Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies/Archive 5

2525:

created was because of article size and to aid page organization. If you meant that this article can be phased out after january 20th, then I would perhaps agree to that, but as long as this subject is still a current event and may change rapidly there should be be one main article. The data is the heart of the matter, with out all the data there would be no need to have these articles? I think the article, and the subject of the article, has changed greatly since you first formed your opinion about it, there is increasingly an overload of information coming out from congressional hearings and further statistical analysis etc. The point of having a generalized parent article is to give an overview of all the issues which includes both controversies and data irregularities (hence the title), if something doesn't have a daughter article then it should be given the normal full breadth in the parent article, right? Much of the exit poll analysis was moved to a daughter article so can you please be more specific about the statistical analysis that you don't like/think should be moved, do you just mean the third party analysis? One of the reasons we've used for justifying the existance of this article is the presence of third party election results analysis, to date, Professor Freeman's paper is probably the most formal thing that has come out as far as election results criticisms goes, so we should at least co-focus the parent article on that I believe.

809:: that you and I have two completely different articles in mind. I'd like to know what would be your ideal title for the article that would focus on what you see as the key issues, i.e., for the article you described in your sandbox comment: "the article strives to be just a mathematical analysis...." For my part, I think there definitely needs to be an article in which long lines, voter suppression, registration issues, absentee ballots etc. are key issues. The article I want would, as I mentioned, give considerable attention to points that are being raised that aren't claimed to have affected the Bush versus Kerry outcome but that are cited by some critics as matters of election procedure that need to be changed. The article you want is reflected more closely in the current TOC of this one -- a TOC that, as I said on the talk page, I don't agree with. That leads me to think more strongly that we should just have two articles. For the one I envision, "2004 U.S. election voting controversies" is a good title, with maybe "2004 U.S. election data irregularities" for the other one? Obviously, they'd need to be cross-linked, and each of them linked from 2710:

evaluate whether any particular fact "is a good indicator". We wouldn't say, "That the list was fraudulent is evident from the fact that it was 95% wrong and always in the case of black voters." Instead, we just report known facts, or, where there's controversy, attribute them: "The state initially announced its intention to purge voters using a list of felons. It later conceded, however , that 95% of the names on the list were not felons." And, of course, if there's something from the other side, for example undercutting the implication of scienter that Baylink mentioned, then we report that: "Col. Jefferson Legree, the Chair of the State Board of Elections, said that an intern in his office had inadvertently transposed the actual felon list with a list of people being screened for sickle-cell anemia." We can ring in "fraud" in an attributed quotation, such as the link to the Volusia article.

2056:"In a stunning admission, an elections manager for NBC News said national news organizations overestimated President George W. Bush's support among Latino voters, downwardly revising its estimated support for President Bush to 40 percent from 44 percent among Hispanics, and increasing challenger John Kerry's support among Hispanics to 58 percent from 53 percent. The revision doubles Kerry's margin of victory among Hispanic voters from 9 to 18 percent. Ana Maria Arumi, the NBC elections manager also revised NBC's estimate for Hispanic support for Bush in Texas, revising a reported 18-point lead for Bush to a 2-point win for Kerry among Hispanics, a remarkable 20-point turnaround from figures reported on election night." 1610:

but in certain southern ohio counties where Connelly is presumably unknown she received 257,000! more votes than Kerry did which does not make any sense at all. Most of these votes were "extra" votes for bush, i.e. the republican judge candidate suspiciously received only half the number of votes bush did in these southern Ohio counties. A statewise analysis of this discrepancy should be performed. I suppose it's possible there was fraud for Kerry around Cleveland but there are more signs of the fraud being in bush's favor. Also note party affiliations are not listed next to judge-ship candidates on the ballot.

2269:

staff and an established credibility. Someone who reads something surprising on Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't have to consult the page history to see if it was added ten minutes ago by a POV warrior, or search the talk page to see if there was a long argument about it that finally ended when everyone agreed that the sentence should stay in based on the support found at thus-and-such site. If there's an online link that backs up and/or amplifies the point, it's valuable to the reader for the link to be included right there. If the support is a printed book or article not available online, citation is still useful.

2189:

style. I can think of no other article that comes close to 250 external links. I can certainly think of no encyclopedia articles in any print encyclopedias that cite sources every sentence. Right now, this reads less like an encyclopedia article than a research paper. When we're attributing historical facts, we don't need to cite at all. When, as in the next section, we're attributing papers and other opinions, we attribute, but again, we don't generally link. (Another part of this is that the goal of Knowledge (XXG) is to provide GFDL information - continually linking to unfree sites compromises that goal.)

683:)." That page goes on to mention making the material "absolutely clear to the nonspecialist". The version you've reverted to doesn't mention some of the controversies that will interest readers, like absentee ballot problems. It's pitched more toward readers who already have some knowledge of the dispute. An example is the use of the term "data irregularities" in the first sentence. My proposal is that the lead section should be at a more introductory level. "Imagine yourself as a high school student in the country farthest away from your own, but who has managed to learn English reasonably well." ( 2494:. The result is that this article now repeats some information that was already contained in its "Introduction". Even in using that more general list of issues, though, this article reflects the heavy focus on data about EVM-related issues, the focus that led some editors to revert my earlier edits that substituted this passage as the lead section. That's reflected in that the bulleted list of issues that I wrote now has appended, as a separate bullet point, a quotation about the source code in EVM's. This quotation is obviously one fact under the point concerning EVM's, not its own separate issue. 1101:

swung the election either way, thus counting the vote discrepency against the total vote count is an incorrect understanding of voting theory, as it only matters in the margin in a few states... the amount of possible discrepencies due to e-voting machines in Ohio and Florida is above the margin that Bush carried, thus it does make a difference. Each one of these discrepencies is sourced, if you can find ones on Kerry PLEASE put them in. I welcome your constructive criticism, if you can provide specific links or passages (use quotes) that are incorrect, it would be greatly appreciated.--

512:

trotted out in the very first sentence. We need to give more recognition to the substantial body of opinion that dismisses all these maps and alleged statistical analyses with a snort of derision, but says that, for example, many of the states have completely messed up their conduct of elections, and the federal government should take over, or at least assume a much more active role in setting and enforcing uniform national standards. This argument arises from concerns about registration, absentee ballots, long lines, etc., as well as about the secret software for the machines.

1034:

shouldn't even be here. And it just gets worse from there. The article goes through and names everyyyyyyyything any person with a blog can throw at a wall to see if it sticks. You need real sources that are encyclopedia-level sources and you need to limit yourself to a tiny fraction of the total length of this article in order to have a NPOV article that accurately represents its current noteworthiness in the news and the real world. Knowledge (XXG) isn't here to advance your political cause, and it's clear that most of the people working on this article don't get that.

1029:

Knowledge (XXG) policy explained things should be handled. Now, specifically, from my quick glance at it as a writer, someone who believes objectivity is essential, and who generally thinks their probably were problems in voting and the wrong man one, I think this (and especially all the offshoot articles) are horribly biased toward the idea that there were rampant irregularities. It starts out with a chart with big blatant red colors proclaiming "election day problems" and, after looking at the numbers, we discover that only

252:, have been critical of many aspects of the process (inconsistent rules from one state to another, the difficulties many people encountered in registering and voting, etc.). Another change is that "the 2004 election" isn't the same as "the 2004 presidential election". The rewrite includes wikilinks to the articles on the Congressional elections as well. For example, the charges based on analysis of the absentee ballots in North Carolina referred to the votes for the Senate seat as well as the presidential race. 2507:

county and to quote software engineers to their heart's content, but the summary article would be kept rigorously clear of that level of detail. As to the question of how to deal with ongoing developments, the summary article should also be kept ruthlessly free of another problem that's afflicted this one, namely turning it into a newsfeed instead of an encyclopedia article. There would be no day-by-day chronology as there is here. People who want to maintain a day-by-day chrono can include it in the existing

2287:

summarise but to inform. When that encyclopedias subject matter is complex, controversial and yet substantial and substantiated, then it is appropriate to give rather more detail than otherwise. I am not aware that giving much source material is listed on the deletion policy page as a reason for deletion. It *may* be a reason for cleanup, but excess information (in some people's eyes) neither changes if the matter is significant, sourced, capable of ebing represented encyclopediacally, or other issues.

365:

those points wouldn't shift the election to Kerry. Some of them may even prefer Bush, but feel duty-bound to work for fair elections, let the chips fall where they may. But I used "critics" for the second category, the people who think that the official counts produced the wrong result -- not wrong in the sense that re-(s)electing Bush will be disastrous for the country, but wrong in the sense that Bush didn't legitimately win. I don't see a problem with calling those people "critics". JamesMLane

2537:

article". The link to the broader article should simply be worked into the article in a way that lets the reader understand the context, with something like, "The concerns about this subject were only one of the issues raised in connection with the election; see ___ for further information.") Therefore, we certainly shouldn't get into an argument about which article deserves to be designated as "the parent article" and which ones are somehow of lesser status.

419:

from dishonesty). The NPOV policy permits (in fact, requires) the reporting of that POV. People holding that view qualify as "critics". Still, if you have a problem with the word, we can avoid it. What about "More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome...."? The key, to my mind, is to make clear that there are some people calling for improvements who don't sign on to the view that Kerry really won.

1782:"Statistically, Kerry, as the Democratic presidential candidate, should have more votes than Connally. In a presidential election, most voters have the priority of casting a vote for president and the votes for president are almost always much higher than those of candidates farther down the ticket... Many voters simply don’t vote for Supreme Court justices. It is highly improbable that Connally’s vote totals would be so much higher than Kerry’s" 1588:"Statistically, Kerry, as the Democratic presidential candidate, should have more votes than Connally. In a presidential election, most voters have the priority of casting a vote for president and the votes for president are almost always much higher than those of candidates farther down the ticket... Many voters simply don’t vote for Supreme Court justices. It is highly improbable that Connally’s vote totals would be so much higher than Kerry’s" 38: 1062:

is that these reports are way way way below anything that could have changed the results of the election even if you simply decide to handle every reported problem over to Kerry and assume it was originally a vote for Bush. The inclusion of this map as it exists now is a highly partisan act that violates NPOV. Please try to respond with a logical reply to this criticism if you can find one instead of simply lashing out.

506:

it's "data irregularities", the term has for me the connotation of referring primarily to discrepancies between exit poll results and the official counts. If people are improperly prevented from registering, that doesn't seem like a "data irregularity". In terms of the effects of the controversy arising from this election, though, I think changes in voter registration rules are a quite possible outcome.

256:

more detail. The rest of the introduction should list the major issues. I think the current narrative style is too pokey ("There were reports.... There were also reports.... There may have been.... Another issue is...."). It would work better to use the bullet style. The best way to give the reader a quick overview would be to combine the current paragraph with the "Examples of issues" section but to

1721:

proportionate to the Bush vs Kerry vote) and then came up with the 257,000 number. However, upon a more careful reading I see it has to do with the differences in margin and not the difference in actual vote. I now think the article could be explained a lot clearer, but I no longer object to posting it, as I don't see it as a distortion, as long as there's a note that we're talking about the

1689:? So I believe the point the person that wrote "extrapolation" was really trying to make was that the 257,000 figure includes both votes taken away from Kerry and votes added to Bush, why do you believe we should only look at the votes taken away from Kerry? Someone still has to do a full state wide analysis comparing presidential race results to judge-ship race results in Ohio. 1598:

of the state legislature. Connally presumably didn't face the barrage of negative advertising that hit Kerry, nor did her Republican opponent benefit from a feeling among voters that it would be imprudent to replace the Commander in Chief during wartime. As evidence of vote-rigging in the Presidential race, the voting for Chief Justice seems to me to be a very thin reed.

583:

so people are not quick to say "this article does not belong on wikipedia", remember most of the people that edit the page have also had to spend much effort just keeping the page alive and defending its existence. Because of that such a tone is to be expected in the article and is certainly not a violation of wikipedia policy (if it is please reference the violation).

384:(Hope you don't mind me inserting this here between your comments) I think it's that there are (as an example) those who are concerned about possible wrongdoing, and who are working to prosecute those incidents. They aren't 'critics'. They're not criticizing the process. They're working to determine if laws were broken. I think 'critics' is therefore incomplete. -- 1643:"By suspicious, Jackson is referring to the latest analysis of the Nov. 2 vote by a coalition of Ohio voting rights activists. In analyzing the still-unofficial results, the totals reveal that C. Ellen Connally, an African-American Democratic candidate from Cleveland for Ohio Chief Justice, received 257,000 more votes than Kerry. " 2164:

article need massive citations for its claims? Snowspinner's reason for removing the links (wikipedia not a research paper) may be less supported than the need to cite all claims in an article like this, so in that regard the links should stay. What is the real wikipedia policy on need for citations vs need for non-research?

2572:

are keen on the information in this article think that an article with (currently) 95kb and 268 numbered external links is the way you want to present it, I'll leave you to fight with Snowspinner et al. over that, but I hope you'll recognize that some readers will want only the type of summary information that's currently in

160:

value to the story but it does not serve in the simplistic way you describe. And this article doesn't read as a 'wild political rant' to an editor or reader unless one has a deep political bias against it. I do agree that generally, reduction is the right approach in this instance, but informed reduction, not bias. --

2647:

Seeing as there has been outright fraud, such as Volusia county, if and when there is enough material, it might help to disillusion some people. But I'm concerned that the ultra-right-wings will have a fit. What is the balance between being informative and relinquishing to people's POV for the sake

2554:

article that gives the broader picture. They should link to each other. You say "The data is the heart of the matter, with out all the data there would be no need to have these articles?" Let me clarify that I'm not saying the data should be eliminated. Some trimming and NPOVing would improve the

2524:

Summaries are good, there is much verbosity on wikipedia. And I agree with your points about introduction clean up, though I had seperate problems with your version. However, I do not believe at all that the main article should be phased out eventually, the primary reason the daughter articles were

2472:

My idea for cleanup, several weeks ago, was to rewrite the lead section in what I considered a much more summary and neutral fashion. That rewritten section was multiply reverted with the argument that it downplayed the statistical analysis that was said to be the heart of this article. My reaction

1597:

Frankly, I don't see any merit to this argument. There were plenty of places where a Democrat in a lower race outpolled Kerry. Democratic candidates won statewide races in "red" states like North Carolina. In Colorado, Democrats took an open U.S. Senate seat while gaining majorities in both houses

1566:

of Freeman's paper available. I've updated the article to reflect the new findings and text. However I deleted an out-of-date chart and didn't update it, because what I've read of Knowledge (XXG) policies suggests that copyright issues don't allow its inclusion. But I'm fairly new at this, so I won't

1100:

DreamGuy, the vote discrepency over the total amount of votes cast in the election is not really what this is about. By the way, I do welcome your input on this, you do have some good ideas about it, I just disagree :). In the 2000 Election, 537 votes (completely statistically invisible) would have

1028:

Current (early December) NPOV tag was placed as result of claims of bias in the VfD, the idea being that the bias is obvious if the two sides don't agree. If you can write something so the other side can look at it and say, "ok, that was treated fairly, that'll work" then you are good -- which is how

716:

You have not commented yet on my specific comments against that text? Kerry conceding should not mentioned, massive fraud should not be limited in scope because of margin, more than Ohio should be mentioned and data irrgularity needs to be mentioned the most often including exit polls as that is the

548:

Along the lines of this comment and those I made earlier, I've written a proposed new lead. It would replace the current "Introduction" and "Examples of issues" section. As the lead section, it wouldn't need a heading. The major change is to set the context by identifying the issues, without trying

505:

Having reread what you reverted to, I still think it's less accurate and less less clear, especially to a reader coming to this subject with no background. You said in one of your edit summaries that the "irregularities" is the essence of the issue. In the context of the text you reverted to, where

126:

Honestly? The first step is to write it like a newspaper article instead of a wild political rant. Use inverted pyramid style, with absolute most important info at top written objectively, less important as you go down. Then stop writing at a reasonable cut off point, like, say, 10% of the length you

2571:

has been copied verbatim into this article. Regardless of how much of it stays here (or is expanded, or whatever), I think that there should be a short article that gives the reader that kind of summary text without having all the other stuff that's still in this article. If you and the others who

2497:

I created the more general article because, frankly, I gave up any hope that issues other than exit poll discrepancies/EVM/statistical analysis could be dealt with adequately in this article. There's just too much data on those subjects that people insist on including and including prominently. As

2213:

The number of links is sizable indeed, caused largely by the extensive 'chronological' and 'sources' sections etc., and as the paragraphs and sections get edited further, I bet that number will drop significantly. Inline sources shouldn't be removed right now, though, while the facts are disputed. I

2138:

The second VfD and the VfDs of all of the subarticles have been defeated. But will there be another? And another? Am I the only one who's frustrated at having to expend time and energy defending the very existence of these articles rather than focussing on improving them? Can any action be taken

1760:

Uh-huh, and in Pennsylvania, if you take the U.S. Senate race as a baseline, you find Kerry receiving more votes than the Democratic candidate for Senate in many districts. Does that mean that Pennsylvania, with a Democratic governor, engaged in vote fraud on behalf of Kerry? or does it mean that,

667:

Let's not overreact to the VfD listing. I've described the listing as "foolish". I understand the tendency you mention to edit the article so as to resist such attacks on it. Remember, though, that most people who read this article won't be hard-core Wikipedians approaching it from the standpoint

582:

The way I look at the page is the entire article is a counter criticism of official election results, this article is the balance of POV that the other election aticles lack. Though, having said that, there are definitely some areas that need clean up. The article jumps right in and gives evidence

481:

As for the concession, upon reflection, I think that, instead of "Democrats", I should have written "Some of Kerry's supporters criticized him for doing so...." You're right that some Greens, Libertarians, etc. think there were improprieties. The specific point I had in mind here, though, was that

364:

Sorry, I don't understand your point about "critics". It doesn't say anything about their motivation. Some critics are in the first category described in the text: They think there were screwups (irregularities, illegalities, whatever) that should be exposed. They may think that even exposing all

299:

I'm leery of more detail in the intro -- my first impulse in writing was to name the presidential candidates who've raised questions (Nader, Badnarik and Cobb, AFAIK), but I decided that should come later on. Nevertheless, the only one of your edits I take serious exception to is the phrase "It has

276:

The way it stands now, I think the article starts right out bombarding the reader with too much detail. People who've been deeply involved in editing this article, and who have immersed themselves in the torrent of what's been in the media on this subject, have to keep in mind the problem of making

255:

What's now the third paragraph consists of opposing quotations about exit polls, with the context not well explained. Exit polls are only one issue here. To help get the reader into the overall picture more quickly, I think those quotations should be moved down to where exit polls are discussed in

2725:

I agree with above. Let others call fraud, as long as we highlight the issues correctly and cite the sources, others will draw such conclusions as they feel right. We dont have to rush that line. Even if there are convictions we can just say "convictions/legal action". Save the "F" word for if the

2709:

We shouldn't jump to scream "fraud" (and I can't imagine a context in which we should use a phrase like "outright fraud"), but we also shouldn't suppress information for fear of the reaction from right-wingers or anyone else. We avoid the problem by sticking to the facts. We aren't called upon to

2515:

I'm not trying to stop people from developing the statistical analysis in great detail. I just think it's not appropriate for the article that would serve as the gateway to the election controversy for most readers, many of whom will just want a general overview of the issues that have been raised

2506:

would remain a generalized, summary, encyclopedic article, not buried in data, and not giving such heavy emphasis to one issue area that all others are crowded out. It will include links to all the daughter articles. One or more of the daughter articles would allow people to tabulate incidents by

2268:

However we handle reference style in most articles, I think that frequent references with hyperlinks are appropriate for controversial subjects (including most political subjects). Snowspinner is right that a printed encyclopedia wouldn't do it. A printed encyclopedia would also have an editorial

2188:

That's a bit of a mischaracterization of the VfD nomination. I think that this isn't notable. I think that right now this article is necessarily a bunch of speculation. But even still, there is no reason, speculation or not, to write the article in a manner inconsistent with Knowledge (XXG)'s usual

2173:

I do too, but as Snowspinner says 'if someone disputes a fact they can be directed towards the links'... as the article is up for VfD, with Snowspinner in essence disputing ALL the facts in his VfD motion, I think the sources must remain as a crucial part of the article until the VfD is again voted

1061:

Do you think maybe you could have a rational discussion on this? Attacking someone instead of trying to discuss it shows rather inappropriate behavior for a collaborative project. I apparently slipped by typing an extra zero, so it should be 0.03% (or less than 1/30th of one percent), but the point

572:

The current version reads much better, has less POV problems, and is less sloppy than before but there is definitely more work that needs doing. We mention in the introduction the best counter analysis there is against the entire article, I don't see how we can any more POV balanced than that?? I

450:

I don't agree that the idea that an election can be overturned if vote counts are revised due to irregularity is more controversial than any other issue around the irregularities. It's a consequence of the rules of the election. Are you saying that the idea that there were some irregularities, etc.

2292:

As time goes on it will doubtless be streamlined. That there are people who feel it is "anti Bush complainers" is a reason to provide extracts of source material to support the article - it seems hypocritical to state the issue is a fantasy, then complain at the length needed to include reputable

1946:

No I mean the charts that plotted support for kerry and bush by machine type in FL I believe. There was a diagonal line that indicated the baseline or expected result, it showed wild discrepancies for a certain type of machine in Florida, sequoia or ES&S I believe. I will keep trying to find

1716:. So, for example, if 100 people vote, and you ask 10 people how they voted, and then multiply their answers by 10 to get an estimate of the total vote your multiplication and final estimate is an extrapolation. This is what I understood to have occured with the 257,000 number. I thought it was 1609:

I've also been wondering how to add this info. It actually is very suspicious, the judge in question "Connelly" is an african-american woman from the clevland area who was up against a republican incumbent, she lost statewide. In the cleveland area Kerry received 200,000 more votes than she did,

1196:

Good info, it should be added. We've gotten bogged down just trying to keep the page alive. There was a systematic effort to damage and delay improvement of the page by people uniterested in debate through: removing links to the page, listing images for deletion, claiming parts/all of it violate

159:

That's not how editors do it. They make intelligent decisions on copy length based on complexity, interest and available running space. An addition does not come at the expense of another element of the story by default. Of course the act of reconsidering one's content helps one validate its' true

2501:

So here's my prescription: Any material from this article that's not already in one of the daughter articles should be moved there, with the creation of new daughter articles if necessary to accommodate it all. (Someone may VfD a new daughter article but it seems like most VfD voters will reject

2448:

I think that in such an article there should be a section on the hard evidence of fraud found in Voluisia County. And if a "centrist" says that tampering with vote totals and destroying evidence is not hard evidence of fraud, we have merely to ask them what harder evidence could possibly be, and

2163:

I actually think it's mostly ok, but the non redundant links should be moved to a more relevant section at the bottom perhaps. How about an "External citations" section? Though, I am concerned the article will then be claimed to be without citations after the links are removed. Doesn't such an

1744:

of 257,000 votes is just the difference between what kerry received and what he should have received (net gain of kerry's increase and bush's decrease) if you use the judge-ship race as a baseline. Clearly bush receiving nearly twice the vote of the republican judge in some counties is extremely

418:

wrongdoing. The sentence refers, however, to other people, who've gone beyond that. At this point there's a significant body of opinion that says there definitely was wrongdoing (which, for the more charitable among them, might include foulups arising from incompetence as well as thefts arising

311:

articles and editorials on the subject (may require free registration). It's not POV to characterize people as "critics" if they say that election problems gave the Presidency to the wrong guy. That's a criticism, and a significantly sharper one than saying that lines were too long or different

327:

I disagree that Democrats are the complainants because that's an assumption as to the political beliefs of the range of individuals involved. The Green and Libertarian candidates are about to request a recount, for example. Those who question the irregularities are not Democrats 1:1. Lemme think

117:

Seeing as this recent absurdity about deletion has brought to light the convoluted nature of this article, we need to seriously discuss how we can make this article better, cleaner, more concise, whatever... So please state here (hopefully in bulletform, short sentences right to the point) what

1551:

Sure. I just isolated that particular quote because it addresses the most important point Freeman makes (the one cited in the Introduction of our wiki article). I have no objection if more of the analysis is pulled out in to the wiki article, except that I personally try to err on the side of

341:

Okay, I know what I think about 'critics'. The outcome of the election is not the only motivating factor for those 'pressing the issue' (as i think it reads). If these irregularities include violations of the Law, they are not critics of the outcome, but whistleblowers, investigators, etc. etc.

2536:

Let's remember that "parent article" and "daughter article" aren't formal categories. They're just slang terms that we use in discussing article organization. (In fact, one change that should be made is that the daughter articles shouldn't begin with an italicized line referring to a "Parent

2332:

I also thought this, on my last pass thru the doc. It's redundant and many of the example listings are each an excellent intro to a subsequent section, so I'd like to see those deleted or filtered into appropriate places - cause there's lots of good, concise verbiage and citations in there. --

1033:

of the total votes were reported as problematic in the states colored red and even fewer elsewhere?! You have got to be kidding me! That's a statistic blip, not even worth noting, that's NOWHERE near anything that would change the election results. The graph is misleading and highly biased and

511:

Right now the parts of this article dealing with electronic voting, and the reasons to suspect it, have received extensive attention compared with all the other issues. I don't blame people for working on what interests them. I just don't think that the phrase "data irregularities" has to be

659:

agree with the idea that this article should somehow balance a POV in other articles. If other articles are biased, they should be fixed. Not every reader will come here as well. Unfortunately, though, the officially reported results are the operative ones unless and until they're reversed

2410:

Looks good to me from what I've seen so far, my browser was caching my watch list history page for some reason and didn't notice your changes until just now. What do you mean merge introduction and controversial? I think the current organization is good, overview with links to sub articles

2286:

This is a controversial and complex article. Its neutral information is in odd refeernces across a thousand documents. When people come to read it, and learn what the topic covers, they will not and should not be expected to read every source. A part of an encyclopedias role is not just to

300:

been likewise asserted that...." This blurs the distinction between, on the one hand, the people saying that Kerry was robbed, and, on the other hand, the larger number who think Bush won legitimately but that there's a lot about elections that needs improving. As I mentioned, the New York

2430:

I would think that no other title would be more appropriate. I expect there to be people who would attempt to diminish the truth, saying that calling an apple an apple and an orange an orange is POV. They might prefer something like "2004 allegedly U.S. election, alleged audits of alleged

1720:

the actual difference in the number of people who voted for Connally vs those who voted for Kerry (ie. Connally did not actually get that many more votes). Instead, the I thought the author took the actual number of people who voted for Connally and multiplied it by some factor (to make it

781:

If you had read the talk page discussions of old you would have noticed we agreed to focus the article's scope on exactly the kind of allegations that had the potential to affect the outcome of the election (statistical analysis that shows exit poll data was correct in non-swing states yet

777:

Please note that "among the issues raised were" does not list 75% of what the article is about (exit polls, registration, statistical analysis, charts and graphs, voting machines). Compare your list with the TOC. My list there are the key issues in the article, not long lines and voter

1885:). Does anyone have a reference for the e-voting discrepancies? If not, it could be fairly easy to calculate given the raw data (by performing a chi-squared test or similar - I assume that someone, somewhere, has done this). The article says that the discrepancies at e-voting booths are 2411:

underneath TOC is perfect. Side question: If there is an announced official law enforcement investigation (in the future) of (massive) election fraud is it then ok to title a new article "2004 U.S. election fraud" or "2004 U.S. election fraud investigations" or something like that?

1661:, and not the actual number of votes Connally recieved. It's incredibly misleading! Were it the actual number of votes then I would continue to argue for inclusion, as it would be simply inexplicable, no matter how negatively Kerry was painted by the right wing propaganda machine. 1833:

James Tobin, who was the top Bush campaign official for New England and formerly the Republican National Committee's regional director, is being accused of ...attempting to "disrupt communications" by clogging the Democrats' phones on Election Day through repeated hang-up calls.

149:

The same way editors of encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers, etc. add new information: Anything you add means something less important gets taken out. It serves as a check to see if it's actually important or just new if adding it means cutting something of the same length.

2127: 496:

I do not like the introduction in its current form, especially the added text. The version after I created the introduction section header was better than current in my opinion, it's all over the place now and clarity is rather poor. May clean up or mostly revert now.

2675:, which can be devilishly difficult to do when you get into questions as metaphysical as "were there attempts to disenfranchise black voters from voting (typically Democrat) by failing to ship their precincts enough voting machines?" How do you *prove* criminal intent? 2111:

A new VfD has been added, as well as another not-NPOV tag. What gives? Was one attempt to delete this article and mark it as not NPOV enough? Can the 'other side' (whatever that means) actually contribute TO the article, rather than attempt to delete or suppress it?

2151:

Snowspinner stripped a link out, what do folks think? I personally think it's a bad idea, as we edit and reduce the content we can removelinks as we remove any unneeded content, but to remove links outright without discussion here, seems a bad idea. --

2323:

I think the time has come, because we now have sub pages and a much better page organization, to do away with the "Examples of issues" section. Any non redundant content should be moved to the appropriate section or sub page. What do people think?

1761:

over the last few decades, party loyalty has diminished in the U.S., and more voters are more likely to split their tickets? I'd say the latter. You just can't reliably use one race as a "baseline" for a different race for a much different office.

1807:

The question of stats that indicate fraud is one of both scale and irregularity, generally the Presidential race gets 10% more votes on average than under-races, in this Ohio case Kerry has significantly less than the democratic judge candidate but

1446:

I don't see a problem with putting news sources like the reading list in the article. They contain lists of articles from verified sources. I'd say add them to the in the news section, or the 'other' section (since it's a digest). Thoughts? --

1745:

suspicious. Bush only won Ohio by 130,000 votes, if this 257,000 is true Kerry is president. There are tons of other Ohio discrepancies. How much more time does the FBI need before arresting all the fraudsters? I can't wait much longer.

618:

I've found it more helpful in other articles to have the main "sandbox" page consist only of the specific article text that's being considered, while the normal process of discussion occurs on the sandbox's talk page. Therefore, I've moved

663:

It follows from the foregoing that this article should be as NPOV as possible. It should fairly present the different criticisms, with their supporting evidence, but should also fairly present the opposing positions, with their supporting

2489:

like what I think a lead section should be, by inserting a list of numbers of incidents by state. Then, after the ToC, it copies the more generalized lead section that I'd written, and which, after it didn't find favor here, I'd used in

675:: "The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see 1163:

With all of this alleged dependence on weblogs, & unverifiable internet sources (I'm using weasel words here because I haven't taken the time to trace every source quoted in the article), why hasn't anyone bothered to quote or cite

651:

I agree that your combination of the "Examples of issues" and "List of complaints" sections was a good idea. We need to go further and have one quick introductory list that gives the overview of the scope of the entire post-election

1197:

wikipedia policy but not debating detailed counter arguements (acting unilaterally in the belief the page is "all wrong"), listing custom header for deletion, vandalism attacks, revert wars and the VfD which is hopefully the last

2070: 260:

issues without all the detail. That would come in the body of the article as each subject was developed. For example, the first sentence ("There were reports of problems with and controversy over electronic and optical-scan

573:

agree with you about the examples of issues section, that needs major overhauling. I combined the list of complaints into that list of issues section to eliminate redundancy, now we need to make a pass at POV cleanup there.

1201:

in the people that are against the article's bag. Not to mention the more standard: lengthy talk page discussions, added text POV problems, structure and organizational disagreements, title disagreement and changes, etc.

2511:

article, or include specific events in the daughter article to which they relate, or start a new article on the "controversies timeline", or whatever. The summary article wouldn't try to report each day's developments.

2484:

The latest edits seem to be creating a hybrid. This article retains its old "Introduction", which I didn't like, one using the unexplained phrase "data irregularities" in its very first sentence. In fact, it makes it

694:) omits the specific evidence, but obviously that shouldn't be omitted from the article. Any of the details that I removed that aren't also covered later in the article should be added in their respective sections. 1680:

the exit polls Kerry won the election which is why this article exists. Let me explain as I understand it: this judge-ship discrepency is showing that not only were votes taken away from Kerry but votes were also

806: 624: 558: 2591:

I once again state my agreement with the summary proposal. There needs to be a central article which provides a broad picture which lists each of the current sub-page's content with a paragraph or two plus a

104: 96: 91: 79: 74: 66: 953:

Highly partisan, this site allows anonymous posting of opinion and information in its open forums. It itself should not be used as a primary source, nor linked cirectly from our main article page. --

732:

The size of the introduction is likely to be in direct proportion to the size of the article, the current 3 paragraph introduction is brief (I think your introduction is longer than current actually).

248:

I've rewritten the first paragraph (now two). I thought it important to distinguish two broad classes of controversy: Even some sources that dismiss the idea that Kerry really won, like the New York

691: 609: 554: 550: 1923:

Shouldn't that information be in the "...controversies, voting machines" article? It wasn't there when I just checked, where did it go? If the images are too big we can put much of it in tables.

825:

The reference to Cameron Kerry has been there a while, but there is still no link to affirm that he is investigating any claims - shouldn't this part of the sentence be either verified or removed?

805:

As far as I know, I've read all the "talk page discussions of old". I don't have time to answer each of your specific comments right now, but most of them would be covered by what I just wrote at

592:

Also, please list specific problems you have with the article, referring to guidelines without citing specific problems on the page as you did was not helpful. We should focus on the specifics.

530:

3. Not NPOV because of the heavy preponderance of evidence for one side in this initial portion. Of course, balancing it with countervailing evidence would only exacerbate the first two problems.

2115:

The neutrality tag points here, but those who have marked it so have not commented here. Make your opinions and thoughts known, and put them under discussion, or those tags are coming off. --

482:

some people who supported Kerry felt let down by his concession. Anyway, the generic "Some", without elaboration, isn't inaccurate, so perhaps that's the best way to go, at least for now.

2555:

presentation, but certainly data about exit poll discrepancies belong on Knowledge (XXG). The question is whether the same article should try to focus (or "co-focus") on Freeman's paper,

1020:

What exactly in the page is factually disputed, so we can remove the tag as quickly as possible? Please paste here in the discussion of current passages so as to resolve this dispute. --

786:

elsewhere, for one thing). We should not get bogged down by he said she said accusations of election day impropriety, we should encourage and report on independent statistical analysis.

549:

to elaborate on the supporting (or opposing) evidence. I did the first part of this change, but Zen Master reverted. Rather than get into an edit war, I'm putting the full version at

842:

They can be used, just not in an absolute context. We can say that people from those sources are making the claims they are making, we just can't report those claims as gospel truth.

660:(administratively or by a court). It's not bias for the articles on the elections to report those results in detail, while giving only a quick summary and wikilink to the criticisms. 1812:

in the part of the state where the judge is unknown. It's not just the difference between the judge-ship race and presidential, it is the fact this discrepancy only shows up in

54: 17: 1230:

We should add this info but I am not certain how and where. Basically an electronic vote machine company gave 4 years free to Reno Nevada just prior to the election in August:

2080: 1780:

No. As this quote explains, Kerry, as a Democratic Presidential candidate, under normal circumstances would get many more votes than Democratic candidates for lower offices:

1931:

I moved an image from "...controversy, voting machines" to the talk page of that article because I couldn't find an appopriate place for it. Is this what you are refering to?

668:

of whether it belongs here. Most readers will be people who've seen some stuff in the media about election issues and want our help in getting a handle on the controversy.

2546:

So, in response to your statement that "we should at least co-focus the parent article on" Freeman's paper, my response is that I have no objection to the existence of

1077:

I want to make you think about it, instead of telling you the answer, because it is more pedagogical. The problematic phrase is: "votes were reported as problematic".

451:

is one thing, but the idea that they would impact the election is more controversial? If so, that seems like unnecessary gymnastics. Did I understand you correctly? --

2207:

the article contains no first-person speculation (it may report on speculation by noteworthy figures in the investigation, but I can't recall as it's so sprawling).

1042:

I think DreamGuy's interpretation of the map is indicative of his particular aptitude in concerns critical thinking and/or his predispositions, esp. the statement "

2660:

Well, innocent until proven guilty applies. It may take the FBI announcing massive fraud arrests before certain people wake up and before we can use the F word.

2431:

irregularities by extreme left-wing radicals". But really, aside from the numerous pathetically failing VfD attempts they will make on the article, it will stand.

2219:

In any case, we should not remove any sources until the VfD is once again cleared. It will not clarify the facts for VfD evaluation if the sources are deleted. --

561:. Comments about which of the two overall approaches is better should go here (i.e., the main article's talk page), where they'll be more accessible to everyone. 1346:

article on dailykos (also worth a link in its own right as a source) covering some voting machine and election irregularities which have not yet been spotted.

342:

Critics implies a value judgement about the 'proper' outcome of the election. If truly objective, the objections could be on an incident-by-incident basis.--

2596:

link. It would not only orient the reader much more efficiently, it would create a framework for future edits rather than piling it on all in one page. --

1816:

is what is very suspicious. Also, Bush supposedly received nearly twice what the republican judge canidate received in the state which is also suspicious.

2481:. It was my impression that there was consensus for having the more general/summary article, while this one focused on statistics about "irregularities". 2214:

think we should let that reduction happen as part of editing, by consensus, not picking out the links and leaving the text unsupported in the current form.

2049:"18-point Margin of Victory for Democrat Kerry Among Hispanics Doubles Previous NBC Estimates; Numbers Affirm WCVI Criticism of National Exit Poll Figures 754:

You can say that senate, house and local races were questioned without out saying "there was generally less attention paid to", that is simply bad style.

859:

It is trivally easy for anyone to write content for that website, and no verification of identity is required. Take a look at this if you need proof -

2508: 1281:

which merely repeats the statement without naming the Democrat. if this passage refers to Radke, it can be re-insered and edited properly. Source? --

2567:

provide a basic orientation to readers who may come to this article with virtually no background in the subject. For example, the summary text from

1878:

The article tries to point out that the discrepancies between exit polls and actual results were greater at e-voting places, but the cited reference

1531:. In a business where we are typically "certain" when there is a 5% chance of an error (e.g. 1 in 20), one in a million is still pretty darn certain" 1988:

I think that this section should include a chronological description of legal developments with links to specific legal documents such as those on

748:

Note the "current event in progress" header at the top, I think that alone allays many of your concerns about what the introduction should be like.

2573: 2568: 2503: 2491: 2478: 1471:

occured in the Governor's race, but it casts further doubt on the accuracy of the elections process, and begs the question of how many other such

745:

You are doing more than removing evidence from the lead, you've limited the article's scope in some areas and increased it in others (wrongly so).

739:

is fine but you've failed to capture the important parts that follow in the article, I strongly do not agree with that text in its current form.

1784:. So, it's not at all anamolous that a Democratic Presidential candidate would get more votes than a Democratic candidate for Senate. But it 2388:

Done - a bit of a hackjob (need to read again for tone, reduce if possible). Also, maybe make the pointers anchors to sections. Thoughts? --

1685:. The question is not just why did Kerry receive fewer votes in southern ohio counties compared with the democratic judge canidate but 934:

in our article refers to a "news analysis" written by "Tony" containing screenshots which have no timestamps and cannot be verified. --

729:

The list of examples section is below the introduction, let's focus our effects there as we seem to be in agreement about its quality.

265:.") and the first two bullet points under "Examples" could all be replaced with the single bullet point "Accuracy and reliability of 1881:

does not give a mathematical calculation of this (1 in 50,000 refers to the chance that Bush did better than exit-polls preedicted

1180:

not only set forth the evidence for incidents in both states on 3 November, but he also claimed that there were irregularities in

23: 810: 774:

from the intro, that is a travesty and I can't agree. Again, the main argument of the controversy is from statistical analysis.

2174:

down or cancelled. Removing footnotes is not exactly an act of contribution. Snowspinner, others, your thoughts, rationale? --

1255: 1003:, an ImageShack location. ImageShack is a free image hosting website. and requires nor provides any source information. -- 860: 684: 540: 175:

Sorry, kizzle, I couldn't put my suggestion in bulleted short sentences. Instead, I wrote it up below, in its own section,

1330:

affidavit Ohio Nov.25 that voters were potentially being encouraged to file votes in a way which might render them invalid.

1440: 1507: 1835: 1335:

Other voter affidavits and testimony as to Ohio election irregularities, misrepresentations and voting machine errors

2473:

was, OK, I'm not trying to eliminate that detailed statistical analysis, but there needs to be an article that does

1962:

Yes, I remember those as well. Their source is here, but the images ain't. Check the 'vote suppression' subpage. --

1552:

brevity (with a citation, of course, so that those interested in more information can go to the source themselves).

527:

2. Jumping right into giving detailed evidence, which should be deferred to the appropriate sections of the article.

521:

The introduction that Zen Master reverted to, along with the "Examples of issues" section, has these problems, IMO:

2139:

to make sure this past set of VfDs is the last? Or are we going to be bickering about this until the end of time?

838:

This is a list of sources which should not be used in this article, as they cannot provide verifiable information.

717:

master key to the article without which it would not be relevant. Also, the tone I don't like and can be improved.

45: 1687:

why did bush received double the number of votes the republican judge received in some of these same ohio counties

829: 676: 1985:

This section is out-of-date and lacking a lot of important information. This may be due to size considerations.

2071:(fraud OR irregularities OR controversy) (voting OR election) -ukraine -romania -romanian -canada -africa -iraqi 1464:"6,200 votes were counted twice because of human error while transferring data to the computer reporting system" 672: 536: 996: 2498:

noted above, the current status of the "Introduction" and the bulleted list of issues reflect that problem.

2392: 2370: 2337: 2223: 2178: 2156: 2119: 1966: 1451: 1438: 1417: 1285: 1262: 455: 388: 346: 289: 164: 2449:

wait, wait, wait, until we hear back a rather creative answer involving ridiculously impossible scenarios.

680: 2653: 2621: 2454: 2352: 2309: 2246: 2027: 2003: 1936: 1524: 1401: 1383: 1082: 1051: 1491:

too. It has a lot of information, can someone summarise it and add it to the BBV investigation section?

305: 2100: 742:

Some attempt should be given to following the order of contents as far as introducing what will follow.

2550:

article that's focused on the issues addressed by Freeman's paper. I just think that there should be

2190: 1998:

In any case, I think that this is currently the weakest part of the article, and should be addressed.

2649: 2617: 2450: 2348: 2305: 2242: 2023: 1999: 1932: 1397: 1379: 1078: 1047: 127:

currently have. Ruthlessly chop out everything that doesn't fit. That's how real encyclopdias do it.

2632: 2502:

such attempts.) Eventually, this article would be phased out or become a redirect. What's now at

1503: 1007: 980: 957: 938: 913: 888: 867: 2366:

I made the edit - now, the next logical one - merge 'introduction' and 'controversial', etc... --

2389: 2367: 2334: 2220: 2175: 2153: 2116: 1963: 1897: 1448: 1414: 1282: 1259: 452: 385: 343: 286: 285:

I edited it as well, a bit more detail describing the groups involved in the issues. Thanks! --

161: 905:

Well, looks like my page got removed (shocker) and my "account" revoked. Anyway, anyone can go

2210:

It reads much more like a (grossly obese) in-progress encyclopedia entry than a research paper.

1378:(i deleted the section i just made before, as zen pointed out that we already have that link.) 553:. Changes to this draft that are consistent with its overall approach can be made directly at 2095: 1177: 758:"More controversial was the charge that these issues might have affected the reported outcome" 270: 1176:? AFAIK, he's the prime source for material on this topic -- & I remember hearing him on 970: 2628: 1231: 1184:

that were suppressed by the "So-Called Liberal Media". Some of his writings can be found on

760:

This is the main point of the article, not the secondary, should not be the second sentence.

1626: 1529:

the real odds that this happened by chance alone are still probably at least 1,000,000 to 1

1279: 2711: 2661: 2577: 2526: 2517: 2412: 2325: 2270: 2165: 1948: 1924: 1817: 1762: 1746: 1690: 1611: 1599: 1563: 1359: 1236: 1217: 1203: 861:

http://www.ustogether.org/database/ObjSubPg.php?article_id=296&info_category=CHALLENGE

814: 789: 695: 645: 628: 620: 612: 593: 562: 524:

1. Not setting the overall context of the controversies (too much focus on the EVM issue).

513: 498: 483: 420: 313: 278: 180: 974: 1395: 931: 2140: 2015: 1837: 1789: 1726: 1662: 1625:

I'd like to withdraw my suggestion for including this article because upon reading the

1590: 1583: 1553: 1533: 1333: 1328: 1004: 977: 954: 935: 910: 885: 864: 843: 266: 262: 1889:

greater, but this is a precise statistical term and should be backed up with numbers.

1390: 1356: 1344: 2041:

I added a news source, but it should be mentioned in the exit poll tome somewhere...

1893: 1890: 1510:, where the Professor had claimed, among other things, that the odds against unusual 1433: 1251: 1063: 1035: 973:

to this website, without normal source requirements. Wanna take a look at my article

151: 128: 1919:

What Happened to the Graphs on Irregularities by Machine Type In Florida, Elsewhere?

1506:

is a brand new (Nov 17th) analysis of Univ of Penn Professor Steven Freeman's paper

1275:

Diebold’s election-systems division is run by a registered Democrat" and source URL

906: 2690:

No, bur 95% wrong voter felony lists aimed at black voters is a good indicator. --

2676: 2131: 2042: 1488: 1189: 1173: 874: 1000: 2691: 2671:

Indeed: one of the major problems here is that 'fraud', as an offense, requires

2614: 2597: 1582:

A Democratic candidate for Ohio Chief Justice got 257,000 more votes than Kerry

1568: 1165: 1156: 1145: 1102: 1021: 236: 139: 119: 53:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1676:

You may be missing the point, all statistical analysis is extrapolation, if we

1521:

While the analysis finds much to fault in Freeman's paper, it does admit that,

608:: I made some detailed comments about James' proposed intro text below it here 1411: 1338: 1300: 1276: 1181: 988: 224:

There are some who say there were data irregularities in the election results.

1374: 204:

Bush so should have lost the election because there totally was voter fraud!

2563:

present a comprehensive chronology of every event relating to the dispute,

1879: 1788:

suspicious when it's the other way around, as it is in Ohio with Connally.

880:

The distinction is that Knowledge (XXG) can also be edited and verified by

726:

The article is all about evidence, more of it should be in the introduction

2727: 2672: 2636: 2294: 1541: 1492: 1468: 1303: 946: 1373:

My friend Jeff got these emailed to him, and posted them on his site.

2036: 179:(except I'm not sure that such internal anchors work on talk pages). 2477:

have statistical analysis at its heart. Therefore, I created one:

1947:

the link in the page history, I may have a copy saved onto my box.

1714:"to infer or estimate by extending or projecting known information" 1358:

testimony regarding voting machine matters (may be worth adding to

884:. The ustogether data is just some unknown person's handywork. -- 807:

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

625:

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

559:

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

176: 1394:

and late pre-1am exit poll listing of all states with timestamps!

930:

Indy media/mailing list which takes submissions from anyone. One

713:

Listing the page on VfD was just one hurdle we've had to overcome.

277:

the material accessible to people who don't have that background.

24:

Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive 5

2126:

In particular, I'd like (duh :-) to call folks' attention to my

2090: 2019: 1169: 692:

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

610:

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

555:

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

551:

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

32: 873:

Who would ever trust a website that can be edited by anyone?

851: 2559:

list and describe every organization working on the issue,

2037:

NBC's massive Exit Poll revision for Latino support of Bush

1989: 1540:

It makes other points too, lets not overlook them either.

1408: 923: 723:

Would you like me to just massively fix your proposed text?

1629:

for that article I came upon the following editorial note:

895: 2569:

2004 U.S. election voting controversies#Voter suppression

1514:

in three key states -- Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio --

1232:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04490.html

1185: 965: 898:, which is sole property of the sponsoring organization. 2726:

whole thing starts to go nuclear at a different level.

2204:

I agree with what you said, except that in my opinion:

1341:

General link to Ohio free press election2004 department

835:(please do not archive this section off the talk page) 1475:

have gone undetected on the local or national levels.

1128: 2096:

U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, press releases

1981:

Official viewpoints, investigations and legal actions

1046:

of the total votes were reported as problematic...".

18:

Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies

2616:

and I'm sure there's lots in the google news query.

1874:

Statistics for exit poll/actual result discrepencies

909:, register, and see how easy to get "published". -- 2318: 1216:

Machine problems lead to recount in Franklin county

894:The pages at ustogether.org are being relocated to 213:: Remove / Change (Paste new like below if needed) 1311:Great resources for news, found on the BBV forum. 414:You're right that some people are concerned about 1226:Sequoia Gives Away E Vote Machines in Swing State 1323:More web pages to include (can someone do this?) 1278:, which points to an article on Diebold's site 1168:, an investigative reporter who writes for the 2468:Need for a concise generalized summary article 2101:U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, letters 2081:testimony voting (fraud OR diebold OR sequoia) 1499:Analysis of Professor Steven F Freeman's Paper 1001:http://img103.exs.cx/img103/4526/exit_poll.gif 720:Voting machines have to be mentioned in detail 177:Need for a concise generalized summary article 138:How do we account for new information then? -- 2643:Should we have a section on "outright fraud"? 118:needs to be done to clean this article up. -- 8: 2319:I don't like the Examples of issues section 1144:We need to add this as soon as possible! -- 2509:U.S. presidential election, 2004 timeline 1869:Discussion of article layout/organization 1657:In other words, the 257,000 number is an 1578:More votes for other Democratic candidate 2574:2004 U.S. election voting controversies 2504:2004 U.S. election voting controversies 2492:2004 U.S. election voting controversies 2479:2004 U.S. election voting controversies 1136:Cites conclusively there was no fraud. 671:The most important policy here is from 2304:The article links to no unfree sites. 1829:Former Bush campaign official indicted 391:08:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) RyanFreisling 51:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1508:The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy 1304:http://countingcoup2004.blogspot.com/ 1301:http://countingcoup2004.blogspot.com/ 7: 1864:(archived due to sub page creations) 1250:I've scraped a list of sources from 1116:New information to be added/reviewed 947:http://www.democraticunderground.com 2609:Can someone else do the news today? 1527:were to provide the the actual ... 1268: 767:needs to mention blackboxvoting.org 1369:Possible information for inclusion 543:about how an article should begin. 312:states' standards too disparate. 31: 2022:that you might be interested in. 1567:be offended if anyone disagrees. 685:Knowledge (XXG):Establish context 541:Knowledge (XXG):Establish context 2130:concerning the whole VfD issue. 1904:Analysis, methods and other math 1479:Volusia County fraud allegations 1211:Franklin County Machine Problems 811:U.S. presidential election, 2004 770:You've gutted all mentioning of 648:'s more general comments above: 36: 2347:I've thought this for a while. 1995:Does this merit a new article? 1459:Washington State irregularities 1256:User:RyanFreisling/SourceDigest 304:is in the latter category; see 187:Discussions of current passages 2146: 2091:David Cobb daily legal updates 1712:. I meant it in the sense of 1254:, and it currently resides at 751:The introduction is too bland. 690:My proposal for the lead (see 113:Cleanup Preliminary Discussion 1: 2241:I concur with RyanFreisling. 1909:Dormant sections (to archive) 1854:(archived due to name change) 1269:Diebold's Registered Democrat 677:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style 269:, especially those employing 2147:Snowspinner's Stripped Links 999:) is sourced as coming from 673:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section 627:and will answer them there. 537:Knowledge (XXG):Lead section 2745: 2639:15:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) 2293:source evidence it isn't. 1725:and not the actual vote. 1495:03:03, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) 1432:Overzealous reading list. 1148:20:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) 1024:11:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) 971:Anyone can post an article 877:00:19, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) 681:Knowledge (XXG):News style 239:20:59, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) 2730:10:18, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) 2694:03:31, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) 2516:concerning the election. 2143:10:35, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC) 1900:23:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1708:was not as a synonym for 1593:17:06, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC) 1571:13:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1544:06:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC) 1536:05:16, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC) 1420:04:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1404:20:35, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) 1389:historical election data 1386:20:27, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) 1265:02:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1239:10:17, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1192:18:07, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1038:10:24, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) 997:Image:Exit poll small.jpg 891:00:29, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) 870:00:06, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) 852:http://www.ustogether.org 846:03:55, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) 615:15:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 501:09:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 281:06:40, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 122:23:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) 2714:03:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2656:19:57, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC) 2624:19:46, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC) 2600:05:56, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC) 2520:19:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2328:09:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2297:05:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) 2193:18:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) 2159:18:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2122:17:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2030:18:48, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) 2006:17:40, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) 1990:http://www.votecobb.org/ 1927:22:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1840:17:35, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC) 1810:only in certain counties 1693:21:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1665:21:27, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC) 1614:19:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1602:19:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1556:06:38, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC) 1516:"are 250 million to one" 1454:23:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1288:05:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1206:18:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1105:23:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) 1066:22:25, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) 1010:00:18, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) 983:23:00, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) 960:02:40, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC) 941:07:34, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC) 924:http://www.buzzflash.com 916:09:17, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC) 817:19:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 792:19:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 698:18:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 631:17:39, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 623:'s detailed comments to 596:14:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 565:12:29, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 516:11:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 486:08:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 458:12:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 423:11:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 349:08:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 316:07:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 292:06:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC) 244:Editing the introduction 183:19:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 167:02:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) 154:22:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) 142:10:23, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) 131:10:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) 2679:23:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2664:21:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2580:00:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2529:20:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2457:00:15, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC) 2415:22:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2395:22:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2373:21:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2355:17:24, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC) 2340:16:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2312:00:08, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC) 2273:01:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2249:19:42, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC) 2226:19:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2181:18:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2168:18:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2134:23:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2010:Problems with GWB intro 1969:07:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1951:23:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1939:23:14, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC) 1914:Editing and corrections 1820:18:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1792:17:27, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC) 1765:07:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1749:06:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1729:04:46, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC) 1085:22:39, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC) 1054:20:50, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC) 896:http://uscountvotes.org 854:(AKA TruthisBetter.org) 2613:There's some stuff at 1710:"statistical analysis" 1704:The sense I was using 1246:Digest of News Sources 1121:Template (Do not edit) 966:http://michiganimc.org 763:"improperties" --: --> 735:Introductory tone for 192:Template (Do not edit) 2066:Google news queries: 1498: 307:for a listing of the 49:of past discussions. 2076:Google web queries: 1293:Links for Newshounds 557:and/or discussed at 2627:Theers also a page 2018:article there is a 1483:Volusia now added. 1437:News, news news... 1129:http://www.blah.com 1258:. Take a look! -- 1349:Dr mercuri pages: 1178:Air America Radio 271:electronic voting 110: 109: 61: 60: 55:current talk page 22:(Redirected from 2736: 2086:Specific pages: 1814:certain counties 1473:"irregularities" 1407:Votergate Movie 932:current citation 764:"irregularities" 655:I definitely do 328:about 'critics'. 88: 63: 62: 40: 39: 33: 27: 2744: 2743: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2645: 2611: 2470: 2321: 2149: 2128:modets proposal 2109: 2064: 2039: 2012: 1983: 1921: 1916: 1911: 1906: 1876: 1871: 1861: 1851: 1846: 1831: 1580: 1501: 1481: 1461: 1429: 1427:still more info 1371: 1360:Voting machines 1325: 1295: 1271: 1248: 1228: 1213: 1161: 1123: 1118: 1018: 833: 830:Dubious sources 267:voting machines 263:voting machines 246: 194: 189: 115: 84: 37: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2742: 2740: 2732: 2731: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2666: 2665: 2644: 2641: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2531: 2530: 2469: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2342: 2341: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2299: 2298: 2289: 2288: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2208: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2183: 2182: 2170: 2169: 2148: 2145: 2136: 2135: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2098: 2093: 2084: 2083: 2074: 2073: 2063: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2052: 2051: 2038: 2035: 2033: 2016:George W. Bush 2011: 2008: 1982: 1979: 1977: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1941: 1940: 1920: 1917: 1915: 1912: 1910: 1907: 1905: 1902: 1875: 1872: 1870: 1867: 1860: 1857: 1850: 1847: 1845: 1842: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1604: 1603: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1546: 1545: 1500: 1497: 1486: 1480: 1477: 1460: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1443: 1442: 1435: 1428: 1425: 1423: 1370: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1351: 1350: 1347: 1342: 1336: 1331: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1294: 1291: 1270: 1267: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1227: 1224: 1222: 1220: 1219: 1212: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1160: 1154: 1152: 1150: 1122: 1119: 1117: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1056: 1055: 1026: 1017: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 992: 991: 985: 984: 968: 962: 961: 950: 949: 943: 942: 927: 926: 920: 919: 918: 917: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 856: 855: 848: 847: 832: 827: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 793: 787: 779: 775: 768: 765: 761: 755: 752: 749: 746: 743: 740: 733: 730: 727: 724: 721: 718: 714: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 688: 669: 665: 661: 653: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 600: 599: 598: 597: 587: 586: 585: 584: 577: 576: 575: 574: 567: 566: 545: 544: 535:See generally 533: 532: 531: 528: 525: 518: 517: 508: 507: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 320: 319: 318: 317: 294: 293: 245: 242: 241: 228: 227: 208: 207: 193: 190: 188: 185: 173: 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 156: 155: 144: 143: 133: 132: 114: 111: 108: 107: 102: 99: 94: 89: 82: 77: 72: 69: 59: 58: 41: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2741: 2729: 2724: 2723: 2713: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2642: 2640: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2625: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2608: 2599: 2595: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2519: 2513: 2510: 2505: 2499: 2495: 2493: 2488: 2482: 2480: 2476: 2467: 2456: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2394: 2391: 2390:RyanFreisling 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2372: 2369: 2368:RyanFreisling 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2339: 2336: 2335:RyanFreisling 2331: 2330: 2329: 2327: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2225: 2222: 2221:RyanFreisling 2218: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2177: 2176:RyanFreisling 2172: 2171: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2158: 2155: 2154:RyanFreisling 2144: 2142: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2121: 2118: 2117:RyanFreisling 2113: 2106: 2102: 2099: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2072: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2061: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044:. Basically: 2043: 2034: 2031: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2009: 2007: 2005: 2001: 1996: 1993: 1991: 1986: 1980: 1978: 1968: 1965: 1964:RyanFreisling 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1918: 1913: 1908: 1903: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1887:significantly 1884: 1880: 1873: 1868: 1866: 1865: 1858: 1856: 1855: 1848: 1843: 1841: 1839: 1836: 1828: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1748: 1743: 1740:okay... this 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1728: 1724: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1706:"extrapolate" 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1683:added to Bush 1679: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1664: 1660: 1659:extrapolation 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1644: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1613: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1577: 1575: 1572: 1570: 1565: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1530: 1526: 1519: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1496: 1494: 1490: 1484: 1478: 1476: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1458: 1453: 1450: 1449:RyanFreisling 1445: 1444: 1441: 1439: 1436: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1424: 1421: 1419: 1416: 1415:RyanFreisling 1412: 1409: 1405: 1403: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1385: 1381: 1376: 1375: 1368: 1361: 1357: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1345: 1343: 1340: 1339:freepress.org 1337: 1334: 1332: 1329: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1312: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1299: 1292: 1290: 1289: 1287: 1284: 1283:RyanFreisling 1280: 1277: 1266: 1264: 1261: 1260:RyanFreisling 1257: 1253: 1245: 1243: 1240: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1225: 1223: 1218: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1205: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1158: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1147: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1120: 1115: 1104: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1037: 1032: 1025: 1023: 1015: 1009: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993: 990: 987: 986: 982: 979: 975: 972: 969: 967: 964: 963: 959: 956: 952: 951: 948: 945: 944: 940: 937: 933: 929: 928: 925: 922: 921: 915: 912: 908: 904: 897: 893: 892: 890: 887: 883: 879: 878: 876: 872: 871: 869: 866: 862: 858: 857: 853: 850: 849: 845: 841: 840: 839: 836: 831: 828: 826: 816: 812: 808: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 791: 788: 785: 782:inexplicably 780: 776: 773: 772:statisticians 769: 766: 762: 759: 756: 753: 750: 747: 744: 741: 738: 734: 731: 728: 725: 722: 719: 715: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 697: 693: 689: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 649: 647: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 630: 626: 622: 617: 616: 614: 611: 607: 604: 603: 602: 601: 595: 591: 590: 589: 588: 581: 580: 579: 578: 571: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 547: 546: 542: 538: 534: 529: 526: 523: 522: 520: 519: 515: 510: 509: 504: 503: 502: 500: 485: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 457: 454: 453:RyanFreisling 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 436: 422: 417: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 390: 387: 386:RyanFreisling 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 348: 345: 344:RyanFreisling 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 315: 310: 306: 303: 298: 297: 296: 295: 291: 288: 287:RyanFreisling 284: 283: 282: 280: 274: 272: 268: 264: 259: 253: 251: 243: 240: 238: 233: 232: 225: 221: 220: 219: 218: 214: 212: 205: 201: 200: 199: 198: 191: 186: 184: 182: 178: 166: 163: 162:RyanFreisling 158: 157: 153: 148: 147: 146: 145: 141: 137: 136: 135: 134: 130: 125: 124: 123: 121: 112: 106: 103: 100: 98: 95: 93: 90: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 70: 68: 65: 64: 56: 52: 48: 47: 42: 35: 34: 25: 19: 2646: 2635:to look at. 2626: 2612: 2594:Main Article 2593: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2551: 2547: 2514: 2500: 2496: 2486: 2483: 2474: 2471: 2322: 2150: 2137: 2114: 2110: 2085: 2075: 2065: 2055: 2048: 2040: 2032: 2013: 1997: 1994: 1987: 1984: 1976: 1922: 1886: 1882: 1877: 1863: 1862: 1853: 1852: 1844:Active polls 1832: 1813: 1809: 1785: 1781: 1741: 1722: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1658: 1642: 1587: 1586: 1581: 1573: 1561: 1528: 1522: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1502: 1485: 1482: 1472: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1422: 1406: 1393: 1388: 1377: 1372: 1318: 1314: 1313: 1309:Description: 1308: 1307: 1297: 1296: 1274: 1272: 1249: 1241: 1235: 1229: 1221: 1198: 1174:the Guardian 1162: 1151: 1143: 1139: 1138: 1134:Description: 1133: 1132: 1125: 1124: 1043: 1030: 1027: 1019: 881: 837: 834: 824: 783: 778:suppression. 771: 757: 736: 656: 652:controversy. 644:Response to 605: 495: 415: 308: 301: 275: 257: 254: 249: 247: 234: 230: 229: 223: 216: 215: 210: 209: 203: 196: 195: 174: 116: 85: 50: 44: 2191:Snowspinner 2107:Another VfD 2062:Data mining 1678:extrapolate 1564:new version 1512:"anomalies" 1489:this report 1186:his website 1166:Greg Palast 1157:Greg Palast 995:One image ( 217:New Passage 43:This is an 2712:JamesMLane 2662:zen master 2650:Kevin Baas 2648:of peace? 2618:Kevin Baas 2578:JamesMLane 2527:zen master 2518:JamesMLane 2451:Kevin Baas 2413:zen master 2349:Kevin Baas 2326:zen master 2306:Kevin Baas 2271:JamesMLane 2243:Kevin Baas 2166:zen master 2024:Kevin Baas 2000:Kevin Baas 1949:Zen Master 1933:Kevin Baas 1925:Zen Master 1818:Zen Master 1763:JamesMLane 1747:Zen Master 1691:Zen Master 1612:Zen Master 1600:JamesMLane 1562:There's a 1398:Kevin Baas 1380:Kevin Baas 1315:Discussion 1237:Zen Master 1204:Zen Master 1182:New Mexico 1140:Discussion 1079:Kevin Baas 1048:Kevin Baas 989:ImageShack 844:Shane King 815:JamesMLane 790:Zen Master 696:JamesMLane 646:Zen Master 629:JamesMLane 621:Zen Master 613:Zen Master 594:Zen Master 563:JamesMLane 514:JamesMLane 499:Zen Master 484:JamesMLane 421:JamesMLane 314:JamesMLane 279:JamesMLane 273:methods". 231:Discussion 181:JamesMLane 105:Archive 10 2141:noosphere 1859:Sub-pages 1838:noosphere 1790:noosphere 1727:noosphere 1663:noosphere 1591:noosphere 1554:noosphere 1534:noosphere 1487:Also see 1005:Netoholic 978:Netoholic 955:Netoholic 936:Netoholic 911:Netoholic 886:Netoholic 865:Netoholic 664:evidence. 97:Archive 7 92:Archive 6 86:Archive 5 80:Archive 4 75:Archive 3 67:Archive 1 2673:scienter 1894:Asbestos 1883:over-all 1273:Removed 1064:DreamGuy 1036:DreamGuy 1016:NPOV Tag 882:everyone 416:possible 235:Blah. -- 152:DreamGuy 129:DreamGuy 2677:Baylink 2132:Baylink 2020:dispute 2014:On the 1190:llywrch 875:Rhobite 737:newbies 197:Passage 46:archive 2692:kizzle 2598:kizzle 1849:Naming 1742:margin 1723:margin 1627:source 1569:Avenue 1172:& 1146:kizzle 1103:kizzle 1044:0.003% 1031:0.003% 1022:kizzle 863:. -- 606:Update 237:kizzle 211:Remedy 140:kizzle 120:kizzle 1298:Link: 1199:trick 1188:. -- 1126:Link: 976:. -- 784:wrong 309:Times 302:Times 250:Times 16:< 2654:talk 2633:here 2631:and 2629:here 2622:talk 2487:less 2455:talk 2353:talk 2310:talk 2247:talk 2028:talk 2004:talk 1937:talk 1898:Talk 1523:"If 1504:Here 1469:This 1402:talk 1384:talk 1252:here 1159:Info 1083:talk 1052:talk 907:here 679:and 539:and 258:list 2728:FT2 2637:FT2 2565:and 2561:and 2557:and 2475:not 2295:FT2 1718:not 1542:FT2 1525:NEP 1493:FT2 1413:-- 1170:BBC 657:not 2652:| 2620:| 2576:. 2552:an 2548:an 2453:| 2351:| 2308:| 2245:| 2026:| 2002:| 1992:. 1935:| 1896:| 1892:— 1786:is 1518:. 1410:, 1400:| 1382:| 1081:| 1050:| 813:. 101:→ 71:← 2393:@ 2371:@ 2338:@ 2224:@ 2179:@ 2157:@ 2120:@ 1967:@ 1452:@ 1418:@ 1362:) 1286:@ 1263:@ 1008:@ 981:@ 958:@ 939:@ 914:@ 889:@ 868:@ 687:) 456:@ 389:@ 347:@ 290:@ 226:" 222:" 206:" 202:" 165:@ 57:. 26:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index