Jump to content

Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Allegations of Election Fraud

RESOLVED
Discussion closed, consensus being determined below.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new section will be added in the Democratic Primaries page of wikipedia covering the possible election fraud carried out in the Democratic Primaries. I've collected a list of sources to begin the creation of this new section, as there are enough credible sources and independent sources to warrant the creation of a new section, regardless of what a few willfully ignorant people will have us believe. The list:

A group of citizens set out to audit the audit performed by the Chicago Election Board and were horrified by what they saw while watching the audit take place.

Election Fraud Watch 2016

Investigative Journalism: Why Bernie may have actually won New York

Allegations of voter fraud follow Hillary Clinton campaign across nation

Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE – flipped precinct by 18pts from Bernie to Hillary

In November 2004, the officially announced results of the Ukrainian presidential election differed from exit polling by 12%. U.S. officials officially cried fraud. Last Tuesday, the results of the New York primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders differed from exit polling by 12%.

It’s Not Just Arizona: Election ‘Shenanigans’ Have Defined the Democratic Primaries - and Benefit Hillary Clinton

My Response To Being Attacked By Josh Holland In Raw Story Concerning #ExitPollGate

The allegations of election fraud have been so widespread that multiple large media outlets have published articles, such as The Nation and The Washington Post, addressing the issue to try and reduce any further allegations. 74.57.167.5 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, we do not simply say "a new section will be added", you propose it and get input from other editors. So do not just add it without consensus, it will be deleted. I don't say that as a threat, that is just protocol.
Secondly, those "sources" you provided are not all NPOV sources. Reddit? I don't think so. And a blogger on Huffington post? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading articles like that, but they are not solid facts. The voter fraud accusations need to really take a chill. There is a mention of the possible mistakes in NY in the article. But nothing has been proven and no lawsuits or challenge by the Sanders campaign is taking place. I say this with all the respect in the world (I am neutral when it comes to this election), just because a candidate is not currently leading does not mean there was fraud or any rules were broken. Do not added this arbitrary blogs with an entire section, it will be deleted unless there is consensus about how to do something like this if it is even warranted. Manful0103 (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Lawsuits and challenges have been brought up contesting results. I think I found it through the election fraud watch 2016 site which the original user posted in their list. An organization called Election Justice USA filed one just last month in new York and according to their site they may also be filling them in other States. Also it is not protocol to delete new sections. Consensus is not necessary to add a section. You might be thinking of disputes though. If many decide that a section should be deleted and someone adds the section again they may be banned. Peoplez1k (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the initial user to create a new section for alleged election fraud. Since major media papers are covering the alleged election fraud then Wikipedia should at least have a section discussing it. Peoplez1k (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
"I looked at the reliable sources page and it does in fact SOMETIMES consider every single one of those sources you listed as reliable." No, it really doesn't IP, but you'd have to actually be familiar with RS/N (and willing to read it's archives with an honest mind in place & not an obvious, pro-Sanders POV) to know that. "but to describe reality as it unfolds, and as reality is currently unfolding"...you're confusing verifiability with so-called "truth", and again, that's not what we do here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist to push your own, biased Point-of-View (POV). Guy1890 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree with User:Guy1890's post right above here, and the one before that. I concur in the fullest extent. Just to express a consensus on the discussion. Manful0103 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not support the addition of a new section to the article because it suggests there is fraud rampant enough to affect the entire election, which there is no evidence of. Rather, I support mentioning irregularities/fraud/whatever present in individual states within the main body. I will be monitoring any edits made regarding this, as they are likely to descend into non-NPOV very quickly. And as stated above, Reddit is not a source and any information that cites Reddit will be removed. S51438 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I like the suggestion about adding it to the states that have had the irregularities/fraud, but only if they are added as a subsection linked in the Table of Contents with the title of "voting irregularities", "allegation of election fraud", or another similar title. The reddit page is only linked because it has sources considered reliable, saving me the effort of linking them in here individually. I hope people actually took the time to look through the list because these allegations are serious.Kswikiaccount (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately it is impossible to incorporate the fraud/irregularities in the main body AND add a section title. So what you are asking for is impossible. Whether it is "serious" is also debatable.S51438 (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
        • It was serious enough to warrant a response from the National and the Washington Post. I'm guessing people didn't read even one of the links posted.Kswikiaccount (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Just because a website reported on it doesn't mean it is material appropriate for Wikipedia. If you could prove there was fraud rampant enough to change the outcome of any single election, then by all means let us include it. But I'm afraid your evidence is inconclusive.S51438 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we are neutral and report the facts. All of your sources are just blogs and articles by Sanders-supporting media outlets. They prove nothing and they are all just opinion pieces.2602:306:CC42:8340:E194:1E04:CE4C:A05E (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is a Sanders-supporting media outlet? Is it policy that HuffPo (which I'm not per se a fan of) is not a reputable source for wikipedia? I feel like maybe we should add a section on that somewhere, no? Also why is it "impossible" to incorporate? Forget whether it's serious (because everybody else has too...) and simply explain that dismissal, please. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we need a strongly rearticulated reason for not having a section on fraud, bc I think externally this might look like a hit job. I don't understand how the voluminous mainstream sources are being discounted. Regardless, how can a majority of interested editors not justify having - if not a section - then paragraphs or at least A paragraph addressing the widespread allegations of fraud in the media, the law suits, and announcements from the Sanders campaign. Wikipedia clearly allows descriptions of campaign actions because this very page includes the UNCITED: "Facing possible loss, the Clinton campaign spent money on TV ads, the first of such expense since the Acela Primary, and campaigned vigorously in the lead up to the Kentucky primary. This effort paid off when Clinton narrowly won Kentucky on May 17 by half a percentage point and gained one delegate." So clearly noting in a Wiki article that 'the Sanders campaign decried the Democratic leadership's use of power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place' is not a biased statement, it is a neutral report of a campaign's action.

To the same end, how is reporting on the media attention and law suit efforts not germane? Okay - the law suit in Arizona, if I recall, has failed at least for now; maybe I'm wrong but the media still reported on it. The law suit in New York is ongoing, the NY Times has reported on Comptroller Stringer's audit, which NBC also reported on. Al Jazeera and USA Today have reported on election issues in NY; the NY Times also reported a quote from Shyla Nelson of Elections Justice USA noting the disenfranchisement of voters in that primary. The NY Daily News did also despite its editorial board declaring its support for Clinton.

I am truly shocked to hear apparently qualified editors attempt piecemeal and ad hominem rebuttals to the media, public official, and legal attention given to [*fraud/irregularities] - thus making it [* - the attention - ] an obviously real issue - whether or not the one agrees with the substantive concerns underlying the [*attention] itself. I look forward to a response otherwise should we infer consensus on creating a [*section] with that core of sources I found just now through minimal googling being the beginning of a longer list? Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

We do have WP:UNDUE, if you want to add a section regarding Election Fraud you need to provide the other side's POV. This means providing sources that give credit to the DNC/Clinton. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I have to do some legal research related to this and then I have to, sadly, live my life a little. Could someone please start compiling explicit refutations to these irregularity/fraud claims. I don't know that this is a partisan issue; I sure see it mostly as a series of constitutional issues. But I do think the other side, then, would be a 'camp' or people skeptical of such claims. So I think providing this body of material and then providing substantive responses to the substantive claims in this material would clearly satisfy these guidelines and allow for the creation of a section on fraud. Truthfully it makes Wikipedia look very bad and incomplete that there isn't one. I wouldn't have noticed because (maybe not related) I don't use wikipedia as a source for this information. But on second glance it basically looks like a hit job. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
All work on WP is incremental. If someone finds multiple reliable sources presenting fraud allegations then they can add it to the article. Others can jump in afterwards and find other sources with differing views or responses from the parties involved. See WP:IMPERFECT. All that's required of an editor is that they keep a neutral POV. I think acknowledging the existence of fraud allegations is well within NPOV. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well... research if not living, I guess. So In order to satisfy due weight being given to various viewpoints, it's a little difficult to find nonallegations of fraud and allegations of nonfraud. I think the best way to proceed would be to state the allegations and then look for explicit rebuttal. [*Moreover, the way Wikipedia was designed really is supposed to put this burden on multiple individuals. So whether we - on first post - capture the total range, that range can be increased (and increased in diversity) over hours and days. I would think the fact that I as one person am limited in my ability to do professional journalism for free is not a reasonable basis for denying a valid section heading.] And while I reject the broad conclusions that a section is inappropriate, in the discussion above, I think it does make a valid point about organization. Personally I think that this is clearly the appropriate page to hub the "Allegations of Fraud and Irregularities" Section. However, not just as a compromise but because I think it makes more sense, this page should catalog those allegations - and the responses - by state. Then individual state primary/caucus pages can add and link to these sections as they see fit. Because you (in the abstract) are placing a high burden on one's ability to actually highlight Allegations of Fraud and Irregularities, it would be clearly unfair to force people to do this 50 times over - and it's still inappropriate for this page not to have such a section. What are your thoughts - all?
My initial search was, as I noted above, difficult, but this is the judge's order in response to one of the AZ complaints (the Democratic Party's suit is still pending and an April 1 DOJ letter indicates the federal government is investigating irregularities as well). Here, though the article is not really helpful to this viewpoint, the Maricopa County Director of Elections "denied there was any intent to rob voters of their rights." And here Polk County (Iowa) Democratic Party Chairman denies fraud in the Iowa caucus. However that last source and maybe the first don't meet the onerous source criteria noted above that I've never seen adhered to in any other article and that may actually violate Wikipedia policies.
What are your guys thoughts on how to proceed? Michael Sheflin (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Press releases are fine for use as citations on Wikipedia pretty much only for non-contentious claims of fact. The fact that the Sanders campaign doesn't like the final results from NV doesn't mean that the final results from NV aren't, in fact, final. That a particular law suit pretty much went nowhere is not something that this kind of Wikipedia article here needs to document either, since this article is here to document what happened, not what might have happened. We've also been over the NY primary issues at great length in previous threads, and there's nothing to them that will change the final outcome of the 2016 NY primary. Newspaper editorial boards are notoriously separated from a newspaper's news reporting system in the USA. I also doubt that The Blaze is a reliable source for pretty much anything.
One can't "infer consensus" on Wikipedia about issues like these. Either there's consensus to include these kind of (wild) claims or there isn't, and there current isn't any consensus at all that we include any of this "stuff". Guy1890 (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Precisely, regarding cites to press releases - although that press release would be cited merely to its content. It has nothing to do with the finality of the results; I apologize if I implied it did. That the judge's order noted no intentional fraud would be a rebuttal to the fact that a law suit was filed; unless you're saying that we would cite the filing of a law suit alleging fraud and then allow that claim to hang like a chad...? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. As to the Daily News I was responding to the patently stupid claim that allegations of fraud are confined to 'Sanders' news sources. However, I wholly agree we aren't going to get consensus. *In any event, my skills are limited so please, please, please, feel free to build on what I'm able to minimally do. Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
As I noted in the post adding the section, I still think it ideally should be broken down by state [in a table]. I'm just very bad with the back end markup notation because I don't edit much on Wikipedia so I wanted to get something of substance down for people better than me to mold. Michael Sheflin (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone added a section regarding allegations of violence in Nevada. I think that should be subsumed within the section we've discussed here for two reasons: 1) this person just summarily added the section without requesting input; and 2) the violence claims arose due to claims of procedural irregularities that really make the nexus with fraud more appropriate than for some ad hoc new section. Does anyone have any major objection to this revision? Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Let's try to keep this section liberally cited and quoted; and let's try not to delete valid references to the citations when adding additional claims. Just a thought... And is this really not on any higher-up editors' radar? Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the location of the section was between a table of delegate totals and a table of Superdelegate totals, I moved it to a more appropriate place - under Process. I deleted the section header and bolded the title. I guess it could go as an individual section following process, but it seems most of the accusations are directed at the process itself. S51438 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I also must note that this information was added without any formal building of consensus or determination of consensus, in clear violation of the rules at the top of the page. I personally do not have a problem with the information, but one does not wander onto Wikipedia and unilaterally propose and make sweeping changes, especially in the face of recent opposition. Allegations of fraud, as I stated above, may or may not be more appropriate in the main body, as opposed to their own section. A table on the matter is unprecedented and lends credit to the assumption that fraud was rampant enough to change the course of the election. Let me be clear. By every objective measure, fraud was not rampant in any single election of this primary season to change the outcome. So no, it should not be highlighted as if it is some defining feature of this article. I will actively oppose the addition of such a table, and any edits made in pursuant of that table will be reverted. As I stated earlier, absolutely no consensus was ever determined on this, which on such a controversial issue, must be formally assessed. S51438 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I apologize; it took me a while to read through it but I missed your point about moving it. I think you have unilaterally undertaken that after long discussion above about the validity of adding a section but if nobody else feels strongly, I guess you've gotten away with it. The sub-section heading is inaccurate, however. [And you forgot the subheading "="'s.] Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Ultimately I thought the best recourse was to mention different claims of fraud in the main body, not all together. But in any case, it was in the wrong spot and I subsequently believed it was best to move it above the table of delegates. If you wish to make it its own section, below that of Process, then you should establish consensus first. S51438 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You also should not remove properly cited claims such as the NPR article; and you should not add claims not in the articles you are citing. It might make external observers think this is being fitted to an agenda... Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I removed what is now redundant information. The mention of Brooklyn voting totals is now mentioned twice, for seemingly no reason. I have no idea why you believe it warrants repetition. I did not remove anything else.
I've also been reading back over your previous posts. The burden you lay out - that we would need to prove widespread fraud that would change the outcomes of "the" (actually of multiple) elections is a legal burden. This is not a district court; that burden is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Rather I guess the issue - to repurpose your other criterion - would be whether legitimate sources have reported allegations of fraud or irregularities in each contest. Since that has been the case, it seems it would, in fact, be appropriate to organize those allegations in a table. Notwithstanding the table issue, it certainly suggests the importance of including that section in the main article. But I conceded that point because you clearly are going to fight any evidence contrary to your personal view on this. Nevertheless, your previous response that it was impossible to add a section was apparently incorrect since you deleted the section I added. Since the rationale for excluding these allegations keeps shifting, I'll reiterate my first point: "I think we need a strongly rearticulated reason for not having a section on fraud." The burden is whether there has been widespread reporting, not the legal burden of alleging misconduct that would alter the result of an election. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It first must be reiterated that you have made these changes without consensus, going against the rules which this page has relied on throughout the primary season. You are the only person supporting a table. Personally I do not understand the purpose of the table given it is the exact same information. You do not have any editorial authority to initiate this table without differentiating it from the information already provided. I have never stated there are no legitimate sources that prove fraud. However, Reddit is not one of them. You refuse to assume I am acting in good faith, once again going against Wikipedia's policies. I said it was impossible to add a section that incorporated what the previous editor was requesting. In any case, a section by itself seems off-putting, given that fraud is apparently widespread enough to warrant its own section. I did not delete any of the material you posted. Your first point, regardless of its validity, does not get to dictate what gets added to this Wikipedia page - rather, consensus, which you so happily ignore, does. You have just an equal responsibility to build consensus for adding a section as I do in opposing one. I have given my reasoning. You have not. There are not irregularities in every state. If there were, then a section or a table would make much more sense. Talking about 5 states hardly meets this "burden". There is reporting, but not as widespread as you claim it to be. The information should stay where it is. I find your actions simply appalling, especially after how successful the Wikipedia community has been at maintaining this page. You have broken the rules at the top of the page and are fully susceptible to being blocked from editing. S51438 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually I think there have been allegations in every state thus far; we don't know that there were irregularities in any state. I apologize if I misread you; I will point out that I did add a section a day after posting my initial shock; but I never added a table - which I mentioned in an attempt to gauge consensus. I will note once again that you unilaterally moved the section, chose where it went and retitled it. But it's okay because you win; your edits were just as contentious but nobody's threatening you for them. [*As a specific example you re-added my removal of Lagrange saying she received threats "from supporters of Senator Sanders" - but the NY Times article cited never says that she said that (did she say that...?). It's a contentious edit. It violates the rules at the top of the page.] I won't edit again; no need to attempt to inequitably apply wikpedia's rules. I apologize for violating the rules at the top of the talk page; I didn't read them fully and assumed they applied to the talk page. (Msheflin) 100.1.251.195 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If there have been allegations in every state, and if you are willing to provide reasonable sources for each state, then I will not object to the addition of a table with that information. However, I will not be doing that for you, and I know that other editors will be opposed because it will simply be jarring in the greater context of this page. By all means, have at it. The section, if there was to be one, did not belong between two tables. As I stated above, and as I made clear at the beginning of this section of the talk page, there was never consensus in adding a section, and so I felt perfectly comfortable in moving it to a more appropriate area of the article and changing it to a subheading given the lack of consensus. I could have deleted it all under the same rationale, but I did not. I never opposed the addition of information regarding fraud. The result we have now is actually a good compromise I believe, but that does not mean you cannot continue to build consensus for your position. I am not wishing to engage in some kind of battle or attempt to threaten you, but I do believe the policies of Wikipedia should be applied - and they are as equitable as can be. Your edits have been the most controversial since the addition of the popular vote, and deserve to be fully scrutinized before being accepted. My edits have not been contentious - bologna. My most contentious edit was rightfully adding the popular vote to this page, which was opposed for months. And Roberta Lange has made clear the threats were from Bernie Sanders supporters. The second source, titled threats from Bernie supporters, immediately goes to Roberta. She didn't have to say it, the New York Times did for her. S51438 (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you please quote the sentence in the Times article that makes this claim. I can't find it. Perhaps you can help me. It's also still a controversial claim, if one reported widely in the media; why are you not subject to consensus requirements? (Msheflin) 100.1.251.195 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"I think there have been allegations in every state thus far"...no, there really haven't been, and there's no way that you can prove that at all. Also, stop editing under various user names & IPs. The idea that the NV Democratic Party chair wasn't recently threatened by Bernie supporters (because of what happened at the recent NV Democratic State Convention) is a completely ludicrous claim on it's face. None of that should be included in this article though, though it might be appropriate for inclusion in the Nevada Democratic caucuses and convention, 2016 Wikipedia page, if it's not there already. Guy1890 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I concede I was likely wrong here; using extremely strict standards for sources and on a first pass I could only find allegations for 12 of the state contests (excluding non-state contests) to date. I was not editing under various user names. I am not disputing that she allegedly received a threat. I am disputing that we can infer details about the alleged criminal if we don't know who that person is. Such inferences are inherently controversial, which may be why neither NY Times article actually claims Sanders supporters made threats - though the Wiki info they were used to cite does make that claim. I didn't think that was how the process was supposed to work. But you're the senior editors so I'll defer to you. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you have not read the article from jezebel.com, in which those who made threats to Roberta Lange were interviewed. They were Bernie supporters. Do I need to provide a citation? I just can't make the logical leap that those who threatened Roberta Lange were Hillary supporters. It's simply a statement of fact that they were not. The New York Times implied this in their article, but I will cite a direct source if you so desire. S51438 (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I get that you're being sarcastic but you should not assume everyone is as well informed as you. The short answer is ... yes. You should have cited that article here and in the wiki article. I had not read the Jezbel article and was not aware of it; but I googled and found it - and I read it. The author phoned 9 people who'd made these texts in dispute. Presumably she got these names/contact info from a drop box of evidence referenced by the NV Dems formal complaint, which includes an attachment of three texts (3 of the 9 in the linked dropbox). I assume she chose the 9 texts because the rest are sound clips. Look, people can be really cruel on the internet. I certainly condemn harassment. However, of the 9 texts, none of which is a violent threat, the 3rd is the only one that implies support for the Sanders campaign. Of the 3 texters the Jezbel author spoke to only 1 [the first of the 9 on the NV Dems dropbox] expressed support for Sanders. So it would appear at least one avowed Bernie Sanders supporter sent a crude text; however, that guy also alleged he was acting in character - at least to make the text - to express the views of angry people, and not views that were his own [1]. Whether that avowal of being a Sanders supporter is credible then might be potentially suspect. As for the remainder of the text messages, while the language may be crude and the content perhaps deplorable, they are all clearly not threats in a legal sense and all fall very firmly under the First Amendment. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's what I see given the evidence marshaled [2] by the NV Dems [3]. As I say I have not gone through the voicemails; perhaps some of them show unambiguous and uncontroversial associations between Sanders supporters and true threats exempt from First Amendment protection. I really don't know. But all of this suggests the seemingly innocuous claim that Sanders supporters threatened Lange might actually not be uncontroversial. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm honestly in shock that someone could go to such great lengths to avoid what is obviously true. S51438 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm shocked someone could go to such lengths to avoid finding a citation to justify something that "is obviously true." I have no idea what the reality is. I will note that the Wikipedia article states "Roberta Lange, the state party chairwoman, said she had received death threats against her and her family from supporters of Senator Sanders." I cannot find any quotation from Lange to justify that statement. However, Bradley S. Schrager, General Counsel for the NV Dems did appear to claim in the attachment following the complaint that threatening messages came from Sanders supporters. If Lange did, could you please just cite it and could you maybe apply the same baseline Wikipedia editing standards to yourself as you apply to others? If what you're saying is correct you should have no trouble finding an actual citation (the complaint is pretty weak and it would be overtly biased to report that alone), and the Jezbel article though asserting Ethan is a Sanders supporter does not actually quote him saying that - and I didn't read it that way without the author's assertion. Regardless, the substance will balance out as and if you actually let other editors contribute. But your clear abuse of process [4] is what concerns me. You cannot merely insert your opinion and then later, after you've strongarmed valid counterarguments into submission as here, go back and try to cite it later - molding the claim in the process. Did Lange claim that Sanders supporters threatened her? If not, why should we take your word for it that it's obviously true. If it's obviously true, shouldn't we just take her word for it... I'm shocked someone could go to such lengths to evade minimal standards of neutrality and editing quality control. Michael Sheflin (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Resolved. checkY S51438 (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Sort of resolved. Is the Inquistr a "reasonable" source? In that case my list will expand from 12 to considerably more states. I personally think the Inquistr is fine, but I assumed it would be categorically suspect here. That's the sole source for the threats from Sanders supporters claim. I'll also reiterate, though I'm not totally thin-skinned, that you have not responded to your inequitable use of threats of reversion and inequitable application of standards. I think you should take a step back and consider your approach. And I will now heavily rely on Inquistr in expanding my list (as I noted) and append those things to the list; and I'll get back to you on how many states that leaves. One of the allegations actually solely concerns Sanders staffers. I still don't see this as a partisan issue; but you seem really intent on getting that potential half-truth about Sanders supporters making threats in. [I'll actually point out also that if you read the article it never claims death threats came from Sanders supporters, it only says: "The Bernie Sanders supporters who left death threats for Roberta Lange may not be in the clear." without supporting that statement, and then cites to a Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-nevada-death-threats-lange-democrats-las-vegas-police-461342) that also does not claim Sanders supporters made death threats. Again I think you have applied essentially inequitable standards to yourself to force through your claim, which we don't know is true - even though you think it's obviously true. By the way, our discussion here is a really good microcosm of consensus...] Michael Sheflin (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I corrected your claims to fit the source you offered, and I did you the solid of going through its sources and adding them and the claims they offer also. Not one says that Sanders supporters made death threats. But thank you for license to cite to the Inquistr. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Right... they didn't say that at all. S51438 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I had not seen this until now. None of your sources said what you repeatedly claimed they did. One might after the second or third time infer bad faith. But you think it isn't, so quote one of the sources you cited. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Too much of this has been vandalized; an entire paragraph was removed improperly and without reason, apparently. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC) This edit sticks a broken sentence into a middle of another sentence making the whole thing unreadable. Apparently the purpose is to make sure a particular POV is noted right at the outset or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the problem you're referring to. I don't see any broken sentences. I also responded on my talk page. I'm happy to correct whatever format error I caused and then I really don't want to do this anymore; this process isn't remotely neutral in my opinion (unrelated to my inadvertent format bungling). (Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)) 03:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Let me state this again for clarity...there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to note in this article here that a particular lawsuit has been filed on any of these issues. The USA has a very litigious society, but rarely do any of these kind of lawsuits yield anything tangible. None of the results of any of the primaries and caucuses that have taken place are going to be altered by any lawsuits, period.
We have (and likely will continue to have) other Wikipedia articles about the specific processes & machinations that have taken place in each individual state (like the NY article, which even has a section on "Election Day irregularities"), and that's where some of these kind of items might be able to find a home, given that they use reliable citation sources.
Also, if "we aren't going to get consensus", then we don't include anything in this article here. Guy1890 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I recently chopped a lot out of this section (which I still don't think needs to exist as its own section at all in this article here) mostly in the interest of removing dueling NPOV narratives. The very first section about AZ was really just about dueling lawsuits which, again, are likely to go nowhere as it relates to the nationwide process that this article is here to document. Some of that info might be appropriate in this other Wikipedia article here. This article here also doesn't need to document every single lawsuit that's been filed (or will be filed) about this national process, since this isn't a law review article. Dueling press release claims about what might have happened at the NV Democratic state convetion really do nothing to improve this article here as well, and the Inquistr doesn't look at all like a reliable source. I also don't think that the dueling claims about whatever happened with the death threats is necessary here in this article, but some of that info might be appropriate for the other Wikipedia article highlighted above. Guy1890 (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
At least two of us, perhaps more, felt alleged death threats in the wake of alleged procedural flaws constitute controversial alleged procedural irregularities. We actually had a long discussion here about it that you contributed to until you didn't like it anymore. Then you just unilaterally deleted what you didn't like. Can I generally remove things two other editors think are relevant to this article? I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Look, it's exceedingly obvious that you exist here on this talk page to push a Sanders POV, but I'm sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Two people on a talk page don't make consensus. In fact, I doubt that there is even enough consensus on this talk page for an entire section of these issues in this Wikipedia article here, which I have left intact for at least the time being. The article here does now mention that "reports surfaced of violence at the state convention and threats against Lange." The rest of the "gory details" may be included in the Wikipedia article that is, in part, about the 2016 NV Democratic convention. You're right though, we aren't "on the same page"...you're in the wrong here with your repeated snark on this and other talk pages...cut it out. Guy1890 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean to come across as hostile toward you, I apologize. I would have assumed me deleting large chunks would be inappropriate. I clearly don't understand how this system works; I know tone doesn't come off well on the internet but I mean that as such. As to my snark toward him we'll have to agree to disagree. I was 100% right about what was added into the article being fallacious - both as to the purported citation and as to reality; moreover if you check the record he added overtly biased claims whereas I (to my knowledge to this point) have not. But to use that check mark... resolved. We'll have to disagree on why I exist here. I see myself as pushing the agenda of questioning the scope of fraud. As I noted, the list of sources I'm compiling includes 12 states, one of which pertains solely to an allegation of fraud against two Sanders staffers. The issue is constitutional and not partisan - at least to me. I apologize if some of my bias shines through in that. To circle back; I was concerned that as that section ballooned someone would delete it. And I am not ungrateful that you have thus prompted the issue. That's the reason I haven't added allegations for other states yet; because I was concerned if the subsection ballooned someone would delete it in full and essentially accuse me of pushing some partisan agenda. Would it make more sense to keep a stub sub-section linking to a separate article? I think, while it is clearly additionally appropriate to add allegations to the state articles, it also may make sense to have a separate article to prevent it from ballooning here and detracting attention from the main purpose of this article. But it seems that there is enough information then to warrant something more centrally substantially than piecemeal state-by-state. Honestly, it is weird that Wikipedia does not have anything about this. Michael Sheflin (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The information isn't really the issue here. What is the issue is how you have gone about it, in which you have added potentially contentious information without ever gauging consensus, and are now suggesting you will add an expanded amount of information, once again without establishing any form of consensus. This violates the rules. Whether you believe I'm applying them inequitably is your choice, but the assumption itself violates Wikipedia policy. After thinking about it, I agree that the entire section should be removed and its information added to the separate articles on the individual primaries for two reasons 1.) There is no precedent for this change. Previous articles on the Democratic Primary process do not mention any controversies, though some undoubtedly did arise. 2.) As of now, there is not enough information included in the section. This is a comprehensive article, but the information provided (as of yet) is not comprehensive, and is indeed piece-meal. Continue to develop the table you speak of and assess consensus before adding it. If you do not, it will be removed. And yes, I think there is quite some credit to the idea that the information violates NPOV rules as well, particularly the quote from Salon. I will be adding information from another delegate once I find the article. This will help balance the section. Do not be surprised if the entire section is removed, given you never established consensus for it. S51438 (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the information pending a formal assessment of consensus. Adding the popular vote totals to this article took months of deliberation. We cannot allow potentially contentious information to be included without consensus, a rule proscribed by Wikipedia. S51438 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize that it took you months to [*get] the obviously relevant popular vote [*included]. However, I'll again disagree with your characterization of what's happened here. You edited extensively, and in many cases not neutrally, and are now claiming some of that lack of neutrality has infected the [*s]ection and it must be removed: (adding that 125,000 removed voters were due to "updating" though article does not say that) (and you also changed the language from allegations of a purge, which is more correct to the sources, to say they were removed - which is why you later deleted "Following allegations (... that voters were removed due to updating?)" but again - that's your opinion ... or maybe a fact... but the source you chose doesn't say that); (deleting that threats of violence are in fact allegations and making it as if fact, despite no citation), (adding the false Lange claiming threats from Sanders supporters claim also not supported by the source), (adding dubious source for death threats from Sanders supporters that cited two sources that didn't make that claim), (including overtly prejudicial title in the text) (I mean use your judgment here but I think it's pretty clear this was a smear; if you want an actual view of my "agenda," look at my edits cleaning this up - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&oldid=721316114#Controversy_and_fraud_allegations (one could argue I headed with the Sanders campaign allegations - and I would have been amenable to curing that issue, because I think that could be seen as a problem) (but my point is I've never deleted information critical of either *campaign). In any event, I think those basically all tidily show that you're using wiki's guidelines to your advantage unfairly. But I also acknowledge some of these edits may not be displaying properly for me, so I apologize if I'd spuriously criticized some of your edits previously. And in your defense, these were solid, neutral edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&oldid=721164475, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=721164541&oldid=721164475.
But Guy, you also did a lot of positive work. You added stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=721338863&oldid=721338132 (and made numerous format corrections (probably again largely based on my ignorance).
In both cases I find the turnaround from the extensive editing you (both) did before SS51438 just deleted the whole section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries%2C_2016&type=revision&diff=721404026&oldid=721364398) very confusing. I acknowledge I was always afraid it would get unwieldy - particularly for a page not designed for this - and this would happen (someone would delete it and entrench themselves). So again I suggest would it be better for its own page? I don't really understand what the resistance is other than that it might make some people not look great. If all of these fraud accusations are garbage it'll only make me look bad in the long-run. Michael Sheflin (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I buried the lead there: page or no, how do we start the "gauging consensus" process? Michael Sheflin (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • "I see myself as pushing the agenda of questioning the scope of fraud." No kidding...what you are here to do is obvious "Msheflin"...from a Sanders-based POV, you exist here to push an agenda to indicate as much as possible that the process that has been underway to select the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential nominee has been "fraudulent". Your point here (which is the same as the IP editor that originally started this entire thread) was to use whatever citations that you could find (reliable or not) to build a case to reach this goal. This has been about building that case using as much undue weight as possible. The problem with that is that Wikipedia doesn't allow for that kind of activity because, among other things, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, period.
Have fun trying to "have a separate article" as well...that's likely to go nowhere fast. I don't care either way.
This article here is about the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential primary/caucus process. It's not about some low-level Democratic official that was threatened with death or whatever. It's not about what some liberal or conservative pundits have to suggest about the process. It's not about how many lawsuits have been filed by who & where about whatever. It's not about dueling "he said/she said" narratives about the minutia of what might have happened at a particular state's convention. It is about who the Democratic candidates have been, the timeline of the process for selecting the Democratic nominee for President of the USA, and which candidate has won which kind of delegates and where. Everything else (that has valid, reliable citations for it) can go somewhere else on Wikipedia.
"If all of these fraud accusations are garbage it'll only make me look bad in the long-run." No, "if all of these fraud accusations are garbage" it'll make Wikipedia look bad. Oddly enough, some of us that have been editing here for a long while actually care about that. Guy1890 (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
(I just find it ironic of the three of us I'm the only one using my real name; clearly the mark of a partisan troll.) Right of reply: I have explained my agenda. Feel free to cite instances where I have been impartial (as I did above, I'll note) and I will apologize and take more careful stock moving forward. I apologize that my basis in principle here makes it harder to lob ad hominem attacks; but I'm sure they're out there. I don't think you mean to say there is no minimum threshold for including procedural fraud and irregularity allegations on Wikpedia, although that's how I read this. But I included a section soliciting opinions below; let's end this here and deal with the issue. I welcome your opinion. Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
"Feel free to cite instances where I have been impartial"...please, I won't clutter this overly long (and really unnecessary) thread any longer except to invite others to review the comments of other Wikipedia users on your recent edits to this article here. My personal favorite: "Please make at least some attempt to hide your bias and not make the threats from Bernie's camp about DWS." (I believe that's Debbie Wasserman Schultz BTW) Just keep right on going with the snark as well...it'll hopefully get you going somewhere that you deserve real soon. You pretty clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works, nor do you unfortunately seem to have any interest in learning, which will only end badly for you in the end. I think we're done here. Guy1890 (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Your evidence for my partiality is other editors mischaracterizing my comments? Your logic... is flawed. (I have had enough of you? lol Good catch on reverting the ISS to USS change in the Mirror Universe edit.) Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Tips for Building Consensus

  • Generally, the first step to building consensus is to begin a discussion with a list of several options, which in this case may include leaving out controversy all together, including sparse reports of controversy, or the table that was mentioned earlier. I recommend starting a new section on the talk page with a header titled "Proposals for Adding Controversy/Fraud Section to Article" and ask other editors for input.
  • Editors then state their preference and explain why. NOTE: Building consensus is not by majority vote and just because more individuals support a proposal does not mean consensus has formed.
  • A discussion forms between the proposals which receive the most support. In the case of "Inclusion of popular vote" at Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, option 1 got nearly no support and was eliminated from consideration.
  • The discussion continues until consensus is reached, in other words, an edit is agreed upon that will incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the edit does not incorporate the concerns of editors, or violates Wikipedia's policies, it cannot be added. In the case of discussion on the popular vote cited above, consensus was formed by adopting original proposal #2, which added a footnote to the popular vote, which incorporated the concerns of editors and did not violate Wikipedia's policies.

Reaching Consensus

  • Once an editor believes consensus has been reached, they are free to make the edit, but must fully explain their rationale, including:
    • 1.) How the edit incorporates the concerns of other editors and
    • 2.) Why the edit does not violate Wikipedia's policies.
      • The conclusion of "Inclusion of popular vote" demonstrates how this is done.
  • After consensus is reached, the discussion is closed, the edit is made, and consensus must be reached again to change the edit.

Best of luck. S51438 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Why was option 2 selected despite Guy's objections? Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Who cares? That issue is closed as of this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The allegations of election fraud are nationwide (meaning it should be in this article and not individual state primary articles), widespread (making it notable), covered by sources ranging from independents with blogs to major media reliable sources like RT (making it verifiable), and there are opposite viewpoints mentioned in reliable sources like the Washington Post and the Nation (meaning it can be presented with a Neutral Point of View). Clearly, if consensus is to keep any mention excluded, then that consensus would be maintaining bias. If consensus does not support the addition of a section on election fraud then this should be brought to an arbitration with the purpose of countering bias against the wishes of a biased community. Kswikiaccount (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Widespread allegations of bias are inappropriate for Wikipedia. S51438 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
"major media reliable sources like RT" - that's still not a reliable source. The major problem with this proposal is that it would violate WP:UNDUE - by giving undue prominence to what is essentially conspiracy theories it would create a non-neutral point of view in the article. In particular it's significant that neither campaign (as opposed some loudmouths on reddit or something) has actually made a formal charge of fraud. If that were too happen, then yes, it would be notable and would satisfy requirements for due weight. But until then... Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're wrong [to discount any questions regarding the scope of fraud] as conspiracy theory. Your counterargument (and please feel free to also respond below in the Proposal to add the section ... section) [is essentially that sources might not be reputable (and I agree with you on RT and obviously we're not talking about reddit...)]. The question is not whether some sources are disreputable. The question is what is the appropriate place - if any - to centrally house valid and reputably citable allegations of irregularities, fraud, election law violations, etc? If you'll note below, the DNC has filed suit against AZ (and the DOJ has sent a letter requesting info on potential federal law violations in Maricopa County) - and that suit was joined by both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns. You'd do us a great service if you could find the complaint so we can see what they allege - but I would suspect you're right that it is not termed fraud (but I don't know). [The current framework gives undue weight to loudmouths whose arguments seem - to me - to mostly be fluff.] Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
RT is considered a reliable source according to wikipedia consensus. Feel free to take it up with the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Until that changes I will continue to use it as a reliable source. I will not be taking part in any further discussion on whether RT is or is not a reliable source unless there are direct links showing that the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has clearly declared it an unreliable source. Kswikiaccount (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Counting Superdelegates

RESOLVED
Maintain the use of our Wikipedia page for the source of Superdelegate numbers.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Counting superdelegates in places such as the infobox and Section 1.1 is foolish. Superdelegates have not cast their votes yet and there's precedent from as recent the 2008 Democratic Primary showing that superdeleages often go with the wind on their vote. Therefore it is misleading (intentionally or not) to include votes that have not yet been cast. I request they not be included in such a matter-of-fact way, or be clear that they have not yet voted. Thank you. Volvlogia (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't take the totals seriously, the fact remains though that unpledged delegates have made their uncommitted pledges and we have to take that into account. Not showing this info would also make things misleading. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, pledged delegates haven't "cast their votes" yet either, from a technical standpoint. Although superdelegates can switch (which ain’t gonna happen), they are functionally equivalent to pledged delegates. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Media sources and commentators seem to treat superdelegate endorsements as though they are fixed as long as their candidate stays in the race, mainly because it's considered bad form for politicians to flip-flop. If you look on the List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2008, you'll see that only a handful of the superdelegates changed their endorsement prior to June 3 (Amusingly, one guy changed his endorsement twice). June 3 was the date that Obama declared victory and most news outlets agreed he had won. Obama had actually secured a majority of the pledged delegates two weeks before the final primaries, but he was not yet declared to be the winner and Clinton didn't give up. He declared victory once he had enough pledged delegates and supportive superdelegates to secure a majority at the convention. Clinton could have theoretically fought the nomination all the way to the convention and obtained a majority if pro-Obama superdelegates had flipped and voted for her instead. That would have certainly been treated as an unethical act of stealing the nomination, but it wouldn't have been against the party rules. Of course, that was never going to happen. My point is that the superdelegate endorsements still need to be recorded and counted even though their endorsements aren't fixed in the way that the pledged delegate totals are. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
CNN, NBC, and AP count that Mrs. Clinton has beyond 500 super delegates. Somehow, we mention here she has less. I honestly don't get it. I see that as a corruption by Bernie Sanders supporters, who, unfortunately, can't grasp the fact that their candidate has lost. You can't tell me all these networks are wrong. Archway (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If you think the number of superdelegates is incorrect you can find some sources to update List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016. That's the number of superdelegates we go by. It's so great that we can all contribute freely and with transparency, isn't it? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I also dislike the list of super delegates we have, and agree that we should be going by some kind of an official source. We aren't vetted political experts, there could be a good reason why sources are showing Clinton with over 500 super delegates. It isn't just confined to Clinton, Sanders also is shown to have close to 50. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not only the figures for the superdelegates that are odd. Up until April 26th, Clinton only had a lead of 233 delegate votes. Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island combined had 463 delegate votes to offer. Now, she suddenly has a lead of 845 votes. Even if she'd won all 5 states, which she didn't, she would only have a lead of 696 votes.
So where did 149 votes mysteriously appear from now? Moreover, whatever happened to the 33 delegate votes Bernie officially received from Rhode Island? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the 'pledged' and 'total' delegate counts. If you look at former revisions of this page and the page Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016: On April 25, Clinton had a lead of 241 in pledged delegates and 683 in total delegates. As of now, her lead is 293 in pledged delegates (increase of 52) and 739 in total delegates (increase of 56). In addition to the primaries, 4 superdelegates gave an endorsement during that time.
All Democratic primaries allocate delegates through a proportional system - the only winner-takes-all contests are on the Republican side. So Rhode Island's 24 delegates were divvied with 13 to Sanders and 11 to Clinton. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ugh, we've been over & over & over this issue again & again at this late date. No delegate ("super" or otherwise) votes will be counted until the Democratic National Convention this summer. How can one get all "33 delegate votes" from a state like RI when they only have 24 pledged delegates there in the first place with proportional delegate allocation?? Seriously, competence is required to contribute here. Guy1890 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please don't be obtuse. There is a big difference. Pledged delegate counts from states that have already voted, are based on actual votes already cast so far, and their totals are actually on official DNC national tallies. Superdelegate official tallies are zero, because they have not been polled or voted through any official means at all. Yes, the supporters of the less supported candidate will vote for their own (losing) candidate on the first ballot, and then will be *asked* to switch to the more supported candidate on the second ballot. But that is entirely a different matter from the empty promises and zero votes so far from the supers. In 2008, the supers switched to Obama once he got the majority of regular pledged delegates. It doesn't matter how likely it is for either candidate to win yet, the supervotes are ghosts until the convention. The pledged totals actually exist in a valid way. Dude 50.35.51.239 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
For reasons I've posted more than once, it is realistic to treat superdelegate endorsements are though they are not going to change their minds as long as their candidate stays in the race. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
There's not going to be a "second ballot" at the Democratic National Convention this summer. There are only two people left in the race here...one of them will win & the other won't. Run along anomymous IP editor with no other edits to Wikipedia, ever. Guy1890 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Total number of super delegates

Just for the record:

There is something wrong when a majority of sources have Clinton's super delegate lead above 500 but we don't. My proposal is that we stop relying on our list, and do what is normally done on Wikipedia by following what the majority of reliable sources say. So I ask the community to please choose on what we should do going forward:

  • Option A: Retain our list of super delegates (for reference), but go by what a majority of reliable sources are saying as a total.
  • Option B: Status Quo, continue updating our list of super delegates with info as it becomes available for the total.

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I suggest B. Although this almost certainly misses out a few superdelegate endorsements, I'd say it's better to be pedantic. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I vote A since maintaining our own list is doing original research. --209.59.106.25 (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B - I see no reason to stray from what has been working pretty well so far. Our "superdelegate" listing has been continually updated based on reliable sources for each specific delegate. Who knows what some of the major networks/media outlets are using for their totals. I doubt even they know at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: If option A gains consensus, which numbers would we use exactly? All the sources that are given have different numbers except the LA Times and HuffPost. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 05:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That's partly the issue why I support maintaining our own list in which every superdelegate endorsement is individually sourced. If all the media sources were in agreement as to how many superdelegate endorsements the candidates had, then I would support using their number. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B. Too many sources, so I am not sure how we could choose which is best. S51438 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B - Most importantly, it would be wrong to alter results due to other "sources" obtaining different results. In science this behavior would be subject to major consequences for all parties involved in the alteration of independently derived data to match the data obtained by others, not to mention the ethical considerations. Less importantly, I see no reason to use american media as a credible source since their credibility has been lost due to their historic behavior. In every recent election, every media source that has been cited by Knowledgekid87 have shown a clear bias for politicians that create public policy supportive of a few very powerful interest groups in american politics. I would also like to add that the recent language alteration of a few wiki pages changing "superdelegates" to "unpledged delegates" is not simply incredibly misleading, taking into account the historical context, but I would also like to suggest that there is tampering from established public relations companies involved in the campaigning to create this sudden push to change established language conventions. Wikipedia does not need to appeal to "authorities" such as CNN, NYT, and AP (all of which have very clear and established malicious behavior) to accurately describe reality. 74.57.167.5 (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B: Our approach has worked surprisingly well in the face of numerous bad-faith attacks and good-faith emotional contributions from both camps. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Besides, the scientific argument by 74.57.167.5 is worth paying attention to. Also, Clinton recently passed 500+ endorsements in our collective assessment, if that is the OP's main concern . — JFG talk 15:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B Although maintaining our own list superficially seems like OR, it is actually not; see WP:CALC. As long as each entry in that list is appropriately sourced, it is far more reliable than any single media count (and more verifiable, too, because no mainstream media source will publish its sources). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Additionally, there is no consensus amongst media sources about what the number actually is; thus if we switched to option A, we would likely be settling into a slow edit war until the race is over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option A We should follow reliable sources. Constructing our own list is OR because we are putting faith in our abilities to track down information on all the superdelegates rather than putting our faith in reliable sources. If different sources present different numbers, we can give a range. Bondegezou (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B - Summoned by bot. As others have noted, we should typically avoid OR but since we haven't ran into any issues thus far, let's continue updating the number of super delegates as the information becomes available. Meatsgains (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Option B - This is not Original Research in any sense of the term. The endorsements that we are documenting are publicly confirmed through sources, from the politicians themselves. These are facts. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus Reached The only concern raised against using our Wikipedia source has been that it is original research. The information on that page is not original research because it uses reputable citations. Though it may be incomplete, and though our efforts may be inhibited, the information there should be considered accurate. S51438 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to Revisit Source for Pledged Delegate Count

[I termed this a proposal, but as I follow the previous process, there has been no actual decision taken as to which source should be used for the pledged delegate count, which I think is problematic.]

We have a potential concern regarding the Green Papers. An earlier discussion (/Archive 2#Delegate count) appears to have never actually concluded which source should be used. And then it appears the Green Papers (TGP) have been used by convention since that lack of resolution and the closure of that discussion. But some of the evidence used for that 'decision' (generously...) don't make sense to me. Editors claimed that TGP used heavy citation to local sources; someone please link to them. They do, for instance, extensively cite to their procedural analyses (i.e. http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D) but the citations are general - as best I can tell. Either way, the disclaimer at the bottom of the main page gives me pause. This is mainly an experiment by these two friends (as best I can tell); and however influential it is not intended to replace the AP's accounting.

But worse, its source for Superdelegates is the potentially problematic Wikipedia page (which appears to use an incorrect source as the sole citation for over a hundred delegates...). So we have a real concern if we're citing TGP for Wikipedia and it's citing Wikipedia as its source. As editors noted before the previous and aborted discussion was closed, TGP is not per se a reputable source and it conflicts (or has conflicted with) AP and CNN. My understanding - as other editors have noted - is that all news agencies get the count from AP and the discrepancies between them are update issues. Either way we need to reopen this discussion before more updates are required, I think - as no decision was ever made. Michael Sheflin (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I've misunderstood something, but from what you're writing I don't see any circular citation. TGP might sometimes take Wikipedia as a source for superdelegates but not for pledged delegates. Conversely, Wikipedia sometimes uses TGP as a source for pledged delegates but not for superdelegates. Where is the problem? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You may have to clarify what you're reacting to. Circularity is more an issue with the superdelegates count, but I don't think I addressed that above. My concern is that there doesn't seem to have been a valid process for deciding to use TGP; and hence the record seems to reflect a chaotic, unresolved discussion leading to the choice of a fringe source that conflicts with the mainstream source (AP) that everyone else uses. I'm not saying that latter point militates toward the exclusion of TGP in favor of AP automatically. However, I do think that such a controversial choice does require - per my limited understanding of Wiki policies - some semblance of a real discussion on the record. The discussion as I read it was a highly abridged, incommensurate, abortive cacophony. And then after it was shut down we've just been inexplicably using TGP despite its conflict with more mainstream sources. It just seems odd to me. I'm not trying to be obtuse; I find this surprisingly hard to understand. My underlying point was that there doesn't seem to have actually been a valid process for choosing TGP. Have I misread what happened? Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I was reacting to "So we have a real concern if we're citing TGP for Wikipedia and it's citing Wikipedia as its source." I wanted to clarify that, as far as I know, when we cite TGP, TGP does not in turn cite Wikipedia. Calling TGP a fringe source is perhaps a bit too strong of a description. Here you'll see that major news agencies have cited it. Right now, {{2016USDem}} references the NYT and TGP. My guess is that a lot of the refs quoting TGP on that template could now be switched to NYT. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
That is in reference to the Superdelegates source. When we cite TGP for anything related to superdelegates, that would inherently include a recursive citation to the Wikipedia Superdelegates page. It may not be, and hopefully is not an issue; I apologize for muddling this section. You're right regarding calling TGP a fringe source; I wasn't familiar with it before last week and so I'm getting an education on the fly in what exactly it is; but you're right. However, I will note that the two most recent mainstream citations I could find in the media to TGP do not include straight-up citations; the first notes that TGP conflicts with official numbers and the second used their estimates - probably before clearer final numbers came in (but I may be misreading). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/18/bernie-sanderss-bad-delegate-math-just-keeps-getting-worse/. But you're right calling it a fringe source was wrong. My point is merely that it is not a news source; it's two friends' personal website - albeit with fair methodological rigor. Thanks for pointing out 2016USDem - I've never seen that list before. Still, my understanding is that the AP (and not, for instance NYT) forms one pole of core reporting on these numbers.
But the problem is still that this type of decision needs to follow some sort of process. I'm agnostic on what that should be. But I became concerned when editors started to insinuate that because most total counts are now the same that there was no source issue anymore. Conversely, the pledged and unpledged totals actually differ among all sources. I actually think AP is the source of all of that. But the point remains that presumably a decision has to be made, and that should follow whatever the common decisionmaking process is. Unless I'm misreading the discussion that has already occurred? Again, sorry for muddling on TGP and Superdelegates; that is a separate issue. Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
TGP and superdelegates is not a separate issue, it is a non-issue. We do not need to start another discussion on that because we do not reference TGP for superdelegates. As for the pledged delegates, no one will object if you find official sources for election results. However, whether we use TGP, AP, NYT or anything else other than official results really doesn't matter much at this point. All these numbers are projections/estimates anyway, and they are expected not to be precise. As long as we reference everything (which we do), there's not much of an issue here either. In any case, could you say briefly what exactly you'd like to change at this point? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 07:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry; the superdelegate issues were based on my misunderstanding - or if you buy into Guy1890's liberal misinterpretation of the rules... my malicious agenda to troll everyone. Yeah I don't really care what the result of the decision is - including to continue using TGP. My concern is that the process seemed to have totally broken down and yet editors kept making edits. The practical impact of that is ignoring any legitimate concerns in whatever consensus there was and just letting one (or whatever) people make ad hoc edits. It may not (or may) have mattered here, but my concern was really with the lack of process on such a potentially contentious and perhaps influential issue. (Because a lot of people really do use Wikipedia as a first resort). Since this issue will likely arise in future elections it might make sense to have actually gotten some resolution per the procedure. But in terms of what I would 'change?' I guess perhaps there's a more appropriate venue for that discussion as a semi-institutional fixture moving forward. Do these types of discussions take place on template pages? Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, given that nobody complained after the discussion was over, we effectively achieved consensus at the time. You're right that the discussion was closed a bit hastily, but in the end the community accepted it. Now, if your intent is not to bring about any concrete change to the current template ("I don't really care what the result of the decision is") then we don't really need to discuss this. We are not going to come up with a decision that will be enforceable 4 years in the future. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 08:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, there was no decision, and hence there was no consensus. Whether or not we preplan 4 years down the line (which wasn't my point; you forced me to make an affirmative proposal for change) I do think there's something to be said for actually adhering to Wikipedia's policies - which the editors did not do here. For instance, in that discussion you noted "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." Was that concern ever addressed? So I'm more concerned about the development of and adherence to a viable process. I don't care what the decision is because the issue is processual and not substantive. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [*FYI, it was not addressed. We have multiple official election result cites and none are archived.]
Of course I asked for a change proposal since that is the only reason why we would discuss: You see something that needs to be changed; you boldly change it yourself or you ask the community; we fix what needs fixing. Discussing the decision process alone is frankly a waste of time. You asked if my concern was addressed. No it wasn't, but that's as much my responsibility as it is anyone's. Maybe in the future I'll archive all the refs, maybe someone else will do it. The point is, if we're not advocating for specific changes, discussion is sterile. So if you have a change in mind, I suggest you WP:BOLDLY go ahead. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The process leading to the use of TGP was defective. It must be rerun - even if that rerun merely means reaffirmation of the current result. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No it must not. Not unless you disagree with the current state of the article and have a clear alternative to suggest. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

(No I'm not being conclusory, sorry, that was my proposal... It must [should] be rerun. And the 'change' is that we follow Wikipedia's procedures properly.) Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Again, we've had this discussion (on this talk page and on at least one of the templates that this Wikipedia page uses) multiple times now. Our source for the superdelegate totals is our own Wikipedia article on the subject, which is very well-cited (even for superdelegates that have changed their mind during this cycle) with over 250 individual citations, and the often-cited media reports for supposed superdelegate totals have never explained how, in fact, they are deriving their own numbers. Our own Wikipedia template (that's used on this Wikipedia page here) also has numerous citations to the The Green Papers (which has been very accurate & comprehensive in their past coverage of these types of issues), The New York Times or state election boards on what the pledged delegate totals are for each state. This really is a non-issue at this late date.
At some point (hopefully soon), this type of concern-trolling behavior by the OP of both this thread (and the thread above it at this time) might need to be addressed, since it seems to be becoming intentionally disruptive...with the likely goal being to discredit all of the Wikipedia's articles associated with this year's Democratic Party process for selecting its Presidential nominee. Guy1890 (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Your assumptions about my bad faith are not appropriate. Whatever the substantive issues, I am concerned that there was never a proper process leading to a decision about choice of source. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE this is a new development with the sources agreeing with each other, that and I am still not comfortable using Wikipedia as a source for the superdelegates. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
"I am still not comfortable using Wikipedia as a source for the superdelegates"...well, we appear to have some pretty clear consensus in an above thread that our well-sourced Wikipedia article will continue to be used as the source for our superdelegate count in our various Wikipedia articles & templates.
Also, on an unrelated matter, "AGF is not a suicide pact". Really, AGF went out the door on these bogus issues long ago when the same, very small number of editors have continued to edit Wikipedia in a disruptive fashion. This kind of editing needs to stop & soon. It really is laughable that some are claiming here to want to follow "Wikipedia's procedures properly" when the same, exact editors refuse to accept long-standing Wikipedia policy on its face. This silliness needs to come to an end please. Guy1890 (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the discussion above on the source for Superdelegate numbers. This thread will be used to determine the source of pledged delegate numbers. S51438 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig

He didn't leave the race simply because his poll numbers were low, as the article suggests currently (as I type this). Rather, he left because the Democratic National Committee changed the rules on what poll results were required to qualify for debates, in a way that made it impossible for him to qualify. See, for instance:

https://lessig2016.us/after-dnc-changes-rules-lessig-suspends-campaign-vows-to-continue-fight/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/3/1443735/-DNC-rules-change-leaves-Lessig-out-of-2016-Democrat-debates-forced-to-leave-the-race

http://patch.com/new-hampshire/amherst/after-dnc-changes-debate-rule-participation-lessig-drops-out-0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-jarding/the-democrats-have-now-ch_b_8445202.html

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig_presidential_campaign,_2016

I would make the change myself, but I don't know how custodians of this page would prefer to distinguish Lessig's departure from those of the others said here to be due to low poll numbers. So I leave it to them for now.

Jalp-gpmi (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in this article even mentions his departure. Not particularly relevant. S51438 (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the article might mention that "Lessig withdrew due to low polling numbers." *And in fact a citation regarding Lessig's departure (ref #11) notes basically what Jalp-gpmi said. (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/lawrence-lessig-drops-out-215443). Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I fixed it to reflect what his campaign's wiki/the other link in this article said. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders picture in "June" section

Since both Hillary and Sanders are campaigning for the state of California right now, can't we just put up pictures from both their campaigns in the state instead of just Sanders'. That kind of smells of bias.2602:306:CC42:8340:B9DA:211D:AE70:83C2 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If you find one you can add it to the article. But make sure it is under an acceptable license. See Commons:Upload for some help on how to upload pictures. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_5&oldid=870606507"