Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

[edit] 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

I think this one should be transwikied to the Toki Pona Wikipedia JUST TO MAKE THINGS MORE INTERESTING. Snowspinner 06:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not ban all Republican-favored articles instead?
  • Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am upset about the election results too, but I do my venting in more appropriate forums. Indrian 07:09, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Since voting machines reportedly gave one candidate 3,893 extra votes in a suburban Columbus, Ohio precinct where only 638 people voted (AP, 28 November 2004), there is ample scope for an encyclopedia article on the Ohio voting process and its failings. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That's one single incident. No pattern of similar activity has been shown. Indeed, I would be more worried if there weren't any problems with even a single machine. --Slowking Man 08:04, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • It's true that I listed was one single incident. It is false to claim that it was the only such incident. I do not subscribe to the view that such incidents are acceptable or to be expected. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. JamesMLane 07:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as before. - RedWordSmith 07:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion. They failed. Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion. They failed. Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot. I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it... are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon and Adolph Hitler, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • No. No, there was no VfD on the material. There never has been a VfD on the material. There was VfD on an article. But not this article. A different article entirely, and one which, since it exists, should mean this article doesn't have to exist. Snowspinner 09:15, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Netoholic @ 08:41, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
  • Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!" I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it. It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted. --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Securiger 14:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. My comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies,_Florida apply here also. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Snowspinner should be suspended, trolls are damaging to Wikipedia. Zenyu 17:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. From the first VFD: "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.... 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." Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I suppose I would have to agree with that to an extent (I did not know, nor did I care to know, that these pages were up for a vote three weeks ago), but the far greater abuse here is the spamming of wikipedia that these articles represent. A good man lost; a bad man won; there were glitches; ok, fine, lets have a page on it for posterity, no problem. Now, the problem comes when a few overzealous partisans with an axe to grind take a minor event in the history of the world (the 2004 presidential election) then take a minor facet of that event (voting irregularities) and write a half dozen subarticles on the topic. In general, if an article is too long, then the article is a poorly constructed mess. The history of nations or world religions or individuals such as Jesus Christ that were so important that they changed the entire course of Western civilization are such massive, complex topics that one article may not be enough. The 2004 election is a footnote in history.
      • And widespread concerns over whether there has been potential or alleged defrauding of the votes of the worlds most powerful country isn't. Those in government are likely to be a little more informed than you are, see [1] for example. FT2 20:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • There is obviously a lot of interest from Wikipedia users and editors in these articles, so calling them "spam" is ridiculous. Second calling the 2004 Presidential election, which is one of the most important elections in world history, a "minor event" is insane. And how could voting irregularities which could have affected the outcome of this election, not to mention land a whole lot of important people in jail, or possibly set off a civil war (ala what is close to happening in the Ukraine) be considered a "minor facet" of the election? I'd love to hear what you and your partisan buddies have been smoking. And, until then, please stop trying to censor perfectly legitimate articles. Thanks. noosphere 09:40, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
        • "one of the most important elections in world history"? What? In which alternate reality...what kind of head trauma...which mental disease or defect...how pure are the drugs you must have been using to make a statement like that? And I'd just like to point out, just in case you missed it, that most USians aren't really concerned about the results anymore (the hubub surrounding the 2000 elections was much worse and much more prolonged) and are nowhere near civil war, so comparing it to the situation in the Ukraine isn't really remotely accurate. Also, nobody is trying to censor or suppress anything, despite the cries of some of the people demanding each and every article on this issue be kept. Using loaded words to sway people to do what you want (no matter how inappropriate) might work in some environments, but not here. You're not convincing anybody except perhaps a few gullible sheep, so you can quit it any time now. Reene✎ 11:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
          • I don't think it's even remotely exaggerating to describe 2004 as one of the most important elections in world history. A US administration that has pioneered an aggressive, unlilateralist foreign policy, taken its country into two major foreign wars, and fought tooth and nail to plead executive privilege in the incarceration without trial of one of its own citizens, has been returned to power by the voters. This was a momentous event; the world will feel the consequences. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Um, Bush may very well start World War 3 (not to mention complete America's transition to a totalitarian theocracy, bankrupt America and destroy the economy, and finish making bitter enemies of the rest of the world). I'd say that makes whether he gets reselected quite important in world history. That most Americans aren't concerned about the selection results is a result of the silence of the lapdog mainstream media, and the cowardly, incompetent or complicit Democratic leadership. If we had some real investigative reporting done from media conglomerates with real resources, or heard John Kerry forcefully allege fraud on Nov 3rd (as the Ukranian opposition candidate did) instead of conceeding... if we'd heard Kerry call for a general strike, and if he'd taken the Oath of Office in Congress, as the Ukranian again did, instead of tucking his tail between his legs and running away; if the Democratic leadership had been ready and willing to fight fraud then yes, we may have seen America come close to something like the Ukranian situation. noosphere 13:00, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
Is this election more important in United States history than the 1876 election, when the fate of Reconstruction, race relations, and the preservation of the Union hung in the balance thanks to a few irregularities and the winner had to live with the name Ruthefraud for the rest of his life? Maybe, I am not the one to make that call, but if that controversy can be covered briefly, then so can this one. What about 1860 when there were not really any irregularities, but the result led to a bloody Civil War? That one certainly seems to have been far more important in United States history, yet it is also covered succinctly. The 1824 eletion, when the winner of the popular vote lost because the other candidates got together to deny him the office, is not even remembered today. This election will be similarly relegated to the backburner of history, making so many articles on the topic seem rather silly. If a writer went to any professionally produced encyclopedia in the world, even one that was online and had no space constraints like wikipedia, with the idea to produce this many articles on this one event, he would be laughed out of the editor's room. If the community of wikipedia users does not have the same response, then I think it reflects poorly on the project and shows the world that instead of trying to create a real encyclopedia we are indulging in petty nitpicking and complaining about every insignificant thing that bothers us when we get up in the morning. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or even an election analysis center. The subarticles do not belong. Indrian 18:10, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wiki is not a blog - Wyss 19:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and trim down the main article. In an interesting coincidence, this morning's Plain Dealer (the dominant newspaper in Northeast Ohio) has a detailed article debunking each of these arguments. It is very specific about the Ohio-based facts. The author even goes so far as to call them "conspiracy theories". Rossami (talk) 19:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Point of information: The Plain Dealer describes the following claims as "conspiracy theories": "Electronic voting machines were rigged for Bush. Early exit polls showed challenger John Kerry ahead in key states that he eventually lost, proving the fix was in. Voter totals in Cuyahoga County and elsewhere exceeded registrations." [2] Contrary to Rossami's suggestion, no such claims are reported or examined on the entry 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio, which is an examination of voting discrepancies. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • To clarify, the article included a table of 18 specific allegations (13 Ohio-based and 5 national) and their explanations. Among those are many of the topics covered in this article. The table was printed in the physical edition. I have not been able to find the web-version to match the link Tony found for the text of the story. Rossami (talk)
        • The table may well have listed and even debunked some of the major claims. That is not the point I'm discussing. It is the case that you claimed that the Plain Dealer described the allegations listed in the article as "conspiracy theories." The article on December 5th in fact was not referring to those claims but some other claims which I have listed above. Actual claims that a conspiracy to defraud took place. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Based on the layout of the Plain Dealer page, I interpret the table as an integral part of their article and conclude that the Plain Dealer did intend to categorize the 18 allegations in the table as "conspiracy theories". Rossami (talk)
    • No matter what the opinion of the Plain Dealer is, it's still just an opinion, not an argument for deleting this Wikipedia artcile. So the opinion of the Plain Dealer can be listed on the page along with the other opinions (which may or may not contradict the opinion of the Plain Dealer). It can even be quoted, as long as it's properly attributed to the source. noosphere 12:49, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
  • Keep the article is improved, for clarity, by being split up, and this was by consensus where people had a chance to state if they wanted it split or didnt. The consensus - and many people contributed to the debate - was that they did. As to the article itself, it was voted keep by about 72 keep - 6 delete a bare few weeks ago. It's not clear in what manner the article is less fit to keep, less encyclopediac, or less or general interest now that more official bodies are taking action. If there are issues with its size or layout then perhaps consider contributing. But deletion is inappropraite as deletion criteria are not at all applicable - exactly as they weren't a bare few weeks ago. FT2 20:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, let people continue with their good work in peace. Everyking 21:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization. Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for. Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:02, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reene (リニ) 21:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page is exactly what wiki does well, a living history. As the history evolves, the page can be changed. This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched. If there are concerns about particular facts they should be addressed with footnotes to other information. --Boscobiscotti 03:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Incoherently strong keep. Andre (talk) 03:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's usual and good practice to break out long articles into subarticles. I agree some trimming could be done, but not at a ratio of 6:1 which is what would be needed to remove the need for sub-pages. Shane King 03:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Honestly! These numerous VfDs are outright harassment. Time to consider a ban for Snowspinner?

Rerdavies 04:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Avenue 05:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next? Articles on voter fraud in Cuyohoga County, Ohio etc. Stop this nonsense before it goes any further. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I don't like this article terribly much, but as Shane King said, little trimming can be done. *sigh* If only this much effort were poured into improving other articles such as the project for correcting systemic bias. It'd be so cool being able to say we have so much trivia on, say, the Malaysian New Economic Policy, the main article spawned six pages. Oh, well. One can only dream. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per my comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls. — Asbestos | Talk 12:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Guettarda 15:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Josquin 17:33, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --- While there are many sub-articles the main article would be far too long if they would instead be included there. // Liftarn 19:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant. ElBenevolente 23:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep TalkHard 23:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant data into the main article, exit polls, vote suppression, or voting machines. Reasons: 1) These state articles aren't that long, and 2) there's a substantial amount of overlap with the other articles. PenguiN42 16:46, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, irrational VfD --Pgreenfinch 18:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • ¡ Keep ! -- Ŭalabio 03:32, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  • Keep this article and stop abusing wikipedia process, don't you think that an allegation of an Electoral coup of the presidency of the most militarily powerful nation on Earth might be somewhat significant? If not, can you explain what makes it insignificant? Pedant 23:21, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
    • Calling it abuse doesn't make it so- these are all unnecessary daughter articles to a parent article that is far too large (they only exist for that reason as a matter of fact). And I would say it's pretty damned insignifigant when most major news outlets have virtually ignored the story and the losing side hasn't even contested the results. But of course that doesn't matter when a bunch of blog-babies cry foul. Oh, the wonders of the Internet! Reene✎ 23:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Partisan heads-in-the-sand notwithstanding, this issue is indeed significant enough to have been the subject of congressional and public hearings. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: Voting and discussion on related articles listed for VfD here:

  1. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
  2. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
  3. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression
  4. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
  5. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
  6. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

[edit] Comments

Despite claims by the peanut gallery, none of these sub-pages have been VfD'd before and the VfD for the main article was over weeks ago. Since then the page has grown and changed considerably and has become bloated to the point of absurdity. This is not, however, an excuse to scatter the mess that is this article all over Wikipedia. The issue at hand here is not the main article; for that, go to the appropriate VfD page. The issue at hand is whether or not these subpages need to be deleted. As they've been created as the result of unnecessary bloat and a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree, these need to be put BACK in the main article and cleaned up. Reene (リニ) 21:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Posting this comment on every page is awkward wiki form, but here's my reply.
Again, if you allege that 'a few zealous editors have been preventing anyone...' etc., I'd ask for proof. That kind of behavior is intolerable. Would you like to help to improve the article? Because no-one is prohibited from doing so. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's see if Reene's comments are correct. She claimed that "a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree." Let's check that out. Here is a list of every user who edited this particular article from its inception until Netoholic came along and put a vfd on it:

At that point (November 11) Netoholic called the first vfd on this particular page. Note that Reene's belief that the page had not been vfd'd before is thus disproven.

The decision of the November 11 vfd was to keep the article. Editing continued with the following contributors:

    • Kevin baas
    • Rossami (added disputed tag and made comment on talk page [6]. This comment was edited the following day by 64.198.212.134. Rossami, was that you again, or a vandal? Rossami made no further edits, and no further comments on the talk page until December 5th when second vfd was raised. (I did not make the anon edit. I was waiting for evidence to become available to refute the allegations. Then, I'm sorry to admit that I lost track of the discussion and only thought to find it again yesterday after reading the PD article. Rossami (talk))
    • 204.210.230.95
    • Mirv
    • Michael Hardy
    • 152.119.154.168
    • GRider
    • No malrs

At this point Snowspinner called the second vfd (the current one) and inserted a "totally disputed" tag.

  • Again, as with the other articles, I see not one single attempt by those proposing the deletion to perform a cleanup. Reene has been misinformed; nobody has attempted to prevent anybody performing a cleanup of this article, and it has indeed been vfd'd before. The sections may have been subject to an edit war prior to being split; I will investigate that possibility also, on the appropriate VfD page.
  • It's a shame, I think, that since the vfd was placed and while discussion of this article was ongoing, one user has twice today edited the page to a redirect to an article called U.S. presidential election, 2004. I would have preferred to see the user in question show good faith by waiting for a consensus to be reached. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/o/t/Wikipedia%7EVotes_for_deletion_2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies%2C_Ohio_6d1b.html"