Talk:Dominion Voting Systems/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dominion Voting Systems. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704193715/http://www.dominionvoting.com/john-poulos.html?height=390&width=490 to http://www.dominionvoting.com/john-poulos.html?height=390&width=490
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100702081507/http://www.dominionvoting.com/james-hoover.html?height=390&width=490 to http://www.dominionvoting.com/james-hoover.html?height=390&width=490

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Remove the word “unsubstantiated” Remove the word “Baseless” Cseder (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Please review the sources cited inline, which verify that these claims about Dominion Voting Systems have been made without evidence. In fact, the sources go farther than I did with the edit by calling them outright false. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

"The voting machine lobby, led by the biggest company, ES&S, believes they are above the law,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Intelligence Committee who co-signed the letter. “They have not had anybody hold them accountable even on the most basic matters.” NBC News Chinese Parts, Hidden Ownership ManchuRican (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@ManchuRican: It appears Wyden was primarily talking about ES&S, which is a competitor of Dominion. I don't see how this is relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding controversies section

May I ask what are the reasons that those paragraphs about the controversies are not in a separate section? Chungonion (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:CRITS GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Your sources, NY Times, NBC, and the AP are very biased sources. How is using those supposed to prove/back up anything? Of course, they're going to say that the Dominion software is okay. Shouldn't you be using unbiased sources and not sources with clear, long-held bias? 76.202.192.102 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which is where we collect general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on the reliability of various frequently-discussed publications:

WP:RSP#The New York Times: "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable."

WP:RSP#NBC News: "There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news."

WP:RSP#Associated Press: "There is consensus that the Associated Press is generally reliable."

RSP will note if a source is generally considered to be a biased or opinionated source either overall or on particular topics (see for example the rows on Axios, The Guardian), but that is not the case for any of these three sources.

If you have reliable sources that you think would be better to cite here, or that present contradicting claims, I'd be happy to take a look. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The quotes in the AP article are from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, led by a Trump appointee: "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised." soibangla (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Dominion is under full control of private equity fund Staple Street Capital. From where the money raised by this fund is coming is not know but the management has roots in Carlyle and Cerberus and traditionally linked to Chicago business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.194.110 (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

[citation needed] GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Shucks, 76.202.192.102, don't you know that all those MSM sources are impeccably reliable? Just look at their final polls before the election- CNN-Biden by 12, ABC/WaPo-Biden by 12, CNBC-Biden by 10, YouGov(CBS)-Biden by 10, NBC-Biden by 10, New York Times-Biden by 9, NPR/PBS-Biden by 11. Average of the Reliables- Biden by 11. Don't you see how reliably reliable they are? They wouldn't lie to us! Topcat777 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Topcat777: If you would like the Wikipedia editing community to revisit the reliability of any of these sources, WP:RSN is thataway. We don't hold such sweeping discussions on the talk page of an individual article, and the whole point of WP:RSP is so we don't have to rehash the same reliability discussion over and over again. If you want to do so, take it to RSN; until then, we can go by what RSP says. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting that you keep your information unbiased. Credibility is lost when the sources are bias and your information is tainted versus being clear and concise. PapaTango123 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

NY Times, Reuters, AP, NBC (non-opinion newswire) are, unfortunately, some of the best sources out there.

They've taken major hits to credibility due to prior standards, but in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king as they say.

I'd take them any day over the new standard used around here, like Mother Jones & Vox TuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Propose content on technical analysis

This whole article is in a terrible state! Unfortunately this is indicative of the general decline of Wikipedia in the area of "political" articles! I would expect here a technical desription of the functioning of this system! How is input provided and what algorithms are used? The latter should be extremly simpel, just a repeted addition of integer "1" to a cummulated sum! For the security, do the different units communicate over a physically closed LAN without any connection to the Internet at all? Is there possibly some analysis of some scanned signature, comparing it with some reference signatures? Stamcose (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Stamcose: If you have reliable sources describing the technical side of things, feel free to write that into the article. However I would imagine that much of their software is intentionally kept secret. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

proposed add to key people in template

Vice President Eric Coomer should be added, we should mention he replaced James Hoover. Not sure what Hoover's position is now.

Is Poulos still president? KP section can list up to 4. WakandaQT (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support any change you're suggesting. That Heavy article only says that Coomer is a vice president; you'd need a better source to support that he is the (only) vice president and therefore should be added to the infobox rather than some other vice president. He's also not mentioned in the article body anywhere. Also noting that per WP:RSP#Heavy.com, Heavy is not a great source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Qanon

Where's the proof that the conspiracy originated with the Qanon group? The article quoted here has that claim as a headline but then goes on to say that the group uses an report to make their claims. If there was already a report laying out the claim of voter fraud, it seems inexact, at best, to attribute the origin of the theory to Qanon based on that one article. Alaman2 (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The NBC article is quite clear. I'm not sure what you mean by "the group uses a report" -- do you meant the OANN report? That's mentioned in the article: QAnon originated the conspiracy theory, OANN repeated it in a report on their network, and then Trump made a tweet about the OANN report. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the article attributes the theory to 4chan and Twitter accounts "related to Qanon". It doesn't do a good job of pinning the origin of the conspiracy to the Qanon movement or to the board it says its adherents use to communicate, 8kun. For precision sake, this article should say the conspiracy originated in 4chan and it clarify further down that it was popularized by that group, but those two things aren't the same. Alaman2 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alaman2: That's a fair point; the headline is more strongly worded than the article body. I've tweaked this article's wording accordingly: [1]. Does that look okay to you? GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Canadian federal election

@Earl Andrew: Have you got a WP:RS for "though it has never been used in a federal election?" Or is this just based of Election Canada's tweet? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll source the Tweet. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Ideally we could get a secondary RS to confirm, though I know RS don't make a habit of writing about what hasn't happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020 (2)

Dominion Voting Systems, could not get certified by the State of Texas after failing to meet the state’s election standards for efficiency, accuracy, and safety from “fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation” – according to a report completed by the Office of the Secretary of State. Voteforfreedom (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And yes, I'm saying that reference isn't reliable. You also have not actually said what change you want made to the article itself. Primefac (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Software sold by Dominion, the Democracy Suite 5 .5 Voting System which supports both paper ballots and electronic voting. a comprehensive tool that can be used for managing an election, coding a ballot, and accumulating election results was evaluated by the Texas Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) in 2018 and was rejected formally in 2019 for the 2020 elections in Texas. Among the findings were ballot secrecy and several other shortcomings necessary for election equipment. FINDINGS The following are the findings, based on written evidence submitted by the Vendor in support of its application for certification, oral evidence presented at the examination, and the findings of the voting system examiners as set out in their written reports. The examiner reports identified multiple hardware and software issues that preclude the Office of the Texas Secretary of State from determining that the Democracy Suite 5.5 satisfies each of the voting system requirements set forth in the Texas Election Code. Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5 preserves the secrecy of the ballot; is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is capable of permitting straight-party voting. Thus, the Democracy Suite 5.5 Voting System and corresponding hardware devices do not meet the standards for certification as prescribed by Section 122.001 of the Texas Election Code. CONCLUSION Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, I hereby deny certification of Dominion Voting Systems' Democracy Suite 5.5 for use in elections in Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteforfreedom (talk • contribs) 15:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Voteforfreedom: As Primefac already mentioned above, we require independent, reliable sources to determine whether information is noteworthy enough to add to a given Wikipedia article. If there has been coverage of these findings in reliable, independent sources, feel free to present that here, but we only use primary source material such as these findings in very limited scenarios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: What are you trying to hide? Here's an independent source- GovTech: "Texas also considered a Dominion voting system this year. But when the company demonstrated the system, it did not go well....State evaluators witnessed numerous hardware and software problems. For example, when a ballot printer tray was ajar during voting, it wiped out the voter’s ballot selections, requiring the voter to start again....Among the other problems noted: A ballot scanner jammed several times. And the tablet computers that voters used to cast their ballots failed under certain circumstances, and it took 10 to 20 minutes to restore them....The evaluators also said company employees demonstrating the product seemed unprepared....In June, Texas declined to certify Dominion’s system." https://www.govtech.com/security/Georgia-Hopes-New-Voting-System-Will-Protect-2020-Elections.html GovTech appears to be a reliable source in their field of expertise. They've been around for over 30 years.

I don't appreciate the accusation that I'm trying to "hide" something because I am enforcing Wikipedia policy, which requires us to not use primary sources like that. Please review WP:NPA. I don't know of GovTech and I'm not seeing any discussion of it at WP:RSN (search) so it seems like it may be fairly niche–perhaps another watcher of this talk page is familiar? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, they're owned by e.Republic, which apparently is (or in 2009 was) operated by Scientologists. They do have an editorial board. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

Section 1.2.1 is titled "2020 hoax claims about the company", and the word "hoax" is mentioned numerous times. This is incorrect, because there is ongoing litigation regarding this situation. It's not a hoax by default just because you don't like it. Wait until the courts rule to make that judgment. 108.20.221.99 (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Reliable sources have described it as a hoax, and we go by what reliable sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources you have cited are factually incorrect. There are legal cases being opened all over the U.S. To call it a hoax is propaganda. Also find it coincidental that this page has been edited ov er 50 times since election day, more information has been removed than added. GorillaWarfare you are clearly biased and an activist. Please only provided facts that you can cite leave the conjecture to facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.128.108.118 (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources, and we do not change them based on one editor's claim that the sources are wrong. If there are reliable sources that contradict the sources in question, please feel free to present them. But if it is just your opinion of the sources, that will not do. Otherwise we'd have a hell of a time writing any article—the flat earthers would be all over Earth telling us the sources there were wrong, and can you imagine articles on religion?

You are not the first person I've seen arguing that it is somehow suspicious that this page has been edited a lot in the past few weeks. I don't understand that argument. When a topic is in the news and there is considerable information to add to an article as a result, why wouldn't we update the article to reflect that? As for your claim that more information has been removed than added, that is provably untrue. The page has more than doubled in length: 436 words vs. 912 words (prose length). GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, I agree that this article isn't neutral. We can say sources claim it to be hoax but we are in no position to say that. Yes, the claims seem very far-fetched, but I suggest that it be reworded until all of the impending cases are thrown out of court.† Encyclopædius 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

If all reliable sources say it is a hoax, we say it is a hoax. We don't introduce doubt where there is none. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

All reliable sources do not claim it to be a hoax though..† Encyclopædius 21:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to present any reliable sources contradicting that. So far the only RS I've seen have described it as a hoax and/or the claims as unfounded. The only people treating this as at all credible appear to be people on Trump's legal team, and right-wing talking heads, neither of whom are reliable sources for our purposes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, though our trusted RS are heavily biased! Millions of tampered votes seems an extremely tall order, does seem very much like a hoax. Time will tell anyway! † Encyclopædius 22:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Linkedin Profile

If you look at [Linkedin](https://www.linkedin.com/company/dominion-software-consulting/about/) you will see that this company has just one employee, and that employee is in Thailand. Kind of strange company, is not it?

Vlad Patryshev (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That's the wrong Dominion. Dominion Voting Systems are based in Denver, not New Jersey. - Bilby (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

The references need to be fixed 2600:1700:8460:2510:3933:F8DF:5369:B5C3 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nthep (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

The veracity of the President's claims are in the process off being heard in several States. 2600:8802:5800:1200:159D:4555:8B6F:6CA (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a clear statement of (1) the text you would like to be added to or removed from the article; and (2) the reliable sources that support your request. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Article references biased alt left news sources rather than scientific sources. The claims in the articles are scientifically absurd

There is no mention of the fact that "glitches" don't favor candidates or anything about how computer software, hardware, or hacking actually works. VanishingMediator (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@VanishingMediator: Can you please specify which sources you're concerned about, and also provide sources/suggested text for what you're hoping to see added? While we do prefer peer-reviewed scientific articles over media sources when they're available, please do note that our reliable sources policy does allow for the use of news sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Please join the discussion in the section above where editors are blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking. Pkeets (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

This article states:

After President Donald Trump was defeated by President-elect Joe Biden in the 2020 election, Trump and various surrogates promoted conspiracy theories about Dominion, alleging that the company was part of an international cabal to steal the election from Trump, and that it used its voting machines to transfer millions of votes from Trump to Biden.[5][6][7] There is no evidence supporting these claims, which have been debunked by various groups including election technology experts, government and voting industry officials, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).[5][6][7] These conspiracy theories were further discredited by a hand recount of the ballots cast in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia; the hand recount found that Dominion voting machines had accurately tabulated votes, that any error in the initial tabulation was human error, and that Biden had defeated Trump in the battleground state.

Todays date is 25 Nov 2020, and at this time all the election votes have NOT been certified, therefore President Donald Trump has not yet been defeated!

The theories about Dominion Voting are not conspiracies, they appear to be fact. The masses of signed AFFIDAVITS are EVIDENCE! The video recording of suspicious activities, photos of boxes without locks on, wifi antennas, etc... are ALL evidence. The evidence has yet to be tested in court, however that totally contradicts the statement: "There is no evidence supporting these claims". These theories cannot be DEBUNKED by holding a "recount that is conducted in the same secrecy and shadows as the first count", it needs to be open and transparent, which they are not!

Georgia has gone to a 2nd recount of the 5 million votes, which will commence on Dec 2nd, so once again, Biden cannot be declared the winner.

It is important that you get these facts correct because the America people and the reset of the honest and free world will never have faith in your unbias recording of the truth again if this misleading article is not corrected immediately. The reputation of your website is riding on this. Steveparkinson (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Declined. Please stop beating this horse. It's dead. Even if it wasn't, this is not how you make an edit request. --Yamla (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

The article states Donald Trump has lost the election to Biden....This is misleading as the electoral college has not met yet. You are relying on the mainstream media calling the election. Unkledoe (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see any of the many discussions about this, including on this very page, as well as at Talk:Joe Biden, Talk:2020 United States presidential election, and WP:NPOVN#Is it a NPOV violation to say Joe Biden won the 2020 election?. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Why lie?? 2603:6011:DA3B:B500:F4AB:1121:255A:DBA6 (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"bidding of the Clintons" support

A sentence in the lead section stated:

Some made false claims that Dominion had close ties to the Clinton family or other Democrats.

That sentence is followed by three citations. All of the citations are clearly on point for issues regarding Dominion voting systems, but I didn't see any support either for the allegation that there were close ties between the company and the Clinton family or that those allegations had been debunked. Two of the three sources don't even mention the Clintons, which leads me to wonder if they were included in the article to support other claims. It is not uncommon to put a source at the end of the paragraph which supports assertions earlier in the paragraph but these sources are not at the end of the paragraph. They are at the end of the sentence which is not the end of the paragraph, leaving the impression that they are specifically supporting that sentence. I'm wondering if they were included for other reasons and someone added this sentence later.

The New York Times article does make reference to the Clintons:

Some people even suggested that the company was doing the bidding of the Clintons, a conspiracy theory that was shared on Twitter by Mr. Trump.

However that assertion is almost orthogonal to the sentence in the lead, as one could do the bidding of the family without having close ties, and one could have close ties without doing their bidding, so that sentence doesn't support the assertion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the source used to verify that in the article body never made it up to the lead. Per that source (also published by the AP, which probably led to the citation confusion):

A week later, that misinterpreted mistake has snowballed into a deluge of false claims that Democrats have deep ties to Dominion Voting Systems, the company that supplies election equipment to Michigan and dozens of other states nationwide.

Claims that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the Clinton Foundation have interest or influence in Dominion are all unsubstantiated. But that didn’t stop tens of thousands of social media users from amplifying them on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram this week.

I've just rearranged the sources a bit, including adding that one from the article body, which I hope will help with clarity around which citation is supporting which claim(s). Does that look okay, @Sphilbrick:? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Thanks, that was quick and responsive to the concerns. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

2019 vote switching irregularities

Allegations of vote switching were a part of concerns raised by several US senators:

In 2018 alone "voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines [were] causing long lines in Indiana." In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states." And, just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's Republican Chairwoman said, "[n]othing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong. That's a problem." These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/H.I.G.%20McCarthy,%20&%20Staple%20Street%20letters.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.121.29 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

These general allegations about a number of voting machine companies are on page 13 of the PDF. Out of the three articles cited in that paragraph—[2], [3], [4]—only one ([5]) mentions Dominion in particular. The only in-depth statement in that article about Dominion is:

A document for modem transmissions from voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems—another top voting machine company in the country—similarly discusses TCP-IP and SSL, both protocols used for internet traffic.

We need more specific evidence connected to Dominion in particular to include any of these allegations in the article. That evidence is not forthcoming in this letter. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

We would additionally need coverage in secondary sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary vs. secondary sources

@Pkeets: "What. You want a media description of what the report says? This is CA, not Dominion, so it is secondary." You misunderstand what a primary source is: Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. Per that policy, we need to be cautious about basing large passages on primary sources, and secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish a topic's notability. Has there been secondary coverage of that report anywhere? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a notability issue, but information on how the system works, as requested above. I have avoided using any material published by Dominion. This is a white-paper report and a secondary source, a technical review of the Dominion Voting System which identified features and vulnerabilities, the same way a literary review discusses the quality and content of a book. Pkeets (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

No, a report describing the findings of a system evaluation is a primary source, and is not comparable to a literary review. I have no issue with it being used for uncontroversial descriptions of the workings of the system (A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts), but any conclusions on system vulnerabilities should be supported by stronger sources. I think you are conflating primary/secondary sources with self-published/independent sources. Presumably important findings on vulnerabilities in an election system used elsewhere in the country would be newsworthy, no? It shouldn't be hard to find secondary sourcing if the conclusions of the report are sufficiently noteworthy to include. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Technical reports are unpopular as media topics. Will check later. Am out of time this week. Pkeets (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This may be the original report, which would make State of CA the secondary publisher describing their conclusions. You aren't going to find this IT geek stuff in a media article, which would most likely get it wrong anyhow. If media articles are all Wikipedia is relying on, it's a lost cause. Pkeets (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no indication in the CA report that it was related to the report you're linking (which was published three years prior to the CA one); the CA report appears to be a separate evaluation from what I can tell. There was no problem finding a secondary source for Texas' opinion of Dominion's reliability, so I disagree with your suggestion that the media doesn't care. As for "If media articles are all Wikipedia is relying on, it's a lost cause", I simply suggested a media source because those tend to be the easiest to find. We accept all kinds of secondary sources that are not news media, any of those would be fine too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of research articles published in industry journals? Too primary? Pkeets (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless those are summarizing existing research, they are also primary sources. A summation of the research on Dominion's reliability would be ideal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

White paper report: A white paper is an in-depth report or guide about a specific topic and the problems that surround it. White papers are considered secondary sources. Pkeets (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a whitepaper; it looks to me to be a publication of the findings of a research study on the voting systems (that is, a primary source). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Reports of research studies, especially in peer review journals, are considered among the best quality sources, while popular media articles of whatever Wikipedia rating for reliability, are considered by the scientific and technical community to be lower quality. It's time to let a few other people weigh in on the issue. In case it disappears again, here is the paragraph in contention: "A California review of the system completed in 2017 found security vulnerabilities that required management through control measures within the tabulation locations. One of these was that the ImageCast X (ICX) system runs on an Android tablet with no form of anti-virus protection which must be handled by locking the ICX ports with a metal cover to prevent introduction of malicious software. The review identified five instances of vulnerable SQL statements inside private functions of the ImageCast Evolution (ICE) system which could be accessed by a knowledgeable insider. Additionally, the ICX device automatically loads data or software from an inserted USB drive, reading it as an .exe file."Source Pkeets (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That is not a peer reviewed journal. Furthermore, WP:SCHOLARSHIP is consistent with our general stance on primary sources: Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Many such studies illustrate hypotheticals of possible vulnerabilities, under specific scenarios, but something that could happen doesn’t necessarily mean it did, and blurring that distinction is a common ploy of conspiracy theorists. soibangla (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just reading a New York Times article while reviewing a statement in the Sidney Powell article, and came across the following, which is a salient point here as well I think:

And electronic voting security experts said they were unimpressed with what Ms. Powell presented.

"The essence of the affidavit is that voting machines could have been hacked. This is not news," said David Dill, a computer scientist at Stanford University and founder of the Verified Voting Foundation. "Every single vote that has been counted by computer in the U.S. in the last 50 years was counted by a computer that 'could have been hacked.' So far as I know, none of them actually were."

GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't want readers to know it's easily hackable? Pkeets (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pkeets, I think you're missing the point. When you say,

Reports of research studies, especially in peer review journals, are considered among the best quality sources, while popular media articles of whatever Wikipedia rating for reliability, are considered by the scientific and technical community to be lower quality.

you are no doubt entirely correct as far as submissions about research, investigations, experiments, and other original material of all sorts. No one in their right mind at Science or Nature would even consider publishing a report written by the top journalist at the most respected, reliable, newspaper or magazine in the country as an article in their journal. That is because they publish primary material, that is, original research. And those two journals regularly publish "the best quality sources", as you say. And the scientific community rightly considers the popular media articles as lower quality if by that you mean for publishing in an original-research trade journal. But, that is not what newspaper reporters do. They are secondary sources with a completely different intended audience, and with no intention of publishing in a trade journal and thus of course, ipso facto totally unsuitable for Nature and so on. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources; we report on what the newspapers and other reliable, secondary sources said. Reporting on primary sources is acceptable in some cases, but discouraged in many others. The guideline words it this way:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

The danger in what you propose to do above, is precisely a violation of this important principle of policy, imho, and it should not be attempted in this article.

As far as Wikipedia (a tertiary source) is concerned, the *best quality sources* are the independent, reliable, secondary sources, and specifically *not* the primary sources which the scientific and technical community prefers to see *in a published, peer-reviewed, trade journal of original research*. The reason is, you are trying to measure two different things (appropriateness for Nature, appropriateness for Wikipedia) by the same ruler, namely: "what the scientific and technical community prefers". That simply doesn't work for Wikipedia. Their best quality sources aren't our best quality sources. That should not be surprising to you, as an editor of many years standing.

On another point, this entire discussion (not excluding this reply) is pretty wide of the mark of improving *this* article, and this article talk page seems to me the wrong venue for this discussion. If you don't agree with Wikipedia's conception of WP:PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY, or what our role is with respect to high-quality primary sources, for example, that certainly a topic that could be raised at Wikipedia and discussed, and theoretically could even result in a change to our policies about it more in line with your views. But this is the wrong venue for it. Imho, we should draw a line under this discussion, unless it can be specifically refocused onto article improvement, rather than RS policy. If you wanted to discuss the latter further, I would recommend taking it up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got a big job to get all the journal articles out of Wikipedia. I think I made my case this is a secondary technical source. Pkeets (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No one here is saying journal articles shouldn't be used on Wikipedia, which I think you're competent enough to realize. You have also not made any case that this is a secondary source—you've at various points claimed it is a technical review of the system, a whitepaper, and either a summary of or republication of some 2014 report which as far as I can tell is unrelated. The report itself reads, This report presents the test results for all phases of the certification test campaign of the Dominion Voting Systems (Dominion) Democracy Suite (DemSuite) 5.2 voting system which appears to confirm that this is indeed a primary research source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What happens to company roots in Venezuela?

Not long ago we could read that this company was started in Venezuela so that dictators could rig elections.

What happens to that factual info Wpow (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What's your source for that information? So far, that's just Rudy Giuliani's opinion, not supported by any reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Please compare the Huffington Post's opinion in 2017, which also alleged: "Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is still tied to a huge percentage of U.S. Elections, as now overseen by a Canadian firm [i.e. Dominion Voting Systems]" Seraphim3 (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged". And the "alleged" is that IP is still owned by a Chavez associated company. Chavez, a man who has been dead since 2013. And IP that may or may not be in the machine, integral to its operation etc. Brad explains on his podcast how his original content has been taken out of context for the new conspiracy theory. His original articles are unfortunately meandering and hardly concise or straight forward to read. Koncorde (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wpow: Unfortunately a site published a poorly-researched blog post claiming to expose Wikipedia editors scrubbing mentions of Venezuela from the history of this article. It has been repeated as fact by a handful of people who didn't bother to check their facts. Problem is, when they published it, this article had never mentioned Venezuela. A mention of Venezuela was briefly added last night, only to mention Giuliani's baseless claims about a competitor of Dominion: [6], but that postdates the publication of the blog post and also specifically mentioned they were false assertions.

Feel free to confirm my research for yourself: this is a comparison of the article as it appeared a year ago and how it looks today. If you visit the history tab you can use the radio buttons to compare any revisions of the page, or click the "prev" button next to any one revision to see what was changed from the revision before. I manually checked every revision as far back as a year to confirm that, aside from those very recent revisions mentioning Giuliani's false assertions, at no point did this article mention Venezuela. Sometimes dubious information will be added in an edit and quickly reverted, and pundits will latch on to the dubious revision as though it was a stable version of the article; even that is not what happened here.

There is a tool called WikiBlame that allows you to search for the addition or removal of phrases in an article. A search for Venezuela shows hits for the search term in a few revisions on 17 November (Giuliani's claims) and then nothing: [7] (it's a little slow and you can only check 50 revisions at a time, but it's quicker than doing it by hand at least).

I hope this helps assuage your concerns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, You can also use Who wrote that, which is much faster, and better in some ways. As an example, you can quickly see that the word "hoax" is used five times in the article and immediately see the editor that added each of the words. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: very nice, thanks for that. Btw, the Chrome extension also works on Vivaldi, which is based on it (and much better, imho). In return for the tip, here's one for you which you may like. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, Thanks sounds interesting, I'll try installing tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, I've now installed it, nice - as I often have need for those numbers. Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick:, meanwhile, I've used "Who wrote that?" several times already, and am pining for when they install it on Talk pages, and on fr-wiki. Thanks, again! Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

No connections between Dominion and Smartmatic?

Random insinuations, unsourced theories, and other speculation.

"If we look at Smartmatic’s website, we can see they refer to two patented inventions: the Edge2Plus and HAAT. Now if we look at Dominion, we can see that back in 2010 they bought a company called Sequoia from Smartmatic. Then one year later, when they were trying to get certified by the US election authorities, they hired a third-party testing company called SLI to certify their software. Now guess what Dominion asked SLI to test? Edge2Plus and HAAT. The two products that were invented by Smartmatic." Article- https://craigpbrett.medium.com/is-trump-right-about-dominion-and-smartmatic-10e110fde271 Smartmatic- "Edge2Plus is our touchscreen voting machine specifically designed and manufactured for the US market. The Edge2Plus was sold in 2005 to the City of Chicago and Cook County, IL. HAAT. Our Hibrid Activator-Acumulator-Transmitter (HAAT) is a device we developed to help authorities consolidate data from different voting machines, print consolidation reports, and transmit precinct totals to a central tabulation center. HAAT is one of the more than twenty US patented inventions owned by Smartmatic." https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2018-01-01-United-States-elections-2005-2016-Smartmatic-Jan-01-2018.pdf#:~:text=Our%20Hibrid%20Activator-Acumulator-Transmitter%20%28HAAT%29%20is%20a%20device%20we,than%20twenty%20US%20patented%20inventions%20owned%20by%20Smartmatic. SLI report on Dominion Voting System- "Dominion Voting System for Sequoia WinEDS, Edge2Plus Model 300, HAAT90, HAAT100" https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system/files/DVS%20Sequoia%20WinEDS_2002%20VSS%20Hardware%20Test%20Report%20v2.0.pdf Topcat777 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC) @Topcat777: We require reliable, independent sources for Wikipedia articles. We do not do our own research on primary source documents and we do not use unreliable sources like Medium blog posts. If you would like to publish your own research and theories on connections between these companies, I would recommend starting a blog. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtGEBRRAC50. See 1:20, Mark Malloch Brown clearly says "Yes, part of our technology is licensed from dominion". wiki article says "Malloch Brown has been closely associated with billionaire speculator George Soros." ..† Encyclopædius 21:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Combed over articles related to Peter Neffenger due to claims that smartmatic was involved in election fraud, and all the articles say that Smartmatic and Dominion have released statements saying they are competitors with no vested interest in the others success. Eruditess (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Smartmatic also sez they have "no ties to governments or political parties of any country." No ties except for Neffenger (Chairman of Smartmatic) being on the Biden transition team. Topcat777 (talk) 1:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) @Topcat777: As I've said above, this talk page is not for publishing your thoughts on Dominion Voting Systems. Please see WP:NOTFORUM and keep your discussions here focused on changes to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, it seems that way, Giuliani talks as if it's the same company. I can certainly see why it is being dismissed as a hoax. The failure to provide real initial evidence in such huge claims has been staggering and they've opened themselves up to valid criticism. It is possible that they genuinely do have proper evidence which will be presented in court, but I highly doubt they will ever be able to convince a judge on this. † Encyclopædius 16:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC) It should be mentioned that, "Smartmatic purchased the voting machine company Sequoia Voting Systems in 2005 but sold it two years later after objections were raised over its partnership with a company in which Venezuela’s government had invested. Three years later, Dominion acquired Sequoia" along with its IP and technology. Both companies have developed voting machines with Seqouia technology. This is the AP: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9740535009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom1787 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Though gently reminded more than once of the need to avoid original research, and to stick to discussion of how to improve this article, this has been ignored again and again. Collapsing this per WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disappearing paragraphs on reliability

Just so readers (and admnistrators) interested in more information know what's been there:

A California review of the system completed in 2017 found security vulnerabilities that required management through control measures within the tabulation locations. One of these was that the ImageCast X (ICX) system runs on an Android tablet with no form of anti-virus protection which must be handled by locking the ICX ports with a metal cover to prevent introduction of malicious software. The review identified five instances of vulnerable SQL statements inside private functions of the ImageCast Evolution (ICE) system which could be accessed by a knowledgeable insider. Additionally, the ICX device automatically loads data or software from an inserted USB drive, reading it as an .exe file."Source

In 2019 Salon reported that Dominion Voting Systems are a type of hybrid voting systems that can change a paper ballot after it's been cast.

In 2019 NBC News reported concerns that U.S. voting machines manufactured by Dominion Voting Systems and other companies might be tampered with by either foreign or domestic hackers. According to NBC, this has led to calls for these companies to reveal details about ownership and the origin of system components, some of which are manufactured in China.

In February 2020, PBS noted that Dominion Voting Systems is a type of system that registers votes in bar codes that the human eye cannot read. The news source quotes researchers as saying: "Voters could end up with printouts that accurately spell out the names of the candidates they picked, but, because of a hack, the bar codes do not reflect those choices. Because the bar codes are what’s tabulated, voters would never know that their ballots benefited another candidate."

The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2005 a concerned Florida election supervisor engaged a data-security expert to check the vulnerability of a Dominion Voting Machine. The expert hacked in, and by changing a few lines of code on the machine’s memory card, changed the results of a mock election. Although Dominion later insisted the vulnerabilities were fixed, the same expert said the fixes were insufficient.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeets (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Quote mining exercise.

2. General concern over the technology, not Dominion.

3. General concern over the technology.

4. I am not aware of any bar code that the human eye can read... but again this is just speculation and general concern over the technology.

5. Does the expert prove it is possible to do this in an actual election, per machine?

Most of this content belongs at Electronic voting or similar type articles about the technology. Koncorde (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Pkeets: If you think outside admin attention is needed on this page, please be my guest and request it. I am growing concerned that you appear to believe some of the allegations that have been swirling around Dominion and hacking/vote switching/whatever else in the 2020 presidential election (which is fine, you're free to believe whatever you like), and because of that are trying to introduce poorly-sourced and improperly-weighted material about possible vulnerabilities in the system (which is not fine).

So far you've tried to use a primary source out of California to back up conclusions about the reliability of the system, and you either don't understand or are trying to misrepresent the status of the source as a secondary reliable source (as I described above). This has been resoundingly rejected by all editors who've weighed in so far in the section on the topic, #Primary vs. secondary sources.

Then you introduced a section that was entirely based on criticism of a different company: [8]. I removed this for obvious reasons, and you've responded by creating this oddly passive-aggressive section rather than expressing your concerns or explaining why you think the material is appropriate.

Now you've introduced additional grafs that are poorly weighted:

• The Salon source is describing general concerns with "hybrid" voting systems, and mentions Dominion as one of several manufacturers of such systems
• The PBS source is describing general concerns with ballot-marking devices, and mentions Dominion as one of several manufacturers of such systems
• The WSJ source is again describing general concerns with the US' election technology, with only a very brief mention of a possible security flaw in Dominion systems that dates back to 2005. The article acknowledges that Dominion says the issue was fixed almost a decade ago, and that the researcher found the updates "insufficient", which is impossibly vague.

I am concerned with this ongoing behavior: both the attempts to use shoddy sourcing to influence readers into believing Dominion is "easily hackable" (per your admission on this talk page), and now increasingly making accusations against editors who are trying to enforce quality sourcing that they are "blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking" and "disappearing paragraphs".

If Dominion is indeed "easily hackable", there should be no need to rely on such weak sources; given the amount of current attention on election security and Dominion specifically, evidence that they were hacked would make major headlines, as would allegations that their specific systems are vulnerable.

I have removed these poorly-sourced paragraphs for now, pending discussion here that the sourcing is sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective the use of Primary Sources for observable facts doesn't bother me. However the intent here is to use Primary Sources for opinions and outcomes that are presented in the source as "these are shortcomings we are working around with appropriate process" but being used here as "these are shortcomings". Stripped of context it entirely changes the tone and intent. Koncorde (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. As I wrote in the section above on Primary vs. secondary sources, I have no issue with it being used for uncontroversial descriptions of the workings of the system ("A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"), but any conclusions on system vulnerabilities should be supported by stronger sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree entirely. I would go as far as accepting the primary sources for saying an assessment was done, where it was done (date, state, people), the type of assessment and the outcome of the assessment - i.e. any published conclusion. But I suspect this article is not the right place for going into the complexities of installing software and hardware, or managing it, which reflects only on the need for security rather than any indication that the security is compromised, could be compromised, or has been compromised. If a report was to say "this software / hardware is clearly compromised and cannot be used in its current form" and as a result the election board rejected it - I would say that it would be covered in RS in any case, but if it wasn't covered in secondary sources then it could be used for the observable verifiable fact it was rejected and the reasons why. Koncorde (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that—the lack of secondary sourcing makes me wonder if the report is significant enough to add. If it is, why not any other evaluation of their systems that also has no secondary coverage? There are many. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not really covering or going into the significance which is an entirely different issue. Only that I could see a primary source being used for outcomes. i.e. if the report approved the use of the system in 2019 then if there was section in the article on where the systems are being used then we could use the primary source as verification of that observable fact. But by the same token if the intent was to install and it was rejected, then that could be equally used. Koncorde (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I discarded the sources I found that didn't address Dominion directly. All the above sources are solid and reliable and address Dominion systems directly, as well as discussing other proprietary systems. None of this material is from Dominion, the primary source. All should be acceptable to show how secure and reliable the systems are for use in an election. Pkeets (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Primary sourcing for Dominion doesn't just mean Dominion themselves (that would be Self Published). Primary sourcing refers to content of the time and day (or thereabouts) such as a report on implementation in Pennsylvania. Leafing through it to find a bit where they comment on having to use an Android device with the ports covered is close to Original Research as there is no analysis being done by a reliable secondary source. In effect you are deciding that the vulnerability listed is significant.

Other sources are outdated, so could be used but only in reference to the events of 2005 to 2012 (anything after that is speculation by the expert unless he demonstrates in the article how the weakness remains), or are raising general concerns with the technology / concept (and digitised voting as a broader concept). Koncorde (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pkeets: You are, again, conflating primary/secondary sources and independent/self-published sources. You also haven't addressed the bulk of the concerns here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoax v. conspiracy theory; object v. subject

The second graf of the lede currently reads: Dominion was the subject of a 2020 hoax, amplified by followers of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory and later spread by One America News Network, President Donald Trump, and Trump surrogates and supporters. They have alleged that the company’s voting machines were compromised, resulting in millions of votes for Trump being deleted or switched to votes for Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election.

References

But none of these sources use the word "hoax". "Hoax" also seems like a bad fit, as opposed to "conspiracy theory". A hoax implies material or information that has been fabricated; a conspiracy theory, by contrast, is a (generally false) account of events that have occurred, without independent evidence or fabrication of such evidence.

I also don't think "object" is appropriate here, as Special:Diff/990536462 by CozyandDozy suggested. "Subject", as in subject of a book or a controversy, is more apt. I think "subject of a 2020 conspiracy theory …" would work best here. It's also possible that the description of the theory is too detailed for the lede. What do others think? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoax is wrong; it's either conspiracy theories or else false claims by Trump and his supporters. The Augusta Chronicle uses "claims" repeatedly in their fact check here: [9]. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Prefer "conspiracy theory" or "baseless claims" to "hoax" and prefer "subject". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Legal domicile

It would be nice to find a reliable secondary source that describes where DVS is incorporated.

Dominion Voting Systems LLC (file no 5131979) and Dominion Voting Systems, Inc (file no 4706613) are both incorporated in Delaware per this search tool, and (h/t Brianacoon) Dominion Voting Systems, Inc does business in Colorado as a "foreign corporation" (ID 20101359683) per this tool. (Foreign corporation does not mean anything sinister: it just means the company is not incorporated in the jurisdiction where it's registered to do business.) I don't think there's a great way to find Ontario corporate registrations online for free, which would presumably be where the Canadian parent (?) is incorporated.

The reason I reverted Brianacoon's recent addition is that we would need a secondary source describing where the business is incorporated, and explicitly linking the corporate name listed in the database to the subject of this article. It's a bit weird to say that it's headquartered in two places without actually knowing whose laws it's incorporated under. May be some trivia of interest only to me, but thought I'd mention. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The corporate structure appears to be "Dominion Voting Systems International Corporation, a Barbados corporation (#32449); Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (#4706613); and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation, a Canadian corporation (#1998653)," described as the defendants in Smartmatic International Corporation v. Dominion Voting Systems International Corporation (Del Ch. 2013). Seraphim3 (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

References

MOS:LEAD

@CozyandDozy: The lead should not be the only place information is located in an article. Leads are meant to summarize the article body, and so should generally not contain information that is not mentioned elsewhere. The latest claim you've added, "Voting machines manufactured by Dominion were used to process votes in twenty-eight states, including the swing states of Wisconsin and Georgia, during the United States presidential election of 2020", is not reflected in the article body. Thank you for adding a source, though.

As an aside, I'm a little concerned about the immense weight we're giving to 2020 events in the article lead. This company has been around for almost 20 years and has been used internationally, but 3/4 of the lead is devoted to events over the past month in the US. That's not to say the 2020 events shouldn't be mentioned in the lead—they absolutely should—but the weight seems off. It seems like a WP:RECENTISM issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ope, looks like you added it to the article body while I was writing this. There's no source, though, and no mention of Wisconsin. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Gorilla, here is the source: https://www.newsweek.com/dominion-voting-systems-categorically-denies-election-tech-glitches-following-trump-accusations-1547405. You're right that there wasn't one before, my mistake.

I think the weight is appropriate in light of RS coverage of Dominion. Nevertheless, I would welcome anyone who wants to add more RS content to the article and the lede, about other stuff dominion has done. CozyandDozy (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be best if you could find a better source than Newsweek (WP:RSP#Newsweek). Currently the lead does not even mention that the voting machines are used outside the US, so we should at least adjust it to reflect that. A reader also could just as easily come away from the lead thinking the company was a year old, as no mention of company history pre-2020 exists there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree that we should add another paragraph to the lede, and also more content to the article, about the company's history and other activities, pre-2020. I ask that you give me a day to do this, since I have to do some work now.

As to the Newsweek thing, I hear you but I think this one should get a pass, since it is not a contentious claim that Dominion machines were used in these states. (The link you gave me says NW articles are weak sources but should be judged on a "case by case basis.)

One request for advice: Could you refer me to a WP manual/guide of citation? The foundational problem with my lack of proper citations is personal laziness, but a secondary problem, which will also have to be addressed, is my confusion about what the standards of citing things are. (It seems like some sources are cited MLA, others APA, others chicago, other rando, etc.) CozyandDozy (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to do that work, and no worries on timing—I'm hardly going to demand an editor who is volunteering their time to improve an article must do it faster, or sacrifice their work to do so.

Are there not sources that verify this other than Newsweek?

We use all kinds of citation styles throughout the project, and the rule is generally to match whatever style is already being used on the page. WP:Citing sources or WP:INLINE are probably the best answer for what you're looking for, though like many such pages they go into an overwhelming amount of detail. I would strongly recommend you (and any editor) use the citation templates, which are in wide use across the project and handle much of the formatting for you. I'm not sure if you're a user of the VisualEditor but it does a lot of the work for you when you click the "Cite" button, and defaults to using those templates. If not, the source editor also has a "cite" option on the toolbar which will allow you to insert the templates. Both editors will allow you to try to autogenerate a citation from the URL, though this has varying degrees of success depending on how well the source website formats its metadata. It's often at least a good start, though usually I find myself manually editing the citation parameters to fill in missing or malformed values.

I would encourage you not to let the esoteric world of citation formatting get in your way of citing sources at all, though. Even just slapping <ref>https://www.whateversourceurlhere.com</ref> at the end of the sentence is miles better than no source, because at least other editors can verify what you've added and fix the citation format if needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla, I have just revamped the lede. If you still have concerns I'd be interested in hearing them. CozyandDozy (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@CozyandDozy: Are these claims sourced anywhere? "While Dominion voting machines have been utilized in countries around the world, its two main clients are Canada and the United States" and "In regards to the United States, Dominion products have been increasingly utilized in recent years."? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Verified Voting

Is https://verifiedvoting.org a reliable source? It's being used to support a sentence or two in the lede (the information in which should be replicated in the body, btw, if it isn't already). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: That seems to be the Verified Voting Foundation. My admittedly brief look leads me to believe it's generally reliable. I'm not sure about the WP:DUE level of this edit from 2019 [10] by Special:Contributions/Brent_Turner on that page, partly because I'm not clear on the status of "FastCompany" as a source.

For what it's being used for (verified info on the kinds of machines Dominion makes) it seems like a good source to me. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Fair enough. A quick glance at the GNews result suggests that they are regarded as something as an authority in the media too. If they/their founder are good enough for the NYT, presumably they're good enough for us too. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Clinton ties to Dominion

WP:NOTFORUM

The Clinton Global Initiative supported Dominion Voting System through Delian Project: Democracy through technology. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/delian-project-democracy-through-technology.Jray2175 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Okay. And...... 331dot (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC) It seems to be some kind of oblique way to cast aspersions about some kind of conspiracy theory, especially given what the Delian Project [11] actually is, and what the Clinton Global Initiative is (not a direct donor, but merely a group connecting individual projects to potential donors or partners). I would prefer to just strike this as WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTFORUM stuff unless they have a specific edit they want to suggest. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC) This is a specific edit. The page states there is no connection to the Clintons and Dominion. This proves there is, stated in black and white! Conspiracy theory? That is just plain goofy. That is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. What do you think your saying when you label something "conspiracy theory"? It is either true or not! Besides the fact that I was not claiming a conspiracy. I am disproving the assertion that there is no connection between the Clintons and Dominion.Jray2175 (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The article is referring to claims that "Dominion had close ties to the Clinton family". IHateAccounts has just explained to you why that does not sound like a "close tie"; furthermore, you would need a secondary reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC) "AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Dominion made a one-time philanthropic commitment at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting in 2014, but the Clinton Foundation has no stake or involvement in Dominion’s operations, the nonprofit confirmed to The Associated Press." https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-us-news-media-michigan-43bdaa186e3b8d9d897cae3bd0c6cdc0 - The source in the article addresses and debunks the claim made by Jray2175. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Dominion Voting is listed in a Washington Post table as having donated between $25,001- $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-foundation-donor-list/ It in 2014 donated its election technology throughout the world through the Clinton Global Initiative. Those are close enough ties to me. Now we can debate what warrants "close ties" all day long. The fact that we can debate that, shows that the statement on the page is misleading! If you want to replace it with the Clintons do not have current financial ties to Dominion. I am fine with that. It however is clearly misleading and false to even suggest they have had no ties in the past. Jray2175 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC) No, the article says only "Trump and others also made unsubstantiated claims that Dominion had close ties to the Clinton family or other Democrats." Since the Clinton Foundation was created 23 years ago, it has had untold thousands of contacts with untold thousands of organizations, the vast majority of which have never had any contact with Bill, Hillary or Chelsea because the Foundation employs many professional managers to do all the real work. This is yet another attempt to smear the Clintons with a vague accusation of "connections." soibangla (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The Clinton Foundation is obviously run by the Clintons. I find it hilarious that [IHateAccounts] posts AP's ASSESSMENT that states in the article that Clinton and Dominion are tied together once to disprove they have no ties. I digress. Jray2175 (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Since you seem to not understand how conferences like this function, I am providing a link. They are large-scale events with multiple panels, breakout sessions, small group discussions, workshops, and meet-and-greet events occurring through each day. There's no evidence that the Clintons even met anyone from Dominion Voting Systems in passing, let alone "are tied together". https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/meetings/annual-meetings/2014 IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) There is no evidence they didn't meet either. The point is irrelevant. The Clinton Foundation and all their employees represents the Clinton family. The definition of a tie is to "restrict or limit (someone) to a particular situation, occupation, or place. The sources have proven that the Clinton Foundation and Dominion at least twice have been in the same situation, the same place, and have worked together. Thus they have ties! Thus the statement "there is no evidence for any of these claims" is false and at best misleading. Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) The inference from "close ties" is obviously intended to suggest bias on the part of Dominion, or direct interference / control from the Clintons. The reliable sources have clearly identified neither of those things are true, and now we are being asked to go through 6 Degrees of Separation to argue over what is and isn't the close tie that Trump or any associated group or individuals may be on about. You would struggle to find many companies that haven't donated to philanthropic organisations. It would take an RS stating that the donation established clear links for us to duplicate the claim (or place it in dispute). Koncorde (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC) And it would be false to claim that those "philanthropic organisations" have no ties to the Clinton Foundation.Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Jray2175 If you just want to push pro-Trump conspiracy theories, please do so elsewhere. If you want to civilly collaborate with the rest of us, regardless of political viewpoint, please heed what you are being told. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC) I already made the point about conspiracy theories. Theories? You thought the links I presented was theory? Pro-Trump? I said not one thing about Trump. We're talking about the Clinton Foundation and Dominion here. Please stay on topic. Your statement says more about your Anti-Trump bias then anything. So your saying I have to abide by your bias to contribute on here? I am not going anywhere. Heed what I am being told? Are you trying to intimidate me? Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Just to put some more evidence to back up my claim. The AP source referenced also mentions Nancy Pelosi. It states "Other social media sleuths pointed to Dominion’s hiring of Nadeam Elshami, Pelosi’s former chief of staff, as part of its lobbying team as alleged evidence of a link between the company and Pelosi." Then says that "it’s true that Elshami is part of a lobbying team representing Dominion, according to public disclosures." Your own source reveals their are links to both the Clinton Foundation and Nancy Pelosi. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-us-news-media-michigan-43bdaa186e3b8d9d897cae3bd0c6cdc0Jray2175 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dominion equipment of interest to 2020 US Election

Reports (whether true or not) of improper behavior of Dominion Voting Systems equipment have started appearing in reference to the 2020 Election in the United States. This may leave the page vulnerable to vandalism. I do not have the privilege to lock the article.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/antrim-county-results-election-2020/6185031002/ The article above details information about the use of the software in Antrim county, MI, where a disproportionate amount of votes were incorrect. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-biden-election-results-11-06-20/h_cea5da87d01a2365d79863c9912d5c64 The article above has information on delays attributed to Dominion in Gwinnett county, GA. Both articles confirm that the errors were noticed and corrected and after manual entering the correct numbers were eventually reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somers-all-the-time (talk • contribs) 01:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Somers-all-the-time (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

When you post unfactual information it will make you look like an unreliable or bias source. In the United States there are currently nearly 1000 or more documented legal affidavits stating that the software used in these computers was intentionally corrupted to allow cheating or the bumping of votes. Because this is an ongoing investigation which may result in legal action, it would be ill advised to post that the President of the US has spread untruthful information.

The comment above regarding the State of Georgia is just one example. Michigan has also publicly stated these issues occured. More states are currently being audited. While Dominion is the Voting Computer provider, they are not the technical support or the computer program company. PapaTango123 (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say, which is that there is no evidence supporting the claims and that they have been debunked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

May I ask what you consider reliable sources? As there have been numerous affidavits and numerous employees from Dominion who have come forward stating under sworn testimony that these issues occurred and are ongoing. This is fact not assumption and the people who’ve testified could face prosecution for perjury if they lied. Stating the President of the United States is stating misinformation and his claims have been debunked is incorrect. The President stated fact which was disclosed on National news, regarding the machines flipping votes. In the ongoing investigation the tally appears to be a 3% effect of votes flipped from one candidate to another. Until this is completely clarified and resolved, I still suggest not calling the President a liar as it looks very bias in context. PapaTango123 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, PapaTango123,

Look here for what Wikipedia considers reliable sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. This is the consensus after years and years of debate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

Thank you Liz~ that was very helpful! I question the use of Snopes as a fact check, and advise that others use multiple sources as they are bias and unreliable. PapaTango123 (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@PapaTango123: We do generally consider Snopes to be reliable (WP:RSP#Snopes), but this article doesn't use Snopes as a source at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry if that was out of context. I was referring to the list of references. PapaTango123 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Some have made false claims that Dominion had close ties" should probably have the word 'false' removed. "Some have made claims that..." otherwise, it fails Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view @SmithAndTeam (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you identify any significant reliable sources giving any credence to the claims? Can you find any saying that they are true? Or even plausible? Is the description of the claims as false demonstrably inaccurate? Koncorde (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing "false" does not make the sentence POV, it makes it misleading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the word false. No one knows if these statements are false or not. It's clearly written in a way that is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:7B02:D510:D020:F439:2C6F:B19A (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliability section

The Reliability section points out the one (possible) failure for certification, Texas. But in 28 other states, DVS passed certification, plus the national standards. This is simply cherry picking. What is the solution to providing better context for the Texas datum? I can cite GA's formal documentation? VerifyVote.org may also have this information. KDIsom (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

On November 17, the BBC website published a piece which explained that the reason Texas rejected use of Dominion, was that Texas has stipulated additional requirements beyond those stipulated by the Federal Government, which the Dominion machines are unable to satisfy, such as that each ballot has a unique number so it can be traced: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54959962 Ekaterina Colclough (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Allied Security Operations Group - a right wing conspiracy group

See this: "Everylegalvote.com lists its sponsors and financial backers as a coalition of right-wing groups including Allied Security Operations Group, the Economic War Room, and Liberty Center for God and Country. An office manager at Allied Security Operations Group, who declined to give her name, said by phone that the group was a private Dallas-based cybersecurity firm. She said the issue of voter fraud was an area of specialty of the company’s chief financial officer, Russell Ramsland, a businessman who ran for Congress in Texas as a Republican in 2016 and was defeated in the primary. According to Mr. Ramsland’s LinkedIn profile, he has an M.B.A. from Harvard." That's a reliable source. We can't use Twitter, but see [12] which suggests the group is linked to Michael Finn.

Vice describes a presentation in Texas on the "Deep State" saying " After an opening prayer, Russ Ramsland—a Harvard graduate, CFO of a Dallas-based private security firm, and former candidate for US Congress—wasted no time in laying out the threat posed by the Deep State, which he defined as a secretive, nefarious cabal of government bureaucrats, Islamists, leftists, and establishment Republicans that coalesced in Nazi Germany more than 75 years ago. Deep state actors desperately want to take out President Trump, and true patriots had to act now to save him, Ramsland explained."[13].--Doug Weller talk 18:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And this[14] which has several useful points to make and this comment "The Ramsland report “lacks a basic level of clarity or transparency about research methods or data sources that would be expected in a scientific communication,”. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish we could OR the shit out of this stuff. I've seen so much bunk data analysis, ham-fisted "audits" and similar reports that just leave me shaking my head. It's like Loose Change all over again. "Don't like this theory? Hang on, I have more!" Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Report on Dominion voting machines of Antrim County, Michigan

original research, not a forum soibangla (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail.... Significantly, the computer system shows vote adjudication logs for prior years; but all adjudication log entries for the 2020 election cycle are missing. The adjudication process is the simplest way to manually manipulate votes....Removal of these files violates state law and prevents a meaningful audit...We must conclude that the 2020 election cycle records have been manually removed. Likewise, all server security logs prior to 11:03 pm on November 4, 2020 are missing. This means that all security logs for the day after the election, on election day, and prior to election day are gone....The lack of records prevents any form of audit accountability, and their conspicuous absence is extremely suspicious since the files exist for previous years using the same software. On November 21, 2020, an unauthorized user unsuccessfully attempted to zero out election results. This demonstrates additional tampering with data." "https://www.9and10news.com/content/uploads/2020/12/Antrim_Michigan_Forensics_Report_121320_v2_REDACTED.pdf -Topcat777 (talk) 18:32, 14 Dec 2020 (UTC) Michigan and Dominion say the report is full of shit. Which, looking at it, makes neither head nor tail so not surprising. Koncorde (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Well, of course Dominion themselves would reject any criticism of its products, that's not a surprise. And the fact that a single MI politician, MI Elections Director Jonathan Brater, says it's false is irrelevant too. He doesn't know how the machines work. He's an expert on voting law and policy, not cybersecurity or data forensics or any of the sort. Neither DVS nor that politician are presenting any evidence to back up their claims. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC) The report should definitely be included in the article, maybe something along the lines of: An independent forensics report concluded that "the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail.", while Dominion Voting Systems in response claimed to be "the subject of a continuing malicious and widespread disinformation campaign intended to undermine confidence in the Nov. 3 election". Seems fair enough to both sides. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC) We would need reliable sources that consider the report credible to give it any credibility ourselves. This is particularly important when the person responsible is someone already discredited. Koncorde (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC) There are reliable sources saying so. Here's one by a reliable independent journalist. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC) BitChute is a far-right website with no known editorial standards that hosts conspiracy theories. This material is not reliable at all. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC) You may wish to review the reliable sources policy, which will both help you identify reliable sources. It will also help explain why, although work by a journalist (in this case, Tim Pool) may become a reliable source when it is published by a reputable publication with a reputation for fact-checking, we do not identify certain individuals as "reliable sources" and take every word they say to be fact. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Are you saying that respect for human rights is a far-right principle? That's a very interesting opinion... Bitchute itself is neither Left nor Right, like other platforms such as Youtube or Facebook it doesn't stand for the views expressed in individual videos or posts. And contrary to your statement, it does have very clear community guidelines just as all platforms do. That's something you could have easily verified before falsely claiming otherwise. It baffles me how some people prefer to believe in evidently false statements by so-called authority figures and reject all evidence to the contrary. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I suspect AleatoryPonderings was referring to the fact that BitChute is known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material. Regardless of where the video was posted (BitChute, YouTube, Vimeo, wherever), it's not a reliable source because of WP:SPS. If you would like to publish your own research and opinions on what is or is not true, I would recommend starting a blog. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Bitchute also accomodates far-left views and conspiracies, that's what it means to stand for free speech. Are they therefore both far-right as well as far-left? The reason that not many far-left creators are on Bitchute is that, unlike the Right, they were never forced off of Youtube and are still there. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC) If you wish to establish the reliability of this BitChute-hosted video, you are invited to visit WP:RSN to establish a consensus in favour of using the material. However, I predict that the community will find that the guidelines you linked do not constitute an editorial policy, since they appear geared towards facilitating user-generated content. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the invite but I have no wish to take part in these manipulative games. Of course they don't have editorial guidelines, they're not a publisher. They're a platform. You must know the difference between the two. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Yes, I do know the difference. Platforms, because they typically do not have editorial standards, do not confer reliability on the content they host. Media that do have editorial standards, by contrast, may well confer reliability on the content they host. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Reliability is not a title conferred by fiat by any authority, publisher or otherwise. Reliability is gained over time by an entity making accurate statements about reality and/or predictions about the future which are independently verified to be so. But I understand very well that's not how so-called "reliability" works here on WP. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I think there are larger issues here[15], aside from just the proposer's trying to get insertion of a "report" that all WP:RS indicate has factual problems. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure what LGBT has to do with the current topic. Do you happen to have an answer or additional info on the question I posed "over there"? If so, you could just post there, I don't think here's the place for it. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC) At this point, we are talking neither about Dominion or your ill-advised comment at LGBT. WP:NOTFORUM now applies, as there are no outstanding content issues to address. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC) To the IP user: It is not acceptable to continue protesting Wikipedia policies in talk page when other users have already explained it is impossible to comply with your editorial demand. To be fair, I do not endorse IHateAccounts' digression. Further abuse of Wikipedia talk page in such manner will be met with instant closure or removal of your topic. -- -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Do as you please, it's your Wiki. I merely tried to bring a bit of common sense into the conversation. If you're going to disappear this thread, at the very least I think OP should be informed in advance. Good day. 190.100.175.35 (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC) One might think Ramsland would have selected a county Biden won to prove fraud, but Trump won Antrim County by 24 points. soibangla (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV

conspiracy theory stuff that definitely violates WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to Huffington Post, a source that is both reliable and not in any way subservient to the Trump campaign/movement, the original intellectual property underlying the Dominion voting software is still owned by a company linked to the Chavez family: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/exclusive-on-heels-of-die_b_620084 This article looks like it was written by a Dominion PR employee. The links to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela are undeniable. I cordially invite that Dominion PR representative to step forward, identify himself/herself, and acknowledge that whether he/she is actually employed by Dominion or not, he/she is acting as Dominion's PR representative on Wikipedia. Then we can start editing this article in a genuinely NPOV manner. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Hugo Chavez died in 2013. Are you Trump's PR representative on Wikipedia? If you have specific changes to propose, please offer them without unfounded accusations and conspiracy theories. 331dot (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Sure. Let's start with adding a sentence to the end of the lead section, citing the Huffington Post article I listed above, and stating that the intellectual property of Dominion's software is still owned by Sequoia, a company with direct links to the Chavez family. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC) And no, I am not Trump's PR representative. I'm just a concerned US citizen, and this article is definitely not NPOV. It appears to have been written by Dominion's PR representative. Are you Dominion's PR representative? 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dominion sues Rudy Giuliani

According to CNN: Dominian has not only sued Sidney Powell but also Rudy Giuliani: Dominion sues Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion over false election claims --MichaelK-osm (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

another video with the CEO of Dominion about the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qx-4g2bSc --MichaelK-osm (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@MichaelK-osm: See Dominion Voting Systems#Lawsuits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Security flaws, corporate whitewashing

The infamous voting system-related grave security problems vastly predate the 2020 election. Must be mentioned, with some links perhaps to other coverage of the issue. I’m wondering if all of that’s been sanitized; I recall we had good info on this once. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5B (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please provide the coverage that you think ought to be mentioned. You may find WP:RS and WP:RSP to be worth skimming first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with / disbelieving of the claims re. Diebold? As I recall they were of the here’s a paper from/video of a university security researcher compromising the machines variety. No? And ATM machines getting Code Red worm infected. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5B (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar, that's why I'm asking you to provide your sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

https://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/252487307/Voting-vendor-ESS-unveils-vulnerability-disclosure-program:

“ ES&S has grappled with high-profile vulnerabilities and security issues in the past. In 2018, The New York Times reported some of the vendor's products contained a flawed remote access program called PCAnywhere. After initially denying the report, ES&S admitted it had installed PCAnywhere on its election management system (EMS) workstations for a "small number of customers between 2000 and 2006," according to a letter sent to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that was obtained by Motherboard.

Last year Motherboard reported that security researchers had found additional issues with how ES&S products electronically transmit vote totals, but the company pushed back on the research.

”

Or most any overview - https://pbcnow.org/the-republicans-own-virtually-all-of-the-voting-machines/ , https://www.blackhat.com/latestintel/06052018-history-voting-machine-vulnerabilities.html , or https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/defcon-2019-hacking-village/ --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, those are helpful. Do you have any suggestions of the text you think should be added based on those sources? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I found some. - noted below.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

internal research / resurrection

I recall we had good info on this once. Probably need to dig into the archives? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should take Blackwater_(company) as a model for covering this topic, because like with Blackwater, it's apparent (to some) that there's been a naked and in the case of wikipedia, successful campaign to bury the companies sordid history by renaming. Any objections? Essentially, this company is the entity that has been the dominant provider of voting systems, as Diebold and ES&S, for decades.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

All edits to the page are retained in page history if you think there's something that was once on the page that is no longer. As for "any objections?", what are you suggesting be changed? Are you suggesting this article be retitled to "Diebold"? Because that subject has articles of its own at Premier Election Solutions and Diebold Nixdorf. I'm not sure the Blackwater comparison is apt; Blackwater was simply renamed, whereas Diebold was (and still is) an entirely different company from Dominion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No, not specifically that retitling. I'm saying change is warranted in the specified direction - so since Premier Election Solutions and Diebold Nixdorf have some of the info that should be here, I'll simply include some, as a less disruptive solution. We'll see what folks think. Was it simply renamed twice? The products are "Entirely different"? You have sources for that? Contradicting that essentially, this company is the entity that has been the dominant provider of voting systems, as Diebold and ES&S, for decades. Are you saying the specifics of which legal entities survived how is encyclopedic? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote, which is that the companies, not the products, are entirely different. Diebold remains a separate company from Dominion. The assets of Diebold's former subsidiary, Premier, were sold to Dominion, so presumably they make use of that technology. But I don't think it's safe to say that "this company is the entity that has been the dominant provider of voting systems, as Diebold and ES&S"—presumably by "this company" you mean Premier Election Solutions.

I saw your change in which you attempted to introduce the "controversies" section from the Premier article to this one; I agree with WMSR's revert. Company A selling some of their assets to company B does not mean that company B is now retroactively responsible for the actions of company A. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't be hostile - namely implying I didn't read what you wrote. And don't misleadingly "quote" me by cutting the "essentially" from my statement. Shame. Please don't avoid the concerns I raised, questions I asked, or my request for sources. The latter sentence goes for wmsr too.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile, nor am I misleadingly quoting you. The companies are not the same entity, nor are they essentially the same entity as far as I can tell. The burden of proof here is on you, to show that they are—not on anyone else to prove a negative. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your denials so don't address this. 2+2 is still 4. You weren't implying I didn't read what you wrote? You didn't cut the "essentially" from my statement? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit adds thoroughly cited content that shows they're essentially the same entity, so why do you still keep denying it? If you still won't/can't answer, an RFC seems warranted.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"Thoroughly cited"? There is not a single citation in that edit. I am not sure why you keep accusing me of "denying" that the two companies are the same, as though that has been made clear and I am ignoring it. Perhaps they are, I don't pretend to know that much about the history of either. But what I am saying is that I have yet to see any sourcing suggesting that they are the same in the way that you claim. The sourcing supports that the assets of Diebold's former subsidiary, Premier, were sold to Dominion. But the claim that they are "essentially the same company" is not one you've supported with citations, so far as I've seen. As I said above: the burden of proof is on you. If you'd like to begin an RfC, please be my guest, but I'd recommend finding some sourcing first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thoroughly cited. I trust others will be able to see the citations by clicking on the little numbers in the text at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1004350951#Controversies (note the #anchor) to see the citations my edit added. Despite the literally true but, umm..., odd totally not statement that "There is not a single citation in that edit." We agree - "the assets of Diebold's former subsidiary, Premier, were sold to Dominion" - so I am puzzled by your responses.

It seems you take things extremely, extraordinarily literally. But only sometimes; at others, you are very imprecise, and not literal at all. I continue to wonder why you are yet again claiming that I "keep accusing [you] of "denying" that the two companies are the same", twice cutting the "essentially" from my statement, each time. When, on top of that, you avoid answering, "You didn't cut the "essentially" from my statement?", I don't see and start to feel foolish continuing to try to think of an explanation compatible with good faith editing on your part - other than an unreasonable one, such as that you think baiting me constitutes good faith editing.

Again, please answer: You weren't implying I didn't read what you wrote? You didn't cut the "essentially" from my statement?

Actually, I may be on to something. Maybe you think I'm trying to surface buried dirt on problems with US election security because I'm one of the wingnuts who believes the 45's Big Lie; if so, I'm not; you couldn't be more wrong. We agree - "the assets of Diebold's former subsidiary, Premier, were sold to Dominion" - but not as to what the citations show about the extent to which the guts of the one are largely the guts guts of the other. Maybe you are fighting my edit because maybe you are eager to protect Dominion's reputation because of the lawsuit they filed? Guessing at your political leanings, it seems like we both wish Dominion well with their lawsuit. Come to think of it, I suppose I don't mind if the problem isn't fixed 'till the suit is over. Does go to show that my editing is in good faith, as if I was editing purely in alignment with my political leanings, I would be happy to have the whitewashing of Dominion's article stand for now.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to the citations that were brought in when you {{excerpt}}-ed the contents of various sections in "Premier Election Solutions", those are not sufficient to show that these events are relevant to Dominion. Take for example the first paragraph: neither source even mentions Dominion, and you have not presented any citations to show that O'Dell is directly involved with Dominion in any way. From what I am seeing at Walden O'Dell, he left Diebold in 2005, five years before Dominion acquired Premier/Dominion Election Systems, and this controversy you opted to include into this article was two years even before that. How on earth is that relevant to Dominion, when O'Dell was clearly not working for Dominion by the time they bought the company, and hadn't even worked for the company that was acquired for years?

I absolutely was implying you didn't read what I wrote, at least not closely, because your statement completely misrepresented what I said. When I write "Diebold was (and still is) an entirely different company from Dominion", and you reply "The products are 'Entirely different'?", I think it's safe to assume you misread and ask you to reread.

I disagree. But I appreciate the explanation. Indeed, your assumption was wrong. I asked a follow-up question because I did understand what you wrote. That question in no way misrepresented anything you had said; it didn't say you'd said anything, accurately or otherwise. Instead of answering the question, you, well, told me to read, and now claim I misrepresented... anything but answer the question. I was trying to find some common ground. I explained generally what I think should happen. I provided a specific edit. I'm not seeing any flexibility or any move toward a middle ground. Just a 100% dismissal of every single sentence of my addition. Is there really no common ground? If there was substantial evidence the company had turned over a new leaf - had cleaned out the worst parts in terms of culture, product and staff, as opposed to just changing its stripes, and was putting out quality product, I would agree that O'Dell would be irrelevant and perhaps much of the rest of the history I added. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

And yes, I paraphrased what you said, omitting "essentially". I didn't feel the need to repeat myself when you repeated your question, because I already clarified my meaning above: The companies are not the same entity, nor are they essentially the same entity as far as I can tell.

I have no idea what your political leanings are, and I have made no assumptions that you are any kind of "wingnut". I do not appreciate the bad faith you are showing towards me here, particularly your accusations guesses that I am "eager to protect Dominion's reputation", and that I am editing in bad faith, baiting you, or that I am trying to "whitewash" (or leave whitewashed) an article because it aligns with my political views. I have no love for companies who make electronic voting systems, I assure you, and while a lot of the criticism they received surrounding these elections was bizarre and implausible, there is much valid criticism to be given to them. I have no goals here besides to ensure that this article is well-sourced and NPOV, and that includes ensuring that it is actually describing Dominion rather than including information on events that appear to be unrelated to the company. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. But your unfounded accusations are getting out of hand. Please strike your claim that I made those accusations. If I may further clarify, I am trying to understand, and put forth similar ideas as a possibility only, a way of seeking mutual understanding; I think I made that amply clear, but reiterate it now. If you'd like, I'd be happy to strike any sentences or retract accusations by me that you can identify as unfounded. (Feel free to italicise them.) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, with respect to the statements you've asked me to strike: are you referring to the points following where I wrote "particularly your accusations that..." or are you referring to something else? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see why you put quotation marks around my words but omitted the 'essentially'. I'm saying please strike the sentence containing "particularly your accusations that".

Just to make it extra clear that what what I see as clearly marked as guesses, and were meant as guesses, but you characterized as accusations, aren't accusations, and to try to be extra cordial, I have struck them.

Furthermore, I agree - the corporate criticism was bizarre and implausible. So much so it has resulted in a big defamation suit that reportedly is likely to succeed. The only odd thing to me was this: When I was hearing about the suit, I was struck by the idea of a company that was in the voting systems business having a reputation worth the big bucks it sued for. How could a voting systems business have a valuable reputation when, to my knowledge, there was no major business in the industry that was not producing product that was widely known to be F-grade, security-wise, I wondered. THAT is what led me to find that the history was half buried. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have replaced "accusations" with "guesses", but that word choice is hardly sufficient to warrant the description of "unfounded accusations" given I was precisely describing what you said about me. Regardless, I have no interest in continuing to bicker about motivations. I've got this page on my watchlist, so if you find any citations to support adding the contested material, I'll give it a look. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

promoted conspiracy theories vs expressed concerns vs promoted fake news

Acroterion I can see why you replaced "expressed concerns", but is the replacement better?

How about "promoted fake news" (or "promoted unfounded theories")? I think it's relatively objective to say something is unfounded or fake (depending on the outlandishness of the essentially evidence-free claims) vs a conspiracy. It's just not encyclopedic in tone. With the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that belief that US TLAs conducted hundreds of clandestine experiments in mind control on largely unwitting participants wasn't a mere conspiracy theory.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

They didn't express concerns. Koncorde (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t “replace” anything, I reverted to consensus. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not fake news. It is not a conspiracy theory. I AM NOT CLAIMING that Trump won the election and had it stolen.

Is that clear?

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D), Ron Wyden (D) and Amy Klobuchar (D) wrote the following letter raising concerns about the security of voting machines, including Dominion. The date on the letter is December 2019.

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/H.I.G.%20McCarthy,%20&%20Staple%20Street%20letters.pdf

We are particularly concerned that secretive and "trouble-plagued companies,"2 owned by private equity firms and responsible for manufacturing and maintaining voting machines and other election administration equipment, "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems."3

Footnotes indicate that the sources for the three quotes (used by Senators Warren (D), Wyden (D) and Klobuchar (D)) are The Atlantic, ProPublica and The Associated Press, which are not right-wing websites hatching conspiracy theories.

CNN isn't a right-wing conspiracy theory website either. This CNN video takes us to a "hackers' convention," where hackers show the CNN cameraman how easy it is to hack the nonexistent security of these voting machines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA2DWMHgLnc&feature=emb_logo

This video is from October 2017, from a conference of the Atlantic Council on voting machine security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpDtr7pQK8g

And of course, there's the original source that I used from the Huffington Post, which I presented back in January, showing that the intellectual property of Dominion voting machine software is still owned by a company named Smartmatic, with links to the Chavez socialist regime:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/exclusive-on-heels-of-die_b_620084

These are reliable sources. The letter at the top is posted on Warren's official Senate website. Concerns about Dominion's nonexistent data security on their voting machines, their lies about the intellectual property, and the IP's continued ownership by Smartmatic are not conspiracy theories. Concerns such as these are very real, very reasonable, and supported by four reliable sources. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Strident claims regarding the security of voting machines fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Accordingly, talk page discussion must focus on actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources and due material. Do not post again unless in support of an identified proposal, and do not bludgeon the page if that proposal does not have consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

These are not "strident claims," so don't dismiss them like that. Look at the end of the second paragraph, where you see the following two sentences:

Dominion products have been increasingly utilized in the United States in recent years. The company drew extensive attention during the United States presidential election of 2020, when devices manufactured by Dominion were used to process votes in twenty-eight states, including the swing states of Wisconsin and Georgia.

Cut off those two sentences, then add them to the beginning of the third paragraph where they belong. Between the second and third paragraph add the following paragraph.

During the period between the American presidential elections in 2016 and 2020, several sources expressed concerns about the security of Dominion voting machines and software. In 2017, CNN published video of a hackers' convention, showing a Dominion voting machine being quickly hacked. [source] In 2019, three Democratic senators investigated whether a private equity firm that owned Dominion had " 'skimped on security in favor of convenience,' leaving voting systems across the country 'prone to security problems.' " [Source]

Later in the article, at the appropriate point in the timeline, the article can discuss these two events further. 2601:245:4003:2530:3C70:C986:B268:B6E7 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is also pretty classic WP:SYNTHESIS. I appreciate that you're making a good faith effort here, but these are disparate threads weaved together to try to bolster extraordinary claims that are mostly unsupported. Also, general concerns about electronic voting are just that- general, and not really directly applicable to the subject of this article, which is this particular company. It would be more applicable, perhaps, in a general parent article about the topic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Senators Elizabeth Warren, (D) Amy Klobuchar (D) and Ron Wyden (D) have already done my synthesis for me. Please read their letter, linked above. They pull together the concerns expressed in several different sources. Their letter is very professional. The footnoting is both extensive and exquisite. This is not prohibited WP:SYNTHESIS because this reliable source already "wove the disparate threads together." It is directly applicable to this particular company, because it was one of the three companies named on page 2 of the letter. 2601:245:4003:2530:3C70:C986:B268:B6E7 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

One other thing, Symmachus Auxiliarus: I'm not trying to "bolster extraordinary claims." I have deliberately, carefully excluded any wild claims by Trump and his followers. Republican congressmen, conservative media such as Fox News, have all been studiously avoided. I am focusing like a laser on that brief period between 2016 and 2020, when the Democrats, and their friends in the mainstream media (such as CNN), expressed their very serious concern about election integrity in general, and Dominion voting machines and software in particular. Somehow this period has been swept under the rug in the rush to condemn Trump and his followers. Events between 2016 and 2020 showed that the Democrats and mainstream media were very worried about Dominion. These two periods are not just related in my opinion, but inseparable. The first led to the second. 2601:245:4003:2530:3C70:C986:B268:B6E7 (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this edit. Flavor of the Month (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

At this point I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed with a new section at the appropriate point in the timeline, exploring the facts exposed by the four reliable sources cited above: HuffPo, the Warren letter, the CNN video, and the video of the Atlantic Council conference on election security. I will point out at this juncture that nearly every speaker at the AC conference was a former member of the Obama Administration. These are Democrats expressing these concerns. The blogger in 2010 who was republished by HuffPo is also a progressive. These are not right wing conspiracy theorists at QAnon. Flavor of the Month (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Any mention should be couched in the following terms:

1. A link to the main article on electronic voting where risks are covered.
2. There should be no inference about a specific failure or failing unless it directly refers to Dominion. Speculations about other software and or duplicated statements with generic complaints / observations are not enough for direct accusations of security failing.
3. Videos in and of themselves should be supported by articles. Viewers are not machine specialists and neither are we in order to identify any given machine is Dominion or otherwise.
4. Speculation about why voting machines were used and accepted for use with no complaint by Republicans until they lost isn't evidence, and is speculation and personal opinion not really of any value or weight. If it is indelibly linked we require reliable sources to do that.
5. Without more defined sources pre-dating 2020's election the substance is going to not be particularly considerable. Koncorde (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(A) Three Democratic senators plus one Democratic congressman in December 2019, (B) several former Obama Admin officials in 2017, and (C) several CNN reporters covering hacker conventions in 2017-19, have all presented a set of security concerns that I express analogously as the following

2 + 2 = 4

Trump, QAnon, and a tribe of fringe elements, in a very loud and extremely distorted way, amplified those concerns in 2020-21 as follows:

2 + 2 + X + Y + Z + QQQ = 209,784,351.666

This is not intended in any way to legitimize that loud distortion. There are abundant printed stories on the CNN website about coverage of these hacker conventions in 2017-19. Dominion was repeatedly invited to participate in these conventions in a proactive manner, but they repeatedly refused. It's significant in the history of the company, given the fact that Trump grabbed these concerns in November 2020 and ran all over the county with them. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, two of the three Democratic senators (Klobuchar and Warren) became presidential candidates in 2020. These are not insignificant voices. These are mainstream Democratic Party voices. Let's all be clear about this. This is not just some progressive blogger, writing in response to "Russia collusion." This was the Democratic Party talking, and the mainstream media ... in 2017-19. Dominion existed in 2017-19. They did not disappear into an alternate dimension and suddenly reappear in November 2020. This development deserves prominent coverage in mainspace including the lead section, because it is the back story. Flavor of the Month (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You said: At this point I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed with a new section at the appropriate point in the timeline. I answered. Your response doesn't appear even remotely relevant to any of the points presented. Koncorde (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Agreed. The edit will include a link to the Electronic voting article at the start of the Reliability section.
2. There is no such speculation. I have never suggested anything of the sort.
3. The logos of the companies (Dominion, Diebold) and brand names used by those companies (such as AutoMARK by ES&S) are clearly visible in the hacker convention videos, on machines that are being hacked. However, I would be quite pleased to add the several printed CNN news stories from their website covering these hacker conventions in 2017-19, when the big election related concern was Russian hacking. I'm sure we can all agree that Russian interference in our 2016 election, and the probability that they'd try again in 2020, was a very, very WP:NOTABLE topic during that period. This concern included possible hacking of the voting machines, tabulation machines and software.
4. I repeat .... There is no such speculation. I have never suggested anything of the sort.
5. I repeat .... I would be quite pleased to add the several printed CNN news stories from their website, as well as stories from a host of other mainstream and left-wing media. I don't believe anyone is going to claim that Politico, The Guardian or Salon.com is a hotbed of right-wing conspiracy theories. The last two are definitely left-wing. Fox News and other conservative media are being carefully avoided. Exclusively mainstream and left-wing sourcing will be used.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/12/politics/defcon-voting-village-darpa-dominion/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/hackers-voting-machines/index.html

https://www.salon.com/2019/03/28/new-hybrid-voting-system-can-change-paper-ballot-after-its-been-cast_partner/

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/24/elections-vendors-russia-423435

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/22/us-voting-machine-private-companies-voter-registration

[Senator Ron Wyden] said that the voting machine lobby “literally thinks they are just above the law, they are accountable to nobody, [and] they have been able to hotwire the political system in certain parts of the country like we’ve seen in Georgia”.

And there are plenty more. All of them criticize Dominion's secrecy and the vulnerabilities of their machines and software. You will get exactly what you're asking for here, Koncorde, and much, much more. Flavor of the Month (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe we should spend a few paragraphs in the Reliability section of the mainspace. Possibly creating a new, separate section to cover all of this. Several paragraphs. The remainder of the article invests multiple paragraphs flogging Trump and his supporters over events in the past three months. I want to spend just a few paragraphs, wisely and thoroughly describing the events of the previous four years. A much longer period in which a lot of notable things happened to, with and about Dominion, reported by reliable sources.

Most of all, the 2 + 2 = 4 phase of criticism against Dominion needs to be fully explored in a sane, neutral and encyclopedic tone. It happened. It was notable. Four years of notable events. All currently given little or no mention at all in the mainspace. Also the short paragraph in the lead section, introduced by me and quickly reverted by Black Kite, needs to be restored. The lead section itself closes by flogging Trump for two lengthy paragraphs over same events in the same three-month span. The preceding four years therefore deserve this brief mention in the lead section. Flavor of the Month (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Here we are, six days later. I see no further suggestions or objections. 2601:245:4003:2530:1DB6:DAA1:89E5:565 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has proposed an actual addition. Lots of references to stuff but no suggestion of how this would be written from an NPOV. Koncorde (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Well this is a start.

The Huffington Post published a 2010 report that the intellectual property (software patents) supporting Dominion software was still owned by a company with substantial links to the Venezuelan socialist regime, which was notorious for its large scale election fraud during the early 2000s.

Senators Elizabeth Warren (D), Amy Klobuchar (D), and Ron Wyden (D) investigated security vulnerabilities in Dominion's voting machines, tabulation machines and software in late 2019:

The three vendors -- Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCivic -- collectively distribute voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all eligible voters in the United States. Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these vendors, which "have long skimped on security in favor of convenience," leaving voting systems across the country "prone to security problems." ...

"(W)e have concerns about the spread and effect of private equity investment in many sectors of the economy, including the election technology industry--an integral part of our nation's democratic process." wrote the lawmakers in their letters to the firms. "These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack."

Texas rejected use of ballot counting software from Dominion Voting Systems three times, according to a report from the Secretary of State's office dated January 2020. According to the report, issued by Deputy Secretary of State José Esparza, "Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation."

It goes in at the beginning of the Reliability section, which will be renamed "Intellectual property and data security issues." Also restoring the paragraph in the lead section reverted by Black Kite. I haven't yet written the 2-3 paragraphs I was planning to write about CNN's coverage of the hacker conventions, which will go in between the HuffPo paragraph and the Warren paragraphs. I'll also be including the quote and cite from Wyden in The Guardian, where he says that the voting machine lobby "thinks they're above the law," and a summary and cite of the 1 hr 23 min video of the Atlantic Council conference on election security, comprised almost entirely of former Obama Admin officials. What do you think so far, Koncorde? Flavor of the Month (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point, and with no further input from anybody after days and days, I'm just going to rewrite the whole article. The sections about the 2020 election and the lawsuits should be substantially condensed, with the removed material moved to Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, since there is so much material (this is one article in an encyclopedia about the entire history of one company, not a book on the 2020 election dispute), it involves multiple companies (not just Dominion) and it's WP:RECENT in relation to Dominion's entire history. Furthermore, it's many, many miles away from WP:NPOV. It accepts every word Dominion says as true, and adopts the position of Dominion's lawyers and PR department on each and every fact. Flavor of the Month (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

People don't always have time to reply. So here is a summary:

1. The Huffington Post published a 2010 report that the intellectual property (software patents) supporting Dominion software was still owned by a company with substantial links to the Venezuelan socialist regime, which was notorious for its large scale election fraud during the early 2000s. Should be attributed to Brad Friedman for Huff Po. Article does not make any representation software patents support Dominion software. The inference is that Smartmatic retained interest in Sequoia. Link to Hugo Chavez and his government is one thing (but would require more complete sourcing as it is unclear what exactly the links are (investment? control? design?), however the words "socialist regime" are clearly not NPOV. The section about "large scale election fraud" would need independently cited, bearing in mind Smartmatic left Venezuela in 2017 following attempts to manipulate voting.
2. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D), Amy Klobuchar (D), and Ron Wyden (D) investigated security vulnerabilities in Dominion's voting machines, tabulation machines and software in late 2019: They didn't. They sent a letter to the various investment companies about their concerns over business ownership and a variety of other things like their performance (and any failures). When mentioning "vulnerabilities" the source is Vice[16][17] but they do not go into details of Dominion (instead ES&S) or make no mention of them. It can be summed up better with less reliance on quotes of quotes from articles. Would suggest we use the actual sources, not the HIG statement (or in addition to).

Texas rejected use of ballot counting software from Dominion Voting Systems three times, according to a report from the Secretary of State's office dated January 2020. According to the report, issued by Deputy Secretary of State José Esparza, "Specifically, the examiner reports raise concerns about whether the Democracy Suite 5.5-A system is suitable for its intended purpose; operates efficiently and accurately; and is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation." Texas turned them down, but many other states used them. The context here is intended to create a WP:SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the context here is intended to present the entire history of Dominion with all reliably sourced, notable events in chronological order. The 2016-19 period in Dominion's history (four years) was a bit of a rough period for the company, and until now has been entirely ignored, while almost half the article is devoted to the past three months (November 2020-February 2021). See WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Now the preceding four years will be covered thoroughly.

"Many other states use them" is already covered elsewhere in the article. The multiple Texas rejections go straight to the issue of software security vulnerabilities. The "good news" about Dominion is covered very thoroughly in this article. This is part of the "bad news" that until now, has been excluded somehow while the 2020 election issue has been beaten to a pulp. It's notable, and it's reliably sourced.

Regarding IP, (A) Dominion bought Sequoia's software and hardware from Smartmatic. (B) All Sequoia hardware and software is now part of Dominion's product lines. (C) The IP supporting Sequoia software and hardware is still owned by Smartmatic. And of course I'll spell that out in the final draft. Yes, Smartmatic left Venezuela in 2017, but the suspected election fraud occurred beginning with the 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum. Your "in addition to" suggestion is noted, and I will add those original sources in the final draft. Flavor of the Month (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "regime" or "socialist regime" appears in reference to Venezuela in the following Wikipedia articles:

1. Venezuela: "... reducing economic inequality and poverty in the early years of the regime."
2. Crisis in Venezuela and Authoritarian socialism: "Countries with socialist regimes such as China, Vietnam, Chile and many in Europe have managed to successfully grow their economies as Venezuela's has tumbled."
3. Jorge Rodríguez (politician): "... Maduro regime." Flavor of the Month (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References

This article is biased propaganda and inaccurate and incomplete reporting.

The section on questions raised about Dominion voting machines is entitled "Conspiracy Theories" and then labels President Trump as a right-wing personality. I am highly offended by the tone of this article and the falsehoods it is propagating to advance and advocate for Dominion seemingly. Even NBC news raised questions about Chinese parts in a 2019 article (1). More recently, Dominion was accused of lying about whether or not their machines were certified. A recent article noted that transmitters were embedded in their machines despite their and Democratic Party repeated assertions that they had no internet connections (2).

Perhaps even more significantly, for a critical set of machines needed to ensure confidence in election outcomes, Dominion has allowed substantial appearances of conflict of interest to emerge. In Arizona, the Democratic Party and Dominion are opposing an audit of election results that is quite common with hand ballots and quite appropriate in general. It bespeaks of hiding something. Since election machines are meant to be bi-partisan, I find it unimaginable that Dominion or State Governments authorizing purchases of Dominion Machines could check off on contractual requirements of not having conflicts of interest (3). In all this behavior and article contributes to the growing loss of confidence in US elections. It will not benefit Wikipedia to be a party to this type of behavior.

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/chinese-parts-hidden-ownership-growing-scrutiny-inside-america-s-biggest-n1104516

2. https://letsfixstuff.org/2021/04/modem-chips-embedded-in-voting-system-computer-motherboards/

3. https://www.acquisition.gov/affars/solicitation-provisions-and-contract-clauses

Signature --Jobardu (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)-

The only people who have lost confidence in US elections are the losers. The "audit" is being done by "Cyber Ninjas", a new group led by someone who trades in conspiracy theories and refuses to release their methods. In any event, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the reader so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. If sources are not being summarized accurately, please identify the specific passages that are inaccurately summarized. If you just want to be told what you want to hear, this isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your outrageously off first sentence: What time frame are you talking about? Many lost confidence in US elections for excellent reasons - security problems like and including those referred to via the Security section above, in systems that have not since passed a successful audit, that Dominion inherited when it became big in elections by buying them. Wikipedia SHOULD summarize what independent reliable sources state. BTW, I'm not commenting on Jobardu's comments or sources or "Cyber Ninjas". I have no interest in editing content in the article about the recent US Presidential election or putsch. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There was no security problems other than in the eyes of those that had voters vote against them or their candidates for certain offices, so they need to pass laws to keep them from voting, and another certain candidate felt the need to encourage their supporters to storm the US capitol. In any event, this isn't the forum to debate that. I offer you the same question, please identify specific passages of this article that are not accurately summarizing what the cited source says, or offer your own independent reliable sources that say something different. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In regard to the provided references:

• [18] The article is about ES&S, not Dominion. It mentions Dominion only once, as one of the companies asked to reveal details about "ownership and origin of parts". There was no claim that Chinese parts are in Dominion machines, nor that there is a problem with the parts.
• [19] The article is about ES&S, not Dominion.
• [20] The linked policy is in regard to contracts with the Air Force, not election authorities.

Sorry, but I don't think that there is anything we can use in this article in those references. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

331dotLET ME RE-EMPHASIZE: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT the recent US Presidential election or putsch. Understand? AGAIN: Regarding your outrageously off first sentence: What time frame are you talking about? You didn't answer. You seem to be talking about the the recent US Presidential election or putsch, and falsely generalizing to all time. I AM NOT talking about the the recent US Presidential election or putsch. Can you acknowledge that many lost confidence in US elections for excellent reasons - security problems like and including those referred to via the Security section above, in systems that have not since passed a successful audit, that Dominion inherited when it became big in elections by buying them, long before the recent US Presidential election and putsch? Wikipedia SHOULD summarize what independent reliable sources state about that. AGAIN, I'm not commenting on Jobardu's comments or sources or "Cyber Ninjas", so don't "reply" to me about them. (Bilby, I see you didn't reply to me; all good.) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What I do or not acknowledge is irrelevant as this is not the forum to debate election security, I've already said too much. As noted by Bilby, the sources you offer don't really have anything we can use. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Definition of "Proprietary"

The Article should note that Dominion Software is "proprietary", meaning that the code is a trade secret, and from unknown origin, as compared to "open source". I further note that Google is blocking any search results using the search term "dominion voting" containing the word "proprietary".68.206.248.178 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Most software is proprietary, so we don't typically call it out specifically. If reliable sources are emphasizing this I suppose we could also, but you haven't provided any. As for Google, I'm having no issue searching "dominion voting" and "proprietary". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What search engine isn't blocking the results containing the word "proprietary" you speak of? https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/search?term=dominion+voting+proprietary&term-require-all=true shows 0 hits...--50.201.195.170 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

About 22,300 results on Google, the search engine mentioned above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

LOL. Who are you incomplete sentencing to? I clearly wasn't talking to you. Besides, you're inherently incapable of answering my question unless you can read .178's mind. And you made your point with your first comment. You're so busy disagreeing with me you didn't realize I concur - Google isn't blocking any search results using the search term "dominion voting" containing the word "proprietary"

.178 is likely talking about security by obscurity efforts to remove leaked source code from the internet. Perhaps they were related to the stuff about Sequoia and Premier and ESS that is being censored from the article. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Including:

Security

Dominion does not run a Bug bounty program.

Restored, as no objection over a week.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/sequoia-evoting-code-reveals-possible-fec-rule-violations/

Anyone have thoughts on what I see as the key points to include? Reasons to include something and/or remove something? There's so much in the article ... Discussions of the leaked code, the Federal Election Commission violations found, ... 68.206.248.178? Acro?

"Dominion" is the brand name for the voting machines and systems with this heritage. I cut it down to this:

The Election Defense Alliance election integrity watchdog group publicized the accidentally leaked source code that powered previous iterations of Diebold's electronic voting machines. The organization used legal threats in an effort to prevent New Jersey election officials from conducting a machine audit. The source disclosure that has enabled the EDA to conduct its review was entirely accidental. The program code was extracted from an MS-SQL database that was provided to the EDA by the election officials of Riverside County, California in response to a public records request. Sequoia insisted on redacting the database before allowing the data to be reviewed, but they botched the redaction job.

California's extensive Red Team testing uncovered serious vulnerabilities in virtually all of the voting machine systems used in the state, including those provided by Sequoia. Additional studies have found a multitude of flaws in Sequoia's voting machines, including serious bugs and abysmal failures in physical and software security.

References

Koncorde is using hostile and defamatory language. I warned privately, to no avail. Now there's edit warring. After I, as noted above, "restored, as no objection over a week", Konkorde reverted me and is refusing to discuss it here. Clear policy violation, so I'm reverting.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You literally buried your statements behind inside and behind a wall of unrelated text. I am not psychic to work out which element is directed at me, or even if it is asking a question or proposing something. You can't propose adding content by posting random crap and then because nobody knows what you mean, or intend, claim there was "no objection over a week". No objection to what? Where did you say "I propose adding this"?

Further your statement doesn't say how or where you are getting your assertion from. Per my Talk page response: For this edit summary meanwhile (that I know you have reverted), WP:OR is very clear about the use of Primary Sources. Your source in question for instance makes no mention of Bug Bounty, or lack thereof, and effectively requires the reader to infer something that isn't explicitly stated. WP:PRIMARY explains the issues behind this, and this is why it is WP:OR. Particularly what you wrote is easily understood to mean that they do not make any effort to thwart exploitative bugs. However what you linked to said the complete opposite Dominion Voting Systems welcomes feedback from the security research community. If you believe that you have discovered a vulnerability in any of our systems or products, we want to hear from you so that we can investigate. and provide Safe Harbor for those working to detect bugs, and they would be far from the only company that doesn't (Unfortunately BugCrowd.com is not a reliable sources as it is WP:USERGENERATED content). If there was criticism of their bug hunting it would need to come from reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"If". Lol. Trivially verifiable. https://www.cyberscoop.com/voting-machine-eac-vulnerabilitiy-bug-bounty/ looks like they though about it and chickened out. Your quoting is cringeworthy. Good work on the Serbia stuff tho. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

And, again, the article isn't a criticism of their bug hunting. If you were to use that as a source for "Dominion don't run a bug bounty" you would, again, be doing WP:OR and SYNTH. In fact, per the expert quoted, the Bug Bounty system Regardless, bug bounty expert Katie Moussouris cautioned that such programs are “not the most efficient way to secure voting equipment.” and the article provides a breakdown of why “Because it is not possible to upload a voting machine to a secure platform for researchers to investigate without creating new vulnerabilities and security issues, they do not easily lend themselves to crowd-sourced testing platforms,” the group said. You would in fact be contorting the meaning and intent of the article to present an incredibly POV take which looks like they though about it and chickened out just highlights how utterly compromised you apparently are on this subject. The article literally states An industry group offered support for a voluntary coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD) and what is the name of the page that you used as a source for your original claim... "Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Policy". So, in actual fact they did set up the thing that they said that they would set up, and then explained in the same article why Bug Bounties are problematic, and that they still need to be compliant with the EAC. Further, the criticism is not specific to Dominion but to the industry. Which, again, they explained why voting machines do not lend themselves to that solution.

Meanwhile I am quoting the actual opening paragraph of the page YOU used as a source. So you intended to use it to mean something. Presumably you read it and thought it eminently suitable to back up your statement; until someone else also uses it to refute you? Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021

Dominion Voting Systems Corporation is a company that sells electronic voting hardware and software, including voting machines and tabulators, in the United States and Canada.[1] The company's headquarters are in Toronto, Ontario, Denver, Colorado and Beijing, China.

[2] It develops software in-house in offices in the United States, Canada, Serbia and China.[3]

Dominion Voting Systems Corporation

Dominion Voting Systems logo.svg Type Private Industry Electronic votinghardware Founded 2002; 19 years ago Founders James Hoover John Poulos Headquarters Toronto, Ontario, Canada Denver, Colorado, US China Owner Management Staple Street Capital Owners of UBS Securities Co LTD;

– Beijing Guoxiang (33%) – UBS Securities(24.99%) – Guangdong Comm. Group [zh] (14.01%) – China Guodian (14%) – COFCO Group (14%)

Subsidiaries Premier Election Solutions Sequoia Voting Systems Website dominionvoting.com Dominion produces electronic voting machines, which allow voters to cast their vote electronically, as well as optical scanning devices to tabulate paper ballots.[4][5] Dominion voting machines have been utilized in countries around the world, primarily in Canada and the United States. Dominion systems are employed in Canada's major party leadership elections, and they are also used across the nation in local and municipal elections. Dominion products are currently removed from services in the United States because on intense security issues. The company drew extensive attention during the United States presidential election of 2020, when devices manufactured by Dominion were used to process votes in twenty-eight states, including the swing states of Wisconsinand Georgia.[6]

After then-president Donald Trump was defeated by Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, Trump and various surrogates promoted conspiracy theories about Dominion, alleging that the company was part of an international cabal to steal the election from Trump, and that it used its voting machines to transfer millions of votes from Trump to Biden.[7][8][9] There is substantial evidence supporting these claims and that evidence is currently working its way through the American courts system. It will take years for the Presidential Election evidence to be completely reviewed. Hand recounts are current and ongoing.

In January 2021, Dominion filed defamation lawsuits against former Trump campaign lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, asking for $1.3 billion in damages from each.[15][16] In March 2021, Dominion filed a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News.[19] 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:BA (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

In the "Lawsuits" section, this can be added: On August 10, 2021, Dominion announces that they have sued conservative news channels One America News Network and Newsmax, plus former Overstock.com CEO Patrick M. Byrne ([21]. The next day, district judge Carl J. Nichols dismisses a motion by Lindell, Powell, and Giuliani to dismiss the lawsuit ([22]). 2603:6010:D307:98CA:532:38D7:6DD:8159 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Helen(💬📖) 23:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

Dominion's own website says they were founded in 2003. (https://www.dominionvoting.com/about/) The source mentioned in Reference number 20 is, therefore, not reliable. The article needs another source or an edit to reflect the correct date. Padams4me (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Or they are referring to different foundings in some fashion. The first reference only refers to Poulos "starting Dominion" and not Hoover for instance. This does not make the source unreliable. However it almost certainly means the legal entity was only officially started in 2003. Koncorde (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing request while under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

Conspiracy theories

See also: Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

Add - Regarding the claim that there was no election fraud in the 2020 Presidential election and characterizing claimes there was election fraud as consiracy theories. All claims that there was not election fraud are based on no election audit results. To date there have been no election audit reports published, yet there have been many claims that there was no election fraud. It is impossible to claim there was not election fraud without those claims being based on election audit reports. Dominion, rather than being totally transparent and proving to voters that their machines were not and could not be used to commit fraud; Domininon has instead sued many organiations and individuals to shut them down of their claims their machines were used to commit fraud. Companies that choose suits over transparancy always choose suits to attempt to cover up troubling issues that full transparancey would expose. End of Add

Following the 2020 United States presidential election, Donald Trump and some other right-wing personalities amplified the hoax originated by the proponents of the far-right QAnon conspiracy theory that Dominion Voting Systems had been compromised, resulting in millions of votes intended for Trump either being deleted or going to rival Joe Biden. Trump was citing the pro-Trump OANN media outlet, which itself claimed to cite a report from Edison Research, an election monitoring group. Edison Research said that they did not write such a report, and that they "have no evidence of any voter fraud." Aanonsonaj (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and does not post personal theories. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021

In the "Defamation lawsuits" section, this should be added: On November 8, 2021, Dominion sued Fox Corporation and Fox Broadcasting, the parent company of Fox News, for defamation and for failing to preserve documents relating to the role Robert Murdoch played in spreading false claims about Dominion. [23] [24] 74.133.239.3 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Procedural decline of edit request per WP:PROXYING as the requesting IP has been checkuser-blocked. If another user would like to make this edit on their own initiative, please feel free to do so. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2021

For the defamation lawsuits section, this should be added as this is a new development regarding the defamation lawsuits (in this case, against Fox News):

On December 16, 2021, a Delaware Superior Court judge rejected a attempt by Fox News to dismiss Dominion’s lawsuit against them, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. [25] 74.142.33.122 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. soibangla (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Overworked phrases

In the section "2020 US presidential election" phrases like "unfounded rumors", "right-wing personalities", "baseless", "no evidence of any voter fraud", "unsubstantiated claims", "debunked by various groups", "ridiculous conspiracy theories", etc. have become cliche as a result of overuse in information sources and social media. While attempting to bolster support, such phrases may now have the undesired effect of triggering scepticism. I would like to suggest that the case could be made better using plain, descriptive language rather than punctuating arguments with overworked phrases. Euswdwj (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As in…? Tyrone (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)