Jump to content

Talk:Florida Central Voter File

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The missing Hispanics in the 2004 Purge list

[edit]

This article should cover the missing hispanics in the 2004 purge list. From 20 July 2004 New York times article (author Fessenden), titled Florida List for Purged Voters Proves Flawed: "Of nearly 48,000 Florida residents on the felon list, only 61 are Hispanic. By contrast, more than 22,000 are African-American. About 8 percent of Florida voters describe themselves as Hispanic, and about 11 percent are black."

I used Lexis-Nexus to find 3 New York Times articles which Ford Fessenden authored or co-authored:

  • Civil Rights Board Wants Inquiry on Florida Voter-Purge List, The New York Times, July 16, 2004 Friday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 1; National Desk; CAMPAIGN 2004; Pg. 17, 694 words, By FORD FESSENDEN, WASHINGTON, July 15
  • Election Troubles Already Descending on Florida, The New York Times, July 15, 2004 Thursday Correction Appended, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 2; National Desk; Pg. 1, 1494 words, By ABBY GOODNOUGH; Ford Fessenden contributed reporting from New York for this article., MIAMI, July 14
  • Florida List for Purge of Voters Proves Flawed, The New York Times, July 10, 2004 Saturday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 2; National Desk; Pg. 13, 756 words, By FORD FESSENDEN


NPOV dispute?

[edit]

there are no insinuations in this aricle. there are statements of relevant and significant fact.

the phone call is a statement by the vice president of the company that made the central voting file for 2000. I fail to see how a factual statement from the source in question is a non-factual opinion from a source other than the source in question. Kevin Baas | talk 21:57, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

The page is a list of facts compiled from multiple sources and corroborated. The primary sources are listed at the end of the article.

The facts are laid out chronologically, without interpretation or extrapolation. If, in putting the facts together, one forms an overall picture and draws certain conclusions, that does not mean that the article is not npov. That is their own synthesis of the information and their own conclusion that they are coming to. The sentiment invoked by that conclusion is not proof of pov. Kevin Baas | talk 16:55, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

This article is one of the most biased, illogical and false ones I have read on this Wiki yet. I fully support the inclusion of the NPOV tag - this article is a mess! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 03:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Funny that you see fit to invoke a small image of the flag in this context. Please don't confuse the flag with what it stands for. I do see two faults, but neither is based on faulty logic. First, there is an NPOV issue, but this is merely in the presentation of the facts. Second, Betrayal of America should be referenced. --Cgranade 21:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Find me a false statement in the article. Kevin Baas | talk 17:32, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Appeals is not a reliable measure. This is clear because of the great number and extent of mistakes made. Besides the fact that people who knew that they were felons probably wouldn't bother appealing. And people who are felons generally know that they are. Giving this, one should expect that the vast majority of those appealing are non-felons, yet, non-felons' appeals were rejected at a significant -seemingly arbitrary- frequency.

It is not required that the distribution be homogenous in order for the sample to be representative, as you have suggested now in the article. It requires only that we have no knowledge about the distribution. In this case, we have no knowledge about the distribution, as you have suggested in the article. The extension to the larger sample size includes this lack of knowledge in the confidence level. It is misleading to say that these have not been taken into account when indeed they have. Kevin Baas | talk 17:47, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

And you're arbitrarily ommiting the verifiable fact that none of the names on the felon list were hispanic?!?! Kevin Baas | talk 17:51, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

What proof of "Hispanic(ism)" do you offer? Last names? Isn't that a little presumptious and suggestive of sterotyping? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Instead of taking mine, or anyone else's word for it, for that matter, why don't you do your own research and find out. Kevin Baas | talk 23:41, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it turns out that there were 61 hispanics on the 2000 list. That's not to say that there were 61 people listed as hispanic on the list. But the 2004 list is new and improved: 0% hispanics total. Those hispanics are angels ;). I wonder how much it cost them to do that. Kevin Baas | talk 18:18, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

This "Besides the fact that people who knew that they were felons probably wouldn't bother appealing." is 100% illogical. It is precisly those people who believe that they are not felons and who think they can show that, who would appeal - that is if they are about voting. On the other hand, if they don't care about voting, then a SNAFU which blocks them is moot - because they aren't going to vote anyway. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's what I said. You just agreed with me. Kevin Baas | talk 19:44, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Then this supports my view that the supposed wrongly "disenfranchished" by and large were either properly barred from voting or did not care about voting anyway. In either case, they were not "disenfranchised". No harm, no foul. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, this is about appeals, not about voting. Secondly, even if it were about voting, it would still be completely irrelevant: what's relevant is whether elgible voters were purged from the voter rolls, regardless of whether or not they voted. Thirdly, even if it were, by some contortion of context, relevant, your stated conclusion would not logically follow. There are a number of separate issues here. I think you are getting them confused.

There is one relevant fact in regards to disenfranchisement: eligible voters did not have the opportunity to vote in the election in question. Kevin Baas | talk 23:41, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

No, you are confusing things. Think about this: If your neighbor drives his car over your lawn, that's wrong. But if your lawn is not damaged, then he does not owe you anything - no harm, no foul. Same thing with this list. Percentage wise, as little as 50% of all registered voters bother to vote. And as little as 50% of all eligible people who can register do so, so already the pool of people who actually do register and then vote is only about 25-50% (depends on many variables) of all adults. Therefore, at least about 1/2 of all the errors in the list were harmless errors, because those people would not have tried to vote any way. Everyone else could have asked for and received a provisional ballot. We have gone over this on GWB talk page already. You are making a mountin out of a molehill. There was no intended systemic "disenfrachiesment". There is very little to this issue - it's virtually all left wing propaganda to motivate the Democrat base this election. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. A vote is the most valuable possesion a person can ever have. It is wrong to take it away. It is morally wrong and absolutely inexcusable and intolerable to remove even one elgible voter from a voter role, regardless of whether or not they use their right to vote. Period.

It was systematic. The election supervisors were given orders by the State of Florida to remove elgible voters from voter rolls. The State of Florida had full knowledge that the list contained an inordinate amount of elgible voters before giving these orders. That was wrong. Very wrong.

These hard facts are not propaganda. They are reality. And no, it's not pleasant. Reality isn't always pleasant, but it is worse if we do not have the courage to acknowledge the unpleasant things, and deal with the world as it is before us. Kevin Baas | talk 00:38, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

No No No, rather it's an "Axis of Tweezers" which seeks to poke and prod and find small splinters (honest mistakes) and call them boards (big problems). Hey there's one for you "Axis of Tweezers". And isn't the the AARP an "Axis of Geezers"... [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the name of the Law?

[edit]

What is the 1998 Florida law that mandated the Central Voter file? I've found "statute 98", which gives me crap in google, and "HR 1428", which gives me lots of hits that seem relevant, but I don't know if it has passed, and if it's a Florida state bill (it seems federal!)

Still NPOV? Call for votes

[edit]

It's been a while since the last discussion went on in this page, so I figured out I could do some cleanup without asking first. I haven't touched the meaning, only the form, but my impression is that the POV dispute tag can be removed. The information is presented correctly (if a bit too profusely) and has its sources clearly referenced. The "other side" has not spoken, maybe because the cold figures are enough. The article doesn't imply that there was electoral fraud (except as personal opinions, quoted and attributed).

So, what do we do with the NPOV and the cleanup tags?

Informal call for votes (add below):

  • Delete the NPOV tag. Delete the cleanup tag (but I did the cleanup, so I can't judge myself). --Pablo D. Flores 6 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)

OPINION The article still represents a POV (though one I strongly agree with). Jim Callahan <JimCal80@aol.com>

SUGGESTION Perhaps need to reframe (retitle) article as a historical article describing "Post 2000 Controversies over FL Elections" of which the Florida Voter file plays a central role rather than posing as an objective article about the Florida Voter File -- were it not for the controversies -- why would the general reader care about voter files in general or the Florida Voter File in particular? Jim Callahan <JimCal80@aol.com>

SUGGESTION Bigger 2006 STORY is that January 2006 is the deadline (for 49 of the 50 states) under the US federal law named "Help America Vote Act (HAVA)" for implementing a statewide voter registration database and that several of the states (Alabama, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconson and Wyoming) are not meeting the deadline.

MY POV -- HAVA could cause what happened with FL Voter File in 2004 to go national this year and in 2008.

SOURCES: 1) Table showing contractor & status for all 50 US states (compiled aobve list from table):

http://electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=288

2) Nevada won't meet deadline http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051228/NEWS10/512280336/1016/NEWS

3) Additional background information on HAVA implementation (6 months old): http://electionline.org/Portals/1/AssortedRolls.Accessible.doc Jim Callahan <JimCal80@aol.com>

With respect to legal requirements for centrallized voter file. FVRS = Florida Voter Registration System "State legislation passed in 2003 (HB 29-B, Chapter 2003-415, Laws of Florida) and federal legislation passed in 2002 [Public Law 107-252, Help America Vote Act (HAVA)] specifically outline requirements for a centralized voter registration system. See http://election.dos.state.fl.us/hava/fvrs/hava_req.html" SOURCE: Footnote 1, page 2, "Guide to FVRS," Version 1.0, September 7, 2005 PDF file. http://election.dos.state.fl.us/hava/fvrs/pdf/fvrs_guide.pdf Jim Callahan <JimCal80@aol.com>

Wha?

[edit]

"The Florida Central Voter File is a list of legally eligible voters..." ... "Those who are deemed mentally incompetent are not included on the list, although they are legally considered to be ineligible voters."

This makes no sense, but I don't know which bit is at fault. My best guesses at the moment would be that "although" should be "as" or that ineligible in the second extract should be eligible.

recent edits

[edit]

I am making some edits here aimed towards accuracy and NPOV. If you have issues with my edits, please discusss them with me here, prior to any wholsale reverts of my efforts. I am taking care to seek NPOV and accuracy. Merecat 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First - all those citation tags - all the sources are listed at the bottom in the "Resources" section. And all the information is sourced. none of it is original research and it's all verifiable. I'm looking at your other edits now. Kevin Baastalk 20:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..more to come. Kevin Baastalk 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this article, as was currently composed, is in some ways incomprehensible. If indeed there are sources for all the assertions made in this article, then in situ links, as per all normal wiki pages, ought to be used. There is simply no valid reason to make bold statements or post bold quotes on a controversial topic and then force the readers to seek the corroboration themselves. I have added the "cleanup" tag. Merecat 20:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Let me start by saying that since I've made a lot of contributions to this article, I feel I've had my hands on it too much, so I'm happy to see someone else come in after a long time and put their hands on it. Kevin Baastalk 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [1] -this was from greg palast's publications. greg palast used to be a statistics professor.
The source link for this looked fishy to me. I may be wrong. Merecat 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2] - this needs another paragraph before it. the investigation was supposed to be all about the list. ashcroft is the attorney general and he was forced into that course of action by the e U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, mentioned above. it is significant; it is interesting and important; that the only orders the attorney general gave were not related to the list, whereas he would not be giving any orders in the first place were it not for the list.
Plain as day, that investigation was not about this topic. Including it is POV and implies that Ashcroft was investigating FL about the lists, which he was not. I still oppose inclusion of this para. Merecat 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The investigation was a general investigation, and after much political pressure built around the list, he finally relinquished and "investigated". In any case, one usually does not investigate, but in florida this year, for some reason it was apparently warranted. And it was a general investigate about how the election process went, and as such, included the list in scope. whether or not everything within the scope of the investigation was investigated or even looked at, that's a different question. Kevin Baastalk 21:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are greatly in error here. A few limited counties were investigated for their local voting process management procedures. That is a separate and distinct issue from the statewide voter file issue. It's not even a subset of it - it's entirely distinct and does not belong in this article. Merecat 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry for the delay - I thought i had responded before) As I said before, it was the Attorney General's decision what the de facto scope of the study was, but the de jure scope of the investigation was the entire state. In this particular case, it is interesting to note the relation between the two, because it is very different from what one would expect. Kevin Baastalk 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you appear to be following me around the wiki, posting argumentative comments to my postings, even those not directed to you. I don't like it and if that's what you are doing, I want you to stop it. [3][4] That said, on this issue of including the Ashcroft angle in this article, you are still wrong. At no time was the issue of the Florida Central Voter File part of Ashcroft's inquiry. For you to suggest that it was by including it here is POV and factually wrong. On the other hand, if you find a reliable NPOV source that says it was, I will support you on this. Not until. Merecat 22:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand what i am saying. Can you helo me communicate it to you? Kevin Baastalk 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split

[edit]
  • [5] Inordinate: Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate. See Synonyms at excessive. How about qualifying with something like "is generally considered to be", or, attribute it somehow. It's clearly true, and it's a central issue.
Any adjective used here which is not cited to a reliable source is POV and OR. It's not for you or me to say what is "ordinate" or "inordinate" here. Strong disagree. Merecat 21:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the part where I said it's a central issue and that it should be attributed in some manner, in which case it is attributed pov, which is acceptable, and is not OR. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited, it's OR because it pushes a definative coloring of the entire issue. "Inordinate" is a theory in and of itself. That theory, being advanced from an editor's personal thinking, is original research. And it's POV to boot - in that it asserts that the deviation was "inordinate" rather than "ordinate". All large database files will have errors; the law of large numbers makes this clear. To state that the errors here are "inordinate", is to say that one has already established what an "ordinate" baseline acceptible problem rate would be. I see no information about that here. Therefore, any allegations of excess deviation smell of POV to me - the attempt to suggest that FL debacle was worrse than other debacles. Merecat 22:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The baseline is about 3% - that's the average according to a representation from Wisconsin state senate (i'd have to look for that source again). They could have easily had 1%, and 15% is the upper limit when using the standard checks (acting reasonably). The list was nowhere close. But again, this should be attributed rather just being substantiated by other info in the article. I'm not aware of any other debacles related to voter files. I'm pretty sure this is the first. But if you can find some more, we could probably find somewhere to include it in the article. Kevin Baastalk 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply assert a baseline, you have to have citations for it. Then, regarding any deviations from that baseline regarding this issue, you also have to cite experts who assert that there is deviation "exceeding reasonable limits" or it's POV and conjecture (OR) to say "inordinate". As for debacles, there probably is not any other recent big voter file SNAFUs - but this argues against your assertion that a baseline has been established. If there are no a priori (or subsequent) events to compare to, you can't claim inordinate as there is no baseline. However, I gave leeway on this and referred to large data files in general. The place to look for information about what's "inordinate" on a data file would probably be something like the USPS new movers list or TRW / Experian / TransUnion credit reporting companies. In fact, it's common knowledge that credit reporting companies get many things about a person's history wrong all the time. It's not as easy as you think, to keep an accurate large list regarding people. I find it very unlikely that "inordinate" is going to pass muster here. Example: On occassion, I've received parking tickets for places I am certain I have never been. Several times so far, it's turned out that the license plate was entered in the system in error and I was able to clear it up. That's a false positive. You are looking for conspiracies where none exist. If you stepped back from this, you'd see that the biggest reason for the disproportionate error rate against blacks is socioeconomic. In FL, on average, blacks caught in the legal system have less financial and education resources available to them. For that reason, making sure that their residental address records (keeping updated drivers license records when people move, get suspended or revoked) and legal records (getting fair treatment in the courts) is harder for them. In any society, the downtrodden are shunted aside and the records regarding them are inherently less accurate. Try keeping an accurate roster of Los Angeles homeless persons and you will see what I mean. Take the New Orleans evacuees - large numbers of them are not even accounted for yet. These are issues of social justice, not malfeasance by FL. Merecat 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

attribution. Kevin Baastalk 04:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [6] - i know who i can contact to get deeper source info.
If and when you get a reliable source for this, I'll look at it. If not, this must stay out. Merecat 21:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per policy. btw, that's not intentional. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [7] - a settlement is just like a court sentence. the lawyers predict how the judge is going to rule, and save the courts time, and their clients more legal fees and publicity. The vast majority of cases are settled out of court. The only ones that do go to court are the ones where it is not clear how the judge would rule. They settled because it was clear how the judge would rule: a awards b. A settlement is not just forgetting about it and going your separate ways (excepting divorce, perhaps) - the result is not even. And in this case, the NAACP was awarded. that is much more interesting and important that "they both agreed to", which is completely redundant (that's what a settlement is).
By saying that the terms were "favorable" to the NAACP only, it implies that the other party agreed to accept a punative settlement. This must be sourced to a legal expert who analyzed the settlement. If not, it's more NPOV to say that "all parties agreed". Merecat 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recall seeing two sources on the NAACP suit. I think at least one of them was a legal journal. they might be listed in resources. if not, it'll be some work to find them again. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to muck with this unless pushing a point "all parties agreed" is enough. Merecat 22:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting and important. see WP:NPOV. Kevin Baastalk 22:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is? The word "favorably"? The use of "favorably" here, without NPOV citation to expert opinion on legal matters is POV, OR, conjecture. Merecat 22:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed what i said earlier, or forgot it, or misconstrued it: "I recall seeing two sources on the NAACP suit. I think at least one of them was a legal journal. they might be listed in resources. if not, it'll be some work to find them again." Kevin Baastalk 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..more to come. Kevin Baastalk 21:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

split 2

[edit]
  • [8] - i don't see how this is so harsh. everyone in politics, and the workplace, who's not at the bottom of the ladder, is a protegee of multiple people. again, i now how i can get more sources for this.
The word "protege" implies that there is a sense of being "beholden" to one's mentor. It implies a serious bond between the parties. In this context, it suggests that Harris may have been kowtowing to Jeb Bush. This is a highly inflammatory implication. Unless cited to a reliable source which documents a protoge relationship, this is 100% oppose in the strongest possible terms. Merecat 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think what he meant to say is either that they used to work directly for him, or that he has himself promoted her, appointed her, or ordered her promotion. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's the case, a reliable source saying so is required. Merecat 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i thought we already established that. Kevin Baastalk 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [9] - when a business transaction is made it is called a "deal". deal: 4. To do business; trade. when you agree, you are asserting that you both qualify an aspect of something in the same way. i think "deal" is much more semantically correct. Regarding re-cedited: was this a typo? I don't know what this word means and neither does my dictionary.
Wheeling and "dealing" are known to be terms which are used in a critical manner when shadiness is suggested. "Deal" in this context suggest shadiness. "Agreement" is NPOV and unless you have better reason that "deal" must be used, "agreement" makes the sentence NPOV. Merecat 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not a big deal (no pun intended), so it's fine as is now and hopefully in the future someone will figure out how to make it more eloquent. Kevin Baastalk 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the last of the edits. Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Is the picture of "Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris" relevant? (I'm thinking it is just the best picture anyone can think of to attach to this article.) RJFJR (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florida Central Voter File. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Florida Central Voter File. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Aim was to trim excessive links but none were relevant to the article.
There are eighteen entries, in two subsections, in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
  • WP:ELCITE: ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
  • WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florida_Central_Voter_File&oldid=1207251899"