such as "weasel words" to describe my statement on weight of evidence, I think you accomplish nothing there but showing hostility.

As for the dispute on whether the page implicitly assumes that "abnormal, fraudulent, or disenfranchising irregularities occurred" I don't feel that the Loch Ness monster example refutes this. (By the way, do you hold that it's no more established that abnormal, fraudulent, or disenfranchising irregularities occurred, than it's established that the Loch Ness monster exists? I don't at all gain the impression from the article that the editors consider these in the same class: a peculiar example for you to choose.) I continue to hold that the way the title and text of the article are written do at least give the appearance of such implicit assumption.

Indeed, why not -- if there is no bias here, no actual intent to present an article delegitimizing the election -- write and title the article as being only that some people question the election results for such and such reasons, however there is a massive lack of corroboration from sources such as state officials responsible for certifying results that the outcome is wrong in any state, a general acceptance from news sources generally considered authoritative that the election outcome was correct, lawful, and legitimate; and no proof of abnormal, fraudulent, or disenfranchising irregularities beyond a few small oddities that occur in every election or for that matter any such massive undertaking, many of which were corrected, that in no way have been shown to change outcome. That's not bias, that's simply being evenhanded because that is the state of affairs at this time. Present alternative theories as such if you like, but not as a supposedly general, non-biased, no-political-goal discussion of the election. Which this article absolutely does not appear to be, and appears about irredeemably far away from ever becoming, unless possibly the editors themselves might choose to recast its presentation and balance, which from both what is written in the article and what has been written above in the discussion, does not seem to be an outcome to expect, but nonetheless it is one to wish for.

... do you hold that it's no more established that abnormal, fraudulent, or disenfranchising irregularities occurred, than it's established that the Loch Ness monster exists? No, I don't hold that. That you would suggest that as the logical consequence of what I said suggests that you still don't understand the crux of the debate. The point is that you were trying to frame the question as 'since no one really believes that anything went on* then Wikipedia should not have an article which even discusses whether anything happened or not.' This means that either you grossly misunderstand Wikipedia policy, where things which are believed by large numbers of people are worthy of discussion even if the majority of people do not share that belief, or you are completely out of touch with reality and in your fantasy world there is no one who matters who has any doubt whatsoever about the 2004 election. That's the only way to describe it. You are advocating that because "major news organizations" haven't said much about election irregularities (except for CNN, the New York Times, and other podunk little newspapers) that the article should be deleted -- if that's not your argument, you were wrong to bring it up on this VfD. But you don't understand that if you are going to argue "there is so little argument on the subject that Wikipedia should take the official stance of denying there is any arguement on the subject" then the burden of proof is on you -- not to just assert that the people on one side of the argument are correct, but to actually establish that there is no significant amount of argument. And to do so -- well, you have to be living with your head in the sand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, the function/structure of NPOV is not to provide a 'counterbalance' and argue the issues. It is to describe in a comprehensive, truthful way the extent and nature of the issue under discussion. 'Regularities' don't belong in a document about 'irregularities'. The amount/percentage/extent of the irregularities in the context of the election is a valid and crucial topic to understanding the issues, but what you describe above is advocating a POV. As has already been suggested ad nauseam, contributions of fact and evidence are the WikiWay approach for the concern you raise. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When you say that a counterbalance is not required and "'Regularities' don't belong in a document about 'irregularities',"" are you saying that a document concerning the accuracy and validity of US election results should not even mention let alone make clear -- if such be the case -- that "there is a massive lack of corroboration from sources such as state officials responsible for certifying results that the outcome is wrong in any state, a general acceptance from news sources generally considered authoritative that the election outcome was correct, lawful, and legitimate; and no proof of abnormal, fraudulent, or disenfranchising irregularities beyond a few small oddities that occur in every election or for that matter any such massive undertaking, many of which were corrected, that in no way have been shown to change outcome?" In other words are you saying that only if the article presents exclusively arguments of the election results being wrong, and avoids reporting findings of results being correct, lawful, and legitimate, that that is what is NPOV?

If so then the article as is certainly approaches that sort of NPOV! ;)

Don't see your point, the article is *not* about the *results* of the election, but about irrégularities. Iregularities are a topic in themselves, whatever the results. Only once the scope of irregularities is known, and whatever the regularities, can a conclusion be given if the results are wrong or not, which is another topic. Of course, a specific article about "the overall reliability of the election results" could be launched, but it seems to me that it is a bit early for that, unless you are impatient --Pgreenfinch 23:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also agreed. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's clear at this point that Trenace is not arguing in good faith. The point has been made over and over that even if a full investigation were to demonstrate that each and every one of the perceived irregularities in the 2004 election has a reasonable and logical explanation, the fact that there was a widespread perception of irregularities would merit an article -- an article in which the explanation of the irregularities would certainly belong. Trenace insists, however, on the straw man that those who are not recommending the deletion of the article are demanding an article that "presents exclusively arguments of the election results being wrong".

Bottom line: If this were a court of law, the people voting "keep" would be the one asking for a trial, for the evidence to be examined and a fair verdict to be rendered. Trenace and those like him are the ones trying to demand a summary judgement and avoid any examination of the evidence; they are trying to argue that their case is so iron-clad that to allow the other side to present a case would be a miscarriage of justice. The idea that they have met, or could meet, the high standards of proof for a summary judgement, is ridiculous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, when people reduce themselves to asserting that a person with an opposing view -- asking, incidentally, only that the article be titled for what it is and have more balance! -- uses "weasel words," "is not arguing in good faith," and employs "straw men," -- misusing each of these terms and using them simply to be inflammatory and/or derogatory as they're certainly not correct -- and further falsely asserting that those asking for balance or appropriate titling of the article are arguing that to allow the other side to present a case would be a miscarriage of justice or that standards of proof for a summary judgment and wishing to avoid examination of evidence are involved in any way (the true strawman arguments here, how ironic), and referring to anyone asking for such to be "the likes of him," it becomes fairly clear where they're coming from, in my opinion.

If you wonder why it is that this article is perceived as it is by many, well it should be no wonder, if the editors are the same as or similar in method to those writing such comments. You are nowhere near neutrality.

I hope you feel the damage you do to Wikipedia's credibility is worth your aims. The Kerry and Bush bios have already been a widely-publicized laughingstock and black eye cited as evidence of unreliability, and your efforts here are simply adding to that.

I would suggest, regardless of your political beliefs or desire to present a given take on the election, that you seek to write to appear balanced and neutral to the great majority within the mainstream of American thought, to accurately balance evidence and conclusions of authoritative sources that the election results were correct, lawful, and legitimate as well as concisely but accurately presenting both pros and cons of that which may suggest otherwise rather than claiming that counterbalance does not belong in the article nor does evidence of regularity. Which were simply astounding statements. And abusing those who ask for that does not help your cause or credibility. Instead, such behavior strongly suggests you have an agenda differing from an overall unbiased, neutral presentation summarizing validity or accuracy of the election results. -- Trenace

I can only conclude you misunderstood my post, and that your out-of-context quoting of it in that manner only illustrates a misunderstanding of NPOV in this instance. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bottom line: You "suggest" that we "seek to write to appeared balanced and neutral to the great majority within the mainstream of American thought." You are, however, trying to deny us the opportunity to do that, because you're trying to get the article deleted so that there is no discussion at all, balanced, imbalanced, or otherwise -- again, if that is not your goal, it has no place in this VfD, and this has been brought to your attention enough times that you cannot excuse yourself with "I only wanted to state that the article should be better balanced; you shouldn't have jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about deleting it!" Your comments can only be read as an argument that the VfD should be granted on the false premise that there are no controversies or irregularities and that not even the perception of such exists (in the minds of anyone who counts), and it is your own behavior in this VfD which, to use your own phrasing, "strongly suggests you have an agenda differing from an overall unbiased, neutral presentation summarizing validity or accuracy of the election results." We, after all, are not the ones trying to eliminate any such presentation from Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your statements above show that rather than have a reasoned discussion or acknowledging merit to requests for balance, which it's almost unbelievable would be controversial or opposed by anyone, you are doing nothing but introducing heat and confusion, as nowhere did I do as you state I did, such as and particularly advocating deletion of the article. Your response is bluster and untrue, in nearly every single aspect, as each can confirm for himself or herself by comparing my statements above with your claims. If you do this with black and white material right here in front of you on this same page, -- blatantly misreport and misrepresent it -- then what sort of objectivity or ability to report accurately is involved here? Perhaps that is the fundamental problem. -- Trenace

What part of "Votes for deletion" did you not understand? As anyone reading the page can confirm, you were reminded again and again that whether your concerns about the balance of the article were completely right or completely wrong, if they were not being presented for their relevance to the question that is at issue here -- i.e., should the page be deleted or not -- then here is not the place for them. That's not a hard concept to grasp, that there is a place where we would be perfectly willing to discuss at length how to best achieve balance and NPOV on this article but that this is not it; that this is the place to debate whether the article will be deleted, and you have no right to complain if people interpret your comments in the context of that debate, which happens to be the purpose of this page. What part of "Votes for deletion" did you not understand?

If you were reading our words for more than just material to troll with, you read these words from me: "If you truly believe that every cited irregularity and controversy does in fact have a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation, then fine; please improve the article by explaining why each irregularity looks suspicious when it's not." Exactly how does any reasonable person acting in good faith translate that as refusing to "acknowledge merit to requests for balance" -- how exactly do you reconcile my purported denial that balance is desirable with my encouraging you to go ahead and give us the facts needed to balance the article? I think it's quite clear where the misrepresenting and misreporting is coming from, at least in this discussion, and I will not waste my time further responding to someone that I can no longer believe is acting in any sort of good faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Individuals will, in an inquisitive, critical society, make their own decisions. It bears mention that despite your thesis here, you have not made a single edit to the 'main' article itself, the limit of your contributions thus far having been to this page. If you feel strongly, why not participate constructively? No one here is suggesting you cannot. Unlike some, I would welcome it and would not label you a sockpuppet for your limited, recent involvement and zero participation thus far. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Unlike some, I would welcome it and would not label you a sockpuppet for your limited, recent involvement and zero participation thus far." Well, I think you've said it all about the attitude of these "some," as well as your own. Thank you so much for offering to not label me a "sockpuppet." But by the way, I didn't ask your opinion on that nor did anyone, so that appears more of a gratuitous backhand than anything else. In any case, no wonder I feel edits would be unwelcome at least from these "some" and likely immediately reversed regardless of merit and neutrality. I would rather stick to mathematics articles, in those rare cases where there is clear error that can be corrected in an otherwise fine article, than to deal with an environment where a highly active editor is, as you are, determined that counterbalance should not be present, that the only NPOV is one that only provides evidence of irregularities, not regularities. I am not interested in an editing war. -- Trenace

I'm sorry if you were insulted by that. It was not meant as an insult, but rather in reference to the recent deletions of votes outright (the nullification of other peoples' opinions) that took place on this very page. Instead of parroting my words, why not contribute some of your own and stop complaining about other peoples' bias? -- RyanFreisling @ 06:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not insulted but I considered that such a thing would be said to be indicative of attitude and the environment that I'd encounter were I to add any edits working towards improving neutrality of the article. -- Trenace

Then get involved and find out for yourself, rather than prognosticating. The community may prove you wrong, why not give it a try? If you'd like help, there are many wiki experts to turn to. -- RyanFreisling @ 06:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Three aspects: Do you still stand by your stated positions that counterbalance does not belong and providing it would violate NPOV? If so then how can anyone expect to provide balance to the article without encountering hostility. Second, you've pretty much stated (except for possible ambiguity) that you expect others will attack me as a "sockpuppet" if I do so. Third, I see plenty of evidence on this page alone that anyone, even in a mild and polite way saying balance should be added, is attacked in what I perceive as a hostile way for it, including by yourself. Just as two illustrations, it's hard for me to believe that someone who would write allegations, as you have, that I do not argue in good faith, and further falsely attribute numerous things to me I did not say, as you have, is likely to turn around 180 degrees and then fairly treat any edits I create. As I said I do not wish to be involved in an editing war with hostile people who are determined that counterbalance should not exist in this article. That is fruitless, if that remains the environment.

My responses are:

1. 'counterbalance' is not what NPOV is based on. NPOV is based on objective fact. You do not balance a fact with an assertion or allegation. An attempt to present a contrasting point of view that is not based in equal fact, is by nature POV. Am I unclear? That is the only interpretation of my words that I intend.

Trenace replies: No one and certainly not myself suggested providing only assertions or allegations to provide counterbalance to what is presently in the article, but rather, evidences and citations of the election results being correct, lawful, and legitimate, which obviously is highly relevant and, particularly from state election officials, is of no small weight, and omission or minimization of which is not neutral. You are arguing against something never said or implied. Agreed, there are too many layers of reply and I am fine with this being my last statement here.

1. You misunderstand. I stated that others have been labeled as such for contributing here without adequate 'edits' (100), and that I would not continue that pattern. Nothing more is intended in my statements.
2. Your ideas are not being attacked, nor is your belief system. It's your interpretation of the role of POV in this process that I have differed with. Everything else, you have inferred in my statements without my intent (and for that I apologize and will endeavor to be clearer). You have not created a single edit and yet there is a tremendous amount of time reflected in this exchange that could be better suited focussing on the issue.
3. My last thing: this is an excessive # of indents. I am hopeful from your closing sentence below that we can now focus on the issue at hand ('2004 Election controversies and irregularities'). -- RyanFreisling @ 07:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wished to do only what I have done, and to express what I have expressed here in my first couple of replies, and particularly that such balance should be provided. -- Trenace

Editorial mandate proposal poll

• While the vote still has about a day left on it, it does seem that many people have agreed that it should be kept. That being said, many people have expressed that the current direction and state of the article does not present a sufficiently neutral or factual view of the subject. In the days since its creation, this page has been largely worked on by four specific users. For each of them, concerns have been raised about their impartialty.
  With this in mind, I have constructed a straw poll on the main article's talk page in the section called "Editorial mandate proposal". In it, I have asked that these four editors voluntarily withdraw, should a majority of other people hold the view that those editors are not representing a neutral view. This is not meant to be a penalizing effort - it is constructed so that we can quantify the community's opinion in a way that these editors will voluntarily respect. Please take a look at it, reviewing the contributions of these four editors, and voice your opinion here. -- Netoholic @ 05:14, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
  • I strongly encourage everyone to follow the link to Netoholic's straw poll. Please take a look at it and the strong criticisms that actual Arbitration Committee members (the ones who have actually had to earn the trust of other users to get to their current positions) have voiced regarding this attempt of Netoholic to create "a de facto Arbitration Committee." Also, please note the new poll option that has been added. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have added this to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I find the Netoholic proposal more than POV. This idea that some specific articles would have accepted contributors and excluded ones, the good guys vs the bad guys, seems to me an insult to wikipedia. Imagine how this would pave the way for contributorship discrimination, as some articles would have official writers while some will be forbidden to bring their info. Or if they still want to do it, they would have to act via another member. Sockpuppetship at its best/worst. I will certainly not play this discrimination game by answering that pitiful poll. --Pgreenfinch 08:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • • We're so busy trying to get democracy instilled in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but yet we can't even get it right here in America. If Republicans were on the other side of the fence, they would be demanding the same thing Democrats are now. If the CEO of Diebold was a Democrat contributed and promised to give the State of Ohio to Kerry, there would be outrage on the major media outlets and Fox News would be having a field day. I think the Republicans need to sit back and relax and let the Green and Libertarian parties make sure every vote was counted properly.

Article & debate is getting attention

The article and the votes for deletion have been getting attention and links from various weblogs and sites. I suspect some of the "sockpuppets" are people new to Wikipedia who found their way here via external links To these we say Welcome, newcomers. -- Infrogmation 19:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the significant margin as it is, have we decided not to delete this yet? If not, when is the deadline for the vote to pass? --kizzle 22:17, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

An article's listing on VfD must be kept open for at least five days. (Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Lag times). This listing was begun at 20:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC), so it has about another day to run. The expiration of the five days, however, merely opens the VfD listing for action by an admin. Nothing happens automatically. An occasional VfD listing persists for weeks before anyone gets around to closing it, but I suspect this one won't. JamesMLane 22:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I undid the removal of the VfD. Only an admin may remove that, correct? -- RyanFreisling @ 02:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope the admins are on top of things tommorow when time runs out. --kizzle 22:36, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Patience my young Padawan. The vote shall end soon. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My patience ran a bit thin on the rex arbitration case. :) --kizzle 01:55, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Never got involved with that. Sounded bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep this article please. It's rather important to inform the public about this ongoing news item.Naderlin 08:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)68.194.57.76 13:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.