Jump to content

Talk:Bob Riley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

HURRICANE KATRINA and FOX NEWS BLAME GAME

The following is just a biased rant against Fox (for the terrible crime of having different politics to the other American networks), I was under the impression that Wickipedia was a reference source - not a forum for people to attack others for the crime of not sharing their own politics.

Paul Marks.

Fox News is the one and only one in major news coverage to place the blame on both Nagin and Blanco. Fox News failed to mention about the responsiblity of Alabama and Mississippi's governors failure of saving their states. You realize that Louisiana's governor is Democrat and New Orleans mayor is now a Democrat. Fox seems to lack their coverage of how many people are still trapped in the city. Fox News has not ever had the pleasure of interviewing Nagin or Blanco. I guess they knew that Fox News was going to entertain their conservative audience by placing blame on those who carry less power than the people at Washington. So now that Fox knows what going on at the local and state level, they need to go after the neighboring states. Of course, Nagin is in a crisis, Blanco is in a crisis, and Bush is in DC trying to make more a publiciity by giving money to these states. Of course, other countries are trying to help and Bush is refusing most of them! Fox News failed to state that the late response time from FEMA, the Bush Administration's role, and of course, the refugee and looters comments, alongside Alabama and Mississippi's non-stop crisis, too! I'm not too thrilled with Fox News coverage. LILVOKA 2005 September 7 13:35

Bias in election

I hope the bias of the writing about Governor's election to the governorship will be checked out, especially the part that makes it sound like he stole the election. The articles fails to mention the fact that while Bob Riley was behind in the election results, it was mainly because Baldwin County had not been reported. And Baldwin County is known as one of the most conservative, Republican counties in Alabama. There is no way Siegelman could have won those votes anyway. I think the article is biased against him, and should give him credit for winning the election, not stealing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.67 (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks for speaking up on the bias in the article. I've tried to tone down the judgmental language. I'm not an expert on the situation, so I don't know if any of the statements cited here need more reliable sources. If you are aware of a well-researched and unbiased account of the controversy, it would be good to refer to it here. --Dystopos 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Without arguing whether or not Siegelman or Riley should have won the election, we should note that Baldwin County is part of the Mobile Metro area, from where Siegelman hails. Thus, despite Baldwin's conservative leanings, the desire to support the "home" candidate would possibly offset. It was that close an election, and there were real misgivings about electoral fraud in the aftermath of Florida 2000! I agree that more on the controversy needs to be included (while at the same time, I'd venture to say that even most Democrats are grateful Siegelman isn't still in office). Goeverywhere 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Response re: bias

I am about to restore the original, accurate and neutral text I first put in this article, but not without some explanation.

In so doing, I am compelled to correct an absolute misstatement in the original comment. The original Associated Press tally on election night 2002 (see the numbers at the bottom of the article), that showed Siegelman winning, INCLUDED Baldwin County - with the pre-recount tally. I do know that the Associated Press was preparing to declare Siegelman the winner that night, reporting 100% of precincts in, until they learned of the Baldwin "recount." (The preceding sentence is based on my personal knowledge; I do not know of a public source for this.) If the count showing Siegelman winning had not included Baldwin, adding Baldwin would have resulted in a Siegelman defeat of much more than about 3,000 votes. There is a cite in the text to a contemporary news story that verifies that the tally, showing Siegelman as the winner, included Baldwin County. The text is also verified by the data and conclusions in the paper by Professor Gundlach at Auburn, linked at the bottom of the article. Yes, Baldwin County is conservative and Republican, and Siegelman lost it in both the pre- and post-recount tallies. But, he lost it by a margin of several thousand fewer votes in the original count. (If you will look at the article history, you will note that at least one editor has attempted to insert the inaccurate "fact" that Baldwin County was not included in the tally showing Siegelman winning. I have had to repair that dissimulation.)

Indeed, there are other statistical indicia of electoral fraud I considered including, but decided they would be "overkill" and would impair the neutrality of the article, because they are based on inferences, not falsifiable facts. (Besides making the article too long!) As only one instance, in a number of precincts in Baldwin County, the post-recount figures showed Siegelman in 2002 running behind the totals for Gore in 2000. (This historical data is available at the Alabama Secretary of State website at http://www.sos.state.al.us/.) Because Democratic candidates for governor in Alabama consistently run ahead of Democratic candidates for president in adjacent elections, at the precinct level and across demographic cohorts, this is a clear statistical indicator that the post-recount Baldwin numbers were inaccurate. To an expert such as an election lawyer or political scientist, this would be considered strong indicia of electoral fraud. I did not include all this in the article, although its inclusion would have been accurate. Yet, 152.163.100.67 says my contribution is biased, and surely 152.163.100.67 is an honorable man.

In addition, to say that the actions of the Republican officials in Baldwin only "apparently" violated election law (as one edit did) is to mislead the reader. Read the cited code sections. Recounting in the absence of Democratic observers was not only illegal, it was a criminal offense. (If I had wanted to really "bias" the article, I could have called it a "criminal offense" with complete factual accuracy - I chose not to, in an effort to maintain a neutral tone in the article.) When you qualify this, you make a clear violation sound like a questionable proposition, which effectively slants the article in favor of Riley. You likewise bias the article in Riley's favor when you delete the uncontroverted facts that the recount was done after midnight, in the absence of Democratic observers, and omit the statutory cites showing how clearly illegal this was.

As to the language stating that contemporary observers drew parallels to the Florida 2000 controversy, please enjoy the editorial cartoons from Alabama newspapers I added as links in this edit; clearly, the sentence is factually accurate. (Then again, if my text is so partisan and biased, why didn't I put one of these cartoons in the article for added visual "punch"?)

I was careful to phrase statements of fact as such, and to identify the claims and charges of various parties as such, also in an effort to strike a neutral tone. The Baldwin County officials in fact conducted an illegal recount after midnight, and in the absence of Democratic observers. Siegelman's total in fact decreased by the thousands mentioned in the article in this recount. The judges and attorney general involved were in fact Republicans, and Siegelman in fact complained about this. The Baldwin County officials were in fact Republicans, and Baldwin was in fact one of the few counties where the actions they took would not have required the cooperation of at least one Democratic official. To remove this factually accurate information in the name of a "neutral tone" is to deprive the reader of information pertinent to making his or her own independent judgment as to what happened in 2002. My text does not make the statement or conclusion that Bob Riley stole the election. I think you can make a very strong case that he did, but I deliberately kept that conclusion from the editorial voice of the article. My text relates objective facts cited to open, verifiable sources. In a perfect world, Bill Pryor and Republican judges would not have blocked a supervised recount in Baldwin County, the ballots could have been examined and the computers and software inspected for the "glitch" the Baldwin officials claim existed. Had this recount happened, there would have been news stories to that effect, and any editor could counter these facts with their own - with cites to the news stories. The fact that no such contrary evidence exists does not justify removing facts from the article that, sadly, cast Governor Riley in an unfavorable light.

Dystopos seems to be a reasonable person, and he (or she) may be correct in informing me that it was "discourteous" of me to revert to the version prior to his edit. I think it may be equally "discourteous" to remove factually accurate language, especially when you admit a lack of expertise (which I think I can reasonably assert) in the subject. If I have misstated a fact, please inform me, and I will give you the satisfaction of seeing where I deleted it from the article myself. But if a fact is accurate, please don't remove it just because it embarrasses a politician or his supporters. An article that does not fully illuminate the suspicious circumstances of the Baldwin County recount is not "neutral," it is biased in Riley's favor.

  • I am grateful for the detailed explanation, but I am not convinced that the version you prefer satisfies Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view. Content does not have to be factually inaccurate to be biased. Inaccuracy is a separate and more clear-cut flaw. Bias can be introduced into an article by the tone of the language, and by disproportional coverage (for example, an article on Hillary Clinton that included long sections on the history of her hair styles but only scant coverage of her work in the Senate would present a biased view). In this case, I believe that the tone of the disputed text pushes the reader toward conclusions that have not been widely accepted as fact. Furthermore, presenting raw evidence to create a claim violates No Original Research. We can summarize the views of reputable sources, but we should not detail the evidence here without taking care to present alternate conclusions that may be drawn. --Dystopos 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Surrejoinder

From the Neutral point of view: "You won't even need to say [Saddam] was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with 'Hitler was a bad man' — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary." While the difference is one of almost infinite degree, the same rationale applies to my edit. I do not call the election result fraudulent; indeed, I even refrain from any statement as to who actually won. I merely list undisputed facts that would cause concern to any honest proponent of fair elections. The remedy for "disproportional coverage," if it exists, is not to suppress undisputed facts, but to add evidence that pushes the reader toward a contrary conclusion. Unfortunately, the prevention of a supervised recount made this task difficult. I am a little bit of a loss how to respond to your No Original Research comment. Nothing in my editorial submission constitutes a "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas" within the scope of that policy. Indeed, the various arguments made by the disputants are carefully cited to the CNN story (note 3 and passim in the current edit), and are further contained in the paper by Professor Gundlach I linked to the article.

All this said, I have reworked the section in an effort to address the concerns we both have expressed. (Since the text to which it refers has been substantially changed, I have taken the liberty of removing the NPOV template. I think you will find it unnecessary to replace it.) I have no objection to anyone making a wording edit if they can justify it on this page, but I think omission of any of the related facts would itself be an NPOV violation. To return to the Hitler analogy, if anyone removes all references to the Holocaust, the invasion of Poland, and other atrocities, they have violated NPOV in Hitler's favor. Thanks for responding to my comment.

In passing, did you know an earlier hack of the article got some press coverage? [1]

  • I have made a few select edits in line with my earlier concerns. To address the issue of balance, this section may be a candidate for a separate article on the 2002 election, which could then be referenced by a much smaller summary in this biography. Does that sound reasonable? --Dystopos 15:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I support the creation of a separate article about the 2002 Election Controversy. The events should be offered in detail so as to allow critical examination of the subject by our readers. Let's mention the controversy in the current article and offer a full account at the new article. That way, there is no undue weight proferred in the general bio. Dick Clark 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we are getting much closer to consensus. I have made a few minor re-edits for review. 1. Reverted the fact that the votes either dropped or were reassigned to Riley. Look at the post- and pre-recount totals at the bottom of the aritcle. Riley's total actually did not change. It is theoretically possible that X Siegelman votes were reassigned to Riley, and that an equal total of X Riley votes were dropped, but it's much more likely that the ~6,000 votes were merely dropped from Siegelman, by whatever mechanism. 2. Re-inserted amended language indicating that the "war of the statsiticians" is inconclusive in the absence of a recount. I actually put the initial sentence in thinking it improved NPOV. I agree that the topic is arguably amenable to a separate article, but I think truncating the existing text in the Riley bio would be inappropriate. By way of comparison, the discussion of the Baldwin controversy in this article is far shorter than that of the Florida election recount in the biography of George W. Bush. There's really not a lot of "fat" to trim from the current section. I am uncomfortable with deleting the reference to the absence of observers as a "violation" of the law. See my notes above re: not using more inflammatory (though accurate) "criminal" language. Also, the current edit risks allowing the hurried reader to fail to connect that sentence to the preceding one. Finally, it's a violation; not even Riley's advocates at the time asserted that it wasn't. And, if I am driving at 110 MPH on the highway, and I read the speed limit statute, I do not need a judge or the Justice Department to tell me that's a violation. I would ask that you amend, rather than delete, the uncontrovertable conclusion. In the interest of consensus, I will let you handle this. Again, thanks. (PS: can anyone explain why the first posts supra about Katrina exactly relate to this article? Just curious ...)
Look, no one is saying you are wrong. The point is that there is a Wikipedia prohibition on original research. If you can't cite a notable, verifiable source that makes the assertion, the assertion cannot be made here. Dick Clark 16:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • With reference to WP:NOR, I still think we're engaging in too much piecing together of your selection of evidence. If the recounting was an obvious and "uncontrovertable" law violation, then there would obviously be a ruling to that effect. To say that Republican appointees prevented the carriage of justice is a rather strong allegation that would need more than a lay reading of the statute and a partial presentation of the circumstances. Formulating such a conclusion is outside the scope of Wikipedia. If other reputable sources have made that claim, then reference those sources, and not the statute. --Dystopos 16:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


The claim by Riley's opponents that in the wake of the Amendment One defeat he raised property taxes instead is false. Riley's Revenue Commissioner at the time, Dwight Carlisle, sent the order for annual appraisals March 28, 2003.[2],[3] Amendment One went down in flames on September 9, 2003. [4]Tempest59 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Bob R. Riley can't possibly be the right name for this article, can it? When people's middle initials are used, you also use their formal first name. When people's informal first name is used, you don't use middle names or initials. (Unless this is some stylized Southern usage.) Thus, the article's name could be Robert Riley, Robert R. Riley, Robert Renfroe Riley, or Bob Riley (Alabama politician), but I don't see how it can be what it is. All of the official governor's press material at http://www.governorpress.alabama.gov/listings.asp?t=pr uses "Governor Bob Riley", so it seems to me that Bob Riley (Alabama politician), or maybe just restoring to the old article name of Bob Riley (Alabama) (which is what most of the links-to are) is the way to go. Wasted Time R 11:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And in the case of the "other" Bob Riley, Bob C. Riley, there his real first name appears to have been Bob, and thus the use of the middle initial after it is correct. Wasted Time R 11:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking further at this, this Alabama Bob Riley is much more notable than the Arkansas one, who spent most of his career as a state legislator or mayor and was only governor for 10 days to fill out a term. The Arkansas one probably wouldn't even have an article were it not for that historical accident. Bob Riley, currently being used as a disambig page, has a lot of links to it meaning to get to the Alabama one. Thus, I propose to move the current Bob Riley to Bob Riley (disambiguation), move this article to Bob Riley with an xref at the top to the disambig page, and leave Bob C. Riley where he is. Wasted Time R 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Riley/Archive_1&oldid=799001616"