Talk:Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program

Looks like some bias and editorializing on this page. Not sure how to flag that (I don’t want to make edits myself).

Agreed. I came here to learn a little more about the system but instead read a very biased, one-sided article. I removed one portion that was really egregious, but there is too much here to be re-worked. I don't know how to flag the article for POV, unfortunately. 70.94.36.72 (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a POV tag because the POV of many of the statements under "Inaccurate Results", "Discrimination Controversy", "Data Security and Data Handling Lapses", and "Double Voting as a Rationale for Crosscheck" sections are biased to one side. Some I already removed.70.94.36.72 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Reading this today, I would need you to specify the biases. I teach this stuff, and the article looks OK to me. This is in August of 2018, so perhaps corrections have been made.SocialScientist1234 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to whomever removed the incorrect information entered by 156.39.10.47 about DOB not being used, and about 7.2 million being "purged". Both points were incorrect. 17:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC) LeaveCrosscheck (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Do we have consensus the POV flag? I believe the flag was related to the incorrect information about DOB not being used and 7.2 million being "unlawfully" purged. Now that those have been removed, I believe POV is fine. LeaveCrosscheck (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Can another user please review the POV flag and remove? As I made the edits to fix the issues, I think someone else should remove the flag. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeaveCrosscheck (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed—Discrimination allegations

Citation needed for claims, "However, presence on the "potential duplicate registrant" list did not mean a voter was removed from the rolls." & "Independent investigators found that most states reported not using the Crosscheck "potential duplicate registrant" lists in any way." I have edited to reflect these discrepancies. Recommend elimination or meaningful anotation in absence of reporting by secondary sources to comply with Wikipedia editorial guidelines.

Given the copious reporting of these claims & the cannon shot they entail in terms of potential for political bias/defacement, in addition to the paragraph's wording appearent purpose to discredit (without evidence/citation) or refute ("") the section's claims, I recommend & propose they be removed in a timely fashion if suitably strong sources are not readily obtained.

As the political implications & climate around "electoral fraud" and "voter fraud" in media, the academy, and in political practice being so divisive, and the wide influence of Wikipedia as a first point of reference (if not their only reference), I therefore think these environmental conditions reasonably reinforce the need and imperative that, at a minimum, notice be given the word choice/POV of this concluding paragraph. Most especially as its wording appears to (whether by accidental happenstance or the unintentional oversight/bias of an editor, or be it intentional defacement of the section), and thereby clash with the rest of the section—as though it was added later as an addendum thoroughly refuting the statements, like an editorial retraction—thereby, lacking meaningful summary of the facts, who made the claims, where, which states, when, how, to what degree, whether response or rebuttal was made in any form (Palast or others in secondary literature).

Without a constructive, supported conclusion, to my eyes, the section reads badly and may cause readers to suspect bias or intentional defacement rather than, where I typically begin without ample evidence, good natured editing by someone unaccustomed to the guidelines or requirements/need for citation to provide a blueprint for researchers & interested readers to enable verification and credit, and to promote meaningful discourse and dialogue on the subject.

Likewise, if Palast in the previous source mentioned was the source, then this needs to be made clear, citation given, and the section rewritten too demonstrate this. Such as, "Palast however reports that…" or if a secondary source is found, "However, (insert specific investigations, note them, cite them, summarize them—use an extended footnote if necessary for ease of reading— etc.) reports…". The lack of evidence or clarification makes the section ambiguous as to who is citing this & the strength of the source(s).

I have edited to reflect this comment/notice. Dragoon91786 (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)