Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 7

Additional Templates
Would it be appropriate to add both the Hillary Clinton series and Bernie Sanders series templates to the side of the page? I don't want to do it without asking first, but it seems like a convenient way to provide more links about the two major candidates in this race. Thoughts and opinions welcome.

Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would still like to add these templates, but adding them to the top of the page produces unwanted white space and/or messes up the formatting of the first table. Instead, I'd like to suggest putting them in a collapsible box using the following markup, and placing it under the "candidates" heading.




 * If anyone knows how to fix the problem of too much white space, has a better suggestion for the placement of these templates, or is opposed to them, please let me know! If there are no objections I will probably get around to adding it tomorrow or so. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was able to add them to the side of the page without messing up the paragraph spacing or the first table, at least on my browser. Since that's where sidebars normally are placed, I added them there. Let me know if it looks too clunky; if so, perhaps we could make the templates collapsible. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New related article
I cannot believe Fraud and irregularity allegations during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 is a thing. Shouldn't these minor issues be covered in this article, rather than an article of its own? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That idea was almost immediately nixed (though I can't exactly tell you why). I think the debate should still be in the talk page.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)  [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Proposals_for_Adding_Fraud_Section_to_Article]
 * That article is just asking for AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What does AfD mean? [Googling it was less helpful and more racist than I expected...]  Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) - something for deletion?  May I ask why?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:AfD. Article for deletion. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I understand that consensus cut against any inclusion in this article.  However, the (separate) article meets all relevant criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Can you, @muboshgu, explain why you think it would meet any criterion for deletion?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a small aspect of the primaries, not notable in its own right. The "fraud" part (I see the article has since been renamed) indicates the entire article is based on a fringe theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the one that renamed the article, my recommendation is that the info be merged somewhere as there were irregularities during the voting process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, the article in question here is now at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

AP
I'm not the most impartial person, but isn't it ridiculous that we would have to consider putting up a disclaimer of "presumptive nominee" when superdelegates do not vote until the convention? -- Buffaboy talk 00:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is what it is, unless they change their minds she is the presumptive nominee. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No delegates ("super" or otherwise) vote until the convention, but this article here will continue to help document how delegates are likely to vote at this summer's Democratic Party Convention. Neither the AP, nor NBC News, or any other media organization can change that. Guy1890 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The "pledged" delegates don't vote until the convention either. And yes, pledged delegates can change their vote if they wish (although it hasn't happened yet, AFAIK) . The fact that the actual voting doesn't take place until the convention is reflected in the word "presumptive" in the "presumptive nominee" (as opposed to "THE nominee") Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Pledged delegates are pledged to, in all good conscience, reflect the sentiments of the delegates that elected them. In that sense they are not 'pledged' in the colloquial sense, but this eventuality arises largely when their candidate is no longer in the race etc. (http://swampland.time.com/2008/02/19/pledged_delegates_vs_bound_del/).  So regardless of what remedies might be available should that not happen, I think it might be seen as somewhat disingenuous to portray each type of delegate as procedural similar as regards voting at the convention.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While it seems likely superdelegates will not change their votes, they still remain unpledged and formally uncommitted to a candidate and I believe no candidate should be declared "Presumptive nominee" until they receive at least 2,383 pledged delegates, which happened with Trump on the Republican side, or if Sanders is to suspend his campaign. MB298 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Trump can have a heart attack & die tomorrow or get convicted for fraud, this is what "Presumptive nominee" means. Nothing is set in stone with either candidate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Trump is still about 100 delegates short of the number needed to clinch the Republican nomination. He is the presumptive nominee because it is presumed he will win based on the numbers he has now. bd2412  T 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually... per the article I cited above about '72 and McGovern... and people's objections above... the issue is that Sanders is still in the race. Trump is presumptive nominee because there is no other credible Republican candidate.  Were either of the two dawdlers still in the race, this would be a very different conversation.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC).  Even in that case, it might not matter if there were such a big difference (as between Kasich and Trump); if Sanders drops out and De La Fuente does not, I think given the large pledged delegate gap very few people would offer the same substantive objections [I would not; at that point I think per convention Secretary Clinton would be considered the presumptive nominee].  Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken on that, however all his rivals have suspended their campaigns. If Sanders suspends his campaign, Clinton should be declared presumptive nominee. MB298 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, either when Sanders suspends his campaign or if hillary passes the majority threshold with pledged delegates only.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to find validity The report that Clinton is now the presumptive nominee is flowing from several news reports. NBC, CNN, ABC, Fox, and the AP all have declared her the presumptive nominee. I know most of them are following the same tracker, so the relationship could be spurious. BUT! my point is that unless there is some reliable news source, not a blog, not an op-ed, not a comment by an open Sanders or even Clinton supporter, that she is not the nominee by delegate count, she is properly declared the presumptive nominee for purposes of this page and Wikipedia. I have searched all night and no news media is saying anything else. Let's be neutral here and follow what all sources are now saying. Manful0103 (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumptive Nominee and Edit War I know that we all get our blood boiling when politics is involved, but can we keep this as objective as possible. This page should be representing proper media and objective viewpoints, not politicized for one candidate or another. I know some folks want to "explain why bernie is still in", but at least keep it objective and well-sourced. Charlesblack (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I knew this edit war was going to happen, but I was thinking it would start after June 7th primaries when Clinton got the solid majority of pledged delegates. But these obviously Sanders supporters will edit war it down to the second Clinton is voted on at the convention.  Sanders could suspend his campaign this week or after DC and openly endorse Clinton and they will still not want to put Clinton as the presumptive nominee.  His supporters have taken over social media and now have spilled into Wikipedia as well.  Good luck with them.  I guess they don't understand what "presumptive" nominee means.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4705:B31D:D857:E531:D349:5257 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually I find it quite annoying that the press nonsense (there is not other description for that) is parroted here without much critical reflection that you will find in other news outlets. You can only be the "presumptive nominee" if you have the sufficient majority based on pledged delegates only. Superdelegates can change their vote until they actually cast it on the convention, so you cannot simply assign them to declare a definitive majority. Not to mention that the DNC repeatedly asked the press not to count superdelegates. As far as sources on the subject are concerned, see for instance, --Kmhkmh (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that you Jonathan Tasini? I know how passionate you are and are trying to spin the semantics, but Clinton is the presumptive nominee just as Trump is.  Heck, these pages put Trump as the presumptive nominee even before he had the delegates! (he still doesn't have enough pledged delegates).  Clinton is the nominee.  This is not some pro-Clinton news conspiracy.  They did the same thing in 2008 and every other year.  Those in denial are TRULY trying to delay the inevitable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4705:B31D:D857:E531:D349:5257 (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's realistic to assume that superdelegates will vote for the candidate they endorse, as long as that candidate stays in the race. If you look at the 2008 list of superdelegates, you'll see that only a handful switched their endorsement prior to June 2008, when Obama became the presumptive nominee, and not one deserted Obama from that point onwards. And that was in a contest that was far less polarized than this one. So if a trustworthy news source is assuming the superdelegates will stick to their endorsement, I think that's entirely reasonable. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @IP: Obviously I'm not Jonathan Tasini.
 * Whether that is entirely reasonable, shoddy journalism or subtle manipulation is in the eye of the beholder. As far as WP as an encyclopedia is concerned it also an issue with recentism. There is no need to include any daily news in the article, we have the option to wait until results are really "for sure" rather than a (disputed) claim in some press outlets. In this particular case it might have made sense to wait for a day or two after the june 7 primaries have passed and clinton most likely has a majority based on pledged delegates and instead of the latest "nonsense" from the press we would be able to report an actual fact.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kmhkmh, of course if something is disputed (like the fraud alligations) then we should refrain from putting it here right away as an encyclopedic fact. But guess what, Clinton being the presumptive nominee is not being debated by anyone other than the Sanders campaign or his supporters.  Nowhere in the press is it being reported otherwise.  So there is no "disputed" claims here.  But by the end of today (June 7) and Clinton has the majority of pledged delegates along with her SD support, it will be settled.  There is now, and there will be, no objective dispute except by hardcore Sanders supporters.  2601:589:4705:B31D:4D42:DA4C:940C:9935 (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Communications Director of the Democratic National Committee, Luis Miranda, clearly stated that "super delegates are not to be counted by the media or anyone else" in the process of talking about who has or has not reached the minimum number necessary to be nominated. I can personally answer any further questions you might have, having sat on the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC for four years. --jeromewiley 23:17 EST —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Asserting nobody disputes AP's claim but Sanders supporters makes as much as sense as asserting nobody supports it but Clinton supporters.
 * And yes by the end of June 7, we most likely know indeed that Hillary is the presumptive nominee. But that was my whole point that we only know it by the end of June 7 and not before. The disputed claim was the before part.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources say, and the sources say that Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No the sources don't say that! All the sources the sources actually state is, that AP (and a few others) have declared Clinton the "presumptive nominee" and that this claim disputed.
 * Letting AP declared the "presumptive nominee" is actually not quite as bad as letting AP call the election but it has a touch of that. The encyclopedic approach however is to wait for the results.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * She has not won yet. The pledged delegates may not vote until the DNC, but we know for a fact that they vote proportionally, whereas Superdelegates have free will to vote for whoever at the DNC. We should wait until the actual convention to announce her as a winner. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  03:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "You can only be the 'presumptive nominee' if you have the sufficient majority based on pledged delegates only"...the problem with this continued line of thinking is that there is nothing in the DNC rules that says that this is actually true at all. What reliable sources are credibly claiming, at this late date, that Clinton isn't the 2016 presumptive Democratic nominee for President of the United States? This Wikipedia article here needs to continue to be about what actual reliable sources report, not what particular Wikipedia editors think about those sources are reporting.
 * "We should wait until the actual convention to announce her as a winner"...being the "winner" is not the same thing as being the "presumptive nominee". Guy1890 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a disputed AP story is not a scholarly article. WP needs to to report, summarize and weight accordingly what reliable sources state, it however is not supposed to parrot what an disputed news story claims. That is exactly the difference that matters here (or rather mattered).
 * A presumptive nominee is not simply the most likely winner, but somebody who has one the race for good and is just awaiting formal confirmation, which was definitely not true for Hillary at the time the AP story broke. --Kmhkmh (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "A presumptive nominee is not simply the most likely winner, but somebody who has one the race for good"...no, "presumptive nominee" means just that...that person is presumed to be the nominee until a final process (which, in this case, is the Democratic National Convention this summer) takes place. Guy1890 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To exaggerate a it a bit, if you read it like you do, you could have declared hillsary the "presumptive nominee" (= most likely winner) in summer 2015 before a single vote was cast.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Errrr, I don't think I would have done that (declaring a "presumptive nominee" before any actual voting had taken place) at all, but thanks for the chuckle anyways. I think we're done here on this moot point... Guy1890 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I see two scenarios now happening: That's the wording you'd be advised to use to describe either. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) On June 6, the day before the last states held primaries, [media outlets] judged that Clinton had obtained a majority of delegates. After the following day's primaries, Clinton declared victory and Sanders suspended his campaign on [date]. Clinton will be the first woman to be the presidential candidate of a major party in the United States.
 * 2) On June 6, the day before the last states held primaries, [media outlets] judged that Clinton had obtained a majority of delegates. After the following day's primaries, Clinton declared victory. Sanders has not suspended his campaign and has said he will continue to contest the nomination up to the convention. Clinton is expected to become the first woman to be the presidential candidate of a major party in the United States.
 * Why do you post possible/potential scenarios for June 6 on June 8. Past is not the future.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary is the nominee, the majority of the Supers are going for Hillary. You upset Bernie Sanders supporters need to stop trying to use Wiki to twist the facts. We deal with only facts here, not butthurt supporters.2602:306:CC42:8340:C842:D333:2A16:5856 (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Fictitious Citations to CA and NJ Primary Results...
Neither election has been certified. I just called every Board/Superintendent of Elections in NJ and most were unwilling or unable to give totals on provisional ballots. Many stressed to me that the election results have not been certified. The same (certification issue) is true of CA.

The cite to the CA results (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/) is correctly reflected in the vote % totals allocated to each candidate on the Wiki page; but the certification of a win is totally fictitious. The same is true of NJ which does so in a more baldfaced manner (citing to the greenpapers, http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/NJ-D#0607). Doesn't this violate the wiki convention that we're a verifiable encyclopedia and not a news source? Shouldn't we minimally clarify the cites? I know, I know... this is me pushing a spurious partisan agenda... (when we've all "moved on") but the page as it stands now is false, and intentionally misleading, and that falsehood presents a biased picture. Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't new as it has happened already more than once, the wins are not certified until later on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You mean there is a repetitive issue with people inserting false claims on election wins? Or are you saying that the page has used this fictitious citation system in the past?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am saying that so far uncertified wins have been added in the article and corrected later on. The media to their credit though has political experts with degrees in these sort of things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've tried before to limit how quickly we update the pages in order to wait for official results, but the consensus was to update as quickly as possible in order not to lag behind. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's insane... and it obviously promotes bias. That's why AP's announcement was so out of sync with convention, and that's why the 2000 election got muddled.  This must violate policy.  Can you find that consensus you're recalling (lol, which ostensibly overrode wikipedia's policies on truthfulness and verifiability)?  Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't violate WP policy though, because we still referenced all the information that was added. And by consensus I mean that there were a few comments that made it clear no one was interested in waiting several days until official results came out. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have little else to say than for shame (on the article and editors that endorse this, not on you). This is an obvious attempt to mislead: "The following are the results of candidates that have won at least one state."  But they aren't the results...  So it obviously violates Wikipedia's Verifiability criterion because those aren't the results of the elections... results are certified.  [*It's verifiable that the results have not been certified...]  It doesn't matter how reputable the source is; it only becomes verifiable by noting that you're citing a source and not the actual results.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can picture that being a problem with all of the IPs coming in and updating the page based on the media, it would be chaos. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly,I quickly gave up :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it this actually violates policies or not is probably subject of debate and a bit of grey area. Sure you can argue that formally verifiability is fulfilled, however knowingly adding objectively incorrect information just because there is some sources that says so, is imho a policy abuse and may very well violates policies/guidelines as whole.
 * The problem is that in an individual case it is almost a lost cause, since with such political article you usually have too many people that either just want to add new information as quickly as possible independent quality/correct or want to push a subtle agenda. The required discussion and dispute resolution is likely to drag on until the concerned primary or election is over for good anyhow. This means the only way to address this, is to set a general guideline for such elections that clearly mandates what sources can be used in what manner and to what end and how election results are to be reported. If you can get consensus on such guideline, then you might enforce it next time around.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At the same time, it seems fairly common across all election articles on WP to add preliminary results. They're usually updated once official results are published. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Though that is common indeed, it still can be seen as a case of undesired recentism. There is probably no real consensus within the community on that. However the real issue here is imho icremental quick updating of news, but their misleading representation. As long as mere (early) newspaper claims or assessments are clearly and easily recognizable as exactly those and as long as he same holds for uncertified results as well, there won't be much of an issue. But exactly that seems often not to be the case and that's the real issue.
 * Or to to put it this way: We can't have it both ways in such cases, giving a (falsely) simple representation and publish early. Either we go for the early publication, but then we need a core complex representation including the still existing caveats or we go for simple description, but then we need to wait until the caveats are resolved. But the "both ways"-approach is imho a policy abuse (as outlined further up).--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What I'm basically getting out of this is that not only does the consensus actually cut against the model we currently use, but that there may not have actually been consensus in the first place. Yet another impressive structural bias...  (And yet only those who question these aspects of bias get threatened and trashed... Interesting model.)  Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh I'm totally aware. That's why I only raise these points on talk pages; it was made clear to me that I would have no meaningful input in the article itself very early on.  But at this point, I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't make more sense for me to compile some of these debates and write them up for news media.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The citations highlighted above (to a state website or The Green Papers) in this thread appear to be nothing unusual or contrary to the conventions that have been used in the past to cite many, many state popular vote or pledged delegate totals in this article and on its related templates. Wikipedia articles use reliable sources to cite facts (like election results)...that's nothing new or controversial on any level at all. Guy1890 (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanders lost get over it. This is Wikipieda, not a campaign site.2602:306:CC42:8340:C842:D333:2A16:5856 (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you follow your own advice.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders does not have "No path to nomination"
(1) There are 715 superdelegates. That means 715 delegates have not voted, and will not vote until July 25–28.

(2) Bernie Sanders has (according to the wikipedia page on June, 8, 2016 at 12:44pm PST) 1804 delegates.

(3) Bernie Sanders needs 2383 delegates to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee.

(4) 1804 pledged delegates + 715 superdelegates = 2519 delegates.

(5) 2519 is greater than 2383, which means there exists a path to nomination.

Therefore Bernie Sanders does not have "No path to nomination". Instead, Bernia Sanders has a path to nomination which involves him getting 80.9% of the superdelegates which won't vote until July 25–28.

Not only does there exist a path to the nomination of Bernie Sanders; but because the superdelegates have not voted (and we, as human beings, are incapable of 100% predicting the future) there even exists a path where Bernie Sanders gets more delegates than Hillary Clinton.

User:Knowledgekid87 made this edit saying that Bernie Sanders has, and I quote, "No path to nomination", which I hope everyone is knowledgeable enough to know that is not true. The user changed "Convince approximately 532 additional superdelegates to pledge Sanders  before the DNC convention on July 25, 2016. (A very, very unlikely possibility but not impossible)" to "No path to nomination". I'm trying really hard to keep assuming good faith, there has been a lot of 'mistakes' on this article.

User:JFG was the first to edit the page from showing how many delegates Sanders needs to saying "No more path to nomination". I am changing it back to the previous view before User:JFG made the 'mistake' of saying there is, in the literal sense, "No more path to nomination".

Instead of lecturing you by linking a bunch of wikipedia policies, I will simply suggest these two users (among so many other editors on this page) try to be slightly more careful and responsible in making edits to the page, and I am continuing (as difficult as it has become) to assume good faith on the part of all editors... Kswikiaccount (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As my name was mentioned with a slight accusation of bad faith, let me point out that a day earlier in this very section, I, which should be enough to prove my neutrality to you. If you don't like the wording, feel free to change it. In fact I just made a proposal below to suppress the controversial "path to nomination" column entirely, sticking to current well-sourced facts and raw numbers. — JFG talk 02:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BRD consensus doesn't work like this, you get a consensus here THEN you change the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Great, feel free to follow your own advice. You changed the article before getting consensus. Kswikiaccount (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't change the article, I reverted an IP the "No path to nomination" bit was already present before then. You failed to mention my edit here in an effort for more neutral wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC
 * Don't revert my edit. I've changed the article back to before it was altered, by your own words, without getting consensus. Kswikiaccount (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have already exceeded 1RR please self revert or someone can report you for edit warring. Please read WP:BRD DISCUSS first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one edit warring. I was fixing my edit to change the box sizes so the page isn't messed up. Do you have bias for Hillar Clinton? A moment ago you said Consensus is necessary for changing the page so you could stop my edit, now you change your mind and claim that it's 1RR. What is it, make up your mind? Kswikiaccount (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the message-box above about potentially contentious edits, and 1RR. You undid my change when it came to [] this edit twice now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Make up your mind, is it 1RR or is it consensus? It looks like now it has to do with consensus. I'm trying not to assume that you are intentionally being disruptive. A moment ago you said I needed consensus to change the page. Then you changed your mind and claim its 1RR. You claimed you needed consensus, but you changed the page. I reverted your initial edit today, so under the 1RR you are the one that broke the 1RR. Kswikiaccount (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for you to change the article back to where it was, this is what WP:BRD is. You disputed how it was here, but changed it before anyone had a chance to discuss it claiming a prior consensus that never existed. In addition to that you broke 1RR by undoing the additional info I added twice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again I ask that you please self-revert and gain a consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need to self-revert. You reverted my edit by saying, and I quote, "Please don't mess up the layout", so I fixed my edit so it doesn't "mess up the layout". Again, I have to ask, do you have some sort of bias here? Your behavior is very strange to me because you seem to be throwing a bunch of guidelines at me with the intention to get me not to edit the page. Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay lets keep count, how many times have you accused other editors here of "Bias" you even said above that you had a hard time "assuming good faith" I mean what is up with that? I made a good faith edit which I linked above by saying that Sanders can not win by PLEDGED DELEGATES (which is true), and said in turn that Hillary can only win by super-delegates which have endorsed her. (which is also true and explains the Presumptive nominee text) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith, which is why I am asking you if there is some bias on your part because, and I quote myself, "Your behavior is very strange to me because you seem to be throwing a bunch of guidelines at me with the intention to get me not to edit the page." So again, I ask for you to clarify, what is your position to Hillary? I am offended by your behavior, and this interaction has left me physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted. You haven't even apologized for badgering me, not that I've asked for one, but a decent person would provide one (here's a link to the guidelines you seem to love so much). Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

No you are not assuming good faith. You are being passive-aggressive here by calling out two editors, and after posting your complaints about an edit here on the talk-page went ahead and reverted the main page. You still have not addressed how this does not violate WP:BRD, if you make an edit and it is reverted you discuss it. While editing as an IP you could have taken your complaint here but you didn't... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This dude actually took me to dispute resolution over this, so I guess that's where it's going to be settled, in case anyone was curious. Kswikiaccount (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to read this because it's an utter waste of everyone's time. So let's preempt all this whether someone's assuming good faith analysis by inquiring thus: Knowledgekid87, if you merely reverted to a previous form... where was the consensus on that form? Or is this a first-past-the-post cheating system, and then you only need consensus once something's there for a little while? [*Let me clarify that - was there consensus on any of the language in question, and was there any consensus on your attempt to alter the language re: NPOV (I don't agree that the language was neutral, but I take your point and I think you did that in good faith). But my concern is that if there was never consensus on the "Presumptive Nominee" language, then how did we evade consensus there? I recall participating in that debate and I do not recall ever seeing said debate completed or in consensus. And I do not recall my legitimate concerns ever being acknowledged, let alone resolved. Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)]

And then secondly, what exactly falters about Kswikiaccount's logic? DNC spokespersons have clearly stated that superdelegates should not be included in counts until July, and thus the only unassailable fact is that media outlets have reported that Clinton is the presumptive nominee. That fact being unassailable, Clinton does not, however, have the nomination locked down as an empirical matter. And that's the point the Sanders campaign, the DNC, and non-establishment media figures such as Cenk Uyghur have been asserting.

So my question would be where did the consensus on "with superdelegates added" come from? And how is that less confusing? Clinton is also the winner with grains of sand on beaches added - but that fact is utterly irrelevant, which the DNC has been stressing as well. Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This page was altered against policies and guidelines and then when it was changed back rules were used to Game the System to get their way. Some of you did a very bad thing. Policies and guidelines are not supposed to abused this way. I don't understand how it is reasonable to expect to assume good faith with this behavior going on. Kswikiaccount (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This entire talk page section is just an obvious attempt to move the goal posts on when the nomination race for the selection of the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Nominee actually ends. As has been stated on this talk page (who knows how many times at this late date) again & again, no delegates actually vote until the Democratic National Convention this summer, but we do, in fact, know how the vast majority of those delegates will be voting this summer. I'm sorry, but the 2016 race is effectively over at this late date.
 * The obvious POV-pushers really need to move on or be restricted from editing this page further. There's really been more than enough disruptive editing both here on this talk page and on this talk page's Wikipedia page in the past.
 * The (apparently various IP) user that posted the OP here has recently stated on another user's talk page: "Don't argue with them, just revert their edits and make them send it to arbitration." This article is clearly under discretionary sanctions, and we really need administrative action at this date. Guy1890 (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Bro, 1) this isn't disruptive editing; 2) if you feel that there are people aggressively pushing a POV, by all means seek a remedy; 3) I believe Kswikiaccount's (the IP's) point there was that one might infer precisely the opposite pattern you're suggesting and that attempts to ramrod consensus without taking into account legitimate concerns is the actual abuse of process. But as I said, if you feel that the above issues are all totally neutral POV and that the concerns raised are unquestionably illegitimate and examples of disruptive editing, I urge you to seek adjudication.  I will make the inverse case I just asserted, and we can let the sanctions lay where they fall.  Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This should be closed as we are having a discussion below on how to move forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your guy Sanders lost, get over it.2602:306:CC42:8340:C842:D333:2A16:5856 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Kswikiaccount and Michael Sheflin: You guys cannot seriously be accusing editors of being involved with the Clinton campaign, or using Sanders talking points such as "establishment media," and suggest that you are unbiased. Wicka wicka (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanders has no copyright on the phrase "establishment media" and it would help the discussion here to stick to the actual issues and facts rather than assigning editors to clinton or sanders camps.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

California has to be taken off as it has not been counted yet!
I think the states that are 1) ties 2) under inspection of fraud 3) counting votes should NOT be marked as Hillary Clinton's 'wins'. It is twisting the narrative. Especially California, where almost half of the votes have not been counted yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.90.248 (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? All votes have been counted. She beat him 56-44%. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/CA-D Your other comments are clearly biased and I highly suspect your motive is to promote WP:FRINGE Gcock2k10 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The OP has a point though, there are some votes yet to be counted. I would just continue though to update as the results come in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no contests from this almost-completed process that are "ties", and there are no processes now under way that will overturn any contests that have had some alleged "inspection of fraud". Guy1890 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * California is still counting votes, but the result isn't expected to overturn, since the votes being counted are almost the same percentage as the votes that have already been counted, and well more than 3/4ths of the counting has been completed. As many ballots remained to be looked at as were cast on election day, but a bunch of them were Republican and Independent ballots, a bunch of them were blank, etc etc. A few counties have changed hands one way or another, but the state was called by pretty much every media organization for a reason. If there are reliable sources that change their position, we can change the article to reflect that, but until then the map should remain the same and the votes should be updated as they change. --209.59.106.28 (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Add this map?
I came here to add this map: http://mypollingcenter.com/avazyabadu/2016-Dem-Primaries.svg It came out so nice with shades showing how strong a win is. Then when I got here, I see every map uses brown and green! I should have used those colors because red and blue is dedicated to comparing the two parties. This old man is tired but disappointed that this map so clearly shows the highlights of the story about this primaries battle that has such a historically important story about Establishment vs. the younger than 50 generation?

Would you take it just like it or does it need to be colored again? JC (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I add this table?
I have this results table: http://ahangama.com/wiki/table.htm I want to add it to this page but not too sure if it takes HTML, though the help pages seem to say it does take HTML. Besides, I don't want to mess up the page by trying to put it in the wrong place with wrong formatting. It has three columns I added in addition to information from The Green Papers.

They are the regions (REG) and the percentages. A sortable table would be nice. I think I can convert the HTML to Wiki codes if I try hard enough, but it would be nice if someone experienced adds it to the page.

Someone kind enough to help?

Thanks. JC (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There's already a table almost just like this in this article here. We don't appear to need another one that has a lot (if not all) of the same data in it. Guy1890 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Run-on sentence
Even though I added some of this, it doesn't seem right:
 * Sanctioned by the Democratic Party, these elections were designed to select the 4,051 delegates which will select the Democratic Party's nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election at the Democratic National Convention to be held July 25–28.

I am not a native English speaker, so I thought someone would correct it. It seems like a run-on sentence to me and I have no idea how to break it up or correct without losing the simplicity and thoroughness that is expected from an article lede. Any thoughts? -- EDIT: It's the second sentence in lede. BytEfLUSh &#124; Talk!  02:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism, Fraud, Recent Events, Etc.
How are allegations of fraud and corruption related to this topic handled? I am aware that both the timeliness and subject matter of the article makes it a target for vandalism but I am amazed that it is not mentioned anywhere on this article, even in passing. Especially when considering how widespread they are in public, it seems strange that they are never acknowledged. 216.18.241.3 (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They've been censored and purged from the page. People tried to add it but a couple of editors edit warred and broke a bunch of rules to keep it out. Then the consensus was to make a new page specifically for it, then the page was nominated for deletion and deleted. Wikipedia (and I mean the community of active editors) is censoring the information by claiming either "no reliable sources talk about it", "it's a fringe topic", "no one is alleging fraud", "it's a conspiracy theory", etc. Getting the fraud mentioned on wikipedia is hopeless since the community of active editors don't want it mentioned on the site.
 * Check out a search of the Archive of the Democratic Party Presidential Primaries Talk page with plenty of talk of Election Fraud Allegations going back to April. Lots of bad faith editors broke rules to do bad things so they could censor information from the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.243.108 (talk) 03:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No critique?
I just happened to come across this article and I was surprised that it doesn't include critical comments about of the democratic party presidential primaries. What about the discussion about the Nevada Convention? Was it really rigged or is this article in The Atlantic biased? --spitzl (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, there should be a section called "Critical Reception" or something like that. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  00:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do add things per WP:UNDUE you have to balance both sides of the argument. I also want to point out that there is no "critique" section on the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 article as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That article from the Atlantic does NOT say "it was rigged" or even anything close. Pretty much no serious source has said that. See WP:FRINGE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The DNC e-mail leak was pretty big though, it showed that there was corruption within the DNC, and the chairman promptly resigned after this event. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  03:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanx for your responses. I did not want to claim that there were rigged elections. I just noted voices, such as this one claiming Sanders may actually have won New York. Others claim a number of Sanders supporters were given provisional ballots. Election processes in Arizona, New York, and Chicago seem to have drawn particularly harsh criticism. From an outside perspective this is remarkable and noteworthy. Of course such critisim/irregularities? must be backed by respectable sources and a possible new section must balance both sides.--spitzl (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is not based on "voices", like random comments on reddit. It's based on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think there's enough descrepancies to at least have a section mentioning some of the sus things that happened. I don't mean a section about the election being "rigged" but criticism and irregularities like he said. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  17:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Until there's actual reliable sources presented, I strongly disagree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the DNC email leak then, which was reported by every reliable news source, and still is. There was also the suspected voter suppression in Arizona, which received attention by the Justice Department, and was reported on by CNN. I'm sure there are more instances, but I think those alone should warrant a mention within the article. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  22:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We've been through these kind of discussions before, and they are all in the archives of this talk page here. Reddit and blog postings mean nothing in terms of any supposed "irregularities". There's also an entire article on the 2016 Nevada Democratic Caucus process (including whatever took place at the state convention there) and on the 2016 Arizona Democratic Primary. Guy1890 (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I even once mention a Reddit or blog posting? -- Bobtinin  (talk)  16:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't really have to, since we've already had these discussions multiple times on this very talk page...and that's the kind of "sourcing" that pretty much all the proponents of this kind of nonsense have at the end of the day to push their own POV. This 2016 process is now over people - it's way past time to move on. Guy1890 (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies?
Does anybody else think this page and the [|Republican Primaries 2016] results page are totally inconsistent to each other? For instance the breakdown by county results maps, etc? What page should the pages be modeled after? -- Jennica Talk 22:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Surely this is wrong
"the majority of his delegate gain came from the considerably more populous state of Washington, which he won by a 46% margin"

How do you win by that much? It's a 73–27% win, right?

And if it really is a "margin", it should be expressed in points, not percent. Tony  (talk)  09:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The "margin" is the difference between the percentages the two candidates got. 73% minus 27% is 46%. To be more pedantic, 72.7% - 27.1% = 45.6% which rounds to 46%. If there are just two candidates in a race, a candidate who wins by a margin of 46% has obtained 73%, not 96%. There's no real need to say "percentage points" when a percent sign will do the job just as well. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Delegate totals in infobox
The infobox currently displays the overall delegate totals from the DNC roll-call. I'd argue that the infobox instead should display the pledged delegates awarded via primaries and caucuses.SecretName101 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. 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 tag to https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/images/c/ce/Appendix_B_-_Allocation_Chart_1.29.16.pdf.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422070531/https://www.webb2016.com/ to http://www.webb2016.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading and factually inacurrate information
The information in the section "voter suppression and electoral fraud" is misleading and inaccurate. The information was provided by a Far-left anti-Clinton organization and the citations are largely out of context.

Voter suppression and electoral fraud

Widespread efforts to rework the voting system in Hillary Clinton's favor occurred throughout the primary contests. Regarding the Iowa caucus on February 1st, the Des Moines Register reported numerous instances of missing voter registrations, poorly run polling locations, and other problems, then called for an audit of the contest's results. [220] Problems like these kept appearing as the primaries went on, with former senate minority leader Harry Reid having directed a back room deal to get Clinton more votes than Bernie Sanders in the Nevada caucus[221] and former president Bill Clinton having blocked a polling place in the Massachusetts primary.[222]

Those statements are misleading and factually inaccurate, and not supported by the citation.

Voter suppression occurred in Arizona, where polling locations were drastically reduced before the state's primary and voting hours were made inconvenient for many people.[223] It also happened in New York, where the New York Times reported major voter roll purges leading up to the primary and election irregularities on the voting day.[224] As well as in California, where Election Justice USA reported 75% of registered independents received invalid ballots, voter rolls were purged leading up to the voting,[225] and independents were largely excluded on voting day through the at-the-time undisclosed requirement that they must say "I want a crossover ballot."[226]

Additional irregularities included the documented disappearance of thousands of Sanders votes in the Kentucky and Oregon contests,[227] and the closing of polling locations leading up to the contests in Rhode Island [228]and Indiana. [229] There were also major inconsistencies between exit polls and the reported results in many contests,[230] and reported vote models in those contests that followed shapes which were statistically impossible for how authentic vote models are formed.[231]

Both Snopes and Politifact has ruled most of these allegations false. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/19/claims-bernie-sanders-supporters-fraud-and-miscond/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-voter-turnout-politifact-222138

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jun/10/blog-posting/pants-fire-viral-rumor-bernie-sanders-won-californ/

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckjuhl (talk • contribs) 08:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. Can we delete this section please? Almost all of this information is inaccurate and is drawn from conspiracy theorist websites dedicated to promoting Sanders and derailing Clinton. The results of the primary stand. Election irregularities can be noted, but there is no "election fraud" here. Can be easily debunked with real sources. Seems to be a contribution of some crazed Sanders supporter (there are many, they have vandalized this page before). Neddy1234 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

DONNA BRAZILE November 02, 2017 - Conspiracy Nut.
So where do we put it everyone. All the "rigged primary" talk that was conspiracy theory on the first of November in both 2016 and 2017 is backed up by the former chairwoman of the party. If it were untrue or even refutable the Clinton believers would be all over the story....today was crickets and a really long walk in the woods.

Where do we put the party apparatus owned and operated by one campaign at the detriment to the democratic primary competitors and other office holders who had zero shot at state party money. It is now in the open with supporting documentation. Who wants to do it? It certainly is relevant. Put the height of the bar out there; What else the conspiracy nuts in supporting before someone adds the section?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/senator-elizabeth-warren-believes-dnc-233055761.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

No mention of the fact that the primary was rigged?
Why aren't the DNC e-mail leaks (that clearly and plainly show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the DNC conspired to steal the election from Sanders) even mentioned? One would think that such an important and fundamental fact would be kind of relevant to any factual article on the primaries. Is there some censure of this topic being discussed by some invested parties? I can't think of any other rational reason to omit this.Juuuheligs (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if the Wiki refuses to take an affermative stance on the issue I feel the allegations alone are high profile enough to receive a subsection of the article. 71.246.206.64 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it had a direct effect on the results of the general election, I would think that the schism within the Democratic party would merit mention in SOME form. I imagine that saying it was rigged would violate neutrality, which is fine. But a section on "Controversy", or even bare mention of the fact that there was controversy seems a lot less neutral than ignoring it altogether.

There wasn't any real proof that the primary was rigged for Clinton. I don't know if there should be a mention of it or not, but only if we can find articles either supporting or refuting that belief can we add it here.

What about the e-mails released by Wikileaks? In the least there should be a reference to the controversy surrounding Debbie Wasserman Shultz, the reduction in the number of debates, and possibly the lack of air time given to all non-Clinton Democratic candidates. It's too much of an issue to allow there allegations to fade into obscurity lest we want history to repeat itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:D03:2C00:D938:1B95:5239:8475 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

65.214.67.173 (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The criticisms over the number of debates are mentioned in the article Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016 SecretName101 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There is not mention of this because the primary was not rigged. Clinton won the primary, as nearly every poll predicted leading up to the results. Neddy1234 (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. Her winning the primary does NOT show that it wasn't rigged. Donna Brazile, the most direct source with the most insider knowledge, who herself supported Hillary (and freely admits she gave Hillary debate questions a day ahead), admits in her book that the DNC was not impartial. This must be reflected in this article, without weasel word backpedaling language. 50.35.61.149 (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Dude

Worthless article
Nothing about the massive voter suppression, nothing about how the establishment media collaborated with the DNC, nothing about the voter purging (New York), nothing about how the establishment of the Democrats committed fraud in California by ordering employees to give the wrong ballot (provisional ballot)... This wiki is a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.75.218 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no mention because that is inaccurate information. Clinton won the primary, as every poll leading up to the results predicted. Additionally, Wikipedia is committed to accuracy (no, seriously, there's a whole page on reliability of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) and is not an outlet for excuses about a particular candidate's loss or conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of voter suppression or voter fraud. Neddy1234 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Uhm, yes, there is https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/nyregion/board-of-elections-brooklyn-votes.html in fact it's an ongoing investigation, and there's a settlement being finalized, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/new-york-city-board-elections-settles-lawsuit-over-voter-purge-n816941 and yet, there's nothing in the article about any of these things, the emails proved - and the Brazile bomb - that these things happened, and they are excluded from the article. Revrant (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The current wording about this on the page is VERY pov and very biased. Donna Brazile is about a direct a source as can be, and she verifies that the DNC was biased, just as the WikiLeaks showed. The phrasing really needs to address that without bias. dude 50.35.61.149 (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Brooklyn voted for Clinton in the primary. While it is true that voters were removed from voting rolls, it did not negatively effect Sanders.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadamantus (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Demiocratic Primary - continuation
Volunteer Marek Continuation of this discussion

OK, "Undermine" it is. Also, WaPo never changed their mind: they never though the Democratic primary was rigged at all, even in 2016. However, we need to make the difference between these two articles. The first is a news report, while the second is an analysis. In a news report, it is correct to point out that the DNC email leaks suggested that the democratic primary was rigged, because it did, and plenty of people were making that argumement at the time. this is why we shoudl include this sentence in the article. Emass100 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Shadowproof is not a reliable source. Salon and Observer are borderline. And we should include what sources say NOW, not back then when there was a bunch of yelling and sensationalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The WaPo source from 2017 was done during another "rigged primary scandal" after Donna Brazile's revelations, so no, this is not a cold-headed source either. Basically, there are two kind of sources: those who say that "the DNC primary was rigged", and those who say that "it looks like it was rigged, but it actually wasn't". The wording I propose would reflect the latter.Emass100 (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In order to establish consensus, we will brush aside the notion that we should not be using sources from the time of the primary elections, since most sources from this article are from that period. Emass100 (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)