Talk:New Hampshire primary, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Allegations of fraud

Minimally, this section should point out potential differences in the makeup of the electorate in areas with hand counting vs. machine counting. I.e. are machines more likely to be found in urban areas which may draw a different population of voters? Xargque (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC) None of the sources in this section are reliable. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS is a tabellation of official election result numbers, and should definitely be kept. The 7.0% difference between manual and machine counting is significant, especially given that none of the polls, futures or early election results indictated a win for Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the source and the sentences in the article associated with that source since it is from a Ron Paul support site. Please see WP:RS as for what constitutes a reliable source. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Are all sites that support any political candidate unreliable sources? Even if so, all the site does is tabulate the raw data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.249.88 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a link to the analysis of "Citizens for Legitimate Government" with the same conclusion as on the Ron Paul support site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The above reasoning for the 7.0% vote discrepancy is faulty. It is fabricated via manipulation of absolutely unrelated and disproportionate facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaybi (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
How do the exit polls compare with the official results? ... Seabhcan 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The section has been removed. Please do not replace it unless there is a Wikipedia:Reliable source confirming any of these allegations. Right now it's just a handful of small blogs. Any speculation about diebold vs. hand-counted percentages is original research unless you cite a reliable source. Rhobite (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize overseas news agencies counted as "some blogs" now. Fifty7 (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a link to an article in The Dallas Morning News about this. This newspaper has a circulation of around a half-million subscribers, and is one of the twenty largest paid circulations in the United States. 193.190.253.144 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Since when is MaltaStar.com an "international news outlet"? While it's not technically a blog it's just some random news page.. and it is citing blogs (presscue) as its source for that article. The Dallas Morning News is currently the only reliable source, and all other uncited facts should be deleted from the section. Rhobite (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, that section is using 7 Sources, but the first 4 are definately non-reliable (blogs). On the later 3, their URLs might not be Blogs, but they definately aren't major news outlit sites. (I didn't see a reference to Dallas Morning News in the URLs listed) So I'd be in favor of deleting this section. Jon (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the reference to Dallas Morning News again (it got lost in the edit war). Can someone please clean up this section, removing all blog references but keeping the newspapers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed the blog links and original research (adding the percentages is statistically flawed, etc). I hope that these accusations will be covered more by actual media outlets. Anonymous users, please refrain from replacing blog links in the absence of media coverage. We have a very high bar for what sources are "cite-able".Rhobite (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
On overseas new outlits, they might not be blogs, but they are no better at reporting things in the US than local US newspaper writers would be at reporting things overseas. Jon (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If blogs are not reliable sources, then why is DailyKoS used as a reference in dozens of entries? 76.31.249.88 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean - DailyKos is not used as a reference anywhere in this article. Markos Moulitsas is quoted once. As he is a very notable figure this is fine, esp. since he provides a counterpoint to the conspiracy theorists. I noticed that you removed his quote for no reason - please stop removing cited facts and replacing them with links to non-notable blogs. You MUST read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rhobite (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean in other articles. For example this entry has several references to DailyKos, Wonkette, Typepad, etc. 76.31.249.88 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A professor of Econ has a statistical analysis on the hand vs. machine data. This could be good further reading... http://robertghansen.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-hampshire-machine-count-bias.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.242.162 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary crying similar to "Dean Scream"?

The parenthetical remark "(similar to the 'Dean Scream')" should go.

It's opinion. And not a very defensible one at that. 68.155.128.151 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)