Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Proposals for Adding Fraud Section to Article

Should reputably citable allegations of election fraud or electoral irregularities be included on this page in some centralized fashion [beyond or in addition to mere mention on each state's caucus or primary page]?

1a) Yes, allegations should be included as a separate section on this page.
1b) Yes, allegations should be included as a separate sub-section on this page.
2) No, allegations should be included on a separate page linked from a stub-section on this page.
3) No, despite mention by major campaigns and reporting in media, these such allegations are inappropriate for a site like Wikipedia.

Please feel free to offer modified versions of these suggestions; and I may have missed other possibilities. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify that this is a solicitation of opinions on whether fraud should be included; as noted below please feel free to offer your opinions, but let's not make this about the substance of any allegations, and let me clarify that at least on my end this concerns all allegations and not those merely against a particular state, campaign, or party. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• There should be links to the individual state Wikipedia articles that mention any of this kind of "fraud". I actually believe that there are already some of these Wiki-links in this article here, and I know that I added some recently to a sub-section ("Controversy and fraud allegations") that was recently deleted from this article here. Nothing should be included in this article here that won't affect the final outcome of any state's electoral process or the national process as a whole. Guy1890 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Links from where to the individual state pages? And where are you coming up with that standard? (I'm genuinely curious; that's similar to the legal standard for having an election overturned.) Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No. (#3) I note that this question is worded in a leading, non-NPOV way. But anyhoo, irregularities happen in every primary season, and being that this race is not particularly close (56% to 42%) relative to past years, nothing could possibly change the outcome in any meaningful way. Also, I haven't seen a single story that confirmed "fraud" took place in any of the forty-some odd individual contests. The closest thing was Brooklyn where no fraud has come close to being evidenced. I also want to say that any mention of irregularities must mention the physical threats, talk of grandchildren, etc. in Nevada by Sanders supporters and the many articles in reputable sources discussing the "Bernie Bros" phenomenon during this primary. Omnibus (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No. and I'll echo that the question was asked in a very leading manner. This is a long article, and fraud allegations are mostly confined to not-particularly reliable sources. The reliable source articles on the issue are mostly focused on the subject of the unreliable sources. --Opcnup (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I have no preference on how a central registry is included. Omnibus and Opcnup, I phrased the no option in an obviously leading manner to bait legitimate counterarguments. I don't understand some of these concerns so I hoped by being unsubtle someone would strongly come back with a legitimate reason for not including any centralized reference - since at least some editors' concerns relate to the centrality. I don't get it as a general concern but I do get it as a concern for inclusion on this page. So in that respect I wasn't so much attempting to lead in the direction of the response as in exactly the opposite direction. I'm also not clear on how any of that would bear on the relevance of the inclusion of fraud allegations *[on Wikipedia generally].

Omnibus, my personal concern is constitutional rights and violations thereof. People, believe it or not, have a constitutional right both under SCOTUS case law and actually one might argue under the 24th Amendment as well *[to vote in primary elections - United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 517 U.S. 186, 205-07 (1996)]. So I am not personally concerned with whether - if all allegations were taken as true - they would affect the aggregate outcome so much as the scope of alleged constitutional violations. Would considering some sort of disclaimer as to the impact - I assume there is probably at least one reputable study *[showing the limits of] the potential scope of impact - at all alleviate your concern? *[Of course we would include allegations regardless of campaign-affiliation. Two Sanders staffers in NH were accused of fraud. However, *(in relation to the Nevada Democratic Convention,) I haven't seen anyone use the term "Bernie Bros" []. In its inclusion in the deleted section, we had trouble finding an unambiguous and reputable source for Sanders supporters making threats; although Bill Moyers reported on (emails and tweets) and voicemails. The [SMS's] included by NV Dems in their formal complaint are not threats; but if Bill Moyers' [site] is considered reputable then he (personally, in an article) has claimed that the voicemails encompass threats by Sanders supporters. That's the only evidence I've personally seen. *(You can see our discussion on this above, also.)]

Opcnup, if you check the last revision before this section was deleted [1], though there may have been some content-issues, all the sources were mainstream and legitimate. That was a concern from the beginning. If quality-control were strict would that address your concern? Michael Sheflin (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No There is no evidence to warrant all of the information you keep trying to provide via blogs and op-eds to create this section. And you are jumping back and forth on your basis. Like how you accused there to be election fraud accusations in every state. That's an absurd statement in itself and shows you do indeed have an agenda and a POV to promote here. You are typing these long responses on here and it's not being productive and is just superfluous at this point. The consensus is against you and your proposal. I did not want to jump in as I only edit periodically, but I am against adding "Fraud and Allegation" section you are proposing. Manful0103 (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. My agenda is to query the scope of fraud... that's it. Can you show me any squirreling of that stated justification? I had believed it would likely be possible to find allegations for all state. I then admitted that using strict source controls I was wrong and could only find reputably sourced allegations for 12 states. You can read this above but calling it an absurd statement is actually a non-neutral point of view unless you can find a valid citation. In any event, even if you were totally correct your arguments don't actually speak to a legitimate concern or the exclusion of this information. I nevertheless thank you for your input. Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

No The options presented read as being a false dilemma. I disagree with 3) because it is entirely appropriate to mention any irregularities (e.g. voters being taken off the rolls in Brooklyn, not enough polling places in Phoenix, etc...) in the article, as long as the information is reliably sourced. I disagree too with all the other options because I don't think the irregularities need a separate section or article. Given that there is no evidence of anything systematic, creating one might compromise the Wikipedia's policy of keeping its coverage of the primaries neutral. I mentioned they should be woven into the text. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a false dilemma; it was sarcasm. However, you have raised an option I did not think of. Second however, I suspect the editors who are against inclusion of a (sub/stub)section in this article oppose the inclusion of any allegations of fraud regardless of the source or degree of neutrality. The systematic or nonsystematic characterization of the allegations is not something that should be prejudged. However, can we get some input on the interwoven idea? Michael Sheflin (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Mark Halperin, Managing Editor - Bloomberg Politics: "I agree. I think, though, what has become personal - and you've seen it in the last 48 hours - is the Clinton Campaign and the DNC, perhaps more in conclusion [sic] than we've seen publicly, but clearly to some extent have not had rules that were fair. That, I think, has made both Jane and Bernie Sanders and their top aides feel like... you know, you have to give us a chance. It has to be a democratic system - small d. And it hasn't been." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abnkjCZTJDI#t=11m7s Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

If I may add something: You all should be careful with the wording "irregularties" sounds bias, like someone did something willingly or bat least by neglect to disadvantage a particular group of voters. Just the two exemples by "Anywikiuser":

1. The "missing voters in Brooklyn": This seems to be more a problem of the "election system" than of fraud. Here in Germany we have local registers where all inhabitants are recorded with certain data:

  Full Name, DOB, Place of birth, Marital Status, Nationality, Children, address etc.. The data is just being used for community purposes, no state or federal uthoryty has direct access to this data.

When an election is closing the inhabitants, who are a eligeable to vote find a postcard in their mail box. On that that card, they find informations where they need to go to vote and where and when they can apply for postal voting. In NY-State its the other way round, the voter has to register to be able to vote and take care that his data is correct. So if you are eager to vo don't what for the card, ask the election board to check your data.

2. "Insufficent polling place in Phoenix": There again is the question why have there been "not enough"? In Germany or better in my state its done this way:

The princints are so installed and located that all inhabitants from a certain area can go to one building and vote there.

Normally there are serveral pricints in one building. In gerneral it work that way, that there is empirical knowlege about the turnout ( federal 60-75 %, 50-65 %, and local and EU 25-40 %).

When the turnout is higher than expected there will be cues. There is nothing to blame on there uthorities, except they they reduced they reduced it for unresaonable causes. --62.143.245.76 (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. However, these are more evidentiary issues. They are totally valid for discussion within broader discussion of irregularities. But the issue here is addressing legitimate concerns about the inclusion or omission of allegations of irregularities on wikipedia itself. At the moment there is no centralized mention of primary irregularities. Michael Sheflin (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No A laundry list of unproven and largely informal accusations of fraud adds nothing to the article. Have either of the campaigns themselves filed a formal lawsuit or complaint alleging voter fraud specific to the presidential primaries and caucuses? No. If they do, that would be worth mentioning in the body of the article, but including a whole section, sub-section, or page for what is essentially gossip would be inappropriate. NelsonWI (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed the source concern. That is *[not] a legitimate concern, so we needn't reach your substantive judgments. You are, however, incorrect in your second point. Both the Clinton and Sanders campaigns have joined the DNC's lawsuit regarding voter disenfranchisement and burdening the right to vote of voters in Arizona. [2]. Do you have any legitimate concerns? Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And you now believe, I assume, that this "would be worth mentioning in the body of the article"? Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that I was mistaken there -- I had assumed the section/sub-section/page you are proposing was more narrowly focused than you would like (the lawsuit cited has nothing to do with "fraud," but it is an "electoral irregularity," which you indeed included as a discussion point in your introduction to the question). If the lawsuit were mentioned in the section of the article that discusses the Arizona/Utah/Idaho voting day, I would not complain. However, perhaps to your astonishment, you are not the sole arbiter of what is and is not a legitimate concern. Several users in the community have challenged the veracity of your sources, and simply dismissing as illegitimate the concerns of anyone not named Michael Sheflin is not how arguing for a consensus works. NelsonWI (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I realize I'm not the arbiter of legitimacy. However, those several other editors have noted the concern in the abstract. And it's a mischaracterized and invalid concern. Look at the snapshot of the last version of the fraud section that was deleted [3], and tell me what sources concern you. Then I, like you, will concede I was mistaken - about the legitimacy of the concern with source issues. Michael Sheflin (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

To be as brief as possible: 1) with regard to the section on the New York primary, the fact that many voters in Brooklyn experienced problems is true, but none of the sources you cite include any allegations of fraud or even an implication that the outcome of the race would have been meaningfully different without the problems. Including it on the main article for the 2016 Democratic primaries suggests that it had an impact on the contest or that one campaign felt they were being uniquely targeted, which none of the sources you cite indicate to be the case. 2) Including half a sentence about long lines and procedural problems at some polling places in Nevada [4] in a section about controversies and allegations of fraud once again implies something that the source does not. The source does not say it was controversial or that anybody on the Democratic side thought something fishy was going on. Including it under a header on controversy and fraud is editorializing, plain and simple. 3) That brings us to the only actual fraud allegation in the entire section, which is based exclusively on a personal account by a Sanders precinct captain [5] that is neither WP:NPOV, nor a WP:THIRDPARTY source. Just because it was posted on Salon does not make it neutral or credible. 4) How you conjured the sentence "Sanders has assured the Democratic Party that violence will not erupt from his supporters at the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia" from anywhere in this NYT article [6] eludes me. Nowhere in the article is there any such statement from Sanders. The whole premise for the proposed section seems to be built on winks and nudges you are trying to dig out from between the lines of a mix of mainstream and specious sources. NelsonWI (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

1) This wasn't my section. Certainly the final snapshot has problems (I noticed on last look that someone seems to have started deleting stuff including rebuttal text/sources). One editor felt including lawsuits was wrong and deleted all the allegations of fraud that would come in the complaints of said suits - including the at least one that a judge refused to dismiss. For those uninitiated, a failure to secure a dismissal means that a judge is acknowledging that - if taken as true - the allegations could prove the charges alleged. Given the media slant, if no complaints are allowed to be cited then we would need to wait for the resolution of all lawsuits (i.e. years) to determine whether there have been any "legitimate sources" citing fraud. The short answer is that you can find that testimony at the Board of Elections hearing too. So in short, I appreciate your response but unless you're saying that no sources can allege such fraud I may have set up the wrong standard. 2) This was a source legitimacy issue. It actually does allege the same irregularities that led to the DNC suit in AZ. 3) [I originally added the Salon bit as a response to an addition noting that the rules were actually floated 1 month before the Dem NV Convention; it was a first-hand delegate testimony of the procedural grievances that erupted on one side. I have to imagine that productive rather than obstructionist editors could have - cumulatively - done a better job than I have. But looking at the state of this article that is not a foregone conclusion. 4)] That bit about Philadelphia was added by someone else [*I also haven't seen that claim so I cannot speak to it.]. I will acknowledge we had a bias problem but I think you'll find it mostly came from the editors that have shown their opinions here to be overtly anti-Sanders; those editors then argued the section was biased. Look I'll acknowledge you've all won. You've abused and misused the consensus-building process in bad faith to exclude, on hypothetical possibilities, the possibility of valid information. That's why you guys lack basic knowledge about the scope of allegations actually present (i.e. the DNC suit, for instance) - because it's not sourced on Wikipedia. Having said that, this is why serious scholars and researchers don't waste their time with wikipedia. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And we should make its own section since it is nationwide.[7] & [8] I've also collected sources from both sides to provide the NPOV. The exit polls in the 2004 Ukraine election differed from exit polls by 12% and the american department of state declared election fraud. The results in Alabama, New York, and Georgia all differed by the same or more. In fact, the allegations of election fraud are so widespread that there are multiple articles providing reliable sources giving the opposite POV (that there is no election fraud), such as this Washington Post article, or this article by the Nation.

I tried to add a NPOV to this page, but a few wiki editors were very intent on Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system to keep wikipedia a bastion of their own bias as opposed to actually countering bias. My experience with these users has led me to see that Wikipedia isn't a good place to look for knowledge, unless that knowledge is a short plot summary of a movie. Kswikiaccount (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What you provided seems to be closer to irregularities, and not fraud. As for exit polls, there is a significant amount of literature from political analysts that discredit them as accurate measures of political behavior. Even if we were to accept your premise, there isn't enough evidence to suggest the exit poll discrepancies meant fraud. In fact, a popular meme that showed these discrepancies originated on a website that actively promotes conspiracy theories. S51438 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I accept Kswikiaccount's premise and I think that if this were not domestic analysis there would be no question that exit polls would be relevant. Given scenarios in which that would apply I think there's like a lateral degree of racism involved as well. Regardless of the inclusion of exit polls, and your ad hominem attack on this person's viewpoint - or at least their argument, your argument that his information alleges irregularities is in obvious bad faith since you know that this discussion encompasses both fraud and irregularities. FYI, I've challenged you above and I'm still waiting for you to show where the multiple sources you continued to add actually allege either that Lange claimed or that (they claim that) Sanders supporters made death threats. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I will respond if the information is re-added. This was not an attack. Kswikiaccount stated his sources suggested fraud ("In fact, the allegations of election fraud are so widespread"). The sources did not suggest this. They merely stated irregularities. S51438 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Kswikiaccount called it fraud because that's what [Ambassador Tefft, in Congressional testimony, called the] fraudulent 2004 Ukrainian presidential election in part based on exit polling (http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/39542.htm). Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It really is reaching to connect an election in 2004 to 2016, especially because the source provided speaks very little of exit polling data, instead citing "ballot stuffing", "fake turnout figures", and other means of fraud. We have no evidence of that here. In any case, exit polls are not always reliable indicators of voter preference. S51438 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I was explaining my thoughts on why Kswikiaccount may have referred to this as fraud. In so doing, I have allowed you to completely detract from his point. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell no. That would violate half a dozen Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC) (Like: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR (which we already see in the discussion above), WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS just to start the list) 07:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Recapitulation - and please feel free to respond; I have no doubt there must be countervailing views as to how to summarize the preceding discussion (I am copying and pasting this from my talk page):

"Here I feel confident in saying that I can dismiss [concerns that are invalid]: 1) the foremost and most numerous concern was that sources might be disreputable; well... if you're concerned about drunk driving you don't resurrect prohibition and ban cars... so this issue is not legitimate insofar as we have strict source controls: disreputable sources can be excluded, gray area sources can be thrown to the group and excluded; if it's the only source for that particular claim, the claim could be discarded (pending a reputable source) - resolving any valid overlap of that concern and whether the material should be included on Wikipedia (... ... ...); 2) Omnibus noted (specifically) that it should include anti-Sanders allegations; that's not a legitimate concern, however, it can be addressed insofar as the section would obviously include (NPOV) all allegations of fraud and irregularity; 3) people were concerned with the leading way I asked the question to bait responses; not a legitimate concern with regard to the issue, though; 4) people were concerned I have some nefarious agenda; that violates the good faith standard as you've rightly pointed out, but it also has no bearing on whether any valid allegations should be included and is thus resolved (to the extent that it - like the source complaints - are not bad faith) in that only such allegations would be included; 5) there were several evidentiary concerns (as in that specific components of irregularities and fraud were or were not true - not germane to my thinking about why this should or should not be included): one editor was concerned that there was no allegation that irregularities or fraud was systematic - that isn't true at a sub-state level with particular respect to New York (but more broadly) - but then I cited the chief editor of Bloomberg Politics saying exactly that (I'm a little concerned with him being an exemplar of journalism, but my point is that this type of issue is evidentiary, can be resolved elsewhere, and only bears on the inclusion of the information in Wikipedia to the extent that - as here - [there is no actual question that a claim has been made]; we personally may not agree with this particular claim but that doesn't argue against the inclusion of a citation to the fact that a claim exists; in that sense the concern [against inclusion] is not legitimate); 6) one editor was concerned that the threshold was that campaigns must have filed lawsuits and then backpeddled upon learning the campaigns have joined the DNC's lawsuit; 7) Guy offered no up-and-down yes or no but stated "There should be links to the individual state Wikipedia articles that mention any of this kind of 'fraud'" implying some form of yes with links to the sections in individual states' pages (which I think makes perfect sense). The only unquestionably legitimate concern that needs to be discussed is whether allegations should be interwoven with the text of the main article per Anywikiuser's suggestion - alongside the question of whether valid allegations should be included in an article section or a new article.

Actually there was an earlier concern before I added the consensus-building section, that basically went that inclusion was appropriate only on individual pages. I think it had to do with not cluttering the main page with mere allegations. From that I suggested the stub-section with links to another page. But either way, while a totally legitimate concern, I think that is resolved (minimally) by just having a separate article. What's the reason for not having an article for what is widely perceived and (thus) reflected in media and campaign announcements? Our personal views on the substance [and rationality] of that perception do not negate the existence of that information [of these allegations in the media etc.].

But [concern] #6 is a good example of my understanding of this process per the rules you posted for me on the talk page. That editor had a concern... but it was not legitimate. I offered my reasons for it not being legitimate (it was based on a faulty empirical premise). We then resolved the concern - which in that case was very specific. As to the other concerns, and I believe my list above is comprehensive. I'll offer an example on compromising on a legitimate concern: being very generous to Omnibus, and reading his concern as to the neutrality of the allegations, his concern is totally legitimate - but it is resolved by simply being comprehensive in our inclusion of valid allegations...

So again I'm not sure what legitimate concerns that actually leaves [unresolved]; please tell me if my logic has failed somewhere. I believe most of the concerns are essentially similar - concerns that if we allow the inclusion of fraud allegations, people might cite sources badly. Well... they do that anyway on Wikipedia, so we need quality control... but that's not a legitimate concern [as to whether that information should be included on Wikipedia if proper citations existed]." Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• I would also note that the text & tone of the exchanges that have recently taken place on the above user's talk page might indicate that they are getting ready to dismiss any consensus against their own views here as "invalid", which, of course, is not how consensus on Wikipedia actually works. This user does not appear to me to be willing to learn how Wikipedia actually works and listen to other user's concerns, which is very troubling indeed. Guy1890 (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You were responding to my comments. You can refer to me in the second person; I find your objectification very troubling indeed. But regardless, the exchange you note on my talk page isn't obscured... I pasted it in full, and - I would also note - you were responding to it. My understanding of consensus is that it is supposed to adduce, crystalize around, and resolve legitimate concerns. I think that's backed up by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus but it's not that detailed with regard to what constitutes a legitimate concern. Still, that obviously means that concerns that are not legitimate (whatever that, in turn, means) cannot affect the threshold formation of consensus, regardless of their ultimate impact on content. But there is also some paucity, on the Consensus page, as to how this process affects the inclusion of an entire category of content. I glanced, so I may have overlooked stuff, but it seems this is primarily geared toward content and not category.

So consensus would arise, for instance, over whether to include the popular vote but not over whether to include an article about the Democratic primaries. While this discussion started with regard to whether and to what extent, if at all, allegations of fraud and irregularities should be included in this article, another editor has suggested that exclusion of a centralized source might be a form of gaming the rules and (and I think this is logically correct as well) content discrimination. So if the idea is that any concern can be used to prevent inclusion of valid information, I think that is a misreading of the rules; the concerns have to be legitimate. (And, let's be specific... concluding that reddit prevents inclusion of valid claims is not a legitimate concern... so that is invalid... and yes... this editor has dismissed that consensus against his (my) views, because a) while it would be inappropriate to cite to reddit, that is totally irrelevant to whether properly cited claims should be included, and b) because we can resolve any aspect of that concern that is legitimate by simply having proper quality control. So (per consensus) we move on; and when we've accommodated all legitimate concerns we have reached the end. It may not be the end all or any of us want. However, this regards content and not categories of content. This process should not have taken place regarding fraud; and any consensus that forms on this talk page - it seems to me - is essentially confined to the attached article. There cannot be a consensus that fraud allegations will not be included on Wikipedia. That's my understanding of the rules.

And so most concerns don't address the actual question of where information should be included. None address legitimate reasons why the content generally should be excluded; most address generalizations for why bad content necessitates exclusion of all content. That, per my understanding of Wikipedia, is not a valid use of Consensus or reading of the rules. Allegations of fraud and irregularities, regardless of one's substantive and inherently non-neutral conclusions about any or no fraud and irregularities themselves, meets all criteria mentioned here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_a_page - allegations are 1) notable - they have been mentioned by the DNC, both campaigns, and (virtually?) all major media (regardless of the frequency); 2) any information included would be properly verifiable; 3) everything would be carefully scrutinized to maintain NPOV, with disputes being resolved by consensus; 4) we would obviously exclude original research - this would be citations to discussions in media, politicians, pundits, etc. So given all of that, it seems to me the consensus required concerns the method of inclusion.

As to my discussion above, what precisely was the fallacy in my conclusion? Did I overlook concerns other editors noted above? Did I mischaracterize them? Was I... in fact... illegitimately dismissive? Those were not my aims; so if so let's cure those defects if that was the impact. But if your point is that this information simply will not be included at all costs, then I reiterate that another editor who seemed more knowledgeable suggested this was an inappropriate use of Wikipedia's rules per (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system); and I think given (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose) one would need - to I think paraphrase the very first comment I made on this talk page - a compelling reason to justify exclusion of verifiable, reputable, legitimate allegations that are of national public concern and interest. Perhaps this consensus attempt has determined that [for now] no section should be added to accommodate the allegations - or perhaps that is not what it has determined. However, that cannot then be used to simply exclude otherwise valid information from Wikipedia. And your repeated expression of distrust in my motives (which if you challenge me on I will compile and cite) violate your obligation to assume good faith. Can you point to - in my articulation above quoted from my talk page - any examples of where I was in fact dismissive and was not actually just trying to speak to and compromise with the concerns our fellow editors have expressed?

I think perhaps we should revisit this issue when a separate page is added, since it's clear that regardless of the textual length, the nature and scope of the allegations will mean a need to resolve evidentiary, format, and other issues specifically. And, as I think was an original concern I also noted in the quoted section above [I hope and think], it might serve to detract from this article. Once a separate page is in place, it would make more sense to revisit how this page can incorporate that information. Or at least those are some thoughts on the fly. Michael Sheflin (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't see my preferred proposal here, so I will have to say no to all of them. I would rather we include mentions of fraud/irregularities on the separate Wikipedia pages for each primary. This page is very general, and unless it can be established that irregularities/fraud were so general to encompass most, if not all states, then it should not be included here. S51438 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively, I think incorporating the allegations/etc. into the central body may be feasible (assuming, once again, we have a vast amount of information that includes almost all states). Any separate section or subsection will undoubtedly lead to the impression that the entire process has been flawed (especially because a section of this kind cannot be found on another Democratic Primary page or a Republican Primary page). Wikipedia pages are not designed to instill thoughts into the reader, only to provide information. This information needs to be general enough to belong in this article itself. S51438 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't see that proposal because that's germane either way. The only question is how to include the information in some centralized source. If your point is (as I think I am properly inferring) that it should not be, you need to provide a legitimate and compelling reason that it should not be, because otherwise that would thwart the purpose of Wikipedia. I agree that a section attempting to incorporate all this in full may be unwieldy. It doesn't matter that the entire process may or may not have been flawed. What matters is that the allegations for a nexus through the same core types of facts that make them relevant to include together. Right? The votes - as people pointed out per your idea of including national vote totals - actually do not relate to this national process leading to the convention. Arguably, there is no national process prior to the convention. But it would be silly to argue we should only have a convention page and then individual primary/caucus pages. It would be silly because it would so obviously be a pedantic attempt to thwart the purpose of Wikipedia. That's the situation we find ourselves in here. So the question is not whether the information can be added locally - like local convention/primary/caucus pages it obviously can be. The question is how but not whether to include the information centrally. If you still disagree with this as some sort of false dichotomy, then you need - per my examination above of how this falls within the core purpose of Wikipedia and why this issue actually should not fall under the consensus process (but rather that should be left to individual disputes under the entire category) then you need to provide a compelling reason why this should not be included in Wikipedia in compiled form. That was the original purpose for my baiting no answer. And that issue has not actually been addressed - nobody has explained short of substantive prejudgment about scope - why this should not be centrally included (not in this article... in general). Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You remind me much of my younger days on Wikipedia. Put it this way. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Adding information that is completely relevant to a topic may seem perfectly reasonable to you (and I will admit, I always became very frustrated when editors would take away the information I had contributed under the guise of "rules"), but that does not mean the information can be added fairly. So no, your framing of the discussion, which has completely shut out the possibility of not adding the information at all, in fact is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia: We do not add information just for the sake of information. You cannot possibly make such a sweeping determination of information inclusion and expect it to stand. That neutral arbitrator beckons. S51438 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And in addition, I have to say the lack of precedent is something we must consider. The 2008 article does not mention irregularities, though undoubtedly some did occur. We try to formulate Wikipedia pages in similar ways, especially when they are so close in subject matter. When precedent is to be broken, the edit must survive a good deal of scrutiny. As of this writing, I think we may have to call in a neutral arbitrator because the discussion is quite contentious and any edit which incorporates the concerns of editors here is probably impossible. While any editor is free to form consensus, an editor involved in the discussion is not given free license to determine which concerns are legitimate and which are not. This is why despite the fierce conflict over the addition of the popular vote, every concern lodged against it was considered legitimate. Wikipedia's ambiguous definition of legitimate, as pointed out above, does not mean an editor can simply do whatever they want. Ambiguity implies a neutral authority needs to be brought in or every concern should be presumed legitimate. S51438 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Editors dropped the ball, but that does not mean we should continue to do so. As a policy issue this argument cannot prevail. Perhaps it was raised in 2008 regarding 2004 or 2000... and for whatever nobody really challenged the logic, and so such info wasn't included in 2008. And if nobody challenges the fundamental lack of logic underlying this argument now, perhaps it will resurface in 2020 or 2024... etc ad infinitum and thus past failure will be used to justify continuing failure and violation. Instead, we should just start doing our jobs and then this type of recursive logical failure will not be allowed to prevent legitimate information, properly sourced et al ad nauseam, from making its way into the premiere online compendium for such information. Michael Sheflin (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have ever considered that this article is not the proper place for this information. Further, I am not here to question the logic of the past. We at Wikipedia generally consider the past discussions and past resolutions to be the framework for any current discussion. No matter what you write here, you won't accomplish erasing the past. Simply put, this edit lacks precedent and saying the Wikipedia community has engaged in illogical edits over the long term has failed to justify uprooting this precedent. S51438 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No This discussion has become superfluous and a silly debate between someone trying to promote a biased POV and the rest of the regular editors trying to explain to the person why their proposition is not appropriate. Let's please agree to settle and end this discussion. I see a complete consensus against the original proposition. Let's focus on improving and updating this page appropriately. Can an administrator or someone please end this discussion? Also, the proposer of this section seems to write such incredibly long responses to all this that it honestly makes me wonder what they are trying to do. There is consensus against it. This is turning into a forum. Let's avoid that please. And let's finally end and resolve this. Manful0103 (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to do that, so long as you explain why the status quo takes an editor's legitimate concerns (in this case, Msheflin) into account. I'm not exactly sure what his concerns are. He writes so much and never seems to indicate clearly why this information should be included. S51438 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I repeat what many others have already said on why not. His (I will assume gender because of the name) "concerns" are obviously not a true encyclopedic concern. As you pointed out, look how insanely long his responses are on here. What value does any of this have? I see nothing coming out of it. My point is that there is consensus against it. I just think it needs to be closed. Manful0103 (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Following the model in the first section [9] here, you are free to close the discussion, provided that you can adequately determine consensus in your favor. S51438 (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You're attempting to exclude information and in so doing you are thwarting the purpose of Wikipedia and likely thus inadvertently, because I don't think you're being malicious, gaming the system per the links provided above. You cannot merely exclude information of public interest, validly cited. That's the concern. If your question is what does this debate have to do with the page... there does appear to be consensus, at present, against including information on this page. There's no reason given for that so it's not clear to me where you find consensus based on legitimate concerns. But that's fine. So as I said, we'll add a new article per this topic meeting all of the 4 criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Consensus is not an appropriate means of determining whether a category of information should be included on Wikipedia. So per my previous comments you didn't read, this consensus/discussion is purely confined to the inclusion of fraud allegations within this page. You cannot use this invalid line of reasoning to squelch valid information on Wikipedia. However, you're welcome to join the discussion of - and add your views to the consensus-building processes regarding - specific allegations laid out within that broad category. You're simply not permitted to exclude an area of information - particularly based on incommensurate concerns.

So for the tl;dr crowd - this discussion concerns manner of addition of information to this page only; any valid information can already at present be added to the individual state pages (per Wiki policies/guidelines). And this discussion can be revisited when a decent first cut of the new article has been up for a little while. And perhaps the group will then coalesce around the inappropriateness of linking to said article and provide no reasons therefor. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And manful0103, if you intend to continue to defame me, maybe you could explain how my POV is biased? For the even more tl;dr crowd who are capable of rejecting a proposition without knowing what it is... My concern is that Wikipedia excludes the widespread perception, and the widespread reporting on (therefrom, perhaps), of procedural irregularities. My bias, as a law student in the con rights clinic, is my concern that such irregularities - if taken as alleged - would in at least some cases form violations of the constitution [...as I've repeatedly stated... that's my bias]. Can you explain to me how violations of the constitution are not noteworthy? Or do you need me to explain how that's a concern? Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus is not an appropriate means of determining whether a category of information should be included on Wikipedia." This is simply not true, as the top of this talk page makes blatantly clear. It seems you are participating in a process that you don't understand. As for creating an entirely new page, this discussion will likely be used against its formation, especially if consensus is not determined in proposal 2's favor. In addition, as you have pointed out, there are additional barriers to the creation of another page. S51438 (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You undoubtedly know that I was applying that statement to a category of information... as I have repeatedly stated... So you can argue the popular vote count is not relevant and should not be included; you cannot argue that a national article for the primaries should not be included. One is a piece of information; one is a category. I think I understand the process, as I liberally responded to this argument above, but this consensus can be used to determine the relation between any new article and this one. I think that's logical. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"you cannot argue that a national article for the primaries should not be included." Well obviously, as this is not the proper location for that discussion. S51438 (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I and User:Guy1890 have asked a neutral arbitrator to determine consensus on this issue. This does not prevent other editors from establishing consensus, but it places future limitations on those involved. If consensus remains undetermined for a period of 30 days or if this discussion continues to attract its current level of input for 30 days, then the ability for involved editors to determine consensus is annulled and neutral arbitration will be required for consensus determination. I encourage all users to come to an edit that takes into consideration the concerns of all editors here. Any gauging of consensus that merely dismisses the other editors without addressing their claims (such as stating concerns are not legitimate) would be against Wikipedia policy, and that determination of consensus should be challenged. S51438 (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. As I've pointed out, consensus only impacts inclusion of a centralized or interwoven (or no) reference to these allegations on this page. Any question of inclusion of this information more broadly goes beyond the scope of this discussion. However, if there is an appropriate place for such a discussion to take place of which I am unaware, please refer me to that Wiki policy/guideline (- that would be easiest, I think). Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Using this process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard will allow you to submit a draft for an article and have it reviewed to see if it is publishable. S51438 (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I know we are potentially awaiting arbitration to close the debate. Since the debate was effectively defunct regardless, I am - true to word - suggesting either reopening it or adding a new (Talk Page) section to the same effect for the sole purpose of determining to what extent to include references (in this article) to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, fraud and irregularity allegations as it expands. This is not a discussion about whether that separate page should exist. I have (also) applied for protection for that page, which was declined on grounds that it had not yet been vandalized. Please don't vandalize it... Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Guy1890 has been a disruptive editor and I find his input in finding a neutral arbitrator unacceptable. He has been uncivil to many people on this very talk page and he should not have any part in choosing who is the neutral arbitrator. He has repeatedly called Russia Today a propaganda site, going against the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, and maintained that western media, which has been shown to have just as much -- if not more -- bias, is the preferred source. He has also been very aggressive in trying to get new editors and editors without accounts to stop editing. Kswikiaccount (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Russia Today *IS* a propaganda site and not reliable - have you actually looked at the discussions at RS/N about it? I don't know what "western media" is suppose to be here, but established media with a reputation for fact checking is indeed reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please IP, your tactics here aren't going to work in your favor, and no one is "choosing who is the neutral arbitrator" for closing any threads on this page. Guy1890 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• You aggressiveness when interacting with me makes me feel exhausted and is driving me away from editing. In fact, after your first encounter with me, I stopped editing on this site for a few weeks. Please, either a) stop communicating to me, or b) take your aggressiveness down a significant number of levels. Thanks.

Just in case it isn't 100% clear, this is what is aggressive: "Please IP, your tactics here aren't going to work in your favor" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswikiaccount (talk • contribs) 23:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a politically neutral page. This is not a page for Hillary nor Sanders supporters to air their opinions.2602:306:CC42:8340:B9DA:211D:AE70:83C2 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"Sanders campaign accuses Puerto Rico Dem officials of fraud" from the Hill.

The Inquisitr claims Bernie Sanders is responsible for voter suppression in Puerto Rico.

A lawsuit in New York by voters alleging election fraud.

"Sanders' campaign did not want county officials to certify the results until "there's a complete audit" to account for votes that potentially should have been counted." from a local source.

I am astounded at the fact that people added the alleged election fraud section and it was taken down. Multiple major sources are talking about this, and have done so for almost two months, and editors on wikipedia still continue with the bureaucracy and silly stalling attempts. If this is an encyclopedia then the allegations of election fraud must be in this page. This information should have been added a long time ago, and I find the incessant resistance of the addition of this section highly unethical and telling about bias of the english wikipedia editors who have been so sexist to warrant an actual drive by Wikipedia to try to get more female editors. Kswikiaccount (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, it can be added here. Michael Sheflin (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No, this is POV and as it turns out it was the Sanders campaign which led to the closing of polling places. None of the sources you list above meet the requirements for reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Our fraud page does a better and more truthful job of documenting this scenario. 1) Why is The Hill not reliable...? 2) The Sanders campaign has denied it requested a reduction in polling places, and has instead asserted that it requested maintenance of the previous 1,500 polling places. [But that campaign has alleged lack of cert of its prison registration workers.] Either way, your point is incommensurable as you appear to discount the sources and then use them to make a partisan case. I don't understand why people keep posting here as this issue is defunct, but I will continue to reply to those responses that are overtly biased or untruthful. Marek, if you feel you can contribute positively to the fraud page by all means do so. Otherwise this section is effectively defunct. My understanding is no allegations, regardless of their weight, validity, breadth, or verifiability, will be included in this article with no legitimate concern cited. Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

editors need to slow down and really take a grip

Why do we have delegate count for California at a time when only 69% of the votes have been counted/reported? I mean you could name Hillary as the projected winner if you can't wait for a few more hours, but you certainly cannot post a delegate count before the count is in. That's utterly ridiculous.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Actually, 94% of votes have been counted. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes and no, according to the LA Times 94% are counted but according to NBC 69% (at the time of the first posting). I guess NBC "live results" were just late. But in any case why do we post/edit delegate counts before 100% are in? I simply can't see any good reason for that. I know it is a crazy election season, but that doesn't mean we have to import the craziness into WP. We can afford to wait a few hours until the result are really (and fully) in, we're an encyclopedia not a newsticker. A bit more patience is imho advised here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It is moot now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Virgin Islands Caucus Results

I'm still confused as to whether it was split 7:0, or 6:1. See here and here. Thanks. Sleepingstar (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the 15% threshold for getting any delegates in a Democratic contest comes into play for this caucus. If so, Sanders wouldn't get any delegates. Guy1890 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, although I do have a remaining question though: does the 15% threshold exist at large? Or does it filter down to the delegate allocation district level, of which the Virgin Islands appears to have two? Sleepingstar (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the greenpapers one is the correct one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

All of VI is one congressional district, but they have three election districts for local elections and apparently also for the primaries: http://www.vivote.gov/; http://www.vivote.gov/content/register-vote. I haven't found any info online on whether the 15% threshold applies to the territory at large, as the VI Dem party leadership claims, or to the individual districts; if this is the first time something like this occurred, they may not have discussed it beforehand. A dissenting faction seems to have put the 6/1 info on the facebook page on June 4, 2016, and that's the info the Greenpapers used; the info was removed shortly afterwards. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee designation

The entry for Hillary Clinton under the section: Leading Candidates states:

Presumptive nominee with superdelegates added

Yet, if we look at Barrack Obama's entry for 2008, it reads:

Presumptive nominee June 3, 2008

These two don't match. Someone reading this could easily conclude that Obama became the presumptive nominee without super-delegates which would be false. Someone could also note that Clinton's entry is missing a date and assume that her presumptive status is still pending which would also be false.

It makes no sense to have two different standards for these entries when they are the same. So, either the Obama 2008 entry should include the caveat "with super-delegates added" or it should be removed from the Clinton 2016 entry. Likewise, either the Obama 2008 entry should not include the date or the Clinton 2016 entry should include the date of June 7.

To me, this is a rather embarrassing double standard that gives the appearance of some material difference between Obama's 2008 presumptive nominee status and that of Clinton in 2016 when no actual difference exists. Brehmel (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus can change includes how we list things like this. This doesn't seem particularly embarrassing or a double standard to me, other than explicitly mentioning superdelegates now seems like a concession to the Bernie supporters. At the end, it's all the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually there just might be an issue/mistake with the date. If you take June 7 rather than June 3 for Obama in 2008 as presumpitive nominee, then it works fine. On June 7, 2008 Hillary withdrew and therefore Obama became the presumptive nominee, so not due to superdelegates but Hillary's withdrawal.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that point. Obama became the presumptive nominee on June 3 due to his total of delegates; it was not related to Clinton's later concession. I can't think of any mathematical justification for having a difference between the 2008 and 2016 entries. The two are the same and should have the same format. Secondly, while it is true that Hillary's unpledged delegates could all go rogue and decide to nominate Bernie at the convention on July 25, that would have no bearing on Hillary's presumptive nominee status today.Brehmel (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

There is also no evidence of a change in Obama's status on June 7 with Clinton's concession. For example, this New York Times article, Obama Clinches Nomination; First Black Candidate to Lead a Major Party Ticket on June 4.

You have an NBC article which states: Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois claimed the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night, NBC News projected based on its tally of convention delegates.

This list of Obama's speeches reads:

Final Primary Night 
Presumptive Democratic Nominee Speech 
St. Paul, Minnesota 
June 3, 2008

I can understand the attempt to rewrite history or to create some difference between the 2008 nomination and this one. However, the best evidence of a double standard is Sanders' own actions. Sanders takes different position on superdelegates than he did in 2008:

But Sanders struck a different tone in 2008, when he told his hometown newspaper, the Burlington Free Press in Vermont, that he planned to “play a very active role” in supporting Obama.

“I will do everything I can to see that he is elected president,” he said at the time.

That interview was published on June 5, 2008, two days after the last Democratic contests but two days before Clinton suspended her campaign. --Brehmel (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

So, which is it? Does the 2008 entry give Obama too much credit or does the 2016 entry not give Clinton enough? You can't have it both ways. --Brehmel (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion: The "presumptive nominee" should be the person with an expected majority at the convention at the current moment. That ought not to suggest that there is a chance it could change, no matter how minute. Clinton has a clear expected majority at the convention, so she ought to be treated as the "presumptive nominee" just as Obama was 8 years ago to this day. If the superdelegates, who have been overwhelmingly backing her for months, suddenly announce next week that most of them will flip their endorsements and support the guy who's just lost the popular vote and the race for pledged delegates, then the presumptive nominee would switch from Clinton to Sanders. But unless that happens, Clinton will remain the presumptive nominee until she becomes the actual nominee. If Clinton was only expecting a meagre majority at the convention, I'm not sure if I would be so willing to designate her as the presumptive nominee, as then the nomination still could be flipped if a few superdelegates changed their endorsement or a few pledged delegates rebelled. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting lead

As the primary season winds down, I'm suggesting that we should prepare to rewrite the lead except for the first paragraph. Here's a draft proposal for rewriting paragraphs 2 and 3. I haven't yet put citations in. I've tried to make sure that the facts here are either easily citable or blindingly obvious:

A total of six major candidates entered the race starting April 12, 2015, when former Secretary of State and New York Senator Hillary Clinton formally announced her second bid for the presidency. She was followed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, former Governor of Maryland Martin O'Malley, former Governor of Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee, former Virginia Senator Jim Webb and Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig. There was some speculation that incumbent Vice President Joe Biden would also enter the race, but he chose not to run. A draft movement was started to encourage Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to seek the presidency, but Warren declined to run. Chafee, Lessig and Webb withdrew prior to the Iowa caucuses, the first contest of the primary season. O'Malley suspended his campaign after a distant third-place finish in Iowa, leaving a two-way race. Hillary Clinton was the consistent favorite to win the nomination, though she faced an often formidable challenge from Sanders. She had strong support from African Americans, other racial minorities, older voters, women and the superdelegates, while Sanders was favored by younger voters and college students.

Clinton won Iowa by the closest margin in the history of the caucuses over Sanders, while Sanders won the New Hampshire primary by a landslide. After winning the Nevada caucuses, Clinton regained a lead in pledged delegates that she would never relinquish. Clinton dominated in the South, and this helped her build up a large lead in delegates in early March. Clinton was also favored in closed primaries, large cities and the nine most populous states. Sanders fared better in caucuses, open primaries, small states and rural areas outside of the South. The Midwest featured several closely-fought contests. By mid-March Clinton had a lead of over 300 pledged delegates. Sanders was able to erode this lead to below 220 with a series victories in late March and early April, mostly in caucuses. Most of these gains were then undone in late April, when Clinton won several states in the Northeast; Sanders made some further gains in May. By the start of June, Clinton had a lead of over 260 pledged delegates and endorsements from over 2/3 of the superdelegates, with 781 pledged delegates left to be allocated.

Thoughts? Anywikiuser (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I like this. I think it is clear and fair to both candidates. I would be slightly wary of the sentence "Hillary Clinton was the consistent favorite to win the nomination..." because it seems like this is more of an opinion than a fact. However, if other editors disagree I think it can be left in. Thanks! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, but the media sources ARE there to back it up.70.161.173.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have thought it would have been hard to dispute that Hillary Clinton was the favorite and Bernie Sanders was the underdog, but I suppose that's still an opinion. Perhaps instead it could make note that she was leading nearly all polls or something alone those lines. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of saying that she was leading in most of the polls; it's factual and can't be disputed like the phrase "clear favorite". Good idea! We could also note that she had the support of many party leaders, which is again something that could be referenced. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente

Dude... has nobody noticed this article makes no mention of Democratic Presidential Candidate Rocky De La Fuente...? Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

He is included here: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016. As for this article I am not sure how or where he would fit in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We mention O'Malley, Lessig, Chaffee. None of these guys are actually running. It looks like De La Fuente has run in every primary, despite attracting no delegates, and is actively campaigning. Do you think he might fit in that way? Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay go ahead and provide some info under "Other candidates" then. This seems like a good spot to expand. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that would violate the consensus requirement necessary to make major substantive edits to this page - such as including a 3rd active Democratic candidate. Am I wrong there? Either way, I'm less concerned about adding the information myself than the apparent falters in the overall quality of editing. Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I am not seeing anyone argue against it, we should provide at least a mention if the other candidates are mentioned as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that might a) misconstrue the standard of review, and b) be the line that started many of the structural arguments that have produced these fitna-like fissures among us. But I do agree with you that he should be included. Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI Mr. De La Fuente and dozens of minor candidates used to be listed on this page when the primary process began and they were relegated to the detailed list of candidates article long after they lost any potential relevance to the primary. If you choose to add some of them back, you may have trouble agreeing on an appropriate level of relevance to choose those who "make the cut" to this page. Personally I wouldn't touch things, other than perhaps mentioning a few of the notable names in prose. — JFG ^talk 05:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like De La Fuente, on the ballot in 40 states, is also the only active candidate on the ballot in more than 7 states... [but there are also only 4 active Dem candidates in addition to him; am I wrong?]. But Biden, who has never entered the race, is mentioned in the second paragraph; and Chaffee, Webb and Lessig - who withdrew before the primaries - are also there mentioned. [*And they're all apparently mentioned in a section despite the fact that all have done worse than De La Fuente...] I honestly just think it's weird.

I added this section in part to highlight the highly arbitrary and generally shoddy editorial quality of this article (with particular winks to veracity and neutrality). But I noted my intention was not to edit the article; it was made clear to me very quickly that I would be able to offer no meaningful contribution to this article. So I confine my comments to the talk page. Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael, don't be overly cautious, most people don't WP:BITE. If you have better prose to improve the editorial quality, by all means go ahead! Just come back here if you get into controversies -- welcome to the joys of collective editing — JFG ^talk 07:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Long story short, De La Fuerte was not a major candidate as he was not featured in any major poll and was not invited to any DNC debates. He also was not in the ballot on every state. This was debated. 05:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Manful0103 (talk)

Proposal: simplify tracking of delegate votes

Consensus is to simplify the process when it came to tracking the delegate votes by eliminating the "path to nomination" column. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

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.

---

As the primaries are coming to a close and one of the candidates gathered enough support to be called the presumptive nominee, I would suggest that the "Path to nomination" column be suppressed from the table which tracks delegate votes, and simply listing the total expected votes at the convention. This would also avoid controversies on wording as discussed in the above sections. Here is the proposed simplified layout:

Candidate		Most recent position	Candidacy	Estimated delegate votes	Contests won
Hillary Clinton		67th U.S. Secretary of State (2009–2013)	(Campaign • Positions) FEC Filing	Pledged delegates 2197 / 4051 (54%)	33 AL, AR, AS, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, GU, IA, IL, KY, LA, MA, MD, MO, MP, MS, NC, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, PA, PR, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VI
				Superdelegate endorsements 537 / 715 (75%)
				Total expected convention votes 2734 / 4766 (57%)
Bernie Sanders		U.S. Senator from Vermont (2007–present)	(Campaign • Positions) FEC Filing	Pledged delegates 1816 / 4051 (45%)	23 AK, CO, DA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MN, MT, NE, NH, ND, OK, OR, RI, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY
				Superdelegate endorsements 47 / 715 (7%)
				Total expected convention votes 1863 / 4766 (39%)

References

Notes

Please !vote below to Support or Oppose the proposal. — JFG ^talk 01:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as proposal initiator. — JFG ^talk 01:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

[Better, but oppose on grounds it includes totals:] I like your correct use of the verb 'suppress.' After staring at this for a long time, and after you added an explanation (after my response) of the change, I retract my original response. This is better than the current template, which more obviously violates NPOV. However, why can't we just delete the expected total entirely. Need we do obvious math that... in fairness... will not be done until the convention anyway? Doesn't the top right of the article also include totals? Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Msheflin: The intent is indeed to remove any perceived bias as far as possible, by sticking to current facts. At first I didn't add the total votes but I felt that it would only invite more questions from readers and potentially edit-warring between people who want to point out that Sanders could still flip convention votes vs those who consider Clinton's nomination a fait accompli, so I added the total with the caveat wording "expected votes". Feel free to suggest an alternative formulation which you deem more neutral. — JFG ^talk 02:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I missed that initially. I apologize. And I do understand your point. My concern is just that we have no idea what the superdelegate tally is. My understanding, and please correct me if details have changed, is that the numbers released by AP, for instance, are disconnected from names. So if our (Wiki's) superdelegate count occurs via our SD page, then presumably there's a gap between AP's new numbers and our process? Am I wrong there? Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, there is longstanding consensus to report superdelegate endorsements from the Wikipedia list, which maintains individual verifiable sources for each endorsement, whereas the AP tally is only published as an aggregate, therefore unverifiable. — JFG ^talk 03:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. I missed the gap between this count and AP's. Thanks. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

My tentative suggestion would be your original suggestion (ironic... since I opposed it) - we should remove the path to nomination column and leave the separate tallies. I think that's the least misleading since there is no "total" tally yet per the official process. If we want to be super-accurate, we could include separate columns for each news source's delegate totals (per the inconsistent - still? breakdowns), but I think that makes less sense. Michael Sheflin (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Keeping track of how many delegates a candidate needs for nomination was only useful when neither had enough. I'm glad we can finally remove some of these bar charts and I'm looking forward to the convention so we can merge them all in a single total delegate count for each candidate. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed Why is it that we want to change this into a "simpler" form? Plus this suggestion comes from JFG, the user responsible for this new problem which necessitates us to "simplify" the section. Kswikiaccount (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Because Clinton is now presumptive nominee, it doesn't make much sense to keep a "Path to nomination" column. Plus, it's awkward to show numbers like 115%. JFG's proposals clearly shows that Clinton has a majority of delegates, and the "Path to nomination" column is now redundant and a bit confusing. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kswikiaccount: I am only trying to improve the coverage and keep it neutral. Please read my reply to your bias accusation in the above thread, and you'll understand that I am not "responsible for this new problem", having made edits both ways as the situation evolved. — JFG ^talk 03:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I hear you (I know I'm not Ks), but I think the problem - I've just realized - is that per our discussion of AP or CNN on this; one could uncontroversially say "AP called the presumptive nominee" or "CNN reports SD totals are" etc. But by making the Wiki SD page the definitive source, we've - and I use we quite liberally here - have outsourced the Truth and Verifiability criterions. [*And because the pledged delegates are less controversial that means that editors have used that authoritativeness to craft otherwise unverifiable and potentially untruthful totals. But we're not required to report it that way (which, fyi, would be a more truthful way of reporting it).] Basically we've made a recursive system where to fix any of these, I think very serious, structural problems with Wiki's articles and their neutrality, we would have to first start consensus discussions ... I don't even know where... I was going to say on the SD page. But the problem is that we've turned Wiki:SD into basically the authoritative source and that means we've bypassed the requirement of saying "Wikipedia claims". I think it creates the structural problem that makes people think this is not a neutral process. I think if we account for intent, I don't think everyone's trying to do bad biased things. However, I am concerned about some of the results. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: If you want to maintain NPOV then you will not push this forward. For months during the Democratic Presidential Primary, which continues until the end of June, we have had a certain format and suddenly today it gets changed. NPOV means, not excluding information, but sharing the information from both sides. I find this sudden desire to exclude something that has for months been included on the page to be highly suspect. As I have stated above multiple times, I am continuing to assume good faith, as hard as it has become, and assuming that these 'mistakes' are well meaning. It is a bad idea to change things before the DNC. A lot of bad things have happened during this campaign, and it seems like it's only getting worse, and the american people, due to their apathy, share a lot of the blame for what's been going wrong. It is a bad idea to change the format suddenly to go along with the mainstream medias POV that Sanders has "Absolutely no chance" and that he should drop out ASAP to save face. Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

And if I can add just one important point is that you should listen to Michael. Listen to him more than me, he has a tendency to see truth and also see the biased POV that exists in the media while being able to offer the opposite POV, which is how we satisfy the NPOV that wikipedia consensus wants.Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We can not ignore the media and create our own POV though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

To me that's the core point. By not reporting that these claims are either via Wiki or via media, we are creating a tertiary parallel truth (i.e. in addition to the primary truth and secondary media truth). And so this forms its own POV. By reporting that 'the media says' this or that the 'DNC says this' etc. we actually eliminate bias by declaring the fact - that "x said y." By reporting Y based on a Wikipedia page... we have institutionalized non-neutral POV (*instead of reporting X Wiki page says Y). And I think that's at the crux of our disagreement. (I appreciate your support Ks but I'm just as clueless as the rest...) Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kswikiaccount: Maybe I'm misinterpreting JFG's intention, but it seems like you both want the same thing: NPOV. That's why he suggests we remove the "Path to nomination" column so we can abstain from making declarations like "Mathematically eliminated" or variations thereof. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 04:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: After today;s interaction I need a break from you. I am physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted by you. I need a few days of no interaction with you, so until I feel well enough to speak with you, I will not be responding to you unless the administrators need me to.

@Abjiklɐm:, I think it is a bad idea to take out the column because for months we have had it, and it would be advancing a certain POV to take it out now that the media controls that part of the narrative. I may have been open to this idea had it been suggested a very long time ago, but maybe I wouldn't have been, I dont know what I would have said right now. What I can say is that currently it is very suspect that this is happening now after all this has happened. I think the path to nomination for both Hillary and Bernie should be changed to what it was yesterday, and we update the numbers so that it reflects the facts as they have been presented in the recent past. Basically Hillary's numbers will show that she is over the top and she doesn't need any more votes so it will 0/735, and Sanders's numbers will show how many he will need to also be the nominee. Does anyone even know what happens if both of them get enough to win the nomination at the same time? Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for that. (If they each get 50%, I think it would sort of automatically go to a new round; but that's just a thought. I think that'd mean they essentially start out with 0 delegates; but that wouldn't change the underlying political landscape of the delegates.) Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kswikiaccount: Ok I understand your concern. However, I'd like you to read this past discussion where I said in April: If a candidate reaches the threshold we'll simply change it back to share of total delegates. Until then, the threshold for nomination is in my opinion more relevant. I'm simply restating what I always thought from the beginning. I hope that can convince you of my good faith. :) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 04:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: I assume good faith on your part and everybody. But despite you having said that before, I still think it would push a certain POV while detracting from a different POV (thus violating the NPOV) to have it changed right now. What bugs me a lot is that today, not yesterday, there is a request and a move to have this done. As in, today a bunch of people started vandalizing the page by saying Bernie Sanders has lost the election and it is mathematically impossible for him to continue (that's vandalism btw and some of those words like mathematically are quoted directly from edits that were put on the page) and NOW after all that there is a move and a push to change this. I think it is a bad idea and it shouldn't be done, that it would be advancing 1 POV and only 1 POV, that of the mainstream media, of which there have been numerous scientific studies done, like this one, discussing how they serve as agents of propaganda.

Anyways, just to recap, it is not necessary for you to prove your good faith. It is mandatory for me and everyone else to assume good faith on your part. You are not one of the people making it difficult for me to continue doing so. Anyways, thanks for the response, I'm sorry if I made you feel like you needed to prove something to me, or if I made you feel like you were doing something bad. Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I hear you, but I think the proposal is intended partly to ward off such vandalism. JFG's proposal does away with all that in favor of keeping only the delegate count. Add to that that it was the plan from the beginning, I really think this is the best option. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support This sounds like a great solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Opposed Including Pledged and Unpledged delegates is more accurate. Combining them is probably the result of neutral point of view issues, and other than potentially being misleading, adds nothing substantive to the article that isn't already there in identical form. They merely highlight and centralize potentially misleading information. Michael Sheflin (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me like the proposal does separate pledged and unpledged. Are we not looking at the same thing? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

We are... did you get past the first sentence? The other two are pretty good too - particularly the second sentence. They're all good, though. Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Actually in fairness let me quote myself from above - bc that'd be useful here too: "My tentative suggestion would be your original suggestion . . . we should remove the path to nomination column and leave the separate tallies. I think that's the least misleading since there is no "total" tally yet per the official process." Michael Sheflin (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Msheflin: I think there should be a bar graph showing how many more delegates each candidate needs to get elected. I think that would be closest to NPOV. Hillary would need 0, and Sanders would need something like 500, which is about 80% of remaining delegates. I think it would be a good thing to have in the article, and highly informative until the end of the month when all this nonsense and outright fraud is finished. Kswikiaccount (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would work, as it would double-count some delegates. To get the nomination, Sanders would have to win some superdelegate votes which have already declared for Clinton. So I feel like it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to say that he needs 80% of the "remaining delegates" when the intention is to say that he needs 80% of the super delegates. (I suppose my issue is with the word "remaining.") This is because fewer than 80% of them remain uncommitted. If I've misunderstood or made a mathematical mistake, please feel free to correct me. Thanks! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment So based on the opinion votes the article is status quo as it currently stands? I don't see a consensus to add the numbers, and I don't see one to exclude them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

A bit of patience, friend. It's not been 3 hours yet... Also you have not said why you oppose. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose as at this point it is un-needed. The proposal above as you said shows the same info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I mistook you for Kswikiaccount, which is why I asked why you oppose. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 04:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Its okay, and yes you were right there now appears to be a consensus to go with this proposal. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This race is effectively over, and we really need to move on at this late date. All that's left in this process is the District of Columbia (which does not have enough delegates to change anything) and whatever happens with the delegate voting at the Democratic National Convention this summer. Guy1890 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This is an effective solution which will prevent edit warring. I think the use of the word "expected" is more than enough to indicate that things can change, and I believe that is the major concern of several editors on this page. I think it's much better than the current version.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Anywikiuser (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support The new layout looks tidier overall, gives the full picture (separating pledged and Superdelegates) and stating that it is the expected totals rather than the final result should prevent more edit wars. May want to explicitly state in Note B that Superdelegate endorsements are not fixed and potentially could change before the convention to reduce the chances of anger from Bernie supporters, but it's just a suggestion. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sgcosh (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no good reason for that as long as Sanders has not conceded or at least suspended his campaign or Clinton passes the threshold with pledged delegates only. Since none of those applies yet, I see no good reason for the change.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• You don't feel that saying "Total expected convention votes" is a more neutral approach? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Eliminating the "path to the convention" columns feels less neutral to me. I see no good reason to change a presentation working fine for last 5 months now for the last month.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Either way it is eventually going to be eliminated though, we should reflect more about the delegates going into the convention than who has the best path. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I think this effectively solves the current problem plaguing the chart - blank spaces. S51438 (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Looks like there's sufficient support to switch. — JFG ^talk 23:12, 9 June 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.