Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 12

Please vote on a version or post your own suggestion. Feel free to comment, as well. Kevin Baas | talk 18:30, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

I think that Baas' version contains the most detail, however, the sentence regarding disenfranchised voters very clearly implies that some illegality occurred to make Bush win, which is a very disputed claim. Note - I am extraordinarily anti-Bush, and do believe that Gore won. But nonetheless, that should be left for the reader to decide. I would suggest adding an "alleged" or "supposedly" before the "wrongly disenfranchised voters" or somehow incorporating that feel into the article, unless someone finds the numbers from a credible, unbiased source - in which case we should put the numbers in and cite the source very clearly.

Sorry if that was a little too rambling. Oh, and feel free to move this comment if it is in an inappropriate location. StellarFury 18:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will repeat that this is a straightforward matter. This is a long article as is and repeating the entire 2000 election controversy would be far out of scope. Kevin Baas wants to list only a few key pro-Gore points from that controversy (including fringe charges of "interference" by Jeb), which is not neutral. I have already argued against his statistics ("less than one percent" - hah!), which in any case are just his POV and should not be stated as fact. The best way to write this is to briefly mention that there is a controversy and use a hyperlink for further, complete reading. VV 23:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Facts that do not, by nature, favor one side or the other, and are relevant and important, are not POV. If you want to dispute the electoral facts, do it on Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2000. And in any case, this is not the place for invective. Kevin Baas | talk 19:09, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

V's version is short but gives the facts and a reference to information about the election. The other two turned me off because they clearly leaned away from NPOV. Any other versions? From the ones above, V's is the only neutral version of events. "wrongly disenfranchised voters" and "Due to problems ... and other questions about the involvement of Bush's brother.." are clearly showing bias. If the other two were cleared of these selective summaries they would be pretty good. If you're going to create a single paragraph summary it needs to be neutral.- Tεxτurε 02:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say that it is important to mention that George Bush's brother is the governor of Florida - because it certainly had an effect upon public opinion - but we should not make any claims beyond that. Excluding any mention of Jeb is showing bias too, like we're glossing over part of the controversy. StellarFury 14:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's why we don't even try to cover the 2000 election. A hundred different people will say that omitting fact X is "bias", so we either put in a hundred facts or rely on hyperlinking. VV 22:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I thought the idea behind an encyclopedia was to put in "a hundred facts," not dodge events because they're too controversial. The problem that most people have is the way that the facts are presented. It seems silly to exclude facts just because we haven't yet found a way (or an author) to write them with NPOV. StellarFury 16:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias don't include "a hundred facts" in an article if those hundred facts are more detailed and neutral in another article that is referenced. No dodge. Just proper context. - Tεxτurε 16:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some people think that neutrality means that every statement in one direction needs to be counterbalanced by a statement in the other direction. Something like this would read "Some say the cat is black. Some say the cat is white. Some say wolves are natural predators of sheep. Some say that sheep eat wolves. .... etc." We are none-the-wiser after reading this. Clearly, I think this view to be misguided. To me, balance means completely disregarding partisian considerations and sentiments, and writting in strict proportion to relevant, significant, and accurate information, regardless of how these facts ultimately color things, for we are concerned not with giving things color, but with finding out what color things actually are. (In the words of Albert Camus in his book "The Plague": "If two and two really do make four.") This means looking through a lens that is undistorted by aggresion or passivity. This also means giving, not each pov the same weight, but each fact the same weight, so that when the cat is black, we say that the cat is black, regardless of what color anyone wants the cat to be. Kevin Baas | talk 19:21, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. Some allege that supporters of Bush, including his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush, illegally interfered with the election. Some allege that the judiciary (U.S. Supreme Court) made partisan rulings on behalf of Bush. Bush's supporters counter-allege that an earlier ruling in Gore's favor by the Florida Supreme Court was made for partisan reasons. (see U.S. presidential election, 2000).

The Florida vote was heavily disputed. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still debated, though no longer contested in any legal venue. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.

• 1) I support this version Rex071404 06:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. The margin of victory was less than one percent of the number of wrongly disenfranchised voters. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. Some allege that supporters of Bush, including his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush, illegally interfered with the election. (For example, a suit by NAACP (NAACP v. Harris) argued that Florida was in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the US Constitution's Equal Protection Amendment. Settlement agreements were reached in this suit. Also, some election officials argue that Florida was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.) Some allege that the judiciary (U.S. Supreme Court) made partisan rulings on behalf of Bush. Bush's supporters counter-allege that an earlier ruling in Gore's favor by the Florida Supreme Court was made for partisan reasons. (see U.S. presidential election, 2000).

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this decision, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

1. Neutrality 02:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. This one is good. Kevin's is too long, VeryVerily's too short. Without going into details, the reader should get a rough picture of the nature of the dispute. Gzornenplatz 00:20, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
   • This one is really bad, and furthermore was just thrown in at the last minute (like in the previous poll). Ungrounded accusations about Jeb are completely out of place, and it's poorly written to boot: "disputed, with the winner disputed". And it's due to voting equipment and Jeb? Give me a break. More detail would be acceptable if it could be done neutrally, but I don't see the need, and this isn't it. VV 00:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
     • What last minute? This just started. I don't see any accusations, only a mention of the fact that the controversy surrounded the equipment and Jeb. Poor writing can always be improved, there won't be a dispute about that. Gzornenplatz 01:35, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
       • Yes, there will be. Remember? And by last minute I mean in this case that it wasn't part of the original proposed poll, which muddles the issues. It says the recount was due to just two issues, equipment and Jeb, which is nuts. Should we say it's "due to" the leftist Florida SC? This is the basic problem with trying to summarize a complex issue, which always comes up when people try, which is that it's very hard to NPOV. VV 01:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
         • No, the other case was not simply about improving poor writing. And the Florida SC did not start the dispute. It had to do with the equipment and Jeb. Neutrality's version says that the Florida SC allowed the recount to continue, just as the U.S. one stopped them. That's just the facts. I don't see a particular POV there. Gzornenplatz 02:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
           • I'm not saying the Florida SC started the dispute, I said it would be equally absurd as saying it's due to Jeb. VV 03:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
             • Who says it's due to Jeb? It's due to questions about Jeb. What the answers are may be a subjective question, but it can't be denied that questions about Jeb's involvement were raised which, along with the problems with the equipment, started the whole dispute. Gzornenplatz 03:51, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
3. Iainscott 12:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) (well, at least now this version has had POV removed)
   • Do you take seriously the notion that it was because of "voting equipment"? VV 22:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
     • To a certain extent: the recounts were, IIRC (and I quite possibly dont), generally started due to the extreame closeness of the results, which may, in turn, have been due to problems with the voteing machines (and other effects certainly best discussed [here]. This version, though it probably could be improved to make this clear, is still more NPOV than the others suggested. Iainscott 13:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. StellarFury 12:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Lyellin 14:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC) For clarity of information's sake, better than the rest, as well as NPOV. Needs some improvement in the writing, perhaps.

"Validity" is such a loaded word - there are too many variables - for example:

* Military votes (which tend to lean Republican) not counted by Democrat registrars

* Al Gore's blatent attempt to get FL election law re-written by the courts (itself an illegal task)

* Incompetant Palm Beach FL Democrat voter registrar with silly "butterfly" ballot

By saying "validity of the vote" one can only be trying to say that the underpinnings were thoroughly flawed. However, there is nothing in the historical record which suggests, even adding up all the problems, that the "vote" was more than 1-3% flawed. Therefore, it is patently false and misleading th say that the "validity" of the vote - a term which encompasses every aspect of the entire voting process - was "heavily disputed". Such a statement is simply false on its face. Rex071404 04:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this decision, Gore conceded the election. The margin of victory (572 votes) was less than 1% of the number of disenfranchised voters. (Although the exact number of disenfranchised voters is still disputed, we now know that at least 57,700 legal voters were incorrectly listed on a "scrub list" and thus wrongly disenfranchised.) Election officials and the NAACP alleged that the state of Florida was in violation of election laws. The NAACP filed suit accordingly, and a settlement was reached in NAACP's favor. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

• PedantI support the above version... the controversial election needs to be characterised as controversial, supported with basic facts, reserve the rest of this 'controversial election material' for U.S. presidential election, 2000 I would support any version of this paragraph that mentions the controversy, doesn't contain nonfactual 'data' and references U.S. presidential election, 2000, where all the rest of the election controversy belongsPedant 19:52, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
• Support. The shocking "you people can't vote" issue needs highlighted - and on this page - it's entirely relevant as to how Bush got "elected" last time. zoney ███ talk 11:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Support. Felon's list is important to mention, particularly given the felon's list controversy in 2004. Other than that, Neutrality's version is also fine.Wolfman 18:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because the Florida vote was marred by voter disenfranchisement, its validity was heavily disputed. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this decision, Gore conceded the election. The margin of victory (537 votes) was less than 1% of the number of disenfranchised voters. (Although the exact number of disenfranchised voters is still disputed, we now know, statistically, that there is a more than 99% chance that more than 90.2% of 57,746 voters listed on a "corrected list" as felons were not actually felons, and were thus wrongly disenfranchised.) Election officials, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and the NAACP alleged that the state of Florida was in violation of election laws. [1] [2] [3] The NAACP filed suit, and a settlement was reached in NAACP's favor. [4] [5] On May 21st, 2002, the U.S. Justice Department disclosed that it will sue three Florida counties for alleged voting rights violations, expecting immediate settlement. [6] [7] The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000, (portal), (official report)).

I haven't read the article in months, but my gut feeling is that in a long article about 2 average sized paragraphs about the election dispute would seem about right. If there was any more than this I could go and look at the detailed article, if there was any less I'd feel it was being glossed over and deliberately downplayed. Ben Arnold 04:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Including everything I have read on this page, I support V's edits and positions, over N's. Also, please take note that Neutrality was warned this evening for making 9 reverts in 24 hours on John Kerry. As they were all pro-Kerry edits which he made, I suggest that this indicates there bias on his part on this page for Bush. Rex071404 02:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)\

I don't see how Neutrality's edits can be construed as pro-Kerry. Kevin Baas | talk 17:40, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Of course you do, Rex. Neutrality 02:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well Rex, it's reassuring to know that, since you're unbiased, you will not likewise use repeated reverts to make anti-Kerry edits. Gzornenplatz 02:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Neutrality made 10 reverts to John Kerry today and was the principal cause of that page getting protected just now. He also twice used vulgar language towards me on the Kerry talk page Rex071404 02:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Twice? Vulgar language? Explain. Neutrality 02:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To answer Neutrality, I count "twice" this way: #1) He characterized my objection to his edit as "BS" (except that he spelled this out). #2) After I replaced the "i" in "BS" with an "*" and explained my action, he reversed that edit with a bold type warning, re-inserting the term "BS" as a comment about my objection. That's twice. And I notice that he does not deny pro-Kerry bias, not does he deny being the principal cause of the page protection there tonight. Rex071404 02:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Articles like this are examples of why the concept of a freely editable encyclopedia is never going to work. That being said, the article is locked for editing. So ironic that MediaWiki is registered in Florida.

Is it really the job of an encyclopedia to "assess"? Even if the section stays, it has a POV problem. The section proclaims Bush as the "love him or hate him" president, then goes on to explain why people hate him, but not why they love him. I personally can't write the necessary addition for NPOV because I'm way too heavily biased. StellarFury 14:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is a liberal encyclopedia, ok? There's no place here for your crazy pro-Bush rhetoric. Go somewhere else.

Regarding the newly added paragraph:

According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts from the year 2000 to 2003 have gone to people with the top one percent of income (who earn an average of US$1.2 million annually), and two-thirds went to the top twenty percent (who earn an average of US$203.7 thousand annually). The tax cuts have redistributed the tax burden such that higher income brackets have less burden while lower income brackets have more burden.

[8]

I say "so what?" Read this: How Tax Cuts Work and then tell me if it seems so outlandish that the rich get big tax breaks. They get bigger tax breaks because they have more money! The information in the paragraph, while technically true, is slanted POV. I vote to remove it. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think you misread the paragraph. There are two issues at stake here, and neither of them involve absolute quantities of money. Tax is based on percentage of income, not raw quantity. Thus, your point is entirely moot.

The first issue is percentage of wealth, not raw quantity. regardless of how much money they make, a certain group of people give a larger percentage of their income to the government, while another group gives a smaller percentage of their income. The first issue is percentage, burden. Actually, this issue is the second issue listed in the paragraph. The second issue, listed first in the paragraph, is distribution. It's pretty clear cut. you don't have one third going to one third and two thirds to two thirds, in otherwords, this is not a flat tax. It is slanted in a clear direction. It is important to note, regardless of which direction it is slanted, that it is such.

Also, notice that the source is nonpartisian. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Is there a graph somewhere of income vs proportion of income paid as direct income tax. I would personally be interested in comparing US and UK. If we could get data for lots of countries, we could even make an article out of it. Pcb21| Pete 15:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Forgot to mention we already have the data for the UK at income tax. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Group vote sought by Rex071404 08.16.2004)

Owing to what I consider a POV tone, no reference to actual facts, and no source links for these so-called "critics", I wish to delete this from the article:

"Critics of Bush allege improprieties in the venture, which earned US$170 million, including tactics in acquiring both the team and the stadium and land on which it played, as well as its later sale to a family friend who would donate money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush had earned US$15 million."

Agree - text should be deleted

• Rex071404 07:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Cecropia | Talk 07:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Delete, or supply credible reference identifying who "critics" are and their allegations.
• Timothy001 14:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disagree - (please cite requested facts)

• Gzornenplatz 08:14, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) [9]
• Style 08:48, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) - [10] [11] [12]. Please bother to google in future.
• →Raul654 09:38, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) [13] - I've heard this claim on a couple of occasions. That makes me think that this is notable enough to be covered by the article.
• older ≠ wiser 12:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) [14] [15] [16]
• Kevin Baas | talk 16:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) Keep status quo unless otherwise can be convincingly demonstrated, in order to maximize accuracy of article (litmus test).
• David Gerard 21:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Those refs look mainly usable. CNN and WPost would be most credible, but the others could be usable as further supporting material. The mention is in need of rewording, but there's a there there.

Reply to: Kevin Baas: what are you referring to: "unless otherwise can be convincingly demonstrated"? How can my contention that it's POV and is missing citations be "convincingly demonstrated"?. What standard of proof would you accept?Also, my suggestion that it is POV does not bear on the accuracy ot lack thereof of the current version, wouldn't you agree? Rex071404 17:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A paragraph should only be removed if it is inaccurate/false. If it is pov, whether subtly or overtly, and/or lacks sources, it should be altered to be npov and to include sources. I agree that your statement that it is subtly pov and/or lacks sources does not bear on the accuracy or lack thereof of the current version, but your suggestion that it should be deleted does. This is what I was responding to, though, admittedly, I confused your verbal criticism with what I construed as your tacit criticism, based on the protocol I've just described. (The comment "please cite requested facts" encouraged this confusion.) I apologize for this confusion. I believe that the proper course of action, in respect to your verbal criticism, would be to modify the para, not to remove it. In any case, the vote was for delete or keep, regardless of stated reasons, and my comment was with regard to this choice. I apologize for any misappropriated criticism. Kevin Baas | talk 18:37, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Pedant:Paragraph should be kept with the minor nitpicks fixed:

I would prefer "Improprieties have been alleged in..." to "Critics of Bush allege improprieties" because

1), people other than 'critics of bush' have made those allegations, attributing it to only critics of bush is slanted...

and maybe more importantly:

2), "Critics of Bush allege improprieties" doesn't follow the policy Avoid statements that will date quickly as it is stated in the present tense, and in that tense is unlikely to stand the test of time.Pedant 20:11, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Undecided

• Floorsheim 08:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) While I think the text reads suitably NPOV, apparently there is an issue as to whether this is a notable criticism or not. If it is, will someone please provide evidence to that effect? Also, can we get confirmation on the dollar figures? Details concerning the exact allegations would be beneficial as well.
• VV 10:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) I was skeptical, but this seems to be a "real" criticism and not tabloid crap. Tweaking the wording to make the "subtle" charges ("... family friend who would donate money to the Bush campaign...", not hinting anything here) more direct would help. VV 10:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It's written in journalist-speak, not encyclopedia-speak, and should be rewritten to state facts, not 'allegations'. If those changes are not implemented, then I would vote delete. However, I have little interest in political squabbles taking place in Wikipedia: take it elsewhere and let people get on with doing edits that will stand the test of time, folks. Noisy 11:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The fact represented is that the allegations have been made. The only question is whether it is a notable fact concerning George W. Bush. –Floorsheim 12:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Noisy's rewrite. Facts are presented in encyclopedias. - Tεxτurε 16:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With links to mainstream news sources, it should stay. Otherwise, delete. Neutrality 14:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I dunno. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Message from: Rex071404 15:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have read the "Disagree" citations and am not persuaded that "allege improprieties" infers the correct tone. Also, virtually every time a pro-sports stadium is built, there are those who complain. And, not all of Bushes critics have ever said anything about the ball team - very few in fact have. If we were to keep this section, I prefer we re-write it as follows:

"Some critics of Bush castigate him for this venture. Concerns cited include the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark. [17] There was also criticism regarding the eventual sale to a family friend, who some time later donated money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush personally earned US$14.9 million (in total, the sale earned US$170 million)." [18]

Support changing to v.2

• Rex071404 15:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Floorsheim 16:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Altogether a good fix, I'd say. Although I'd switch the references. I think [21] is more pertinent to the first sentence. Also, there's a tense shift in sentence two.

1. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Okay by me -- in fact way better than the one listed above (espcially cuz I'm tired of all this controversy) and why is it a problem that Bush sold the stadium? So what? It's a free market.

Oppose changing to v.2

• Gzornenplatz 15:49, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Message to: Gzornenplatz; What is your opposition to v.2? Rex071404 20:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ilyanep's question actually proves what's wrong with your version: it makes it seem as if the critics somehow opposed the stadium deal as such (as if "acquisition of the team and stadium" is a "concern" in itself), when it's in fact the improprieties about it (the details of which are in the references). The original version is just fine. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Tεxτurε 20:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) - "Castigate" as an introductory sentence takes this to the same place as the last one. I'd say strike the first sentence and start with "Critics cited concerns about the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark." That gives the facts and no leaning either way.

• Pedant KEEP V. 1 above but change the first sentence to make it not present-tense/quickly-dated, we can't really claim in an article that's been days in the editing, what is happening in the present, unless it's something like "Earth is slowly spiraling closer to the sun"Pedant 21:04, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
• Kevin Baas | talk 21:09, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) I am not opposed to changing the paragraph in principle, I am opposed to changing it to the suggested version for the reason expressed by Gzornenplatz.

Support other version (supply text below)

• Oppose both revisions. Nothing POV in original phrasing. Plus, people have provided plenty of references. So, leave it alone besides adding a link or two.Wolfman 18:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To: Group From Rex071404 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Re: New version, please

Since it does appear that a majority of us are in agreement that the current version has room for improvement, I am asking one or more of you to re-write and place below, your suggested v.3 version. Those is favor of "no change" and who have already registered your comments to that effect, please allow this space for sample verions. Thank you.

Enter your suggestions for a v.3 version here:

Critics expressed concern about the propriety of the purchase. Stated concerns include the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark. [19] There was also criticism regarding the eventual sale to a family friend, who some time later donated money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush personally earned US$14.9 million (in total, the sale earned US$170 million)." [20]

I posted v. 3.0 but I'm holding my vote until I see the rest of the proposals.Pedant

I tried to merge all the different ideas people suggested, and also the original, then fiddled with it to make it not sound awkward. I haven't really thoroughly explored the content at those links, just a quick read of the page the link points to... someone may want to look over the whole site over there, or not. I'm not sure I expressed the pooint of what people thought was wrong with the purchase... if someone feels like it, I wouldn't mind hearing the full-on biased version of what this paragraph is getting at (on my talk page), I'm a little thick when it comes to politics, I'm not sure if the improprieties referred to are "get bush elected" type improprieties or "make bush some more millions" type.... I'd also like to see more proposals, even if they are just better versions of the one I posted. Pedant 10:29, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

v. 3.0 looks good! Rex071404 07:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nuff said -SV 17:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not true. For example, Blankfaze, a "party", only reverted once. Likewise, Style only reverted once. Gzornenplatz only reverted twice. Neutrality only reverted twice. (this is all since the last page protection). The statement "all parties have violated the three revert rule." is objectively false. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

The only one who is violating the three-revert rule is VeryVerily, and this is at least the third protection he has now caused. Gzornenplatz 19:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily is outnumbered here, so that form of measurement is not completely fair. Rex071404 20:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"That form of measurement"? Regardless of the measure used, each user is allowed only three reverts per day. If many others believe a single individual is wrong then they "vote" (in one form) by returning the text to the way it was. They did this properly. If he is outnumbered he needs to obtain concensus before proceeding. (Happily that is being attempted above.) - Tεxτurε 20:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Everyone here is outnumbered. That form of measurement is completely fair because it applies equally to all people in equal circumstances. The form of measurement is wikipedia policy. If you want to dispute the three-revert rule, dispute it on the three revert page, and dispute it with respect to all similiar circumstances as this one, where I repeat, everyone is equally outnumbered. This, BTW, is why we build and respect consensus. One person, one vote. Period. Kevin Baas | talk 21:00, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

I actually believe we are capable of reaching actual consensus, which really would mean we don't need to vote or "win", we . This is a very noticeable discussion, let's use this as an opprtunity to show how consensus can be reached, even in the presence of our personal biases.Pedant 21:12, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Rex071404 23:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) says - We need to update the Texas Rangers (current version) because: The Neutral Point of View document says

  A lot of articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting
  both points of view; this is wrong. Even when a topic is presented in 
  terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an 
  implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or 
  more subtly their organization ...

What precisely do you regard as POV in the original phrasing? To me, it reports (but does not judge) a controversy.Wolfman 18:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's like asking me, what "precisely" is beauty? I think the newer versions I have endorsed on this page are less POV, don't you? Did you read all the above dialog on the subject? Rex071404 04:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I read it. And no, I honestly don't think your suggestion is less POV. Partly, that's because I truly don't see anything POV about the original paragraph. If I understood more precisely what you see, it would be a bit easier. To illustrate, I'll give a couple examples of the POV I see in your suggested revision. First, you use the word 'castigate' which has a very negative connotation; that's a matter of tone. Second, your version leaves the impression that critics are just upset that Bush made some money; which makes them seem silly. (I have no idea what the precise criticisms are, or whether they are valid). The version by Pedant also suffers from this latter problem. The paragraph should at least mention what the actual criticism about team and land acquisition was. The original version at least offers the weak explanation of 'tactics'.Wolfman 06:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas | talk 23:48, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) says: Also, from the same document:

  Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, 
  is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so.
  If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or
  imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are
  just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact,
  and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of
  view. -- User:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

I think that the two statements don't contradict each other, because they differ in scope. The second statement (actually listed first on the NPOV page) is talking about specific statements within an article. The first statement is talking about the general impression of the entire article. I agree with both statements. Kevin Baas | talk 23:47, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind this brief interjection. I'm looking for a few good veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over a design proposal for Wiki branches that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future (not likely on wikipedia itself at first, but perhaps on another experimental wiki). The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part. I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side more easily, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account. But in general, I'm interested in any and all comments, preferably on my talk page. Thanks! - Brynosaurus 09:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can someone add him to the Aviators catgory when it becomes unprotected?

I am trying to add all the rated pilots on wikipedia to that catgory.

PPGMD

At his August 2001 physical, Bush was 6 feet 0 inches tall, and weighed 189.75 lbs

Thats just some info I'm going ad when the page isn't protected. Sam [Spade] 03:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would it make more sense to have an 'Education' heading and a separate 'Science and Environment' heading? It seems to me that the Science content is more closely related to the Environment content (especially with the mention of the Union of Concerned Scientists). --neatnate 04:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I intend to add a link to this

Rex071404 05:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why? Just mention the dog, it doesn't deserve a separate link. RickK 06:05, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Why not? Including the link at the end of the page is not instrusive nor POV. Rex071404 05:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe include this quote from a recent Q&A session:

Q: Lisa from Florida: Hey Barney , barkbark woof woof ruff ruff grooooooowwweeelllll raroooooooooooooo bark bark bark bark !! grrrrrrrrrr .... ? LOL :oP

A:Barney, First Dog: Bark, bark, bark. Woof, woof. Rowf. Arf. : )

(from that link you posted above.) Maybe we should have a whole article about Barney?Pedant 09:44, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

We should add a paragraph about the following, as it is a very relevant and very significant event.

• (pdf) The Statement
• (BBC) "Nobel winners attack Bush economics"
• (AFL-CIO) Nobel Prize Winner Calls Bush Economic Policies ‘Worst in 200 Years’
• [http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political_agenda/worker_issues/taxes/opposebushtaxcuts.cfm (UFCW) Nobel Prize Winning Economists Oppose Bush Tax Cuts: Economic Plan Falls Short on Helping Working Families

]

• (Washington Free Press) "Bush-Pushed Tax Cuts"
• (pdf) Quotes from economists
• (pdf) Bush Tax Cut Testimony
• (pdf)
• (Tax Policy Center)

• (Berkeley) 10 Nobel Laureates, four world-renowned economic experts, and more than four hundred and fifty economists from universities and tax-policy institutes criticize Bush's tax cuts.

First paragraph of the last link: "Ten Nobel Laureates Say the Bush Tax Cuts are the Wrong Approach" proclaimed a full-page advertisement in the Tuesday, February 11, edition of the New York Times. Paid for by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, the ad went on to say that "there is wide agreement that [the Bush plan's] purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term…Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits.

The petition prominently displayed the names of 10 Nobel Laureates and four world-renowned economic experts, among them three current UC Berkeley faculty members: George Akerlof, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences and the Goldman Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley; Daniel L. McFadden, also a Nobel laureate in economics and the director of UC Berkeley's Econometrics Laboratory; and Janet Yellen, a member of Berkeley's Haas Economic Analysis and Policy Group and an economics professor. More than 450 economists from U.S. universities and tax-policy institutes also signed the petition"

Kevin Baas | talk 20:00, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Also, here is a report by the Commitee on Economic Development (nonpartisan): (pdf)

This should probably be mentioned.

Kevin Baas | talk 20:00, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Let's not link to sites that have an obvious bias, Washington Free-Press, AFL-CIO, and UFCW, are examples of sites with bias. The first paragraph of the Washington Free Press calls trickle down economics voodoo. They may disagree with it, but it has as many supporters in the financial sectors as it has opposition. Lets keep the links to non-biased sources such as house.gov, CSPAN, and various respected news sites.

Personally I think the politics on this article shouldn't be edited until well after the election, because elections brings out too many partisans.

PPGMD

Link to sites: We link to provide information, regardless of bias. I was indiscriminate in my list of sources. Those were off of google. If some news sources choose not to publish an article about an event, that's their loss - they choose to remain silent, and they have no right to complain about who published or did not publish an article. In any case, the best way to be NPOV is to be indiscriminate; to be scientific (empirical) about it: giving the reader a random (unbiased) sample of news reports, rather than a biased sample of purportedly "non-biased" news reports.

Regarding WFP: Trickle-down economics is central to Supply-side economics which is also known as Voodoo economics.

Regarding this article, election time: I think that, on the contrary, because election time is near, it is imperative for voters to be factually (non-rhetorically) well-informed. Wikipedia is a good source for such info, and we should strive extra-hard to provide, through encyclopedic articles, relevant information that is proportional to the facts and their significance, and is written from a NPOV.

A nuetral and informative section can be written in the following format:

• Topic and issues
• Views of both sides
• relevant facts

Kevin Baas | talk 21:10, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

On an ex-post facto basis, this was done in USA only one time to a class of people officially: Ex-Confederate officers were barred from voting after Civil War.

Felons who lose the vote have that done to them as an individual sanction, not as a class.

Black who were hampered in their voting in 1920's-60's South, did not get "disenfranchised". Rather, their rights were infringed upon, not voided. One can argue as to their having been "virtually" disenfranchised - but that, though pernicious, is not the same thing.

Using the word "disenfranchisement" is simply too misleading to describe a Palm Beach Nebbish, Nyudnick or Schnook, who with the Meshugass of the Butterfly Ballot, couldn't vote right. The people who put that ballot together were all Gore supporters. They did not have intent to mess up Gore or cheat the voters. Disenfranchisement requires intent. So the Dems were ready to Plotz when they found out they lost the FL and USA election in Palm Beach dues to too many accidental votes for Pat Buchannon? Oh well, next time don't put a Shmendrik in charge of ballot design. Those supposed lost votes were not intended and they are not Bush's fault. There was no "disenfranchisement". It's the wrong word. Rex071404 05:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you may be in the wrong forum, and the wrong website altogether. But even if you do have something to contribute here (other than representing a narrow partisan partiality), the above bigoted little rant should not be considered among them. -SV 06:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why are you offended by Yiddish ?[21] You do recognize that Yiddish is spoken widely by many persons as an interesting slang, yes? Do you even know what "Meshugass" means? For years, the most popular morning radio show in the Boston area was called "big mattress meshugass" and it was not being used as a slur. And what's wrong with "Plotz"? As for those who claim they were cheated because they were unable to vote right, "Nebbish, Nyudnick or Schnook" are perfectly fair words (Schnook may not be bona-fide Yiddish). I did however, remove "AK" (literally means "old fart"), because that might be construed by some as derisive. Even so, I will not yield on the word "Shmendrik" to describe the ballot designer, it's very apropos Rex071404

And to clarify, - prior to being enfranchised by constitutional amendment, Black Americans never had the vote, so it's axiomatic that any efforts to claim "disenfranchisement" must refer to only post-Civil War era issues. Rex071404 09:20, 20 Aug 2004 {UTC)

"Disenfranchisement" means to be entirely stripped, by statute, of the right to vote. It does not mean running into a SNAFU. Southern Blacks in the 1920's-60's were often treated in a way that is tantamount to being stripped, but the US Constitution was never revoked in that regard. The Jim Crow era was pernicious indeed, but nothing even remotely approaching Bull Conner and his minions occcured in Florida in 2000. Using the word "disenfranchisement" in referrence to 2000 Florida vote SNAFUs is a gross exaggeration and demeans the struggles of the civil rights workers and protesters of the 50's and 60's. To use that word here is to lose all sense of proportion. Rex071404 09:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see the definition of disenfranchised (disfranchised). [22] Kevin Baas | talk 19:53, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

The operative word there is "deprive" see definition for that [23] and of course, "deprive" depends on the word "take" - see link here. [24] No voters in FL in 2000 had anything "taken" from them by anyone. But if there is blame to go around, it rests on the shoulders of the Democrat voting boards in Palm Beach and Miami - they created the SNAFU with crappy voting infrastructureRex071404 23:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is about more than "crappy voting infrastructure". [25] AlistairMcMillan 00:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Only in your own mind. Prove your case with facts, not with scurrilous and false "blog-cusations". Re: "The Florida Republicans wanted to block African Americans" - what a pile of crap! That blog-man you link to even ignores his own sources: "When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn't" Rex071404 00:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you? Greg Palast is not a "blog-man", he is a journalist who has had work published in the Observer and Washington Post among other papers, he is a published best-selling author, presenter on BBC's Newsnight, etc etc. The actual article I pointed to is actually written by Liam Scheff and was published in a Boston newspaper, it is only posted on Greg Palast's site.

BTW The phrase you are searching for is "blogger" not "blog-man". AlistairMcMillan 00:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NAACP v. Katherine Harris AlistairMcMillan 00:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Presidential Election Lawsuit Ends Why would Florida choose to settle if they had done nothing wrong? AlistairMcMillan 01:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The term "disenfranchise" plain and simply has a more profound meaning that merely missing a vote for one reason or another. Rather, a "disenfranchised" person is barred from all votes, now and in the future.

It is simply too extreme of a charge to lay upon Bush and/or the Florida 2000 fiasco to say that people were "disenfranchised". Think of it this way, if you are shot by a rifle in battle and are not killed, you are wounded. However, if the wound is fatal, you are killed.

In this analogy, "disenfranchisement" is equivalent to death. But what happened to complaining voters in FL was a wound - they are still free to vote again. Also, if they don't like Palm Beach butterfly ballots, they are free to move to whatever location they decide has a ballot they like. On the other had, a truly "disenfranchised" person is not allowed to vote regardless of the ballot type or where they live.

It is sloppy English, plain and simple to use that word ("disenfranchise") to describe the SNAFUs of FL 2000.

Also, such word usage to describe SNAFUs, flies in the face of the Law_of_large_numbers by suggesting that an election with millions of votes being cast, must not have any votes that are miscounted or voided in error.

And, unless you are claiming bad intent by a controlling party the Law_of_large_numbers will see to it that such errors and miscounts are evenly distributed among both major party candidates in a close election.

Except for the well documented (and not terribly surprising) fact that poorer precincts, which tend to vote Democratic, have far higher error rates. Gzuckier 17:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What this means is that both Gore and Bush voters missed out at roughly the same rate. This also means that Gore and Bush had a roughly equal number of miscounts and non-counts.

Your hypothesis that upper class white Republicans were culled as pseudofelons at the same rate as poor black Democrats doesn't withstand even the most cursory validity check.Gzuckier 17:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the same time, this still does not constitute "disenfranchisement". Rather, what you must keep in mind is that even a precise process will, on a large scale have some error. And this is what happened in FL 2000.

Whether you believe Bush won or Gore won there is moot so far as the vote count error rate goes. That election was so-close, that for all intents and purposes all of the potentially different types of recounts would have still fallen within the margin of vote count error.

Now here I have to agree with you. There is no reason for any state to have a 'winner take all' distribution of electoral votes except to enable rigging the results with a minimum of effort. Had the Florida electors been alloted according to the percentage of the votes attained by each party, the question of 1,000 or so votes either way would have been completely immaterial. I don't understand why attempts at election reform don't start with that obvious fact. Even people who argue to eliminate the electoral college should see that assigning electors proportional to the popular vote in each state would eliminate most of the anomalies they are concerned about, without bringing up the same questions regarding making a fundamental change in the Constitutional design of federal elections.Gzuckier 17:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That being the case, the SCOTUS was perfectly just in making FL stop counting and stick with the rules which were in place on the date of the election. Those rules did not allow for Gore to keep counting again and again in hand picked areas.

The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over states' internal election procedures. These are nowhere mandated in the constitution, there is no precedent of the SCOTUS ever having jurisdiction over them; in the one precedent case where a state was unable to produce a slate of electors by itself, the federal remedy was to put together a carefully chosen commission from members of the House, the Senate, and the judiciary, the Supreme Court at the time having explicitly stated that this was not a matter for them to rule on.

In the final event, the pretext of 'Equal Protection' used by the SCOTUS to stick its nose into the case is a joke:

1. The Court majority cast more total votes in favor of 'Equal Protection' in this single case than they had in their entire careers thus far.
2. The egregious violations of 'Equal Protection' caused by the wildly divergent voting systems and the resultant error rates in the differeing counties of Florida did not spur them to intervene, nor did the fact that in a few counties the accepted recounts were conducted manually and changed those counties' results, but in the rest it was just a rerun through the machine, and no change.
3. The Court found it necessary to specify that their ruling was NOT to be used as a precedent for any other case (i.e., anything resembling the violations of Equal Protection in #2 above).

Gzuckier 17:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of what Gore was hoping for, it is true that GWB did win the tally (albeit, very closely) that was added up based on the rules which were in place on the day of the election. And in fact FL 2000 proves the value of rules of that type.

Florida law in place on the day of the election specifies county-specific recounts, and specifies explicitly that 'any ballot where the intent of the voter can be determined cannot be discarded'. This does not mean that if a machine cannot determine that a ballot with the oval next to 'Gore' fully blackened and the name 'Gore' hand written below in the area labeled 'Write-in candidates' name here' is a Gore ballot, that it can legally be discarded. These are the infamous 'overvotes' spat out by the automatic counters and never counted by any of the 'recounts' that involved just running the ballots through the machines again, or worse, just copying the original totals off the machines final tabulators again. On the other hand, a few counties took the election seriously enough to actually meticulously count the ballots by hand and did find a great preponderance of these clearly interpretable yet machine-uncounted ballots for Gore, even in solidly Republican areas. Which agrees with the definitive analysis of the subject by the NORC recount, which did manually examine over 99% of these uncounted ballots and found that there were enough of these overvotes for Gore to ensure that he would have had a majority no matter what standards were used in the infamous 'chad' ballot counting. Gzuckier 17:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Prior to invoking a large election, the tally method must be agreed upon in advance. If not, for any election which is so close that it the tally falls within the margin of error, the outcome will change if you change the tally method.

This is why Gore voters still feel cheated - they assert that under some tally methods, Gore would have won. The only problem is that the tally methods they point to were not provided for under FL law at the time, but were instead being sought by Gore in court after the fact.

Are you attempting to assert that Florida law specifies machine counting as the only tally method, (and cheap error-prone machines at that, rather than something like the handwriting reading machinery used very successfully by the Post Office) and forbids hand counting as the determinant of 'any ballot where the intent of the voter can be determined'? Gzuckier 17:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If such an approach is allowed, well then Bush could then come right back and say "use my method" while pointing to one that put him ahead. And back and forth we go.

It is this ex-post-facto re-jiggering of the tally methods that SCOTUS put a stop to, not any actually vote counting. The votes had already been counted.

On the other hand, what Gore was asking for was not provided for under FL law and in any case, SCOTUS agreed that in giving the green-light to Gore's extra-legislative request for a special tally, the FL Supremes violated the principle of equal protection.

You see, once the tally began being re-done under a statutorily unfounded court-ordered system, the only trumping law left is US Constitution.

What section of the Constitution refers to the system to be used by states to determine their electors, again? And how does the threat of the Republican-controlled Florida legislature to just install the Bush electors without reference to the voting results fall into this determination, in your world view?

Article II Section 1 of the constitution says

'Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors'

It is the job of the state court system, up to and including the state supreme court, to ensure that the laws of the state are correctly followed, and in cases where two laws clash, such as this one, to interpret them as best as possible. There is no jurisdiction for the Federal Supreme Court to be a final arbitrator over state courts in general, nor in the selection of electors in particular, if there is no federal law involved. Article II does not grant the US supreme court 'any special authority to substitute their views for those of the state judiciary on matters of state law' as the dissenting justices pointed out.

Gzuckier 17:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The simple fact is that when judges re-write law from the bench, the only remaining defense is an appeal to constitutional principles, which is what Bush did. By the way, there were two rulings by SCOTUS in this case, one was 5-4, but the other was 7-2.

Anyway, in regards to all the vote SNAFUs issues themselves: errors on felon voter list, chads in Miami, Butterfly Ballot in Pam Beach, Military votes being DQ'd because military mail lacked a postmark, the news media falsely declaring the polls closed one hour before the FL panhandle (which is on Central Time) was actually done voting, were not under the control of any single person(s) or group(s), so there is certainly no way the say that all those who mis-voted or missed voting were "disenfranchised".

Certain voters and votes were adversely affected, yes. But this does not rise to the level of "disenfranchisement". The usage of that term is wrong and leaves a false impression.

Remember: precise thought requires precise word usage.

It is through the loopholes of imprecise language that race-baiters have long slipped on this issue. There are numbers of people out there who still try to suggest that there was a master plan (tied to Bush somehow of course) to "disenfranchise" black FL voters and thereby give Bush the win. Such racial based demagoguery is disgusting and offensive on the face. And in order to put a stop to it, people who write on the subject must give the facts in a rigorously clear manner.

I am trying to do that and it's why I oppose the use off the term "disenfranchised". It's not true. It misleads and in the hands of certain race-baiters (such as Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.) it fans the flames of racial discord.

Rex071404 04:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blah blah "they are still free to vote again" blah blah. Please explain how someone can vote when their name has been removed from the voter rolls. If your name isn't on the voter roll, you don't get to vote. Plain and simple. Therefore the term "disenfranchise" is appropriate.

And before you point out that Florida promised to fix the felon list and their voter roll, let's be clear that this problem has NOT been resolved. [26]

Also would mind not referring to this as a SNAFU. We are talking about people being losing (rightly or wrongly) their right to vote, not someone forgetting to pick up their dry cleaning. Last I heard America was a democratic country, I would think even the suggestion that people might have wrongly lost their right to vote would be taken pretty damn seriously. AlistairMcMillan 13:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. I agreed with you on a lot of other stuff, where you were right. Here you are wrong. There were absolutely disenfranchised voters in florida, and I don't mean butterfly ballots. I mean purged voter rolls, intentionally created lists of people to be taken off of the voting rolls. Not only in florida either. Don't even try to defend the validity of that election, you will just attract more attention to it. The use of the term disenfranchised and disenfranchisement is entirely appropriate here. Pedant 09:54, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

The both of you are wrong. The proper meaning of the term "disenfranchise" in regards to voting (in USA) specifically refers to a government ordered, government enforced, permanent ban against being able to vote.

sez who?

disenfranchised

adj : deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote [syn: disfranchised, voteless] [ant: enfranchised]

or

Main Entry: dis·en·fran·chise

Pronunciation: "di-s&n-'fran-"chIz

Function: transitive verb

to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

By your interpretation of the word, requiring a permanent bar from voting, you can't call anybody disenfranchised until after they have died.

Remember: precise thought requires precise word usage.

Gzuckier 15:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The simple fact remains that each and every person (unless individually barred as a felon)

Isn't that the exact thing under discussion; people wrongly disenfranchised for felony convictions which they in actuality did not have? Gzuckier 15:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

who arrived at the polls in FL 2000 was allowed to vote, regardless of whether their name showed up on the registration list - provided of course, that they were not too stupid to know how to assert their right to vote. What they were supposed to do (upon being refused a regular ballot for not being on the registration list) is ask for a "provisional ballot". Every polling place in FL had those available. The requesting party is allowed to vote on the provisional ballot which is kept in a seperate ballot box, in a special envelope denoting (via serial number, not name) who it came from. The person casting that ballot gets a receipt with that serial number. Armed with that receipt, the voter can the next day, contact the voting registrar and demonstrate that they are not barred from voting or have otherwise been wrongly dropped from the voters list. When this corroboration is provided to the registrar, the embargoed vote is released and added to the tally. The reason why various voters generally don't bother with this is that it's a lot of hassle. Even so, it is a valid and viable path to voting. Everyone who was entitled to vote in FL 2000 could have in fact done so. To state otherwise is false. And to characterize any missed voting as "disenfranchisment" is also false. Rex071404 19:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From a report by the US Commission on Civil Rights: "The Commission’s findings make one thing clear: widespread voter disenfranchisement—not the dead-heat contest—was the extraordinary feature in the Florida election." [27].

Hmmm... who to trust? The US Commission on Civil Rights OR the clearly non-partisan User:Rex071404? Ooo, that's a toughy. AlistairMcMillan 21:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alistar's so-called "non-partisan" report is highly touted by the World Socialist Web site. [28] Bias? What Bias? Rex071404 06:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy-based rhetoric is using the invalid logical implication backwards. Kevin Baas | talk 18:10, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln once asked: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" To which he answered: "Four. Just because you call a tail a leg, doesn't make it one" Rex071404 06:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even these Liberals agree "disenfranchisment" = "permanently disenfranchised" [29] Rex071404 06:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The site terms (black) people who were not allowed to vote because their names were on the felon list as disenfranchised. That is exactly what 'Liberals' feel constitutes electoral fraud when applied to people whose only link to a felony was a generally similar name. The fact that they can apply to be reenfranchised does not mean that they were not disenfranchised, since anyone can apply to be reenfranchised, and therefore if that was the decisive factor, nobody would ever be disenfranchised. Gzuckier 15:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The so-called "non-partisan" report was a scam - read this link [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23482 here]. Rex071404 06:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Leo makes my point for me here. Rex071404 06:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This link to a university report outlines the history of true Southern disenfranchisment, which interestingly enough was conducted against blacks for the benefit of Democrats.... surprised? Rex071404 06:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How old are you? Most people old enough to remember the 60s today are quite familiar with the Republicans' brilliantly successful strategy of using the resentment of the Southern racist bloc at 'liberals' and their 'civil rights agitators' to hijack their votes away from the Democrats, creating the Republican 'base' which has served them well ever since. Thanks for the attempt to be smugly pedantic in the guise of educational, though. Gzuckier 15:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)