Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

In favour of keeping the table even before consensus is reached on the debate
Hullo,

So I know you are all busy debating on the sources to be considered but don't you think the table should at least be kept on the page for those interested in getting information? Albeit not completely accurate information?

In 2008, the full delegate count was known for sure AFTER the nomination, this is going to be the case this year too, why then aim for perfection and keep us, users, in the dark for so long?

By the way, GOOGLE fixed their problem by using Associated Press data BUT I've noticed that AP doesn't still count the Democrats Abroad delegates who have already been allocated (I'm speaking about the plegded ones here)

So let's keep the table, use the AP source plus add the Democrats abroad results

We want information, we aren't going to wait for days or months till you reach consensus on the source

Just my opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Manish2542 (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Where in the f is the table at? Sarahrosemc (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This comment says what happened: The table isn't gone, it just needs to be fixed before it is re-added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC) JaneBGoode (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree the table absolutely should be back. It should be pointed out that there are only a few differences in the actual data, and the main difference is in presentation. it would be very easy to put up the numbers, on top, with an explanation as to the differences. That is being responsible to the reader. I think it is egotistical to try to control the presentation of data that cannot be reasonably dismissed. For instance, there are good arguments for including or not including the Washington delegates. I am persuaded by the explanation that the eventual state convention is governed by rules which are designed for the delegate process to follow the results of the actual caucus, and that this has historically been the case. Therefore I think there should be a representation which includes these numbers. Others would like to see the Washington numbers not included until after their state convention. Common sense says you put up both, equally prominent, with an explanation. I am still a noob, or I would do it myself. Polanve (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Table is back and all numbers are consistent. Thanks for your patience! — JFG talk 07:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Official Numbers
No matter which source you use, in the end they can all be traced back to the organizing body (department of state, usually), that's the primary source of all those numbers. The confusion lies in district delegates count. Newssites publish numbers by county, but in the end district delegates are allocated per district, not the same thing. (I guess Green papers makes up his count out of results of counties forming the core of the larger district (not 100% accurate, but close enough)). As soon as we get the official district results, we can do the math according to the allocation rules of the state's democratic party. (I've done so for Florida) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Alain David (talk)
 * Ah, that would explain the gap between the counts on this page and the one listed on NBC News's website: . 101090ABC (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegates endorsements should not be included in total number of delegates
Superdelegates have not voted. Their endorsements only indicate a lean towards one candidate or another. This needs to be stated explicitly and the number of delegates needed should be based on pledge delegates only at this point. Those endorsements only translate to actual votes at the convention 100% of the time when the candidate endorsed leads in pledged delegates. In other cases, the percentages are far lower than 100. As a canonical source of information, Wikipedia should not reflect endorsements as votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.45.85 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Superdelegates are not pledged to Clinton or Sanders and may vote for either candidate. MB298 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the problem as they are used in reliable sources when they do the count, we would update them accordingly over time no matter who they flock to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a huge discussion over whether we should include it or not, but we ended up just compromising and putting both the pledged and super instead of both combined or just pledged. Personally, I would leave out the Superdelegates since they flexibly change their position at the convention (Ex: Over 100 superdelegates switched to Obama during DNC in 2008), but not everyone agrees obviously. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  18:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No delegates have voted...super or otherwise. Since this issue has been discussed over & over again at this late, expect no change from the status quo in the article. Guy1890 (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Listing them is one thing, but should never be "totaled" and mixed in with the already voted state delegates. in 2008 most supers totally voted the opposite of their initial empty promises, so they are no better than polling data. Wikipedia should be encyclopediac and impartial, and it would be sheer propaganda to add up polling data for California's June vote and add it to totals of iowa and states that have already voted. It's the same thing to include the empty promises of superdelegates, who can and do break their promises as recently as 2008. Supers have not actually voted since 1984, and usually do not get to vote, because whoever gets the majority of regular pledged delegates usually gets the backing. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Different number of delegates
Hi, is it possible to use the same counting? e.g. Pledged deleg. of Clinton: It means three different values. Thank you.--Kacir 00:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * infobox at the top: 1132
 * Candidates featured in major polls: 1139
 * Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses: 1099


 * This needs to be fixed CNN, and The Associated Press are saying two different totals. Which one is correct? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. But I think we should use CNN since the number of delegates projected is larger than the AP number. That way, if/when CNN projects that a candidate has reached the magical number of 2383 and thus would be the projected nominee for the Democratic party, our article will not be behind in the delegate count. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I think CNN might need to be used in such a case.Sleepingstar (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Which source should we use for the delegate count?
VOTING IS NOW OPEN IN A NEW SECTION BELOW FOR THE SOURCE WE WILL USE. Nike4564 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

After using AP for this long, I am beginning to question the source. Of course, there are plenty of reliable sources (AP, CNN, Green Papers, etc...). I am just wondering which one should be the most reliable and right on track with the numbers. AP seems too conservative on the numbers as some people have said, therefore they are lagging in the delegate count. Some people have said that CNN is the right source, but some say that CNN could be overestimating the numbers as compared to AP. So I am just wondering if you guys have any idea as to which source would be the best for the delegate count. We could all come to a consensus and vote on the best source. Thanks! Nike4564 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer using Green Papers.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  17:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Green papers just collects data from sources that use AP. So, we have the same problem. Id prefer we go straight to the election websites, but they take an awful long amount of time to release results. Jp16103 18:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe the Green Papers uses their own numbers as they seem to differ a bit from AP. By the way, what do you mean by "election websites"? Do you have a link to them that we can check out? Nike4564 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * * Green Papers is a good personal website, but as a personal website it is less of a WP:RS than newspapers and agencies are. At least, I would switch to official results as soon as they're published. --PanchoS (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use official election website results it's important that we include a link to an archive as those links have a tendency to die pretty quickly. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I think we should use CNN since the number of delegates projected is larger than the AP number. That way, if/when CNN projects that a candidate has reached the magical number of 2383 and thus would be the projected nominee for the Democratic party, our article will not be behind in the delegate count." Prcc27🍀 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Green Papers appears to be a somewhat reliable self-published source since it's referenced by outlets like The Washington Post and CNN, who mention it as "a long-running authority on the nominating process". Personally I have yet to find a better source to keep up with all coming data by every state (about delegate counting). Most reliable newspapers report data from AP; but sometimes both stay behind on reporting from precincts (see Massachusetts) and almost never try to project all the available delegates. (It's my personal POV that they do that to avoid any risk of being "over-optimistic" about any candidate, since allocation rules are so variable and sometimes messy). Often The Green Papers instead also lists in its sources "official" election authorities and/or party websites, but seems to care a lot less about the "popular vote count" (not often accurate or updated), focusing most on the delegate numbers, and also mentioning the allocation rules. So, I would use The Green Papers too (about delegates), but since it's Wikipedia job to report from the most reliable sources and not judge who is more right or wrong, I would also list the other main (aka more reliable, aka more popular/referenced out there), more "conservative" counts. --Supernino (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most people despite some internal conflicts, seem to be leaning towards Green Papers even if they're not sure. Should we do a vote on it or wait for more suggestions? Potentially some other than CNN, AP and Green Papers hopefully? Nike4564 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Green Papers mentions the allocation rules and explains the specific pledged delegates' categories. Furthermore they allocate all the pledged delegates, while AP even after many days still doesn't allocate several delegates (at now about 19 pledged delegates aren't allocated in AP's count). I would use The Green Papers.EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Associated Press is the best source. It's commonly used as a reliable source when citing delegate counts. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Green papers is really disagreeing with a lot of sources, Missouri for example for the longest time had the delegates tied with a change just done recently to match the other sources. The same problem is now revolving around Illinois despite what a majority of other sources say, if a candidate won a state then the delegates will not be tied. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I support using AP. I do think they are unduly conservative and that conservative figures should not be assumed to be a marker of reliability; however, my feelings aside, they are clearly the source preferred by most outside outlets: e.g., Bloomberg, the NYT, WaPo. One thing to consider would be including a range of delegates according to some handful of sources: CNN, NBC, AP, and Green Papers. We might consider these different "viewpoints" on the subject, and as such it may be warranted to be inclusive rather than exclusive.PotvinSux (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support using Associated Press More reliable sources are useing AP, as far as CNN goes they have numbers that are different than the Green Papers, and AP . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support PotvinSux view. All major projections should be listed at least in reporting 'totals'. In state-by-state data I personally prefer Green Papers (they even list superdelegates names) but I do recognize too that AP appears to be the most popular. --Supernino (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Which source should we use for the delegate count? (Proposal)
How about this? Since the template is on the Green Papers as users have constantly kept on switching it to the Green Papers, as well as the "States" template below and on the Republican page as well, how about we switch to Green Papers as our source for delegates? That way we can be consistent all around for our delegate counts here and also at the Republican page as well. The vote seems to be going nowhere and I think that this is the best way forward. Plus, Green Papers is more up-to-date. Anybody support this? Nike4564 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that, but good luck convincing the others. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I prefer AP. Jp16103 23:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whatever. MB298 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, users keep on changing the source in the template so I don't know what to do about it! I absolutely do not know why they are doing it! That's why I am proposing this instead! Nike4564 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Change the template back to the AP, or remove the template and use an infobox. We don't need so much bullshit for a simple count. Use the source all the other sources use, the damn AP. Dave Dial (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Green Papers is not a reliable source, they use the AP and then guess at the delegate results using proportional delegates by percentage. They might be right, but they could be wrong. That..is not a reliable source and not the official counts.I could do the same thing and call it The Dave Papers. Why not use use Google Doc updates? No. Use a reliable source, the source that other reliable sources use, the official count from the AP. Dave Dial (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the numbers back to AP as I see a majority of editors here on this page in multiple sections argue in favor of AP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Green Papers; the AP is outdated with delegates that are listed as "available." Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you show how The Green Papers is reliable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you prove the AP is reliable? It's been weeks, and the AP still lists states with incomplete delegate counts. Personally, I think it shows negligence on their part. The Green Papers calculates their number by the percentage received under the contest guidelines. Honestly, I'm fine with another source, but not the AP, per the aforementioned reason. If ABC, CNN, 538, or another news agency or political website has the information, then I'm content. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment regarding AP's reliability below. — Nizolan  (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Which source should we use for the delegate count? (Vote)
(Some of you guys might have already voiced your support, but I just wanted to include all users to make sure. Sorry if I left anyone out.) We've been discussing which source to use for the delegate count, and I think we should do a formal vote now just to get this over with. In a simple sentence, just state which source you support to use the delegate count for. The options are: CNN, The Associated Press , The Green Papers , Bloomberg or NBC News  (Scroll down to see delegate tracker on NBC News). I'm hoping that all of you guys can weigh in. "New users" are allowed to vote as well (Those who did not weigh in in the original thread). I think we will leave voting open indefinitely for now. As for a majority or plurality support for a source, I think we will worry about that later. Nike4564 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * CNN - In contrast to what I said before, it seems that they get the results quicker than AP but slightly slower than The Green Papers. This is a nice median between speed of results and reliability of the source. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  02:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I say stick with AP only when the election websites are not available, but I'm okay with CNN. Jp16103 02:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm bothering you, but would you guys be willing to consider changing your vote to NBC News as a source that I just included as an option? (Link:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ Just scroll down to see delegate tracker.) Nike4564 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it differentiates the Pledged Delegates from the Superdelegates. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see your point. We resolved the superdelegates issue here as well with the users by "voting". I don't see any problem here at all. Nike4564 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, this isn't the place to be "voting" on this type of thing. There are several templates that are handling delegate totals in this article at this late date. Anything "decided" here can be easily undone elsewhere. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, a similar if not equal issue involve GOP primaries as well; maybe it would be better to discuss this in a more general talk page, notifying all interested wikiprojects. --Supernino (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The situation in this article here is that we have two templates that determine what is shown in both the infobox & the table that displays the results of all the individual states (the latter of which, I think, has consistently used the Green Papers as a source, even though some users try to change the values displayed there based on other, uncited sources). While I am very sympathetic to changing the source for the running delegate count to one source across all venues, this isn't the place to discuss that...unless someone wants to alert all those pages of a centralized discussion somewhere. Guy1890 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Pledged Delegate totals nationwide are reported incinsistently within the article. The total estimated pledged delegates at the bottom of the state summmaries (summing thrm) should be used in the overview section at the top of the article. This way and discrepancy can be traced to individual state or territory results. As it is, Sanders summing to 1938 but the overview showing 975 is inconsistent and the source of inconsistency is a mystery. Reuelrr (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

1038 for Sanders intended above Reuelrr (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Several sources are saying different things, we cant just go by any source and assume it is correct per WP:V. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a point I have made previously - it might be most appropriate to provide a range based on the highest and lowest figure among the sources we find reliable. Failing that, I support using AP because it is the most widely used, by Bloomber for example. I don't actually think their figures are the "best." It's hard to know what is best because no one states their method and sources especially clearly (well except Bloomberg, which states that their source is the AP).PotvinSux (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I took some time to hunt down the references provided at Green Papers. They are the only one that links everything back to the local Democratic Party pages and explains in detail where they get their numbers from. Also, the role of super delegates should be reviewed and explained here, in a way that it is not being explained elsewhere. it is nice to use the media for sources, but if that is all we have, why even bother to do a Wikipedia entry? Failing consensus, there needs to be a top level listing of all the numbers and explanation why there are discrepancies. Polanve (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)polanve


 * There is no way we can confirm this though which his a huge problem. They can say that they get their numbers from the national democratic party but in the end there is WP:V "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". If you can prove that The Green Papers are indeed getting these numbers from x then okay fine, but we cant go by what they say without any evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Green Papers is not a reliable source, and their count is based off 'soft' guesses at the delegate count. The AP has the official numbers, which can be verified. There is not rush to put in the rest of Washington's delegates until they are decided. So it should be clear as crystal that the Green Papers numbers should not be used anywhere in this article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A "soft count" is an estimation, not simply a guess; you can read TGP's specific definition here. Most crucially, a "soft count" includes unpledged as well as pledged delegates (in other words superdelegates are necessarily tallied by a "soft count"), whereas a "hard count" only includes pledged delegates. AP uses "soft delegates" as well: in Guam for the Republicans, all 9 delegates are officially unbound, but AP lists 1 delegate for Cruz since they've endorsed him. This is categorized as a soft count. Note also that TGP provides a hard count as well in any case (whereas AP doesn't). In regards to TGP's status as a reliable source, when this was discussed at the Republican page the consensus was that it is, because it's been cited in numerous academic publications and news sources have referred back to it. The only "official numbers" are from state parties and occasionally the state governments, not AP or any other media outlet. I haven't followed the Democratic race closely, but on the Republican side AP showed an incorrect result for New Hampshire well after the official results had been released and other sources updated, and they still show an incorrect result in Aroostook County, Maine (per the official state party's results; see the discussion at Commons—NYT's numbers are syndicated from AP), which is why I'd be sceptical of using it as the source. — Nizolan  (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the offcial delegate count as it stands right now. Dave Dial (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Use TGP. AP has outdated information (typically stays with whatever numbers were available on the evening of voting day), and these AP numbers are in turn quoted by most of the press, so you can't say for example that NYT is a secondary source to AP, because it's just a repeat. Only The Green Papers provides regular updates and bothers to detail the vote counts per congressional district in each state. TGP quotes its own sources and explains the counts in detail, so it qualifies as the textbook definition of a reliable, secondary source. — JFG talk 10:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So if I were to start up a website, and quote my own sources explaining the counts in detail I would be considered a reliable source? The problem again is this runs into WP:V, can you prove that they are legit quotes? Anyone can claim to quote anything online, I would think there needs to be some kind of link. I know many here want up to date info but I am throwing out a policy based argument here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we can verify TGP's sources, for example Florida, Michigan, South Carolina... And with the (admittedly arcane) election rules at hand, we can also perform the calculations to verify TGP's or AP's analysis. Then we can decide who we trust to be both reasonably accurate and reasonably fast. TGP is not perfect but AP is usually much worse. — JFG talk 19:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't use Green Papers, they are not a reliable source, and have no way to verify their numbers. Whereas the AP and NYT do. I understand that editors want to use the most up-to-date numbers, and multiplying 73% X 101 gives you an estimate of Sanders delegates, and same as multiplying 27% X 101 will give an estimate of HRC's numbers. But it is not the fault of real reliable sources that Washington's effed up caucus system gives out delegates in stages and by different manners. Sanders could have 74 delegates from Washington, or he could have 72, 73 or even 75. We won't know until around June 19th. Look at this stupid shit(scroll down to 'Delegate Selection'). They select 67 delegates from congressional districts, based on proportional voting. That is finalized May, 6. Then they select 12 & 22 delegates based on proportional votes by those delegates selected in May. As well as 7 alternates. Those are all of the 101 delegates, not counting the 18 'unpledged' delegates. Stupid. Dave Dial (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * you make a compelling case against TGP, but the AP is outdated on numerous states, not just Washington. [Washington's system is definitely screwed-up.] With that being said, the AP was wrong in Maine, and were misguided or outdated in other states, like Illinois where seven delegates are still "available." If it was just Maine or Washington, I'd leave this alone, but the AP, in my opinion, is being negligent with their reporting. I believe a mistake or two is fine, and if TGP is wrong in Washington, it's their first. The AP and the New York Times are batting a sixty or seventy. Since TGP is the most accurate tracker I've seen, it's my vote. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Green Papers also differs with AP/NYT when it comes to the popular vote numbers on a number of different states. In some cases the number is off by 2 or so digits, but others are plus or minus 100 people or more. So which is correct? Right now I am increasingly becoming in favor of providing a range of numbers. Compare for yourself with the numbers AP provides, and ones by TGP, added people I understand but not ones subtracted with 100% in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh, screw it. How about this. Put a note in the Washington numbers linking to the stupid PDF file from Washington Dems, use TGP numbers but add in the note it is subject to change because the Washington Democratic party are asshats. Or something like that. Dave Dial (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the delegate selection process is unduly complex, however the voting rules for delegates are clearly spelled out, so it is legitimate for a secondary source like the Associated Press or The Green Papers to do the analysis and present us with their projection. It wouldn't be legitimate for one of us to do it on our own. Now the question boils down to which secondary source we choose to report. — JFG talk 19:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time searching for a good source of info on how many delegates each candidate has. Then I found this Wikipedia entry with a complete, detailed accounting of every delegate. I was so happy to finally be able to wrap my head around the numbers, and to use the data to answer questions. The big question I had was "Who is ahead and by how much?" So I used the data from the table to create a graph and I posted it here (my very first foray into editing Wikipedia!) As I was learning how to edit, I also saw the source of the information in the table and saw that it was all sourced right back to the actual official sources of the info, which is the local Democratic Party bodies themselves. I see some people are calling various media sources "official", this is not just wrong, it also shows a lack of understanding of the relationship between the press and government in our country. Unlike other countries, our media are independent of government and are not the official mouthpiece of government. Every media source of official information should be traceable back to the original government body that reports that info. This page has a lot of problems with use of super delegates and very little explanation of the real role according to Party rules. It features media counts not sourced back to the official pages. I know what I am talking about, I am a Democratic Committee person in my county. When we want the real info, we go to the board of elections webpage. we don't go by what the media reports. Here on Wikipedia we need to do more than just regurgitate what the AP says. We are taking on the role of editors of an encyclopedia, we need to review and weigh original sources. I find that The Green Papers is most helpful because they include links to every original source. Therefore, AT THE VERY LEAST it should be at the top alongside other summaries of the data. That is my opinion. Also, someone posted on my newly created user page that I am some kind of agent for someone else. I put my own real name and credentials up for the world to see. I hope I get the help here that a newb deserves, and I hope that people take time to get to know me before making any further accusations.Polanve (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully concur with your analysis. Information starts from the primary sources (state party, election commission) then gets compiled, vetted and summarized by secondary sources (AP, TGP) and finally comes into the encyclopedia (tertiary source). We can decide to show any of the secondary sources, but certainly I'll put more weight on a source who describes their process in detail and allows us to check the numbers by ourselves if we want to take the trouble of tracing them to the primary sources. See WP's sourcing policy and guidelines on picking secondary sources. — JFG talk 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe using the official statistics, and then TGP for projections, like Washington, is the best process. For projections, we'd list the projected delegates, like the normal ones, and have a note saying: "This is a projected count by The Green Pages." Once states, like Washington assign their delegates, we'd remove the note and use the official citation. With that being said, welcome to Wikipedia! The note you received is an automated message that a concerned user sent, so don't be offended. I've received one after thousands of mainstream edits, so it's not a significant issue. If you need help with anything, let me know. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good compromise, better than introducing ranges of values which would make results unreadable. So we would keep NYT as source for settled states and switch back to TGP for recent contests where there are discrepancies. Here are the states where not all pledged delegates are allotted to candidates according to NYT source: Michigan (127 of 130, 3 missing), Florida (211 of 214, 3 missing), Illinois (149 of 156, 7 missing), Missouri (68 of 71, 3 missing), North Carolina (104 of 107, 3 missing), Arizona (74 of 75, 1 missing), Idaho (22 of 23, 1 missing), Utah (32 of 33, 1 missing) and the famous Washington (34 of 101, 67 missing). Ready to use TGP numbers for these in Template:2016USDem, with a note to readers in the source citation. Do we have consensus, folks? — JFG talk 22:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Great: all results adjusted in the template, with proper sources and explanation note. — JFG talk 06:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think we should use the official party count. My hunch is the Democratic Party of Michigan, for example, has the correct delegate proportion on their website. In the forthcoming states, like Washington, we should use TGP. I'm just not a fan of the AP and the New York Times, given their record. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If we are really going to "vote" here..."Which source should we use for the delegate count?" The Green Papers because it has been historically the most comphrensive & accurate for many years now. NOTE: We are all being watched off Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still skeptical as some of the numbers from TGP are less not more than some that the AP reports. Nobody has been able to independently verify or check their sources, as a result all of these major media sources use different figures. An agreement has been made though, time for all of us to move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Green Papers"
I've just read the discussion above and as far as I can tell the only editor inveighing against The Green Papers' credibility is. Is this wrong? The template on the article seems non-conventional and disruptive to me; it should either be removed or replaced with one of the proper maintenance tags. — Nizolan  (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I see that one or two others have questioned it as well, though not to the same extent; the template still seems unnecessary (?) — Nizolan  (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I rephrased the notice to make it neutral, just explaining why numbers may look out of date and inviting readers to take part in the sourcing debate here. — JFG talk 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ugh....see above. Dave Dial (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So if I were to start up a website, and quote my own sources explaining the counts in detail I would be considered a reliable source? Yes, if you will be considered reliable/worth of using as a source at least once by NYT, Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic, TIME, Washington Post, CNN, HP, etc. If it can be used by them, it can be used by us. (It's also worth noting that "the green papers" + "delegates" returns more than 200 results on google books.) So the question isn't if it is reliable (IMO), but if it is enough to be used more than/as much AP & others. I still support the idea of reporting a range of the most popular source and I still think that the discussion should be carried on a more general place, since it doesn't make sense TGP to be ok/more than ok for GOP primaries and not for Democrats.--Supernino (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since all of the sources disagree with each other a range of numbers sounds like a reasonable compromise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A breakdown of sources

 * Numbers aligned with AP


 * New York Times
 * USA Today
 * Real Clear Politics
 * Bloomberg
 * Politico
 * Huffington Post


 * Numbers aligned with TGP


 * Numbers different than both


 * CNN

Feel free to add more sources you can find, but I want people to see what the problem is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All the newspapers get their numbers from AP (it's not called the Associated Press for nothing), so you can't say there are 6 sources that agree with AP; in fact there is one AP source which is copied by 6 media outlets. Now if this source does sloppy or late reporting, everybody lags. WP readers want reasonably up-to-date and reasonably reliable information; TGP has proven over many races that their projections are the closest to the eventual results. And we can't wait until the convention, as an astute reader says below... — JFG talk 18:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother you that no other major respectable news-source is using TGP's numbers? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As Supernino pointed out above, many of those respectable news outlets have turned to Mr. Berg-Andersson of TGP for his expertise on the nomination process for both parties. That's legit enough to me. — JFG talk 19:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers remain though where they are so they must not trust his expertise enough to follow suit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think you'd question CNN because no other major outlet is using its numbers (according your breakdown). BTW, NYT currently list TGP as a source alongside AP; Vox prefers them. AP numbers are the most popular because AP is the only news agency actually reporting data (votes from precincts) state by state on election nights. Votes come from AP, parties and state government offices. As of today, considering how primaries work and how messy the actual rules are, it makes more sense to say that "HRC has around 1712-1742 estimated delegates". --Supernino (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy between superdelegate number in table and in superdelegate list
The table says Unassigned has 1 SD and Tennessee 8; the SD list says Unassigned 6 Tennessee 9. The table says California 73 Connecticut 16 Ohio 17 DC 26, while the list says California 71 Connecticut 15 Ohio 16 DC 25. This explains why the table SDs sum to 714 and the list ones to 715. Which is correct? If it's the former, which maths suggests is the case because 4051 + 714 = 4765, then who is the 1 unassigned SD? 81.156.90.110 (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Illinois
Why does Illinois show both Hillary and Sanders with the same number of delegates and a tie when Hillary won the state? The Washington Post gives hillary 76 delegates and Sanders 73. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/primaries/delegate-tracker/democratic/2602:306:CC42:8340:78F5:8599:7335:6F8C (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this either, the New York Times also has the same number. Looking at Associated Press I also see the same thing.  (Hillary has the 20 Superdelegates added on AP) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

102 Delegates are awarded proportionally by Congressional District, and 54 are awarded proportionally At-large (including Party Leaders and Elected Officials), with the splits being rounded up to whole delegates. Since the vote was close statewide, the split of At-large delegates was tied, 27-27, due to rounding up for Sanders and down for Clinton. For the congressional districts, each delegate split was determined in the same fashion. Total allocation is correct at 78-78. See the table on the Green Papers page for more information. Cyberczar1 (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/illinois This other source used in the article for Illinois also says the same thing 76-73. The other source used from the AP has superdelegates added in. According to quite a few people on here, Illinois may not be accurate. It makes no sense that Sanders won Michigan by a smaller margin and less than 50% of the vote but still got more delegates.2602:306:CC42:8340:7054:61AC:70F4:A28D (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see some Sanders supporter moved it back to 78 after someone else changed it. Well here is another source http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html2602:306:CC42:8340:A128:642C:55EA:294C (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a source that says 78-73? And if you want to have it 78-73, shouldn't there be 5 uncommitted delegates? This way the numbers just don't add up. DrHadesCZE (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It is 76-73, not 78-73. It doesn't add up that Hillary won Illinois by a slightly larger margin than Sanders won over her in neighboring Michigan but Sanders got more delegates rewarded to him in that state and Hillary and Sanders gets the same amount of delegates in Illinois.2602:306:CC42:8340:A128:642C:55EA:294C (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not disscussing whether it should be 76-73 or 78-78, I am just saying that the table is kinda messy now - the header is "Heading text", the numbers in Illinois is 78-76, Sanders has 76 pledged, but 73 total delegates in Illinois and when you look at the "totals" at the bottom, they don't add up. I would fix it myself, but I honestly have no idea what are the desired numbers.DrHadesCZE (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It was actually fixed the other day but some Sanders supporter went back and changed it back again. I haven't edited it myself because I don't want to get into some editing war with somebody. Maybe these delegate totals should be semi-protected.2602:306:CC42:8340:A128:642C:55EA:294C (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the District level just 102 pledged delegates were allocated (52 to Hillary and 50 to Bernie if I'm not wrong), so the AP's and the Green Papers' results are just projections. The other 54 pledged delegates will be selected on 05/09 according to the Illinois Delegate Selection Plan.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)



http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/illinois

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/illinois/

AP: https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=democratic+pledged+delegates+illinois&eob=m.03v0t/D/2/short/m.03v0t/

2602:306:CC42:8340:F014:8CC1:1FC3:AB04 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Color-blind friendly?
Current graphics use gold for Clinton and green for Sanders. This could be confusing for red-green colorblind viewers. Suggest changing one of the candidates to blue, or using different shades of the same color. 71.53.74.37 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I ran the map through colorblind simulators ( and ) and it didn't seem to me like it was causing any trouble. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm colorblind and I can distinguish the two colors without troubles (maybe I could have problems to identify them as gold or green, but they are clearly two different colors).--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AP/NYT numbers are incomplete
The NYT has yet to report the distribution of delegates in such states as Washington. In Washington 101 delegates were up for grab in the caucus, of which the NYT has assigned only 34 for either Bernie or Hillary. We should understand that the NYT delegate count is an underestimate.2804:7F7:D280:14E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is already settled. Please refer to the talk section on this. JP16103 01:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to add my two cents here, as the other section seems closed. I think it is nonsense to leave out the remaining Washington delegates. None of the delegates for any of the caucuses are certain too. They are extrapolated based on proportional voting of precinct caucusing, but can change significantly with county and state conventions. The New York Times has now commented on the delegate count in a new article: "The delegate count as reported by The A.P. lags behind the total vote somewhat. In the chart below, we’ve included delegate estimates from The Green Papers, which include the unallocated delegates from states that have already voted." http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/30/upshot/trump-clinton-delegate-calculator.html?ref=politics
 * If we are going to include only delegates we are certain of, we should be consistent and leave out all caucus delegates until the state conventions, as well as leave out all the superdelegates until the DNC - since both delegate counts are still subject to change. --77.172.213.154 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous and inconsistent. At this point we are more sure of what the final delegation makeup from Washington will be than Nevada. You decided to use TGP several days ago and then just changed your minds again and use this flimsy excuse that we shouldn't rely on any projections and only stick to what we're certain? Might as well leave every caucus blank until their state convention then.
 * "A consensus has been reached to use both sources. The Green Papers are to be used for projections until the official results are published by The Associated Press. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)" So why somebody changed Washington results in the table? According to Green Papers Projections Bernie is projected with 74 delegates, Hillary with 27. Why in the table we say 25-9?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw that the same problem (incomplete AP's delegates allocation) there is also for other states like Arizona (44-31 according to GP, 44-30 in the table), North Carolina (60-47 according to GP, 59-45 in the table), Missouri (36-35 according to GP, 34-34 in the table), Illinois (78-78 according to GP, 76-73 for Hillary in the table).
 * Why don't we use Green Papers projections as agreed?
 * Furthermore, as Dajasj said, according to Kansas Dems in Kansas they should be 23-10 and not 24-9 as AP and GP reported. What source should we choose in this case?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I corrected the table according to the consensus achieved. For Kansas, waiting for answers, I added a note.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

People in the previous discussion falsely alleged that no media outlet if follower TGP's count but this is untrue — FiveThirtyEight's delegate count is clearly based on TGP. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/ 2804:7F7:D280:14E:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that there's a discussion ongoing about the sources that have been used (and some that are trying to be used) in the state table listing of results on that template's talk page. The issue is at least partially because any "consensus" established here is difficult to enforce there because apparently not everyone knew about the discussions that took place on this talk page here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So what should we do? A new discussion on that template's talk page? Anyway in my opinion the pages using that template should use the same sources, or they could look inconsistent with the template. What do you suggest?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All discussions that effect the templates that are being used on this Wikipedia page really should take place on those template's talk pages. If you want to let people know on this talk page here that there might be an ongoing discussion of importance to this page going on somewhere else, that's always a good idea as well. We've recently gotten some temporary protection against random IP edits to the "Template:2016USDem" page, which should help a little with some of these odd changes to the delegate numbers there. Guy1890 (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Illinois Total Delegates
For whatever reason, people keep on changing the total Illinois delegates to 156, yet NYT (AP) disagrees with this. It keeps being set to 73 and 76 (for Bernie and Hillary delegates, respectively), and that's fine since NYT and AP agree with that number, however, 73 + 76 does not equal to 156, it equals to 149. Why does the total keep on changing to 156?
 * There is a section to talk about Illinois, anyway the total is 156 according to the Illinois Delegate Selection Plan.
 * In the District level just 102 pledged delegates were allocated (52 to Hillary and 50 to Bernie if I'm not wrong), so the AP's and the Green Papers' results are just projections. The other 54 pledged delegates will be selected on 05/09 by the State Convention.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention it says that both candidates got 78 delegates each despite the fact that Hillary won the state. Most other sources say that it was 76-73 or 78-76 in the delegate count. Hillary won by two points, why do they both have the same amount of delegates?2602:306:CC42:8340:8579:2510:5219:993A (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't read the talk "Which source should we use for the delegate count?". We decided to use The Green Papers projections (the source cited in the article) because the Associated Press ones are incomplete (76+73=149, 78+76=154, but the total pledged delegates are 156 according the Illinois Delegate Selection Plan).--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Shift in Arizona delegate counts
Updated county delegate results increases Sen. Bernie Sanders count by 2 and reduces Sec. of State Hillary Clinton count by 2. Source - AZ DEM official results Xession (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanders from 31 to 33 and Clinton from 44 to 42? Now it's updated.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Delegate Gap"
I dont see why this section even exists, its pointless and redundant. It should be removed. JP16103 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Its perfectly relevant to show how much a candidate is leading? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.176.2 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2016
 * You're right that a whole section just for this is way overkill. Also, it looks dangerously close to synth to me. The only source given is the current delegate count, and the rest is just editorializing. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the section, agreed that it doesn't really help the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I found this section extremely informative (disclaimer: I did not write a single word of it), especially the graph illustrating the trend very well. The text was indeed editorialized, but all it needs is a few sources (there are dozens of press articles analyzing the delegate gap). I agree that it did not deserve a main section. I would suggest to restore this analysis as a subsection of Timeline and expand the text with sources. — JFG talk 15:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * it is another graph that needs constant updating, the readers can just see the delegate gap by looking at the candidates section, looking at the table down below, or looking at the info in the infobox. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to disagree. I think it really shows how the race has progressed. Buffaboy  talk 17:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not like the information is difficult to find. There are countless graphs, and charts throughout the article. JP16103 21:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, I was really disagreeing with the removal of the chart. Buffaboy  talk 01:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The delegate map reflects that Obama came from behind and beat Clinton, even though Clinton had been in the lead. She seems to be loosing superdelegates too.  This number has been in the past at 500 and 480, but it struggles at 470 now. Wendy.krieger (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't ever remember ever seeing a time when Clinton had over 500 superdelegates during this 2016 process. Sanders has gained a few superdelegates over the same time-frame, and many of the remaining Democratic superdelegates are "DNC members" (whatever that means). Guy1890 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Events of Historic Relevance
A recent edit made to this article neutrally spoke of the very widespread criticism of the obvious bias by the mainstream media. This is a form of manipulation of public opinion, and absolutely without a doubt a series of events that shape the outcome of American history. It has been accepted by a number of new media outlets such as The Huffington Post, The Young Turks, Rolling Stone, Salon, and others. It is unquestionable that mainstream media is still very powerful and very capable of accommodating the outcome of our history to their pleasing. Every single claim was cited, and multiple times. I have been reading Wikipedia for a number of years and have seen vague claims regarding corruption or bias at other points in history and such claims that were never proven true but are included in the article regardless. The claim that Sanders is receiving the least coverage has already been more than proven to be true, and it is supported by thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people. We cannot pick and chose what goes in the history books. We cannot simply dismiss the efforts of thousands of activists and regular citizens simply because there is a difference in political opinion among us. One of you even undid the contribution and dismissed it as a "conspiracy theory" without taking any consideration for the overwhelming evidence. How does one person's opinion get to override that of thousands? I don't really understand that.

Do not let your political preference get in the way of your edits. I made to sure to include both sides of the arguments I made, except when it came to CNN because they were the only network not to acknowledge the alleged bias. Censoring this piece of history puts Wikipedia in the group of outlets that censor information that does not please their community. What does that say about Wikipedia as a neutral outlet for information? I strongly urge you to reconsider, I will do my best to get outside support for this edit, for it is crucial in order to explain why the primaries occurred the way that they did.

Here is the edit, it was titled "Controversy".

The 2016 Presidential Primary has been widely criticized by the general public for a number of reasons, one being the superdelegate process that favors Secretary Clinton, and the lack of equal mainstream media coverage of Senator Sanders' campaign. Groups across America have protested mainstream media outlets with the largest protest so far taking place outside of the CNN building in Hollywood, California on April 3, 2016 where an estimated 200 constituents voiced their frustrations about the network's perceived bias. Early in the campaign CNN had been reported to have deleted positive Facebook comments of Senator Sanders as well as comments that spoke unfavorably of Secretary Clinton. CNN has not publicly acknowledged the protest or the censorship of the comments. Employees at Time Warner, who owns CNN, have contributed close to $200,000 to Secretary Clinton's Campaign.

In early March 2016 The Washington Post was scrutinized for publishing 16 negative articles about Sanders within a 16 hour span. The Washington Post acknowledged their articles and in response to the overwhelming backlash they ran 16 positive articles. In mid March 2016 The New York Times published an article titled “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors” where it spoke of Senator Sanders' achievements in Congress. Shortly through out the day the article was edited multiple times removing content that shun Sanders in a positive light as well as changing the title to “Sanders’s Roaster of Modest Wins”. The Times acknowledged the multiple alterations in an Opt-ed by Margaret Sullivan where she explained that senior editors who read the article thought the revisions were necessary to help the public decide if Sanders would be able to carry out his agenda if elected President. The New York Times' editorial board publicly endorsed Secretary Clinton on January 30, 2016.


 * "I have been reading Wikipedia for a number of years and have seen vague claims regarding corruption or bias at other points in history and such claims that were never proven true but are included in the article regardless."
 * That's a classic "other stuff exists" argument, which isn't the best argument to make when editing a particular Wikipedia page. In other words, because some other Wikipedia articles might not be entirely accurate, that doesn't mean that it's OK to introduce bogus content into another Wikipedia article.
 * That said, the so-called "super delegate" process has been in existence since at least the 1980s, which pre-dates the Clinton's & Sanders' entry into national politics. YouTube is really not a widely accepted reliable source here on Wikipedia. I doubt that "Nation of Change" is either (I actually used to subscribe to its liberal feed), and the fact that some people who might work for CNN have donated to a particular campaign isn't really notable or illegal at all. It's also pretty common knowledge that the editorial boards of many (if not all?) major U.S. newspapers have a wall of separation between them and their news gathering entities. The specific idea that The New York Times is in the tank for Clinton is a pretty laughable argument at this late date, given the number of dubious articles that they've written about her over the years.
 * Does the U.S. mainstream media have an influence over U.S. politics? Sure it does, but I think that's pretty much baked into whatever happens in those politics. Both winners & losers of U.S. political contests (including the one that this article is here to document) complain about the media all the time. Guy1890 (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

–
 * "That's a classic "other stuff exists" argument"
 * I have yet to hear someone in real life tell me that, don't know how that is "the classic argument", condescending, but what else can I expect from some of the community online? I love the maturity. Okay let's continue.


 * "YouTube is really not a widely accepted reliable source here on Wikipedia."
 * I find it disturbing that an internet community would discredit another internet community, especially one that is much much larger than the other. With that said, you have obviously failed to read every single source that I've cited as YouTube was only one out of 15 other sources. All from Rolling Stone, to the Washington Post themselves. Nice try on picking and choosing which sources you name in your argument to get your point across, I honestly don't know how you're even allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. "Yeah let me just totally ignore all the other sources cited in this article just because."


 * "In other words, because some other Wikipedia articles might not be entirely accurate, that doesn't mean that it's OK to introduce bogus content into another Wikipedia article."
 * Definition of "bogus" - not genuine or true; fake. Your description of this content as "bogus" is quiet frankly completely off, and worst of all insulting to the thousands of activists and people who have so furiously fought the most blatant form of War against an honest U.S. Presidential candidate in American History. Again, this isn't some sort of "bogus" accusation, if you would have actually taken the time to read through all the citations you would see there's even screen capture of articles, acknowledgments by the very media corporations of their alleged bias, and armies of disturbed voters. So apparently the opinion of Guy1890 gets to override that of thousands and thousands of people. Great, maybe you should run for President, you fit the egotistic profile of someone who thinks of their word/opinion as "the law".


 * "...influence over U.S. politics? Sure it does, but I think that's pretty much baked into whatever.."
 * This isn't a matter of what you "think" or what you prefer, this is about whether something happened or not. And what happened is probably THE WORST and most OBVIOUS way that it ever has in our lifetimes. Apparently manipulation of public opinion resulting in a change in course of American history isn't of historic importance to you. I repeat, I quiet frankly don't understand how you're allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. Cgranados72 (talk)

– Consider that 10 months ago Bernie Sanders was being dismissed as a non-starter; now he's been presenting an often formidable challenge to Hillary Clinton and he's already won contests in 16 states. That does not suggest he has been victimized by media bias. Even if it were present, as some of his supporters allege, other factors would have clearly had more impact. So my opinion is that there's no urgent need to include a section detailing the allegations of media bias. If you do start a section or paragraph discussing media coverage, you have to tread carefully in order to avoid giving prominence to fringe sources. Are there any reliable sources backing up these allegations (a few pro-Sanders bloggers and YouTube accounts don't count)? Has Sanders or any of his key supporters said anything on the subject? Did any of the accused say anything back?

I also think that any controversies or allegations should be woven into the article wherever possible, rather than having a single section at the bottom that ends up explaining why "the whole thing was biased against Sanders". Anywikiuser (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Anywikiuser per WP:UNDUE, if you do include it then consider the sources, and consider the other side's point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

–
 * "Has Sanders or any of his key supporters said anything on the subject? Did any of the accused say anything back?"
 * Wow, I swear to God I am going to lose it. Yes they did answer, again if you would have taken the time to read the citations you would see the Post said something back, I made sure to include both sides of the story, not just one. How does one make this sort of argument and not read the citations. All this tells me is that we're too lazy to actually review an entire story before taking it down. In fact! Sanders himself has acknowledged it when he sat down with Cenk Uygur: here is the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olH_0JnJiA0 Cgranados72 (talk)


 * With regards to you saying you might "lose it": well you've already called me "lazy" and you've called another user "egotistical" and told him/her that you "don't understand how you're allowed to contribute to Wikipedia." I understand that you are passionate in your support for Bernie Sanders, but you have to remember that some of us have an equally strong determination to keep Wikipedia reliable and neutral. In today's polarized political climate this is often hard to do. It does, however, help when the talk pages are kept civil and insult-free. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem is that a majority of Sander's supporters are fired up, but the reality is that he is losing delegate-wise. So far I have already seen an editor claim that we were pro-Clinton, and had bias but in reality we are remaining neutral on the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, Wikipedia has rules about what can & cannot be included in articles on Wikipedia and what online sources can & cannot be considered reliable. Also, like it or not, we decide things here on Wikipedia through consensus. Finally, like it or, Wikipedia does not exist to allow users to push obvious, partisan points of view. You've been on Wikipedia (almost exclusively to push your above theory BTW) since the end of last month "Cgranados72"...some of us have been here just a tad longer & can sense obvious, agenda-drive edits (which aren't allowed here either BTW) when they see them. Guy1890 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to me just few lines about the "#bias" controversies involving The New York Times and The Washington Post could be included in the article citing the same NYT and WP and the Rolling Stone. Maybe an entire section could be undue or not encyclopaedic (Wikipedia is not a newspaper) but could still be ok if just reporting that there have been this kind of controversies and not showing in detail partisan opinions about them. This in particular is the problem in the first part of the edit that looks, on my opinion, a "partisan point of view" for the reasons that Guy1890 said (the "super delegate" process has been in existence since at least the 1980s, people working for CNN can donate to presidential campaigns and editorial boards of major U.S. newspapers can endorse presidential candidates, no one of these facts is notable or illegal) and the supporting sources look "opionionated sources". Nothing forbids the editor to write an article in a blog, but here we have rules to be respected, nothing personal, I'm not a Clinton supporter.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

–


 * Alright, so it should probably be reworded and made smaller if anything and not mention the bigger things that are happening. Cool, but we'll get one thing straight. This isn't some "theory", there is an absolute conflict of interest and I know most of you are clever enough to realize that. But I get it. And thanks for taking the time to check out the citations and providing feedback rather than just being a total dick, appreciate it.

Kansas Results
I just read this http://www.ksdp.org/2016/03/kansas-democratic-caucus-results/ which seems to me as a more reliable source, shouldn't we implement this one? Dajasj (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Surely it looks a more institutional source. This is an evidence that also when AP and Green Papers agree they can be wrong.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Kansas Dems just did the math wrong. The Green Papers did the math right. However, it is possible that Hillary Clinton got on more National Convention delegate in Congressional District 4 at the District Convention of that district on April 2nd. That would have been the case, if more Hillary supporters than Sanders supporters did show up. Unfortunately, the results are not available. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added just a footnote keeping the AP's and GP's results in the table. Is it ok for you?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's perfectly fine. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times and The Green Papers updated Kansas results. Kansas Democratic Caucus was right. I updated and removed the footnote.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Did they change the number of votes? It appears to me that they are different now. --Ich bin es einfach (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Graphs
I'm thinking of working on some graphs to illustrate the whole primary process. So far I have a graph that shows the cumulative delegate count vs time. (1) Do you think such a graph would be helpful? and (2) What other kinds of graphs do you think would make a good addition? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your additions. I think the previous version by looked better (shown here to the right), but yours has the correct colors. Perhaps you could merge them? — JFG talk 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't it better to show the gap as a function of time rather than number of state? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both are interesting... A matter of taste :) Other opinions? — JFG talk 18:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that the y axis should be mirrored, such that most of the cumulative gap is in the positive region, I feel that the gap should be calculated by (Clinton - Sanders), rather than the other way round, since during most of the primary season it has been Clinton > Sanders, so it makes sense that you subtract the smaller number from the bigger number? I just like seeing graphs in the +ve region of the Y axis rather than the -ve region haha. --Sleepingstar (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting remark. Current graph seems to say "Sanders was drowning in the early contests but he is now closing the gap" whereas with an inverted y axis it would look more like "Clinton dominated the early contests but her lead is now shrinking". I guess both versions would be branded subjective by passionate supporters... but most press stories mentioning this "delegate gap" talk about Sanders attempting to close it, not about Clinton seeing it shrink, therefore I support the current layout. — JFG talk 23:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it either way, rather that my brain works better with positive numbers, but I guess this is open to multiple interpretations haha. Sleepingstar (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I took your advice for the Gap graph. You're right, it looks better. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Splendid, thx! — JFG talk 12:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I published the source code for both graphs on their respective pages commons:File:Delegate gap for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries.svg and commons:File:Delegate count for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries.svg. When the result table at 2016USDem is updated, anyone can run the codes and generate updated graphs. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice initiatives! My two cents: I think it is maybe nicer to replace one of the two (probably the delegate gap one) with the democratic equivalent of the "share of delegates" graph, which can be found on the republican page, or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#/media/File:Delegate_share_for_the_2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries.svg --77.172.213.154 (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Frankly I don't like it very much. Visually it's not as interesting as when there are more than 2 candidates, and it's also less informative than the delegate gap. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Though it appears 'boring' perhaps, I do think it is very informative: the race is and always has been pretty close - which is something not often reported. How about this graphs is combined with a 'delegate gap' (no. of delegates) line on the other y-axis? Maybe that provides the best of both? I really like it! 77.172.213.154 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear, there were some updates to the delegate counts today with final results for Wisconsin adding 5 delegates and official results for Arizona switching 2 delegates. Could you run your magic script and update the graphs accordingly? I'm not equipped with R at the moment. Much appreciated. — JFG talk 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if I may add an improvement request, it would be good to display the latest values next to the end of the line graphs, e.g. today 1302 and 1088 for the pledged delegates and 214 for the gap. — JFG talk 22:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Done! Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)