Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

Russia stuff

I think the paragraph on Russian interference with the election and Trump collusion is way out of scope and non-neutral. Classicwiki restored it, commenting that it's relevant because it's something members plan to look into. That is actually not accurate. Two members want to look into potential hacking of computer systems by the Russians. That is quite different from the broader interference campaign described in the Background section. Also, members are not "planning" to look into the issue; two members simply said they want the panel to look into it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman I can tell that I will probably lose this argument from the get go, but...

This EO orders the commission to look into "voter fraud, improper registration, and voter suppression." The section in question by you states: "the United States government's intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections." The article which "interfered" is the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections which has a section called Intrusions into state voter-registration systems which means that voter registration, the thing the commission is looking into, was targeted.

I don't want to do the "plan" vs. "hope" vs. "want" semantics if possible please. Two members of the commission who are SOSs want to look into this issue, which in-and-of-itself is newsworthy. Dunlap said, "If you know that there is an outside force that is trying to jimmy the door on the election process somehow, you would want to know about that. That includes the Russians, the Martians, I don't care. It has to be part of the discussion." Even Trump administration officials said that the commission might look into the Russia stuff. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in his official response to the letter, “The President’s Commission is a waste of taxpayer money and a distraction from the real threats to the integrity of our elections today: aging voting systems and documented Russian interference in our elections.” Governor Terry McAullife of Virginia in his response to the Commission also brought up this issue. I understand what you are trying to say but is clear that Russia will be an issue and I don't think it is WP:Crystal.

I don't think this section violates neutrality as you mentioned in your original deletion, because the material is from United States presidential election, 2016 (which I made note of), which is a heavily trafficked, patrolled, discussed, and edited article. If you have an issue with the wording then I would recommend you bring up there too. It's also heavily sourced.

If you want to stick a WP:NPOV tag above the section that is fine and I would understand. I hope I am laying out a proper case. Russia's alleged interference has been important, this Commission was not created in a vacuum, and I think it is worthy to have a detailed background about all the issue pertinent given the context of this time. Classicwiki (talk) (always ping me) 07:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I should also say, I would happy to see a well-sourced section on large-scale illegal voting or voter registration fraud by immigrants during the 2016 election or any other large voting irregularities. They would be relevant to the forming and work of this commission. It could serve as valuable background info. Classicwiki (talk) (always ping me) 07:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The neutrality problem isn't the language or the sourcing--it's that the paragraph sticks out like a sore thumb. Put simply, the commission is about voter fraud, but the Russia paragraph isn't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your edit said, "rm Russia stuff - way out of scope and non-neutral." It seems like neutrality was a problem at that moment. Am I missing something? If the commission is set up to look at voter registration irregularities (not only voter fraud), Russia targeted voter registration rolls, administration officials said the commission might look into the Russia issue, members of said commission plan to look into the issue, and outside calls ask for the administration/commission to look into the Russia issue, then I think the Russia issue should have some context. Feel free to RfC if you want. Classicwiki (talk) (always ping me) 09:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the neutrality issue is because the content seems out of place. The only direct connection with the commission at this point is that two members said they hoped the commission would investigate the matter. This can be readily summarized in a single sentence with a link, as we currently have it in the "Members" section. Having a full paragraph of background in a separate section seems undue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You keep jumping past the points I make. Undoubtedly, the Russia section could be shorter, but then I think it will lose context. This commission was not created in a bubble, a long string of events led to this order. I think it is fruitless to continue the conversation between just us, as it is safe to say that we are probably talking past each other at this point. I am sure there will be others that agree with you, but I feel like I am making valid claims. Happy to eat crow. Hoping other opinions will settle this issue, and the tag you placed could help bring them in. Again, feel free to WP:RfC or [[WP:Wikipedia:Third opinion. Best, Classicwiki (talk) (always ping me) 19:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Denise Merril, CT SOS, also calls for invesigation of Russia in response letter. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the challenge is not neutrality (I do not see anywhere that the paragraph is presented in anything but a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view), but relevance. Since the commission's job is to look into election integrity, it certainly seems appropriate to include Russia's tampering with the elections. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ken Blackwell, Republican, former OH SOS, when asked about whether the commission will look into Russia's interference responded, "Any bad actor — whether foreign or domestic — any action that corrupts the integrity of our system should be fair game for our exploration."Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

States responses

I think the entire table should be deleted. This seems like solid WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM territory to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It is the literal reason why the Commission is in the news. Make it auto-collapsable if you want. Classicwiki (talk) (always ping me) 07:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between what's newsworthy and what's encyclopedic--and it's written right into Wikipedia policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think making the table collapsible solves the problem. It just seems too detailed to be encyclopedic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your concern was that the table should be deleted. Making it collapsible should solve your concern as readers who would not be interested in the details could skip it, and readers who are interested can have the details exposed. You are also bringing up two different concerns (WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM) that are not the same. Basically you are not clear as to what exactly are your concerns. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You raise no arguments as to the neutrality of the paragraph. I think your argument is closer to WP:UNDUE. I am therefore replacing the {{pov-section}} template with {{Undue weight}}. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In the "Official Response" table column the entry "Will not comply" is used to describe responses, such as that of Maryland, which state that no information will be provided because the laws of the state prohibit the official from providing it. Considering that the request limited itself to information which is "publicly available under the laws of your state" this entry appears to be incorrect. Failure to supply the information because there is no information which meets the qualifications of the request is neither compliance nor non-compliance. Another description such as "No information available" would be more accurate. CLamb (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Russian interference in Background section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Background" section include a full paragraph about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude. This content strikes me as largely out of scope and non-neutral (for placing undue, coatracky emphasis on Russian interference). The commission is focused primarily on voter fraud. Two members (out of the extant 10) have said they want to investigate Russian interference, but that doesn't mean the commission will investigate it, and does anyone realistically expect that to actually happen? Russian interference is readily explained through a wikilink, as is already done in the "Members" section. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Further, the content of the paragraph is untethered to the subject matter of our article. Trump's tweets about alleged collusion between Russia and his campaign have just about nothing to do with the PCEI. They don't help the reader understand the "background" of the PCEI in any way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk)

• Include. Encyclopedic. Notable. Discussed in significant detail in thousands of reliable sources in many languages in newspapers all over the planet of the globe called the Earth. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include. See all my sources and points above. Two members want to look into it, another said they will consider, Trump admin said they would consider, numerous calls from Gov., Lt. Gov., SOSs, etc. to look into it. Exclusionary principle of "realistically expect that to actually happen" seems like WP:Crystal. Context is key. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 18:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include. The last sentence in the paragraph

  Some commissioners have been reported to be interested in investigating Russia's tampering with the election

  certainly makes a connection between the two topics. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude – WP:RS do not generally connect foreign Russian meddling with domestic voter fraud. I would just add the "Russian interference" article to the "See also" section. — JFG ^talk 00:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - offtopic, the advisory commission charter was defined by Trump in E.O. 13799 and ... look, it's his commission, they're going to look for Mexicans or other forms of illegally voting. Differetn topic. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude The commission is unrelated to Russian interference, it is about domestic voter fraud. Unless several RS make the connection, we should not either. PackMecEng (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude for now - Unless there is some later report that this commission is actually going to look into Russian interference, it’s not relevant to this article – and is already in several others. I have no problem with a See also entry. Objective3000 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude for now: I agree with Objective3000. If and when the commission delves into Russian interference, then it comes into the article, but until then it's not topical. But it could be under "See also". —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude unless it becomes much more significant. The proposed paragraph comes across as extremely coatracky in this article. However the article currently contains this single sentence: Some members of the commission have expressed interest in investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, but the commission's vice chair said he does not think that the commission's investigation will go in that direction. That sentence is far more reasonable, and can probably stay. Alsee (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include -- It is relevant yes, so it should be included. Trump's regime created the fake "commission" in a continuing effort to pretend that Trump won the Presidential election fairly when in fact collusion with the Russian government was part of the U.S. election. The two are intimately tied together, the Trump regime would not be trying to pretend there is "voter fraud" had the regime not comitted treason against the United States on behalf of Russia. for the extant article, the "committee" is an intimate part of the Russia scandal. Damotclese (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Damotclese: When you write The two are intimately tied together and the "committee" is an intimate part of the Russia scandal, you are making inferences that are not found in reliable sources. 1/ Trump was elected President according to the U.S. constitutional process, Article Two, by definition that's fairly; 2/ there were some foreign attempts to influence voters, including leaks of DNC private information; 3/ Trump and some of his associates have been accused of all sorts of crimes, so far with no indictment of anyone. Connecting all these facts into a grand collusion and treason narrative is WP:SYNTH at best, extreme political POV at worst. — JFG ^talk 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

And way beyond the scope of this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Sagecandor, the question isn't whether the material is notable and encyclopedic. Of course it is. The question is whether it belongs in this article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump#Russian interference in election reads better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.180.134 (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Table of responses to voter information requests

There is a clear consensus that the article should include a table detailing every state's response to the PCEI's request for voter data.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should our article include a table detailing each and every state's response to the PCEI's request for voter data? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Exclude. Much too much detail. This strikes me as classic recentism that falls under our prohibitions against unencyclopedic news content and indiscriminate information. The state's responses are readily summarized in a collective fashion, as has been done by many reliable news sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include. Encyclopedic. Helpful to readers. Will definitely be noteworthy part of history of this subject 100 years from now. Sagecandor (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include. Very encyclopedic, and would useful to anybody who would like to research this topic. WP:NOTNEWS is a preposterous argument, as evidenced by the fact that the references in the table are for the most part, not news organizations. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include. Should the Commission recommend a purging of voter registrations or find widespread voter fraud (accurate or inaccurately) I think it is encyclopedic to know where people stood on this issue. Undoublty important to 2017 and 2018 elections. To get 51 responses and expect to have a uniform summary in this article is optimistic. Each response had its own little wrinkle thus the linked citations could be useful in understanding the context of the responses. Also this commission is only a few months old. I am willing to revisit this table in 6 months, should the commission have other impacts in US society, but for now its seems encyclopedic. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 18:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include – This is valuable information, provided some volunteers keep it up to date as events unfold. I have added some standard Yes/No/Maybe templates which add colors to improve readability. — JFG ^talk 00:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include DN (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include Relevant to the articles topic. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include; it's a sine qua non of the article. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Include This table (as a rollout) is unobtrusive and highly relevant. A useful compilation of information and associated wiki links. Further summaries to this contribution to RfC can be found on my talk page. Edaham (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

(In response to Sometimes the sky is blue's !vote, moved from Survey section:)

Right, they're primary sources, suggesting that the table is original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid WP:PRIMARY is NOT an argument of WP:No original research. WP:PRIMARY just says that WP:SECONDARY is preferred in order to establish notability. The notability of the responses as a whole is not in question since many news organizations have covered that states are refusing to comply. The fact that no single WP:SECONDARY source exists for the table does not make the table as a whole not notable. At this point, it seems that you are engaging in WP:POINT and you should stop. I have made every attempt to address your concerns, and you just bring up all kinds of arguments that are Non sequitur. You started with WP:NOTNEWS, and now you are going into WP:N without any logical path connecting the two arguments. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your fear is unwarranted. OR policy states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link that covers the response of 4 states (Calif, NY, Conn, and Virginia). If you feel that it will improve the article by replacing the references, go ahead and make the changes. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

And now we're back to my WP:NOTNEWS argument, which you called "preposterous" because the content was supported by primary sources. Let's stay serious please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You lost me. When the references are the press releases by the individual state officials, you bring up WP:PRIMARY. When alternate references are proposed, you bring up WP:NOTNEWS. What references do you think would work? Just remember -- Wikipedia is not an exercise in ideality.Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

None, because WP:NOT is not about sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

and how does the table violate WP:NOT? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

It's explained in my !vote, but to restate, the level of detail is simply too detailed, violating WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO. Encyclopedias are supposed to summarize their topics, preferably in prose when possible not lay out every single data point in excruciating detail. This 50-row table is readily summarized in a single paragraph. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The table is obviously not "an indiscriminate collection of information". It closely relates to the topic of the article. I think the problem is in your hypothesis that Encyclopedias are supposed to summarize. According to WP:LENGTH, the article just needs to be readable. I think making the table a default collapsed certainly improved the readability. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on our policies. So what's WP:NOT for then? Just a restatement of WP:LENGTH? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT is fairly well written, and does not require that I provide additional analysis and interpretation. I think the foundation of your argument that the table is superfluous is based on the flawed theory that Encyclopedias are supposed to summarize. I don't think you'll find any policy that says that. You tried to masquerade the true basis of your reasoning by throwing red herring arguments such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PRIMARY until pressed and you created a new policy which I'll summarize (pun intended) as WP:Wikipedia is supposed to be a cliff's notes summary. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hardly a "flawed theory" or a "red herring." Wikipedia policy is quite explicit in this regard: Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that the table is a summary of the responses. It does not give the detailed responses. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You want summary? The table is a summary. There could be several hundred words, per state, and instead we have a summary row, per state, and the longest discussion for any state is Vermont, "Initially planned to comply with state allowed public information, but wants to be assured data will be secured". This is a summary of accepted knowledge. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The title of the article itself is POV

True, the article title Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is what the commission calls itself, but this title is highly POV -- what the commission really is about is partisan battling over who can vote, with one side (the GOP) trying to intimidate the other side (the Democrats) with this "commission". It's not about election integrity; it's about intimidation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not about what the commission calls itself, it's about how the commission is named in the executive order. If you can find people who are quoted in WP:RS that this commission is about intimidating voters, then it would certainly be legitimate to include in the article. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's about neither--it's about what a majority of independent reliable secondary sources call it, which is the "Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What you're proposing sounds unfortunately POV. Let's keep the article title. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

If we're stuck with the title, then maybe we can add more incoming redirects, from titles that are closer in meaning to what this "commission" actually does.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the specific redirects you're proposing. Bear in mind WP:R#CRD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of stuck with the title, per WP:CHEAP, go ahead and create redirects to your hearts content, but just keep in mind WP:RNEUTRAL to avoid your redirects being deleted. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Move to Executive Order 13799

Hi. The name of this article should be Executive Order 13799 to match the rest of the Executive Order articles in Category:Executive orders of Donald Trump. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. See WP:COMMONNAME. We generally choose common names over official names, and strict consistency is not a requirement. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. This commission was created out of the executive order, but the article is about the commission, not about the executive order. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Alternative - I suggest instead you craft an EO article and replace the redirect. I think that Sometimes the sky is blue and Dr. Fleischman are saying the commission article is not about the EO, so I think redirect of EO as if it were the same is the wrong bit. Do something similar to Executive Order 13765 or Executive Order 13780 covering the EO, with the lead line wikilinking to the Commission article seems the best solution. Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that expanding the redirect Executive Order 13799 into a full article is warranted. You'll note that not all the executives orders issued by Trump have articles, because to be frank, some are not as notable as others. In this case, I would say that the executive order is not as notable as the commission that resulted from the executive order. It's a little hard for me to envision an article that would survive an AfD with the results being anything other than "Merge to Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity". Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• • • Sometimes the sky is blue - I think it is moot since a separate article is underway now, but: EO content would go where the link goes per WP:SURPRISE, so either a separate article or else it takes over the front of this article, which sounded like less desirable to folks. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – The article subject is the commission, not the EO creating it. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I did the updates @Markbassett: suggested. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a good move. So far, the article you created is nothing more than a duplication of this article and of wikisource:Executive_Order_13799. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. We definitely want an article with the common name Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Either have a separate article for Executive Order 13799, or have it redirect to a section here. Alsee (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose rename per DrFleischman and Sometimes the sky is blue and oppose seperate article, seems incredibly redundant. Ok to redirect to specific section. I'm worried a seperate article will motivate editors to remove material from this article, essentially forking the context to the commission's motivations. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 21:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Executive Order 13799 into this article

I saw a proposal was made at Executive Order 13799 to merge it into this article, but there was no section here to discuss that proposal as WP:MERGE guidance suggests so am making it.

Please discuss (a) whether it should be merged and why, and (b) if merged then what should the resulting article structure, i.e. full paste or propose new sections for slelective paste.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• (a) I'll start with merger seems contrary to WP:MERGE guidance -- does not provide a reason matching any shown there (since the discussion above indicates these are not the identical subject or scope), and the guidance says merging should be avoided if "2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles." Seems possible that the preliminaries leading up to the Executive Order and the legalities of it or questions of the subject may suffice for an article, and the Commission and its membership and court cases may suffice for another. For now at least I'm inclined to say let it go a month or of editing before trying to judge. (b) If a merger is done, then I suggest EO13799 be the first major section after the lead, to include the history/background leading up to the executive order, and the content and considerations of the executive order itself. This would mean a few screens before getting to the commission membership and its actions, statements, and conclusions. Markbassett (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. There is no apparent benefit to having separate articles. Everything that is in Executive Order 13799, or could be in it, is or could be in this article. I disagree with Markbassett's proposal to emphasize the EO, which seems formalistic to me. The current structure is fine. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman - please specify what that merger is, the WP:MERGE (b) of WP:MERGETEXT say YOU get to propose what goes where. Yes, we can put both here, and we can change the title to "Executive Order and Presidential Commission" -- but where and how do you want it ? Markbassett (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge Agreed with DrF. Splitting the two topics will dilute the quality of information. I tried to include all the history/background/context I could (some has been removed), what would the new section exactly look like Markbassett? Because from what I can tell there is not much of a difference between the two articles right now. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Classicwiki- Executive Order 13799 was already split off, and actually per WP:MERGETEXT this is where you get to say where ***you*** want bits be inserted. Mostly I opposed tackling merge at this time because it's too early to have content on either to tell much -- second day of EO article, 20th day of Commission article, and the Commission itself just met what 4 days ago ? So for 'how' to merge that I just put forward KISS of make the first section "Executive Order 13799". But you go ahead and say what your own ideas are for what/where. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Revert the Executive order article back to a redirect to this article. The article on the executive order adds no information that is not present in this article (if I'm wrong, please point out to me what is unique to the Executive order article, and why it cannot be included in this article), with the exception of text from the executive order. The text of the executive order is already in Wikisource, so having an article on the executive order adds no value. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge. No advantage in having two duplicative articles. Neutrality^talk 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge – Description of the EO proper can take place in a section of the commission article. — JFG ^talk 22:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My Summary - I think this is discussion is defunct, but my WP:MERGECLOSE got reverted twice with claim needs independant close as if a contentious merge so I'll just say: The general desire seems to be no merger. General feel seems more that the other article not exist rather than edits to this article being discussed or made. So ... per WP:TALK being for edits on this article this thread seems over. Despite my not agreeing with merge, I was willing to help the MERGE tag as far as starting explicit discussion so feel I should indicate some closure -- which now seems a waste -- but this is as far as I go. I'm not inclined to do more work to redirect it to an AfD or to take on the extra burden if it is contentious of WP:Proposed_merger. Markbassett (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to be clear, my main concern with your close was that you literally broke this page since you didn't use the proper template. In any case, a close is unnecessary. There is consensus to merge, so anyone can do so at any time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Where to put actual PACEI activity ?

Any suggestions on where to put actual PACEI activity ?

Right now the article is largely about background and pre-meeting letter plus reactions... So after that, would the article put further actual activities as a new section 4 after the letter section 3?

Right now, there's only their first meeting seen in notice of July 19 PACEI meeting from GPO.gov, or thenewscenter review of their first meeting. Presumably the committee will have furthe activity in days ahead, so ... where would it go ? Markbassett (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Markbassett -- A ministerial detail to start. The abbreviation for the commission is PEIC. Does it make any sense? No. But it were it to make sense it would stand for ... you can figure it out. It was also known as the "Pence-Kobach Commission" but no one is calling it that anymore.

As to where does the actual work go? I would insert "==Commission activity==" before "==2017 request for voter information==", and I'd change it and Response to third level title "===". My two cents Rhadow (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow - Good idea! I'll insert the section and add something for their first meeting. Markbassett (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Effects of registration irregularities

I've added various tags, mostly related to verifiability concerns, to the second paragraph of "Voter registration irregularities in the United States." I believe that all of this information is accurate, but that this content is much too contentious not to be properly sourced. For example, when we write, "Registration irregularities are often conflated with in-person voter fraud. Erroneous superfluous entries on a voter roll cannot affect an election if nobody fraudulently votes using the superfluous registration entry," we are (rightly) cutting at the very heart of the voter fraud conspiracy theory. This should not be done without citing sources that verify the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you inserted a few too many tags. Not every sentence needs a tag to make the point. The last sentence in the paragraph does not really need a reference, since a link to an internal Wikipedia article devoted to the controversy is sufficient. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A link certainly goes a long way (thank you for adding one), but (a) we still need to cite a supporting source in this article (there's a policy or guideline about that somewhere), and (b) I don't see where the linked article, Florida Central Voter File, verifies this content. Ultimately, editors and readers both need to have a practical way to identify the source material--otherwise the content isn't verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Fleischman -- Did you read the citation from Perez at the Brennan Center? That paper rigorously documents failures in the system, but not the bias that is injected by purgine. My original reference included the page and the quote. As to other sentences, some stand on their own. You don't need a citation for "A quadruple amputee cannot wear a wedding ring." The assertion stands on its own. Thank you. the section has improved with every revision. Rhadow (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha! That's a more twisted version of "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue," love it. I didn't remove the Brennan Center source, I just changed the quote to something that more closely verifies the content. As for some sentences standing on their own, I don't know what sentences you're talking about, but this is hardly "the sky is blue" content. Not that it isn't true; I don't doubt that it is; but this is still controversial material, evidenced by the fact that some very prominent politicians (not just Trump) have taken issue with it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is a sentence that stands on its own: "In a first-past-the-post system, a superfluous entry on a voter roll cannot affect election results except in the case of in-person fraudulent exercise of the extra registration." Remember, voting districts are defined based on the U.S. Census, not voter registration. Rhadow (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that's anything close to a sky-is-blue statement. Our target audience is lay readers, not election experts. For instance, you can't expect them to "remember" how voting districts are defined. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Rhadow, it seems you're in the process of refactoring this content and adding additional sources. If you wish I can stay out until you're done actively working on it. (You might want to consider adding {{under construction}} to the top of the section(s) you're working on.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman -- You and I are an impasses where referential support for two sentences is concerned. I accept that; I won't delete your tags until we've discussed them with Sometimes the sky is blue. In our race to make the text clearer yesterday, we together put the paragraphs through the mixmaster. I moved sentences and reformed the paragraphs and added subheads to make the two distinct issues clear to the reader. I hope you agree with that logic, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs) 09:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I do, thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman Very nice additions! Now how about this, or something like it, a second para under Voter registration irregularities in the United States

The PEIC is an Executive Branch look into voter fraud. A second branch, the Supreme Court, agreed to hear this autumn a voter roll purging case, Husted v. Randolph Institute. The House and Senate have not scheduled hearings on voter fraud this session.

That puts Husted v. Randolph Institute into perspective. Waddaya think? Rhadow (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Insufficient connection. By that logic we should merge all voter fraud-related articles into this one. There have been many voter fraud cases. What does this specific one have to do with the PEIC? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman Gifford's article in Slate gives the NY-FL voting numbers. I agree "not uncommon" is not substantiated. Rhadow (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying about the NY-FL numbers. I didn't tag those sentences. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sometimes the sky is blue, the reason I added the {{rs}} tag is because I don't know if the source is reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the news coverage of the Brennan Center and I'm convinced that its published reports are reliable in this context. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the fact that erroneous deletions from the voter roll may impact an election require a citation?

I would have to say that the sentence Erroneous deletions from a voter roll can potentially affect an outcome by excluding qualified voters who would vote had the erroneous deletion not occurred. is as obvious as the fact that the sky is blue. One editor does not. Anybody care to chime in on this dispute? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) It has just occurred to me that with respect to this dispute, my user name is a pun on WP:BLUE. The pun is a coincidence. I was not aware of WP:BLUE when I chose my user name. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. This is an obvious WP:BLUE statement. Good pun btw! — JFG ^talk 07:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello all -- Here's my personal take: Politician know good and well that the composition of the voters rolls and the shape of congressional districts make all the difference in election outcomes. Else they wouldn't fight so hard on voter registration laws and hire consultants to help them define districts every ten years. There isn't enough data for academics to say for certainty that a particular law or district affected a particular election result. It's very much the same as an economist being able to say for certain that a particular fiscal policy led to a specific economic event. The mainstream press is willing to walk right up to the issue, but never broach it. To do so would require them to print an indefensible position, not that it isn't true. We can look to OpEds, but not to the front page. Nevertheless, with the inclusion of the word potentially, I think the sentence "Erroneous deletions from a voter roll can potentially affect an outcome by excluding qualified voters who would vote had the erroneous deletion not occurred," stands on its own. A wordsmith could make it shorter, but I like it well enough to support it. Rhadow (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Wordsmith to the rescue: "Erroneous deletions from a voter roll can potentially affect an election outcome by preventing qualified voters from voting." — JFG ^talk 17:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

An improvement, certainly clearer - but no less in need of a citation, in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Requires citation (keep {{cn}} tag). I have a hard time believing that the average international lay reader would consider this confusing and oontroversial sentence about the final details of U.S. election systems to be as obvious as "the sky is blue," with or without the word "potentially." Verifiability is a cornerstone policy of the encyclopedia; when in doubt, we should provide a citation. In this case I would be very surprised if we couldn't find an appropriate citation for this proposition. Remember that we're not restricted to drawing our sources from the "mainstream press". There are plenty of reliable sources that aren't mainstream press, whether that means reputable but non-mainstream news sources, as well as books, law review articles, documentaries, etc.

To be clear, I'm not proposing deleting this content, just tagging it to remind ourselves to keep looking for a source. I suspect that eventually we'll find a source that kind-of sort-of verifies the content, and we'll end up using it and adjusting the content to conform to it. And that is exactly how the process is supposed to work. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• In light of recent changes today I've removed the cn tag. I still feel the sentence would require a citation if it stood on its own. However the sentences that follow now bear it out, as appropriately couched with the "potentially" language. In particular we now have a properly sourced sentence saying that Florida voters were turned away from polling stations in 2000 as a result of an improper registration purge. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Fleischman-- Do you like this quote from Slate? [Ohio] purges voters from the rolls relentlessly, removing around 2 million people between 2011 and 2016—with voters in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods twice as likely to be purged as those in Republican-leaning neighborhoods. [1] Rhadow (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The subject matter is fine but the presentation and sourcing could be improved. First, try to restate reliable sources in your own voice, don't quote whole sentences like this. Second, Slate is not as reliable as the original sources: The Cincinnati Enquirer and Reuters. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

New Hampshire Meeting, 12 Sept 2017

This subsection appears to be overloaded with out-of-scope content. There is no connection given between the September 12 meeting and comments made by Kobach on September 7 about allegations of voter fraud in New Hampshire. Either the connection should be made explicitly, or Kobach's comments should be moved or removed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• See also Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#More allegations of vote tampering. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The connection was made by the reference, saying that the remarks about the alleged voter fraud in NH was in anticipation of the commission's meeting in NH to take place next Tuesday. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a rather tenuous, crystal ball-ish connection, but if we're going to include on that basis then the connection must be made explicitly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No longer a crystal ball, and the topic was discussed during the meeting. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• This section is reaching an absurd level of detail, in my view. The recently added material reads like meeting minutes. Who made what suggestion, who responded, the specific non-noteworthy words they used. It's beyond unencyclopedic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Meeting minutes? An absurd allegation. Only the most controversial statements are noted. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please try to be more open to your fellow contributors' feedback. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm just using your words. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Not constructively. I was talking about article content. You were talking about my feedback. Let's try to work collaboratively, shall we? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the sky is blue, I think you misunderstand how tagging and consensus-building works. You're exhibiting classic ownership behavior. You don't have to agree with me for us to have a bonafide, good faith dispute. If you don't understand my concern, then instead of calling it absurd and removing the tag with the excuse that my concern isn't specific enough, why not ask me what my specific concerns are, and letting the tag remain while other editors weigh in? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Voter irregularities in the United States

I like this section - a lot. I just think that it's a bit too detailed for this article. It's also a shame that we don't have a comprehensive article on this subject. I'm proposing that we split this section out into a brand new article called... Voter irregularities in the United States. I envision this as a new home for all of the allegations of voter fraud, election hacking, etc. by all sides. The article can be prominently linked to in our lead section. Then our "Background" section here can be renamed "History," which is more in line with common practice and avoids the coatrack issues that arise from time to time. Thoughts please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes Dr. Fleischman -- The best possible outcome would have the existing paragraphs in Voter irregularities in the United States spun off into its own article as the Main. That would match the structure of Voter suppression in the United States The existing subheads could be changed to Voter irregularities alleged by the PAEC or something similar. Rhadow (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I like this approach. Let's see if anyone else has input on this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dr. Fleischman -- I disagree with your reorganization of extra registrations and purged registrations. They are not the same. They don't belong together. The effect of the two is different enough to deserve segregation. I would have reverted the change, but I wanted to discuss it first. Rhadow (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand they're not the same. It's just generally reads stiffly to have a heading for each paragraph. If the two concepts need to be more clearly distinguished, it can be done in the prose. For instance, we can signal that "purged registrations" is a distinct issue by changing the first sentence of that paragraph to, "Erroneous deletions from a voter roll can also potentially affect an election outcome, by preventing qualified voters from casting ballots." Or, we can add a whole new sentence such as "Erroneous deletions from a voter roll has been identified as another cause of election irregularities," or something like that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• It sounds good at first, but, how is this not a POV fork? It sounds like all the complaints from the political left get funneled into Voter suppression in the United States and those from the right are sent off to Voter irregularities in the United States. In the real world, voter suppression and voter irregularities are debated side by side. New laws or enforcement actions targeting one are often reactions to laws or enforcement of the other. Can we come up with something that looks at these two things as closely connected? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood--I'm suggesting we do exactly that. Currently, complaints from the left get funneled into Voter suppression in the United States and complaints from the right get funneled to Voter impersonation (United States). I'm suggesting a new article called Voter irregularities in the United States that looks into these things side-by-side, just as you suggest. It could be called something else if that's more appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah! I'm sorry I didn't follow you at first. Then yes, do that. It's better to cover both into one article. Do it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes but - Not as described I think an article for description of the different kinds or methods would be good. But every single allegation seems infeasible as too many and often too tiny to have WP:WEIGHT. Also good to put elsewhere than PACEI article because the identifying possible ways is not limited to PACEI, or from them... Just a largish background insert. PACEI is associated with 3 or 4 named spots / events, the rest hasn't been mentioned. Markbassett (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The details of the new article could be discussed at that article's talk page. I'm not trying to preordain the article's content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• But before we create new page let's decide on the name here first, before we create it. No, I don't want a POV split, but I also want to make sure we recognize expansion and contraction of voter lists as distinct issues that are often conflated. Rhadow (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

We're not really talking about expansion and contraction. That looks at the situation through a legislative lens. We're talking about the issues that are used as justifications for such laws. Allegations of voter impersonation, polling place suppression, hacking, and effects of voter ID laws perhaps. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles can always be renamed. Getting hung up on naming leaves us all in limbo while we try to agree on the perfect wording. If we have a name now that's pretty good, let's proceed. If a better name comes up later, so much the better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, fine. The three topics I am interested to see covered are (1) voter impersonation including double voting across state lines, (2) registration lists that include too many people, and (3) registration lists that include too few people. Rhadow (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Registration lists that include too many people isn’t even an anomaly in the U.S. Does anyone de-register when they move? Pretty sure dead people don't bother. It does require mention in some manner. Objective3000 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many is not an anomaly, Objective3000, but it never stops producing the big numbers politicians talk about. An over-aggressive approach to fixing it (multi-state master lists) will lead to the other problem. Just watch. Rhadow (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

copied

Created some material at the Hans von Spakovsky article and moved some to here. Activist (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Meeting subsections

The consensus is that the subsections entitled "First official meeting, 19 July 2017" and "New Hampshire Meeting, 12 Sept 2017" are not excessive.

Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are the subsections entitled "First official meeting, 19 July 2017" and "New Hampshire Meeting, 12 Sept 2017" too detailed? More specifically, should the article have a separate subsection on each meeting held by this organization, in which we describe all of the things that were said and covered by reliable newspapers? RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Not excessive - actually, given h much of the article is about non-committee things like rogue info requests and lawsuits... there seems all too little coverage of material about the actual topic. Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Not excessive - Summoned by bot. I typically support condensing headings whenever possible but the dates including in the headings here are an important component. Meatsgains (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

It all depends on what happens at the meetings. Routine business is not encyclopedic. On the other hand, anything that generates controversy becomes encyclopedic. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discretionary sanctions notice

Please read the notice I've added at the top of the talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Political opinions

This Wikipedia article is full of political opinions and biased statements, I am not one who is necessarily political, but political opinions should remain free from Wikipedia for it to remain a trusted source. Evan though there is sources for these, these sources can be biased, which apparently it is. Jake pres (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Jake pres, what specific political opinions and biased statements are you referring to? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Jake, editors are not allowed to insert THEIR OWN opinions, but are required to document, without censorship, the opinions found in RS. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)