Talk:2004 United States election voting controversies

Vote to Delete

President Obama said that electoral fraud does not happen in the United States; therefore, I move to remove this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.249.144 (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

Over the past week I've made some edits to trim down the lead paragraph, which I believed was overloaded. Initial edits pertained to removing what was basically a redundant copy of the table of contents, which appears to be have been accepted. A recent edit was to trim what I believed was unnecessary content for the lead paragraph. I thought it gave too much weight to a single controversy when the article's topic is about the multiple controversies during the election. I made an alternate edit which tries to include some of the removed material and relate it to the entire topic. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume that something was "accepted" simply on the basis of silence. I believe the old version of the introductory section was better. The narrative format is more accessible in many ways, so narrative content shouldn't be removed just because it could be inferred from a scrutiny of the table of contents. I'm not going over all the details, but I remember noticing that one of your edits removed the reference to the Republican baloney about false voter registration by ACORN -- it was baloney but it was notable baloney so it should be mentioned up top. JamesMLane t c 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at WP:LEAD which provides a guideline for how to structure lead sections. And you should review the edit history. Before today, my only changes to the lead were an inline fact tag and this edit which removed material which was basically a copy of the table of contents and did not follow lead section style guidelines. I'm not sure what "baloney" you're referring too, but it should probably be in another section for organizational purposes since this thread is intended to discuss the lead paragraph. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at your own edits. I was referring to this edit by which, in a ddition to adding a fact tag, you removed the words "(and no one else)". That phrase was a reference to Republican charges about people voting who weren't entitled to. I consider the Republican position to be baloney but it is, quite properly, discussed in the article and should be mentioned in the introductory section. Also, as I have stated, I don't agree with removing material on the basis that the information could be gleaned from the table of contents; the text should stand on its own as a summary of the article. The previous version did a better job of helping the reader decide whether to continue reading the entire article. JamesMLane t c 08:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so that's a reference to ACORN registering Donald Duck as a Democrat, stuff like that. I was a little confused what that was referring to, and it was stuck in there kinda awkwardly. Characterize it as "baloney" all you want, but many of their employees and volunteers have been investigated and indicted over the years for fraud and forgery including 2004 -- they're a very shady organization to say the least. Anyway, I'll rework that into the lead, but I'll try to do it less awkwardly since it originally seemed like it was shoehorned in there to me.

As for the redundant outline before the table of contents, please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD. There are style guidelines for lead sections in order to maintain consistency across all the articles on Wikipedia. An outline format is generally not a suggested approach for the lead; summaries are preferred. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 16:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I've noticed that in a couple places in the article, technical terms are defined and explained. This reads like a term paper and doesn't appear encyclopedic. Linking style guidelines state that technical terms should be linked if there is an article. This is more valuable to the reader so that the article stays on topic and so that the readers can get more information about the technical term than we'd be able to provide inline in the article itself.

One particular example of this is the edit I made to the provisional ballots section, which appears to require some explanation. Instead of taking a whole paragraph to explain the term, a Wikilink is provided in the first sentence of the section so the reader may find out more about provisional ballots if needed or desired. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 17:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're example doesn't match the claim. A more relevant style guide would be WP:OBVIOUS. I'm not against wikilinking, but you're arguing relevant content should be removed. If you can suggest alternate language that would be fine, but only a wikilink is not sufficient. The explanation is relevant to why there is a controversy. Futher 2004 was the first presidential election which provisional balloting was mandated and for many states the first time they were ever used. If anything the section should be expanded not erased. Please do not revert and erase relevant content.71.178.193.134 (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Stating the obvious is more along the lines of saying "The Dallas Cowboys are a franchise in the National Football League". This isn't really stating the obvious, it's basically defining the term. That'd be appropriate for the lead in the provisional ballots article, but it's redundant to do it again elsewhere such as here. That's why it's suggested that technical terms be wikilinked.
However, content specifically relevant to the 2004 election is appropriate. For instance, as you pointed out 2004 was the first election where they were mandated. I think that is pertinent information for this article that should be included. If there is sourced information confirming it, that's obviously even better. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but I fail to see nuance of your descriptions. Again, I'm fine with alternate language, I'm just saying something to give it context for readers is required. The biggest issue here is that provisional ballot isn't just a technical term. Its not something that most people familiar with elections commonly understand, even those with specific knowledge of the administration of elections in the US. Provisional ballots have different meaning in different states and a single meaning federally at the same time. Some states have used things they call provisional ballots for many years that bear no relation to wha the federal government calls provisional ballots and some states have been using something by a name other than provisional ballots that server the exact same purpose. When the Help America Vote Act became law the federal government began mandating provisional ballots, but only generally, allowing states to pick how they would be applied. This was a significant source of controversy in 2004. Again, I'm not saying all this info should be in this article, only that some context would be useful. Thanks. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone as a reliable source

In the ES to this edit, Bonewah asked, about Rolling Stone, "is RS really a reliable source for anything?" The question has been taken up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rolling Stone, NME, Popmatters and Metal-Observer. Most of the discussion concerns the troublesome problem of identifying music genres, but there doesn't seem to be any serious dispute that Rolling Stone is a reliable source. One editor commented, "RS is further a good candidate for a RS for almost any subject; their reporters have won accolades time and again for deeper journalistic endeavors." JamesMLane t c 04:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we need to identify a music genre, then Rolling Stone is the source to do it. Bonewah (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And if we need to know a stock price, then we can turn to The Wall Street Journal. In each case, however, the publication can also be cited in broader subject areas. JamesMLane t c 17:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Man. I'm totally rewriting some articles sourced to Hunter S. Thompson then.

In all seriousness, RS s a tough case - they've printed some good stuff, but they've also printed some seriously discredited stuff. I think it's fairly case-by-case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash

I used to be a relatively active editor on this article since the 2004 election, but left in September of 2006 in utter disgust at the relentless attempts at POV pushing and deletion of this and related articles by certain editors that will remain nameless. Since then other dedicated editors have also left and (sadly and predictably) the content of this article has been decimated, and the related articles are being deleted to give the appearance that nothing much of consequence was controversial about the 2004 election.

I encourage any researchers looking for a broader perspective to look at earlier versions of this and related articles. For example, here is what this article looked like in September of 2006 (though even then much important history had been deleted from this article). Back then this article had 134 references, now there are 63. This article has gone from about 85,000 characters to about 32,000 (from about 8,000 to 4,000 words), and (from what I understand) the related articles are being deleted.

Of course, the deletionists and POV pushers will claim this has all been done in the name of being concise and removing unsourced or badly sourced statements. This has been their line all along. And, unfortunately, they have largely prevailed do to lack of opposition and due to support for their agenda from more powerful Wikipedians.

This has resulted in a narrow, mostly whitewashed version of what happened in 2004. I salute those of you still fighting to keep this article alive, but warn researchers that what you're getting here is not nearly the full story but the result of much revisionism. -- noosphere 23:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"this has all been done in the name of being concise and removing unsourced or badly sourced statements." I can only speak for myself here, but, yes, i edit in an effort to removed unsourced claims, its called verifiability, its non-negotiable, and im not going to apologize for it. Bonewah (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't expect apologies or admissions of guilt from people who participate in the whitewash (though I'm not accusing you or any other editor in particular). They will staunchly claim they are adhering to Wikipedia's policies. However, the fact that this kind of whitewashing occurs is ample proof of the inadequacy of Wikipedia policy and procedure to keep dedicated POV pushers from significantly distorting the content of controversial articles such as this one. If further proof is required it can be seen in the editing history of this and related articles, as well as the numerous attempts to delete them. -- noosphere 19:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your POV is noted, you're not the only one on here though. Soxwon (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If your here to correct some grave injustice that you perceive to have occurred vis-a-vie this article, then feel free to participate in the editorial process, otherwise, there is nothing anyone here can do for you except note your complaints and move on. Bonewah (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I had not visited this article in some time and have some comments. First, is there a Wikipedia policy that "articles should not be too long?" Because while I respect the cost of electronic storage, it is NOT appropriate to use the reasons employed in limiting length of articles in paper encyclopedias. Writing styles accommodate long articles, if properly used.

Secondly, in some cases lists are seemingly the only method to present certain information. If 1,000 documented events occur, but are "seemingly" (or "arguably") unrelated, but this long LIST of events leads to CONTROVERSY by its sheer size, what exactly is the justification for scrubbing the list?

Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the first, yes - WP:AS. In response to the second, yes, inasmuch as the compilation of that list constitutes a novel synthesis. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Article size shouldn't be used as an excuse to suppress valid information. If an article gets too long, we spin off information into a daughter article while leaving behind a summary in the main article. See Wikipedia:Summary style. That was in fact the method of organization of our coverage of the 2004 election controversies until it was changed without consensus for such a change.

Compiling a list of reported events concerning the accuracy of the election results is no more a "novel synthesis" than is compiling the "___ in popular culture" lists that are found in many articles. JamesMLane t c 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spinning off is, however, governed by notability policies. And that was always the root problem these articles ran into - there were no over-arching sources that established any notability or coherence for the overall topic. They were a bunch of events stitched together to create the appearance of a topic where no reliable sources supported the overall topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that no daughter article may be maintained unless it would independently survive the AfD notability test, then I strongly disagree. Some notable subjects have too much information available to be covered in one article of reasonable length. Wikipedia:Summary style provides for daughter articles in such circumstances. The only alternatives would be to lose the information entirely or to make the main article so large and unwieldy that readers would have trouble finding what they wanted. Sometimes the most efficient organization puts a lot of detail into a daughter article that most people wouldn't consider to be notable if it weren't really just a detached part of the main article.

Also, the goal of "over-arching sources that established any notability" is usually a pipe dream. People sometimes act as if the only way to show notability is to provide a quotation from a reputable source stating that the subject is notable. Obviously, that's not the standard. JamesMLane t c 00:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The "spin-offs do not have to be independently notable" position has come up in other debates and been generally rejected. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't spend much time on AfD, partly because I find the rampant deletionism too depressing, so I'd be interested if you could provide a link to some examples. I'd also be interested to know whether those maintaining this position favor the alternative of extremely long parent articles or the alternative of depriving our readers of encyclopedic, properly sourced information. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Were we to direct this issue to AfD precedent, I would be forced to point out that it was AfD that finally forced the long overdue condensing of these articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to which, I in turn would point out that AfD didn't "force" anything except to the extent that it was closed in a manner that was manifestly not supported by a consensus of the Wikipedians responding. Start treating that as somehow governing any content issue and you'll prompt a DRV on it. Anyway, I certainly have no desire to see anything about this article decided per AfD precedent, given that, according to your report, AfD precedent includes violations of the guideline I cited. I'd just like to look at those precedents to see whether their results were overlong articles or suppressed information. JamesMLane t c 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Article size was just one of the many problems the deleted articles had. Undue weight, novel synthesis, neutrality, lack of reliable sources just to name a few. Even people who were arguing to keep the articles thought they were terrible. Bonewah (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are generally not criteria for deletion, even if the charges were accepted. They're criteria for improving the article. The articles were not perfect but our coverage of the issue was better before the improper closure of the AfD than after. Better yet, of course, would have been for people to do what's done in cases that aren't politically charged, namely to work on the articles to improve them. IIRC, one of the pro-deletion arguments was the assertion that some editors disagreed with the proposed changes, coupled with the novel contention that a situation of content disagreement justified deletion.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree with any of this (and you can ignore it without fearing that I'll take your silence as consent). I write only because I'm concerned about any implication that this fiasco is a done deal. I wish to make absolutely clear that the evisceration of our coverage of this issue was done by the closing admin in violation of Wikipedia policy, that a considerable amount of well-sourced information has been effectively expunged on ideological grounds, that this travesty is not precedent for anything, and that I still have it in mind to get around to restoring at least some of the data that Bush and his admirers would like to suppress. My guess is that, when some of the information is restored, someone (probably not you) will come along and say that the truncated state of the article has been enshrined by the passage of time and cannot now be changed absent universal agreement. Anyone who doesn't plan to make such a silly argument can freely disregard this comment. JamesMLane t c 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you and I have a differing view of what governs AfDs. Although you might be right that AfD rules do not govern content (i dont know, really), in my mind the policy that most applies is common sense. If the deleted articles were shit (and they very much were) then common sense says get rid of them and merge the good parts here. Which leads me to a point im sure ive made in the past, if there really is some well sourced, encyclopedic content that has not been merged, then spell it out here and we can get back to work editing. Bonewah (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My common sense tells me to improve, not remove, such articles. What it comes down to is this statement of mine: "The articles were not perfect but our coverage of the issue was better before the improper closure of the AfD than after." You agree with the first part but disagree with the second. And, yes, you have previously invited me to attempt to edit to restore the information. I thought I had previously responded that I hope to do so, but given the intense opposition to including certain information, I can't hope to make any progress unless and until I have huge amounts of time to devote to the project. Trust me, it's on my to-do list. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Then, as always, I wait for, with breathless anticipation, this unspecified encyclopedic, properly sourced information. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The information is readily available to you. Where we differ is that you won't consider it "encyclopedic" unless it's from some unimpeachable source, like an article by Judith Miller in The New York Times, or maybe a broadcast on Fox News Channel. My guess is that you'll continue to insist on sourcing only to media outlets that exist solely to make a profit, a goal they accomplish by selling people crap they don't need. By contrast, I'm comfortable with a comparatively low-budget operation that has no goal but the truth. JamesMLane t c 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Documented convictions for rigging recount in Ohio shall be included in the article soon.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this: ^ Kropko, M.R. (January 24, 2007), Election Staff Convicted in Recount Rig, Washington Post ? If so, it already is reference #62Bonewah (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is referenced. Thank you for pointing this out. I suppose I will leave this remark as a caveat regarding leaping to unfounded conclusions prior to deep reading. One item that should be included is the unexplained malfunction of Diebold machines in Gaston County NC, in which case a Diebold technician was onsite, and the subsequent odd behavior and resignation of the elections supervisor and then the deliberate breaking and entering and destruction of the suspect machines prior to any forensic investigation. Where should one put that in the article?Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems the discussion of the state of this article and the fate of its brethren comes up a few times a year, and we never get anywhere. A few people complain about how the old AFD was handled, and others respond by asking what quality material from those articles was lost, never receiving a terribly useful answer. James, above, points out that problematical articles should be improved, not removed, and to an extent he has a point, but there's more to it than that. First of all, these articles weren't problematic, they were downright terrible. Even many who wanted them kept agreed with that. Secondly, the redirects which resulted from the AFD were shortcuts to what was basically the same result as improvement. A step-by-step examination of the improvement process illustrates this:

1. Remove all information that violates policies on verifiablity, POV, OR, etc. and that is irrelevant: this immediately gets the article down to about 20% of its size.
2. Realize that we now have a relatively short article which is largely redundant with its parent article.
3. Decide to merge and redirect, unless such a merger would make the parent article too long.
4. Realize there is basically nothing to merge that is not already included in the target article.
5. Redirect

So we end up with the same result whether we go with the improve model or the immediate redirect model. I am fully aware that some will take issue with a few conclusions drawn here, arguing that relevant, sourced information was removed. Meanwhile the rest of us still await any specifics of what this information is. A while back I took a crack at "improving" the Ohio article from its previous incarnation. You can see the result here, and I think it illustrates my point quite well. We have a short article, almost all of which is already included here. I am perfectly happy to see this article expanded to include whatever other quality information is out there, but it hasn't been forthcoming. I am glad at least Mydogtrouble has cited a specific incident, and if sourced I see no reason why this information should be excluded. However, it also may be that incident is more relevant to the Diebold article and the substantial controversy over those machines in general, not just in 2004. Since Kerry wasn't about to win North Carolina anyway, it isn't as relevant as the irregularities in Ohio, which could have swung the election.

(Except that exit polls showed Bush 50.4% Kerry 49.2% ) Mydogtrouble (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I also think we have to keep in mind what is relevant and what is just standard errors. Any time you try to corral 100 million people into voting booths in a 12 hour period you get screw ups here and there. Some of the problems in Ohio and such are clearly relevant; 15 ballots going missing in Crapville West, Alabama is not. If this article starts becoming a coatrack on which to hang every single minor incident that may have occurred throughout the country we are probably going to have a problem. If we can have reliably sourced facts on substantial problems and irregularities added to the article I think things can run smoothly. -R. fiend (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Diebold, North Carolina, etc

I did a little digging and, as far as North Carolina is concerned, i found this and this for starters. Based on what ive read, there is not enough here to warrant inclusion in this article, in my opinion. The reason for this is, as R. fiend stated above, that i don't want to see this article become a dumping ground for every little thing that went wrong in 2004. Frankly, we wouldn't be doing our readers any favors if we indiscriminately list everything that happened, no one would read it all and more important information would be lost in a sea of minutiae. Having said all that, I do think that the voting machine section could stand some beefing up, both in terms of voting machine concerns generally and Diebold specifically. On that note, id like to throw out this link to start us out. I strongly agree with R. fiend's sentiment above that Mydogtrouble's focus on the actual article is commendable, so lets take that useful energy and put it into making this article better. Bonewah (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Omitted matters

There is no mention here of Stephen Spoonamore, Mike Connell, and the associated computer election fraud. Perhaps someone who knows more about this matter could add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.169.151 (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Some possible exit polling links

Perhaps some of the following links could be added to the exit polling section.
Beyond Exit Poll Fundamentalism: Surveying the 2004 Election Debate
Controversies in Exit Polling: Implementing a Racially Stratified Homogenous Precinct Approach
non-archive.org copy of a link we have
nate silver, 538
Long Lines, Voting Machine Availability, and Turnout: The Case of Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election
Does Voting Technology Affect Election Outcomes? Touch-screen Voting and the 2004 Presidential Election
Why use an open source e-voting system?
Voter Disenfranchisement and Policy toward Election Reforms
Voting technologies and residual ballots in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections
These are pulled from various deletion discussions and should be considered for inclusion (thanks, Protonk), I havent had a chance to review them, and, in the case of the scholarly journals, a number of them require subscriptions or are behind a paywall, but still, better to have all these links in one place, then to have to hunt them down. Bonewah (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to read the ones behind a paywall leave me a message on my talk page and I can get a copy if it is available electronically. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

PBS interview with MITOFSKY Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2004/09/20/Opinions/Disenfranchising.Youth.Minorities-723650.shtml
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:20:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tampatribune.com/MGBOPBXS5WD.html
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:20:31, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5c%5cPolitics%5c%5carchive%5c%5c200412%5c%5cPOL20041208b.html
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:20:50, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section02.pdf
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:21:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen}}
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:21:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/VotingMachines3.pdf
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:21:21, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.votingtechnologyproject.org/media/documents/Addendum_Voting_Machines_Bush_Vote.pdf
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:21:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://stonescryout.org/files/unexplained.pdf
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:21:41, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=413
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:21:54, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 10

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=230450
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:22:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 11

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print
  • In Electoral fraud on 2011-03-18 02:15:19, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:22:11, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 12

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2005/11/recounting_ohio.html
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-05-25 07:49:37, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:24:09, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 13

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=80
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-11 12:20:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2004 United States election voting controversies on 2011-06-26 01:47:28, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

GovTech and SmarTech involvement in Ohio results

I'm surprised that this article has no mention of the controversy surrounding the alleged rerouting of Ohio election results through the servers of SmarTech, the same company that hosted gwb43.com. For those not familiar with this, see this recent article in The Free Press, which mentions a recent court filing. Dotyoyo (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

'Accused'

Several of the citations have accusations which aren't actually supported by, well, anything other than accusations. What use does it do to repeat accusations which were investigated - or even in the citations - did not actually assert any wrongdoing upon the part of those named? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ACORN

In the interest of honesty and objectivity, it's worth noting that ACORN was the one that brought the only verified, real instances of voter registration fraud by some of their employees to the attention of authorities. They were not "exposed". Those allegations that were made originally by outsiders turned out to be unfounded or outright fabricated when investigated by authorities. ACORN self-policed and there was little or no connection between partisanship and the fraud that occurred. That was not the case in any of the instances with Diebold or any of the GOP-connected registration, vote, and counting frauds. There is an attempt to show equivalency between ACORN, a non-partisan non-profit organization that had no systemic instances of partisan fraud, and what the evidence repeatedly showed was an organized and concerted effort to commit fraud from right-connected individuals and organizations during the 2004 election for the express purpose of manipulating election results. 71.65.115.103 (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2004 United States election voting controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyiowan.com/news/2004/09/20/Opinions/Disenfranchising.Youth.Minorities-723650.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/08/22/2004-08-22_exposed__scandal_of_double_v.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.naacpldf.org/content.aspx?article=80
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4206
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518213045/http://www.commondreams.org:80/views04/1110-31.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1110-31.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cha.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=676
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edssurvey.com/images/File/VotingEquipStudies
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/comments/2005/050208.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0367p-06.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/mitofskyelecinforesp12704.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2004/elect04.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2004 United States election voting controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/08/22/2004-08-22_exposed__scandal_of_double_v.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1110-31.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5C%5CPolitics%5C%5Carchive%5C%5C200412%5C%5CPOL20041208b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202233059/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002060393_breakin12m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002060393_breakin12m.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edssurvey.com/images/File/VotingEquipStudies%2B/ve2004_news.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving page to 2004 United States election conspiracy theories

As far back as the 2008 deletion proposal, users have identified this page and topic area as prone to conspiratorial, WP:FRINGE nonsense; as it is right now, this page basically exists to restate conspiracy theories about the 2004 election, primarily unfounded complaints about Ohio, which Bush won by a fairly decisive 118,000 votes. Given our focus on (correctly) identifying and rejecting fringe theories about the 2020 election (see: Election denial movement in the United States), it doesn't make sense to frame this unfounded conspiracy page - and the associated attempt to overturn a Presidential election - as anything but conspiratorial. Referring to these as "controversies", rather than what they actually were, really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Here are a variety of sources identifying the debunked claims in this article as conspiracy theories:

• POLITICO - "The 2004 vote-fraud conspiracy movement never really died. What does that mean for Trump’s true believers—and America?"
• The Nation - "The truly bad news is that the 9/11 nuts have relocated to Stolen Election. My inbox is awash with their ravings. People who have spent the past three years sending me screeds establishing to their own satisfaction that George Bush personally ordered the attacks on the twin towers and that Dick Cheney vectored the planes in are now pummeling me with data on the time people spent in line waiting to vote in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and how the Diebold machines are all jimmied. As usual, the conspiracy nuts think plans of inconceivable complexity worked at 100 percent efficiency, that Murphy’s law was once again in suspense and that 10,000 co-conspirators are all going to keep their mouths shut."
• ABC News - "Nevertheless, many people have devised various theories, including stories of voters in largely Democratic counties in Florida whose votes were changed for Bush, phantom voters in Ohio and exit polls showing John Kerry in the lead that were truer than the final tally... Based at least in part on these conspiracy theories, three Democratic congressmen have written a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office."
• NY Times - "For its part, the Kerry campaign has been trying to tamp down the conspiracy theories and to tell supporters that their mission now is to ensure that every vote is counted, not that the election be overturned."
• WIRED - "In fact, there was no media blackout, and 2004 election conspiracy theories were, if anything, somewhat mainstream. Mother Jones published a story about them in November 2005, and Christopher Hitchens did so in Vanity Fair even earlier, in March 2005. Many disappointed Democrats shared broad suspicions about the fairness of the whole process. Shortly after the election, Senate Judiciary Democrats even demanded an investigation into alleged voting irregularities, showing how loud and sustained those allegations were."
• News 5 Cleveland - "During the 2004 election, when Bush defeated Sen. John Kerry, stories of voters in Democratic counties in Florida having their votes changed for Bush, phantom voters in Ohio and exit polls showing Kerry had the lead made the rounds.... "It's the losers who think that they've been cheated out of winning the election,” Uscinski said."
• NPR - "Kennedy isn't the first American politician to actively advance conspiracy theories... but what stands out in Kennedy's case is the sheer volume of what he has asserted over the years, from his insistence that Republicans stole the 2004 election"
• Columbia Journalism Review - "Late in the morning of November 3, to the chagrin of many of his supporters, John Kerry resisted the pressure to fight until each and every vote had been counted and recounted, and conceded the race to President Bush... Since that day, conspiracy theories have been flying across the Wide World Web, each declaring that George Bush stole the election for the second time in four years"
• Forbes - "The 2004 presidential election was stolen: Kennedy Jr. said in a 2006 Rolling Stone article he was “convinced” that voter fraud in the 2004 presidential election allowed former Republican President George W. Bush to steal the victory from Democrat John Kerry, but while a 2005 postmortem by the Democratic Party found a breakdown of the election system in Ohio, it found no evidence of fraud."
• The Guardian - "The 2004 election, which saw George W Bush re-elected despite the mounting unpopularity of the Iraq war, saw an explosion of unfounded conspiracy theories that Republicans were in cahoots with the manufacturers of electronic voting machines and would never lose an election again. (The theory fell apart as soon as Democrats retook control of the House of Representatives two years later."

Because of this, I'm moving the page to 2004 United States election conspiracy theories more accurately reflect the content on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a really hard time believing that no one could or would reasonably disagree with this move, as required by Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Bonewah (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Much of the content on the page is not conspiracy theories that the election was stolen, but actual problems and controversies that occurred during the election. This page currently does not do a good job at separating the conspiracies (e.g. exit polls, claims that voting machines were rigged) from the facts (voter registration controversies, provisional ballots,...). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 @Bonewah I have reverted the move per my reasoning above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I highly recommend you actually look at the sources - very little of them are actually controversies related to election. It's mostly just regurgitated conspiracy nonsense that was refuted decades ago - the same sort of random events that Trump supporters used to justify their claims. Referring to conspiracy theories as "controversies" is undue. Toa Nidhiki05 02:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The practical impediments, voter purges, and provisional ballots issues were well-documented and not conspiracies, although they didn't change the result. (New York Times links: [1] [2] [3]) I'm fine with splitting off or removing the non-conspiratorial stuff, but this should be resolved before moving the page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Those happen in every election, and we don't have special pages for those - and these concerns are so closely tied to conspiracy theories that it's virtually impossible to separate them. Moreover, the sources I showed above pretty specifically refer to the calls for investigations - and the investigations themselves - as generally tied to conspiracies. It's clear that, in hindsight, these concerns have been generally recognized as bogus. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then the legitimate problems should either be removed from the article or properly contextualized. It isn't a good idea for an article about "conspiracy theories" to document legitimate problems with zero context about whether these problems are related to the conspiracy theories. For example, this article explicitly separates legitimate problems from conspiracy theories. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that coverage of the conspiracy theories has been much longer lasting than coverage of the actual problems. It should be simple to contextualize these problems. Maybe these sections can be replaced with a few sentences saying "these conspiracy theories were spread alongside actual issues with voting, such as long lines, handling of provisional ballots, etc." Then a move would be appropriate. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 I have added enough context to satisfy my concerns, even though the article still needs a lot of work. I will move the page back. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I dont really understand this. You removed the more conspiratorial items from the page, which Im personally fine with, but then... renamed the page 2004 United States election conspiracy theories? And im not sure how this jibes with what was said above that "The practical impediments, voter purges, and provisional ballots issues were well-documented and not conspiracies". And why would we want to remove information about legitimate problems from this article? Just so we can rename it conspiracy theories? Also, in case it wasnt clear, I object to this move and think it should be moved back until we come to something like consensus. Ive never been in love with the term 'controversy' but 'conspiracy theories' is way worse. Bonewah (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I just realized I misinterpreted your original message, I thought you claimed the move was uncontroversial but you were actually saying it was controversial. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

But yeah, I can move it back until we reach consensus. I guess I’m too easily swayed… I think a good solution would involve reorganizing the problems into “accusations of fraud” and “voting difficulties” sections. And making clear the former is conspiracy theory but the latter is only somewhat associated with conspiracy theories. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Im ok with the article as it stands now. I dont see a move as necessary due to the fact that the article contains little to no 'conspiracy theory'. @JamesMLane: might disagree or wish to weigh in, as he collaborated on editing this article extensively. Maybe not, however, as that was a long time ago. Bonewah (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The article clearly and explicitly pays service to multiple conspiracy theories that have been repeatedly debunked - including that exit polls are more accurate than actual election results that voting machines are rigged. It quotes multiple election conspiracy theorists - Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader. This nonsense is, generally, no different than modern attempts at election denial, and sources reflect it as such. I've re-added the "fringe" tag as a result, tagged multiple examples of false or misleading statements in the lead, and will now attempt to remove as much fringe conspiracy content as possible, since this page should not be about conspiracies, per Bonewah. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you agree with me that this page should not be about conspiracy theory, why do you keep adding that phrase to the article? Further, i dont see where we claim that exit polls are more accurate than actual election results nor that voting machines were rigged. It quotes Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader because they were important actors in that election as both participants and due to their role in contesting the results after. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As the articles I note above point out, contesting the results was itself part of the conspiracy movement. The fact exit polls are even here at all is silly; those have nothing to do with election administration or elections generally. The exit poll stuff is pretty much always tied with a broader conspiracy theory about how exit polls showed what really happened. If it were put to me, I'd remove the whole section altogether.Toa Nidhiki05 18:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You stated above that "The article clearly and explicitly pays service to multiple conspiracy theories" Contesting results is not at all the same thing. By my read, we clearly (or at least did) state that the exit polls do not prove fraud. This is stated multiple times. I dont see where we claim the voting machines were rigged. And, again, the only place where we mention conspiracy theory is where you edited it to say so. Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Contesting results without evidence (or with evidence that isn't actually legitimate) is, and the sources above roundly reject claims of fraud or the contesting in general. I'm not sure why this is confusing? Toa Nidhiki05 19:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No it isnt. There is nothing confusing. You stated that the article "The article clearly and explicitly pays service to multiple conspiracy theories" but when pressed for where it clearly and explicitly did so, you changed you position to roughly 'any time one contests an election, its a conspiracy' then 'contesting results without evidence that you believe is legitimate' its a conspiracy theory. So which is it? Are you objecting to what is actually in the article or to what you think it implies or something else? Bonewah (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the content in the article was broadly giving the impression that there were substantial enough issues in the election to compromise its result. This is a fringe theory, as I've explain above; most of the issues on this page are fairly routine election administration issues or disputes that happen in any election; the trick of election deniers was, and is, to try and make such isolated incidents into something larger and connected. So yes, I think contesting an election that isn't close, like this one wasn't, is generally a sign of conspiratorial thinking, and of Wikipedia in this case providing undue weight for fringe, debunked theories.Toa Nidhiki05 19:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So we agree then that your issue is not with something that the article explicitly says then? That you feel the problem or problems lie in what you believe is implied? I want to establish what the issue is here before i attempt to address it. Bonewah (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ill assume your silence is agreement that the issue is nothing specific, but rather a general sense that the article implies fraudulent elections. If you disagree, please respond with a specific portion and what you feel the issue is.

With that in mind, i reread the article and started looking at some of the sources. I do feel there is a bit more weight given to general complaints or vague accusations that amounted to nothing in particular and information that is of dubious relevance except to fuel dissenting opinion about the veracity of the election. I intend to go over the article and cull some of that. Having said that, i disagree that contesting an election is tantamount to conspiracy, and further think the word conspiracy is a non-neutral term that should be avoided unless there is good reason to include it. Ill look at the sources you cited, but it might take some time to do all this. Of course, feel free to comment here during this process. Bonewah (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Contesting elections you clearly lost is inherently conspiratorial, and the conspiracy theories are the core, during feature of this "controversy". Toa Nidhiki05 13:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure the link to Volokh fully debunks the claims about ACORN, as he only mentions accusations in Florida by that one guy, but, sans anything that confirms the other claims, i see no reason the ACORN stuff needs to be in there. So far, im satisfied with the changes being made. I still very much disagree with your logic about contesting elections being conspiratorial, but we can perhaps revisit that after more work is done on whats in the article now. Bonewah (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Bonewah and @Helpful Raccoon that 'conspiracy theories' is not an appropriate title, as there do seem to have been legitimate concerns with Ohio SoS policies, as was found by some courts.[4] I think this article should discuss both these concerns and the unfounded theories about voter/machine fraud. JSwift49 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Section on exit polling

I reverted the removal of the exit polling section. I feel that there was a lot of attention paid to exit polls and later, to explanations as to why those exit polls didnt show evidence of election fraud. I think we cover this material such that we make it clear that the exit polls were not some better indicator of the outcome of the election and the opinion of experts was that the polls do not prove any sort of fraud. We are better discussing the issues brought up at the time than not, and it provides an opportunity to contextualize the claims made at the time with the analysis of the experts who actually run and study exit polls. Bonewah (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

But what does this have to do with "voting controversies", like the page is titled? Toa Nidhiki05 12:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Because at the time, some people felt that exit polls proved or provided proof of election fraud. Bonewah (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the title of this article. If we renamed this to “ 2004 United States election voting controversies”, I’d support adding this section. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What Went Wrong in Ohio

Myself and Chumpih have supported mentioning John Conyers' report 'What Went Wrong in Ohio', while Toa Nidhiki05 has opposed this. As a report published by the top House Judiciary Committee Democrat, it is undoubtedly notable, and was promoted by notable people. This is not to say the report is true, and it deserves context (ie. its claims have not received mainstream acceptance and several have been refuted). But in an article about fringe views, surely it is not a violation of WP:FRINGE to mention what the notable fringe views were and who promoted them, while putting them in context.

My suggestion was like so: A 2005 report by Democratic House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers titled What Went Wrong in Ohio claimed that "numerous serious election irregularities" and voter suppression by Republicans had caused Bush to win the state.[5][6] The report was promoted by figures such as New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller,[7] Robert F. Kennedy Jr.[8] and author Gore Vidal.[9] However, while some courts before the election found that certain restrictive voting policies of Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell were illegal,[10] claims of voter and machine fraud swaying the election have not achieved mainstream acceptance,[11] and several have been refuted.[12] JSwift49 14:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely not notable, and the people in question who support it aren’t credible either. Simply being made by a notable person doesn’t make it notable; if it was, we would be presenting “Stop the Steal” documents as viable, credible reports, and thank god we don’t.

The only possible justification I could see for adding it would be with a complete, total, and thorough rebuttal that identifies both the document in question and its supporters as conspiratorial cranks with no support or backing from anything, and that does not provide even a sliver of credibility or support for its nonsensical and false conclusions. Such a presentation would still undoubtably represent undue weight for a fringe, discredited conspiracy theory. I firmly believe Wikipedia should not be presenting election denial as credible. Toa Nidhiki05 15:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The report is undoubtedly notable. It received news coverage + acknowledgement by Kerry at the time, [13] was promoted by notable figures in the 2004 conspiracy movement, and is considered notable enough to be in a Reuters writeup of Conyers' career. [14] This is an instance where 'teaching the controversy' is appropriate as this article is precisely about the controversy.

Your characterization of not 'even a sliver of credibility' is also misleading; for example, courts did find some voter suppression policies of Ken Blackwell illegal,[15] which are mentioned in the report. Loyola Law Review 2007 article: [16] Yet, we refrain from entering the controversy swirling about these elections except to note that there is indeed such controversy and it has a basis in fact. (citing Conyers report) Claims of voter/machine fraud are the ones that have been refuted or at least not accepted by the mainstream, and the paragraph makes this clear. JSwift49 19:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed wording only contains minor language that the report wasn’t entirely accurate, rather that saying outright that it wasn’t. It’s unacceptable for that reason because it promotes fringe conspiracy theories as somewhat reasonable, cites figures to add credibility, and only slightly pushes back on some of the claims. I simply don’t think this partisan, fringe report belongs on a serious page - let alone with only barely a rebuttal. Toa Nidhiki05 21:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we all familiar with WP:NNC? Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists.

The word 'controversies' is in the page title. We should be embracing this! Chumpih ^t 21:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Presenting partisan conspiracy documents as anything other than unadulterated nonsense is a violation of both.

A congressman from Ohio releasing a statement saying voting machines stole an election is no more reputable than Kari Lake insisting mules stole hers, or whatever it is she claimed. Toa Nidhiki05 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been some refutations of some of the claims made in the report. And then there have been court cases finding that the voter suppression was illegal, which directly support some of the claims in the report. (Do you prefer primary or secondary sources?) Gore Vidal, a certified non-nutter, liked all this - and I hope it wasn't just the pain medication for his bad back that underpinned his endorsement.

The report definitely exists, and it captures a controversial point of view in the field of 2004 elections. So we should be discussing how best to give the report context in this article about 2004 voting controversies. I think the words above (... not achieved mainstream ... etc.) seem a reasonable starting point. If we need to dial up the 'crank, partisan report chock-a-block full of fervid musings'-style rhetoric then let's have at it. Chumpih ^t 22:32, 22:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t not call Gore a nutter, but his claim that “the swing state of Ohio was carefully set up to deliver an apparent victory for Bush even though Kerry appears to have been the popular winner as well as the valedictorian-that-never-was of the Electoral College” is objectively false; Bush won both the popular vote and Ohio in 2004, by reasonably wide margins. His opinion piece simply isn’t credible here. Toa Nidhiki05 23:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps it was Vidal's back medication after all. Still, there's a chorus of voices here, and the report is a well-analysed totem. Let's dissect it in the body of the article, appropriate context and all. Chumpih ^t 23:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Chumpih. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are about not presenting fringe theories as fact, or equal to established theories. In an article specifically about controversies, however, we should discuss notable claims instead of pretending they never happened. Especially when at least some claims related to voter suppression appear to have a degree of merit.

If there are sources that more thoroughly debunk the claims, then let's add them. I think the balance of my existing suggestion, especially given the section's existing emphasis on conspiracy theories, is OK, though I'd be fine with some wording adjustments, e.g., changing claimed that "numerous serious election irregularities"... to made several unsubstantiated claims that "serious election irregularities".... JSwift49 23:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: I oppose any inclusion that does not explicitly frame the report, its author, and its supporters as unfounded conspiracy theorists. If you can find wording that does that specifically, great. Otherwise, it’s a violation of FRINGE and UNDUE to present election denialism as anything but. Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So @Toa Nidhiki05 would the ...not achieved mainstream... wording suggested above by JSwift49 serve as a plausible starting point if it were used? We can subsequently work on satisfactory framing, to ensure it's not unduly fringe. Chumpih ^t 08:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it wouldn’t. It would be like saying moon landing conspiracy theories “haven’t achieved mainstream support”; it’s technically correct, but such a massive understatement that it is functionally useless. Toa Nidhiki05 13:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

So @Toa Nidhiki05 are you stating that it is not appropriate to mention the Convers Report at all on this page? Chumpih ^t 14:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct. It shouldn’t be mentioned, and if it is mentioned, it should only be in the context that it is a conspiracy theory about elections (election denial) promoted by cranks, as part of a broader effort to delegitimize the election. Toa Nidhiki05 15:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, so could you state a form of words which mentions the Conyers Report that you would find acceptable on this page? Chumpih ^t 16:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s any acceptable wording, because I don’t think it’s notable and including it would give UNDUE weight towards FRINGE conspiracy theories. A quick google search of the report indicates it’s received virtually no coverage since 2005. If it is included, it should only be mentioned insofar as it was part of a concerted attempt to deny election results and overturn elections. Just because a Congressman says something, doesn’t mean we should treat it seriously. Toa Nidhiki05 18:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so we have "If it is included, it should only be mentioned insofar as it was part of a concerted attempt to deny election results and overturn elections" and "if it is mentioned, it should only be in the context that it is a conspiracy theory about elections (election denial) promoted by cranks, as part of a broader effort to delegitimize the election". So what wording would be viable? Chumpih ^t 19:10, 10 November 2024 + 23:25, 11 Nov (UTC)

You’re saying the report is not notable, but there is clear evidence that the media, politicians at the time and figures within the conspiracy movement regarded it as such.

This article is about the controversies/conspiracies, and any complete encyclopedic entry should mention the Conyers report + ways it was promoted and debunked. JSwift49 02:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said above - I oppose including this. And per the WP:10YEARTEST, it’s abundantly clear this hasn’t been remotely relevant since… well, the time it was published. The best I could find was a POLITICO piece mentioning it in the broader context of the 2004 election denial movement, and how that movement influenced 2020. But I can’t find much beyond that. It’s not worth mentioning. Toa Nidhiki05 06:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP:10YEARTEST is a form of WP:UNDUE, and an aspect of WP:RECENT, but that concern has no applicability here, to an article about 2004, with materials from and after 2004. Put it another way: there are millions of articles where the entire topic hasn't had WP:SIRS in the past X years, but we keep them around. For content on a page, the barrier is much lower: note once again that per the policy WP:NNC states that WP:NOTE for content is not required. Given the report received coverage at the time, it is worth including in the article. Chumpih ^t 07:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of lasting impact, nor of promotion by credible figures. We don't host every outrageous claim made by politicians. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but is this just opinion, or is it application of policy? Generally, as far as I can see, outrageous claims by politicians do get coverage in Wikipedia, especially those that garnered coverage at the time. Chumpih ^t 23:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

We don't present every claim, nor do we add cranks as people who support it (without clarifying them as such). Nothing about this seems remotely relevant in the long-term. Toa Nidhiki05 21:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, what policy are you applying here? The policy WP:NNC states that we can include - there's no qualification there about 'lasting impact'. What policy states we cannot? Chumpih ^t 23:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That would matter if it had attention from reliable sources, but it doesn't. You instead just sourced the conspiracy theory to its source, threw in a couple of random quacks that liked it, and some irrelevant legal content that makes it look like the paper had valid points (it did not). A self-published quack report is not realiable nor does it warrant inclusion. See our policies on undue weight (Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject); does this random conspiracy report have any credibility? No. Does it have any lasting impact? No. Does it represent a common viewpoint? No. There's no case for inclusion. Toa Nidhiki05 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the Washington Post discussing Conyers and the Report, which refutes the notion that the report didn't have attention from reliable sources.

Here's a list of academic papers that cite the Report, demonstrating its lasting impact. Chumpih ^t 01:13,02:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You’ve given one opinion piece - fairly worthless beyond what the author thinks - and a handful of uncurated citations. The burden is on you to prove this - which of these supposed citations are you using? What context proves it’s relevant? Toa Nidhiki05 03:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:FETCH?

The two main pillars of your previous arguments were directly refuted. Chumpih ^t 03:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As I’m sure you’re aware, Google Scholar pulls from sources that aren’t reliable (including self-published works and pay journals). And simply getting a brief mention doesn’t actually count as substantive. I’m sure you read those sources you cited - it shouldn’t be too hard to point to them, right? What you effectively did was send me a link to a Google page and said “here, sources”. It doesn’t work like that. Toa Nidhiki05 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

A typical approach is to infer the worth of a paper by the number of times it is cited. The fact there are papers in that list that are themselves cited dozens of times refutes the statement "it’s abundantly clear {the Report} hasn’t been remotely relevant since… well, the time it was published", and several similar statements. Chumpih ^t 04:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please cite specifics, not generalities. I’m sure you read these before sending them as evidence - what sources cite it, in what context, and to what extent? Toa Nidhiki05 04:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What would be the purpose of that? Chumpih ^t 04:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking what the purpose of proving your sources is? Toa Nidhiki05 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you read the sources yourself, but while I wait for your response, I decided to do my own research on a source

• "Conspiracy Theory in America" - A book that somehow got published in a university press. The book specifically argues in favor of conspiracy theories in virtually every subject, including the JFK assassination, the 2000 and 2004 elections, 9/11, the anthrax attacks, and more. This is not a reputable source whatsoever. This same author is listed several other times making equally unserious claims.

Not off to a good start - but I spotted you three or four sources here. Toa Nidhiki05 04:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm questioning the purpose of what seems like a WP:FETCH task. Moving the goalposts. To reiterate: the fact that the Report is cited by dozens of papers, some of which have been cited over 100 times, demonstrates that the report still has some relevance. Previoulsly you stated "I don't see any evidence of lasting impact", then when some evidence is presented, the evidence is questioned. I'm not aware that "lasting impact" is a criterion for inclusion on a page - once again, is there policy for this? Chumpih ^t 04:46,54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Presenting a Google page is not what I was asking, nor is it sufficient. Did you read any of the articles in question? Toa Nidhiki05 05:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please can you answer the question: what wikipedia policy demands that 'lasting impact' needs to be demonstrated for content to be included in a page?

There's little point in polishing evidence that demonstrates 'lasting impact' if that's not required in the first place. Chumpih ^t 08:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Indenting to try and shorten colons. Going to ask you one more time, Chumpih - did you actually read any of the sources in the Google link you gave? Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

And right back at you: please can you state what wikipedia policy demands that 'lasting impact' needs to be demonstrated for content to be included in a page?

There's little point in polishing evidence that demonstrates 'lasting impact' if that's not required in the first place. Chumpih ^t 19:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to take your refusal to comment as a "no". If you honestly just pasted a google link and expected that to be sourcing, without reading any of the articles, that's not remotely acceptable.

As I've said above - WP:10YT (Will someone ten or twenty years from now be confused about how this article is written? In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?). You've not established reliable sources covered this report. You have established a handful of individual authors (mostly conspiracy theorists, like Crispin and RFK Jr.) did. You haven't established any reason this random report deserves a section here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

And from your (lack of) answer, it looks like there is no policy requiring 'lasting impact'.

A controversial report from 2005, covering the 2004 election, has every right to be mentioned on this page titled 2004 United States election voting controversies, especially since the report has been covered in sources including the Washington Post:[17], Politico:[18], Mother Jones:[19], The Nation:[20], Democracy now:[21], the New York Times:[22], and the American Bar Association:[23], all of which have been linked in the discussion above (esp. via @JSwift49). Inclusion of the Report is concordant with WP:10YT. As per previous discussion, we should ensure appropriate framing to acknowledge that the Report hasn't gathered mainstream acceptance, per WP:UNDUE. Chumpih ^t 19:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh hey, you finally provided some sources! Great. Let's look at them.

• The Washington Post article is an opinion piece from January 2005.
• The Nation article is an opinion piece.
• The Democracy Now one is from a questionable, partisan source (Perennial sources), featuring Mark Crispin Miller, a known 9/11 conspiracy theorist, Sandy Hook Truther, 2000/2004/2020 election denier, and COVID denier.
• The Mother Jones article is a list of conspiracy book reviews; Mother Jones is a fine enough source, but is listed as biased at perennial sources. This is decent to establish the author's personal opinion.
• The New York Times article has a one-sentence mention of the report, but not by name.
• The ABA article does not mention Conyers or the report at all.
• The POLITICO source is the best one you have - a one-sentence mention in a section of broader conspiracy claims.

So no - the vast majority of sources you provided here are either opinion pieces (generally from conspiracy theorists), or breaking news coverage from 2005. The one source you have that's remotely current - the POLITICO one - devotes all of one sentence, amidst much broader coverage of other conspiracy theories - in other words, the report isn't notable even in that world. That's not lasting notability. Actual, credible nonpartisan news outlets barely mentioned the report then, and barely do now. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, all those sources were listed above. So the Report would fall into the 'significant minority' category per WP:UNDUE, which means it gets qualified mention on the page. No? Chumpih ^t 20:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No, because it's clearly not significant then or now. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

But the Report is significant. There are articles covering the Report it in multiple independent sources. Consider also WP:NNC. The Ohio Capital Journal cites the Report directly, just last month.[24]. NY Times covers it again, from 2005:[25]. Given the coverage, why is would this be considered not significant? Are we not fans of New York Times? Chumpih ^t 21:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The first one is a better source - although probably (mostly) useful insofar as Blackwell responds to general criticism. That's a genuinely great find. The second is, of course, an opinion piece. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Much like "Stop the Steal", "What Went Wrong in Ohio" should be mentioned on relevant pages. It should be a lot shorter than what Toa tried to remove on Conyers' page. If it has been sufficiently debunked like "Stop the Steal", that's a good way to handle it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that discuss this report - and specifically, provide ones from the last 15 years.

I would imagine it would be hard to find a line-for-like rebuttal of this obscure, irrelevant report, much like it would be hard to find a clean rebuttal of Lauren Boebert’s allegations that secret underwater bases are housing aliens. Shockingly, irrelevant conspiracy documents sometimes don’t get a ton of press coverage.

This is not “List of claimed voting conspiracies in the 2004 election”. We don’t need to include every random conspiracy here - supposedly, this page isn’t even about that. What makes this report noteworthy? Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think @Chumpih: has done an ample job demonstrating that the Conyers report is relevant to this page. Multiple, independent sources refer to the report, both in favor and against, which is a clear indication that the report is relevant to our understanding of the subject. Seeing as multiple editors have supported its inclusion (@JSwift49:, @Chumpih:, @Muboshgu:, and myself) and that multiple sources have been provided, I think perhaps @Toa Nidhiki05: should accede and we can move on. I think the proposed language by JSwift49 above is fine and support its inclusion. Bonewah (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I object to both. It's not been established that this report is important now, the proposed language skews heavily towards treating this as a credible, serious report, it treats endorsements by conspiracy theorists as endorsements by people, and only weakly says it "isn't widely accepted" - which is an understatement. At the very least, language needs to be inserted that makes it clear that these claims did not receive any major attention from major media outlets, and were only broadly covered by left-wing outlets and conspiracy theorists. I would also suggest renaming this page back to "2004 United States election voting conspiracy theories", if we're getting back to conspiracy theory coverage this small. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Them may i suggest that you propose alternate wording that addresses your concerns rather than fight the consensus view that it should be included in some way? Additionally, i object to your proposed renaming. If you want to push for that, we should create a new section with that proposal so we can discuss separately. Bonewah (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This would be the absolute most that could be justified, and even then it's likely presenting undue weight to this obscure report:

Ahead of the unsuccessful vote to object Presidential election results in Ohio, Rep. John Conyers (D-NY) released a report alleging "massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies in Ohio". According to the New York Sun, a letter in support of the report was supported only by the "most liberal members of Congress" due to the "exaggerated charges" in the report.

Toa Nidhiki05 16:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the proposed wording of JSwift49 over this proposal. At a minimum, i think we should link to the report and specify why its relevant (that i number of notable figures backed its conclusions and a vote was held about it). Bonewah (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Why should we link to the report, and not to sources that cover it? What value is there in claiming 9/11 truthers and anti-vaccine activists as subject matter experts? And more specifically - you seem confused. No “vote” was held on the report. The congressional vote was whether or not to overturn the Presidential election in Ohio. No vote was ever held on Conyers’s report. Congress doesn’t vote on reports. The Congressional vote and Conyers’s report had nothing to do with each other. Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We can link to both the report and sources that cover it. If something is important enough to mention, its important enough to link to. Im not suggesting that we present anyone as an expert, merely that we should report notable people's reaction to it. Why is this report important to our understanding of the subject? In part because a number of people cited it, both favorably and unfavorably in the post election discussions. Bonewah (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What makes these people notable? The proposed wording links to a conspiracy report, cites conspiracy theorists without calling them such, and then only meekly implies the report isn't completely true. That's not remotely acceptable wording for a fringe conspiracy theory on a page that isn't supposed to be about conspiracy theories. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

References

RFC: What Went Wrong in Ohio

Debate is ongoing as to whether content should be included in this article. This RfC covers two questions:

• Question 1: Should this article mention the John Conyers report "What Went Wrong In Ohio"
• Question 2: If so, what wording should be used?

Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, there are two proposals for 2):

• Proposal 1:

  A 2005 report by Democratic House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers titled What Went Wrong in Ohio claimed that "numerous serious election irregularities" and voter suppression by Republicans had caused Bush to win the state. The report was promoted by figures such as New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and author Gore Vidal. However, while some courts before the election found that certain restrictive voting policies of Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell were illegal, claims of voter and machine fraud swaying the election have not achieved mainstream acceptance, and several have been refuted.

• Proposal 2:

  A 2005 report by Democratic House Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers titled What Went Wrong in Ohio claimed that "numerous serious election irregularities" and voter suppression by Republicans had caused Bush to win the state. The report was promoted by conspiracy theorists such as New York University professor Mark Crispin Miller and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Claims of voter and machine fraud swaying the election have been widely rejected and refuted, and have been regarded as an early form of election denial. A congressional letter in 2005 support of the report was supported only by the "most liberal members of Congress" due to the "exaggerated charges" in the report.

Tagging users who participated in the above discussion: @Muboshgu:, @Chumpih:, @JSwift49:. I have also notified relevant WikiProjects. Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Question 1: Should this article mention the John Conyers report "What Went Wrong In Ohio"

• No - The report in question fails the WP:10YEARTEST. It's not especially notable, and it fails WP:UNDUE ("Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view."). Even among conspiracy circles, this report isn't especially noteworthy - reliable sources focus more on conspiracy theories about voting machines. This simply isn't worth mentioning. Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes 10YT appears to be met from a quick Google search.[26][27] It was a notable part of the 2004 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The report is relevant to the understanding of the subject as it speaks to the extent of the official responses. Conyers laid of his best case, congress mostly yawned, some people still think the report covers relevant material. The controversy surrounding the 2004 election did not just end after Kerry conceded. This information provides some of the relevant info on the aftermath. Bonewah (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as per the above two users. (Summoned by bot) Ships & Space_(Edits) 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes A controversial report from 2005, covering the 2004 election, has every right to be mentioned on this page titled 2004 United States election voting controversies, especially since the report has been covered in sources including the Washington Post:[28], Politico:[29], Mother Jones:[30], The Nation:[31], Democracy now:[32], Norfolk Daily News [33], the New York Times:[34] and the Ohio Capital Journal (from just over 1 month ago) [35]. The WP:10YEARTEST is totally satisfied.
• Yes per above. It seems to have long-term importance to the topic, and should be included. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Question 2: If so, what wording should be used?

• Proposal 2 - The proposed wording in Proposal 1 is wildly inadequate. It presents fringe theories as credible, elevates conspiracy theorists (Crispin is a notorious election denier, 9/11 truther, and Sandy Hook denialist, and RFK Jr. is a professional anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist) as credible voices, and most concerningly, provides synthesized sources to establish credibility for the report (sources that don't mention the report itself), while only vaguely mentioning some elements of it have been disproven. If this report is to be mentioned, it should be mentioned in a way that doesn't elevate conspiracy theories and election denialism. Toa Nidhiki05 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 appears more neutral, without the biased MOS:LABEL "conspiracy theorist". (Gore Vidal, listed in proposal 1 but not 2, is not regarded as a conspiracy theorist by anyone.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Proposal 1 More neutral. Proposal 2 contains language i dont think is supported, such as "Claims of voter and machine fraud swaying the election have been widely rejected" sourced to a single article in Politico. Or "and have been regarded as an early form of election denial.", have been regarded as is just a fancy way of saying that someone once said something. Bonewah (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Proposal 1. "Conspiracy theorist" is a very loaded term. That said, I think the second half (Claims of voter and machine fraud...) of proposal 2 is better than the second half of #1 (However, while some courts...), as #1's rebuttal seems too light (though maybe also include the material about some of Ken Blackwell's policies being illegal). (Summoned by bot) Ships & Space_(Edits) 20:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Proposal 2 with material about Blackwell's policies. See below comment for reasoning. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Is it a loaded term? Mark Crispin Miller's lead notes: "He has promoted conspiracy theories about U.S. presidential elections, the September 11 attacks and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines". RFK Jr.'s notes he is a "an American politician, environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theorist". If we're going to mention these individuals, it's important to clarify this - otherwise, they seem like experts, when they aren't. Perhaps it would be best to just remove them entirely? Toa Nidhiki05 20:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I guess so. I wrote that under a bit of a time limit, and I thought that Gore Vidal was listed in proposal 2. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is a loaded term. Just because editors elsewhere have no interest in neutrality doesnt mean we should do likewise. Bonewah (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  It’s a term reliable sources use. Would you prefer to remove these individuals instead, given they are not subject matter experts or really relevant in any way at all? Toa Nidhiki05 00:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps both should be used? I.E., "...promoted by people including Vidal and (someone else who promoted it but isn't a conspiracy theorist), as well as conspiracy theorists including Miller and RFK jr." except better phrased. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a loaded term, but so is the term "assassin," and nobody's arguing about John Wilkes Booth's being labeled as such. If their own articles are calling them conspiracy theorists in the lead, I think we can safely label them as such. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  The report in question contains quite a bit of material which is not conspiratorial, such as information on voter suppression. The emphasis on conspiracy was added by Nidhiki05 in his preferred edit. Bonewah (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  Are you contesting that Mark Crispin Miller and RFK Jr. are conspiracy theorists? That's what we're talking about here. They certainly aren't subject matter experts - and neither is Gore Vidal, for that matter. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Proposal 2 We should make to clear that the conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, per reliable sources. The rebuttal in Proposal 1 is too weak. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

References