Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Historical clarity.

Let's be clear that she will be the first female presidential nominee of a major political party, in American history. A) she's yet to be nominated & B) there have been female vice presidential nominees of major parties. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, may be. I agree it is likely, but until it happens we should not WP:CRYSTALBALL and project our beliefs, no matter how likely, on what may happen. We can say she is the first when she is the first, which if it does happen, will be after July 28. --Jayron32 02:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

True, she could die or something. We could say she will likely become. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree it's a "CRYSTAL" violation. I've BOLDly reverted to previous lead for now so we can work out consensus on wording. I am not sure about including the info about first female presidential candidate of a major party in the lead sentence either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll can decide on the timing of it. But my point is, we should make it clear (whenever we do), that she's the first female presidential nominee of a major party & not just the first female nominee of a major party. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"Presumptive" is premature and not used by sources

The addition of "presumptive" is premature. The AP (which is primary source in this case) calls her presumptive ([1]), but other sources reporting on the AP's declaration do not use that language: LA Times, NYTimes, ABC News, WaPo. The long exception I can find is NPR. I think we need to attribute the "presumptive" to the AP until more secondary RS pick it up. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Well per NOTNEWS I'd sooner omit it completely than attribute it, particularly early in the lead. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The info belongs in the lead somewhere I guess (since we mention her campaign), but not sure about the current version of the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

NYT says, "first woman to capture the presidential nomination of one of the country’s major political parties". I think presumptive nominee is an accurate paraphrase. I haven't looked at your other examples, but I suspect something similar there. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

They are similar, but the fact they don't use "presumptive" is notable when considering the wording of the source they're citing. That, plus the other wording issues, make me inclined to think we need to hammer out the wording here. There's no deadline. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, they don't even say presumptive. They essentially say she's the nominee, full stop. So we're fretting about language less certain than what the New York Times says. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, changes made at 2016 Democratic National Convention & United States presidential election, 2016 articles, per AP source. GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not gonna fight it too much. I think it's premature, but after tomorrow it likely won't matter. If consensus here is to use "presumptive", okay. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd favor your self-revert of this and the addition of the word "likely". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to wait until after tomorrow as well, at those articles. But, figured what the heck & threw in the towel. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Have you left? We had pretty good language before your revert, the product of several experienced editors. Now we have something a lot less good, partly because of multiple drive-bys who never heard of article talk pages let alone discretionary sanctions. I'm already in technical violation of 1RR here, so I can't do anything about it. Therefore I'm giving up and starting a movie. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss, Goodday, and Jayron32: Sorry was AFK. I'm willing to self-revert (or due to intermediate edits, reinstate) the previous wording if that's the consensus (seems to be for you two and the others who are editing on the page). I too am at 1RR, but I guess this will be undoing my edit. Shall I reinstate it? What about the "will be" part? Change to "will likely be"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the only other real objection to the language before your revert was that "she will become" should be "she will likely become". If you will withdraw your objection, I don't see any procedural reason you couldn't restore the pre-revert language and add the word "likely". Obviously that may come under dispute later, but that possibility doesn't preclude such a restore. I seem to have misplaced my Wikipedia Parliamentary Procedures handbook, so that's the best I can do for now. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I shall make the edit under §5 ¶23 of the Wikipedia Parliamentary Procedures whereby consensus is reached. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"She will become..." or "She will likely become...", is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. We shall now exchange barnstars. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"Presumptive nominee" is journalese and has no clear meaning. Princess Elizabeth was the presumptive heir to the throne, while her son is heir apparent. Presumptive merely means likely, which Clinton has been for the last 12 years. Best just to say that what news sources call her the presumptive nominee and if available explain what they mean. TFD (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Presumptive nominee disagrees with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"Presumptive nominee" also disagrees with its sources. The Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections for example says, "In the 2000 election, Democratic vice president Albert Gore had been the presumptive nominee of his party for nearly eight years." (p. 371)[2] By that definition, Clinton is also the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee. She is also the presumptive president, if the experts are to be believed. Does anyone want to say that? TFD (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if you cherry-pick your sources, you can "prove" whatever you want to. Here are two opposing picked cherries: Reuters, NPR. We could argue ad nauseam about how many sources are on each side, and about which sources should be given more weight than others. You and others are welcome to play that game, but I have better things to do. Reliable sources are mixed, I know what "presumptive nominee" has meant to me for decades, and that ends it for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not "cherry pick" my source. You picked it - the Wikipedia article. I, realizing that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, checking the source the article used. And it used what is the normal definition of "presumptive," which is assumed based on available information. In any case, articles should convey information and using jargon unrecognizable to many readers should only be done if it is properly explained. For example, the article on Elizabeth II says, "Consequently, Elizabeth's father became king, and she became heir presumptive. If her parents had had a later son, she would have lost her position as first-in-line, as her brother would have been heir apparent and above her in the line of succession." Although the term "heir presumptive" is clearly defined in law, it is not understood by most readers and therefore explanation is required. TFD (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose an explanatory footnote, if you don't feel the link to Presumptive nominee is sufficient (you could then add the same footnote to Trump). If you feel that Presumptive nominee bears improvement/refinement, by all means work to make that happen. But royal order of succession is a different, highly complex animal that bears explanation in open prose, and not an apt comparison to "presumptive nominee". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree Raven. Go ahead and make the change to "Multiple media outlets have called her the presumptive nominee <source> <source>". I agree that It IS significant and should be in there, but say who's making the claim. J. D. Hunt (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead issues - need to trim and add 2016 campaign paragraph? Lead sentence?

So the lead is already 5 paragraphs (which is more than the "rule of thumb" mentioned in WP:LEAD). We do not yet have a paragraph for the 2016 presidential candidate campaign, despite it being mentioned in the lead sentence. We also need to come to a consensus about how to word the lead sentence regarding the AP reporting on her delegate votes.

I'm thinking we could do a few things: combine the first and second paragraphs to be an overview and background together. We can then move the 2008 campaign sentence and make a new paragraph about her presidential bids, including the 2016 one. This would give us room to expand as she continues on her campaign and (likely) becomes the Democratic nominee. We could trim down the First Lady info (Arkansas and USA) as though it was important, I'd argue it was not as important as the Senator and Secretary of State info.

Or we could just IAR and make a 6th paragraph.

For the lead sentence the old version was:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2016 election.

and the newest version was:

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (/ˈhɪləri daɪˈæn ˈrɒdəm ˈklɪntən/; born October 26, 1947) is an American politician and the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States in the 2016 election, meaning she will become the first female presidential nominee of one of the two major political parties in the history of the United States.

Issues raise were CRYSTAL with the "will be" language and the use of "presumptive" (though might not be an issue after tomorrow if she gets enough pledged delegates). Would, for the time being, propose something we maybe keep the lead sentence as is and put the info about having enough delegates in the newest paragraph. Or use "likely nominee"? Honestly, the more I think about it, this likely won't be an issue by Wednesday at midnight PDT ... we do need to start considering trimming and rearranging the whole lead though assuming we're going to add info about her nomination and possible election. What say y'all? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Newest Version - Just wanna point out that the lead at Donald Trump reflects his status as the Republican party's presumptive presidential nominee & has done so for over a month. So we've a precedent for doing such edits via media sources, even before a candidate actually gains a majority of delegates. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: My concern was more about how it was being described my secondary sources. I found BBC using "presumptive" too. I commented in section above regarding reinstating the language. Any opinion on rearranging the lead more generally? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I figured we should follow the style of the lead at Donald Trump, where he's been described as the Republican presumptive nominee for President of the United States, for over a month. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's because reliable sources have described him, as such, for over a month. We don't need to make this article identical to that article for any reason at all, excepting that both articles should always reflect what reliable sources state, at the time. --Jayron32 03:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the point is that the same sources that call Trump the presumptive nominee are now calling Hillary the presumptive nominee as well, so they should be treated equally. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The key word is "presumptive". She's not the nominee, there is a chance she will not be the nominee, but per the sources presumption is that she will be. We can attribute those sources. Balance doesn't mean we include sources that say she is not the presumptive nominee, but rather, that Sanders continues to soldier on in hopes of winning or influencing a contested convention. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party

Can it be added that she now in the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party in the lead sentence.70.117.93.249 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently being discussed in the talk sections above. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders communications director Michael Briggs issued a statement on this yesterday:

"It is unfortunate that the media, in a rush to judgement, are ignoring the Democratic National Committee's clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention this summer. Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race."

The above statement was widely reported by reliable sources, So right now, the sources say that the "presumptive nominee" claim is disputed. Perhaps after the polls close in California `the sources will agree one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the Sanders campaign is disputing it doesn't stop it from being true. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sanders and some pundits are disputing it. Rightfully so. But RS are still using "presumptive" across the board. We must reflect sources neutrally, which means using that language. After tonight it won't matter though EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegates don't vote until the convention July 25th

It is incorrect to call her the presumptive nominee when the superdelegates won't vote until the convention, the current pledged delegate count is Clinton - 1,812. Sanders 1,521 the primaries today, June 7th, have 714 delegates up for grabs. If Sanders was to pass her in pledged delegates, the super delegates might switch over to him. Either way, nothing is official, no one can be declared the "presumptive nominee" before the convention unless one of them was to drop out. --Ilovehillary (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The presumptive nominee is the nominee who has secured enough delegates to obtain the nomination at the respective conventions, whether they be pledged superdelegates or plain old regular pledged delegates. Anyone can switch their vote on the convention floor......The actual nominee isn't confirmed until the convention vote is taken......It is OK to now call Hillary the presumptive nominee, but NOT the nominee.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats not quite true. The pledged delegates are somewhat bound to follow their pledge on the first ballot. For at least that first ballot, they are bound (by the rules or at least tradition). The superdelegates are not bound at all, in any way. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been pledged delegates who have broken their promise to vote for the candidate they have pledged to on the first ballot, doesn't happen too often, but it does happen. Bottom line, even with the superdelegates not being bound, all media outlets are describing her as the presumptive nominee, so it's safe to call her the presumptive...but a LOT can happen at the convention....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves me right, we presented Obama as the presumptive nominee before Clinton dropped out (per sources) & she has a wider pledged delegate lead over Sanders, then Obama had over her in 2008. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What a Wikipedia article said in 2008 does not determine what we say today on this article. Right now it says "she will likely become..." which very much violates CRYSTAL BALL. Jonathunder (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not WP:CRYSTAL to say Hillary has exceeded the delegate threshold, the AP (and NBC News) have done their homework and calculated that she has it. CNN will agree after polls close tonight, since they have her 30 delegates short. It'd be WP:CRYSTAL to suggest the superdelegates who've aligned with Hillary would unalign. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:V has the final say in these matters & so far, an increasing number of reliable/verifable sources are showing Clinton as the Democrats presumptive presidential nominee. Unless/until Sanders has somehow persuaded enough super-delegates to change that situation & sources show such a changed situation? We go with what we've currently got. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Two press outlets name her the presumptive nominee, not the Democratic Party. She does not have the bound delegates to reach the magic number. The super delegates have not voted, so she does not have those yet. This means she is not officially the presumptive nominee. This creates bias by naming her that on an encyclopedic source. People will see this and think its over and not vote. I will change it. J. D. Hunt (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not attribute the claim? It it being widely made by multiple, major media sources. So say something like "Multiple media outlets have called her the presumptive nominee <source> <source>". It IS significant and should be in there, but say who's making the claim. Ravensfire (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

None of the pledged delegates have voted either, but we're not reporting the tally as 0–0. As far as the voter suppression concern, that's not our problem. We don't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on Wikipedia, we report what reliable sources have to say. It'd be biased against Hillary to not report the AP and NBC News calls. Someone needs to undo JD Hunt's edit, but I already committed my one revert for the day. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think holding off on her presumptive nominee status will change people's votes.....The respective parties do not declare a presumptive nominee, they declare an actual nominee. Our article on presumptive nominee states that the presumptive nominee is declared if all remaining candidates drop out, or the presumptive nominee has won enough delegates to win the nomination, whichever comes first, which many media outlets (way more than 2) are declaring. I'm OK with waiting until consensus is built, but we're postponing something which I think has already happened....BTW, anyone out there know why Hillary's name doesn't show up as the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party page? We should have it work by the time it is agreed she is the presumptive nominee....Text looks good....[[.Pvmoutside (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire. We should not say in unqualified terms that she "is the presumptive nominee", but we should say that "AP and MSNBC have declared her to be the presumptive nominee", with appropriate sourcing. The fact that CNN has not done so, for example, fairly clearly shows that it's not an indisputable fact at this time. bd2412 T 17:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Election 101: What decides the formal outcome of an election, a group of people polled before an election takes place, or votes after an election takes place? Polls, for those of you who don't know, are conducted to give people an idea of what a certain group of people think about a particular subject. In this case, the question is "Who will [the superdelegates|New Jersey|California] choose as Democratic nominee?" Polls do not determine an outcome - they simply predict it. Votes counted after an election are what are officially tabulated and a presumptive nominee directly determined by those results. A person is called a front-runner if they lead polls before an election. A person is called the presumptive nominee if they lead in votes after an election. Angelsfreeek (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire Attribute the claim, but say, "Multiple media outlets have called her the presumptive nominee <source> <source>". J. D. Hunt (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with attributing the claim as well. After all, CNN, CBS News, ABC News etc. haven't echoed it yet (though they probably will when NJ closes). @Angelsfreeek:, since you like dictionary.com, check out the definition of "presumptive": affording ground for presumption, based on presumption, regarded as such by presumption; based on inference. She won't be the nominee until July, but she can be the "presumptive" nominee now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

CNN has fallen in line. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In this case when you have enough superdelegates declaring their vote for Clinton, and then you add that regular delegates committed to Clinton, multiple reliable media outlets have done their research and declared Clinton the presumptive nominee.....Again, a lot can happen between now and the convention, but we have enough reliable information in my opinion to declare Clinton the presumptive nominee........Pvmoutside (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-delegates-clinch-democratic-nomination-abc-news/story?id=39655926
• CBS News [3]

I'm gonna wait until after the results of today's primaries & further media sources, to open up an Rfc on this entire matter if there's continued disagreement over whether or not to show Clinton as the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

with attribution to specific sources, or even weasel "media" we should include the statement per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV . Should NOT be in WP:WikiVoice. We should also include contrary POV from sanders/DNC/other. per WP:BALANCE Gaijin42 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

See new resistance at the 2016 Democratic National Convention article. I need some therapy :( GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit spats

Be advised. I've contacted WP:AN, with the hope of getting an administrator to perhaps enforce this article's 1RR sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

FTR, the language in this revision had consensus among the few editors present at that time last night. There has been no consensus to change that language, but multiple editors have completely ignored the "consensus required" bullet of the DS notice at the top of this page. This needs to stop, and last night's language needs to be restored pending consensus to change it. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, things have gotten out of hand. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for that. There's been anything but in the discussion above. Jonathunder (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Said consensus was reached at 03:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC). As for "There's been anything but in the discussion above", that's precisely what I'm saying. There is no consensus to change last night's language. The fact that there is disagreement with a consensus doesn't mean the consensus doesn't exist, it means that no new consensus has been reached. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly in the discussion on this page do you find a consensus for that? The timestamp of the edit means nothing. There's been constant back and forth since. Jonathunder (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean nothing. It points you to the consensus, and you can use your browser's Find function to locate it. As for "There's been constant back and forth since", see my previous comment. If a consensus were voided as soon as multiple editors disagreed with it, there would never be a consensus on anything of any significance lasting more than a couple of hours. It's a matter of orderly process. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

What is the plan to determine consensus?...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If free-form discussion doesn't get us there (as it did last night), then a straw poll may be necessary. It may be messy and time-consuming, but it beats "most aggressive editors win, those who play by the rules lose", which is what we've been playing today. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Picking an edit you agree with and saying the rest of us can find it in the history is NOT how we determine consensus. They way will do it is the way we always do: by talking about it. Right now, there is no consensus. Jonathunder (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I repeat, again: We talked about it last night. We reached a consensus. I pointed you to that, so you don't have to take my word for it. There has been no new consensus. I'm sorry if you can't grasp these concepts. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

And now the article has been locked down without the consensus language, so it's all moot. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Now that it's locked on the "wrong" version, perhaps you'll show me where on this TALK page you reached that consensus. Jonathunder (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, unless you want to come to my house, there is no way to "show you" other than to provide the time stamp, which I did. If you don't know how to use your browser's Find function, I highly recommend that you learn that, as it is very useful in all kinds of situations. In most browsers I think it's Ctrl+F, it is in Firefox. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Linking a diff on this talk page would be sufficient. You linked a random edit in the article history, so I know you know how to link a diff. Jonathunder (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the point where consensus was reached. Perhaps you can see why a diff is useless for that purpose. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

So what's the problem here? We discussed this last night. All major media outlets are using "presumptive". We need to use that language as well per NPOV. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Consensus of 3 (4?) editors, in the space of a 1.5 hours last night is a very weak consensus. Its certainly enough to make a WP:BOLD edit. Its not enough to claim WP:STATUSQUO. There is clearly not consensus now, or at least not for the wikivoice version. (one could perhaps read consensus for an attributed version in the discussion above) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Last night is not today......now every media outlet is declaring her the presumptive nominee.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to be overly concerned about. After today's primary results & resulting sources, there'll be a much stronger basis for change to presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of presumptive by RS

Use of presumptive:

• NY Times - For Mrs. Clinton, becoming her party’s presumptive nominee is the latest chapter in a remarkable career...
• NBC News - Hillary Clinton has secured a majority of delegates to the Democratic National Convention, NBC News projected on Monday evening — making the former secretary of state the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.
• NPR - Hillary Clinton has secured enough delegates to be the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, according to an updated count by The Associated Press.
• NPR again - Presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton may need votes like Selverston's in November to defeat Donald Trump
• USA Today - The newly minted presumptive nominee is planning a victory party Tuesday night in Brooklyn after the results from primaries in New Jersey and California...
• ABC News (updated) - Hillary Clinton Wins NJ Primary, Is Presumptive Democratic Nominee
• LA Times - Now the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton sets course for swing states
• Washington Post - Hillary Clinton becomes presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee
• BBC - The count puts Mrs Clinton on 2,383 - the number needed to make her the presumptive nominee.
• Fox News - Hillary Clinton is the first woman to be on top of a major party’s ticket, and makes history as the presumptive nominee.
• CNN - Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic nominee, faces a general election race against Republican Donald Trump
• MSNBC - Losing California would be seen as an embarrassment for the newly minted presumptive nominee, and dampen her historic day.

Between WEIGHT, RS, and V, I see no reason not to call her “presumptive” at this point. All major media outlets are calling her by this term. We can and should call her that in Wikipedia’s voice because that’s what neutral sources are calling her. If the sources were BIASED or POV, I’d understand attribution. But these are mainstream reliable new sources. There’s no hedging or qualification used by them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

<sigh> This is irritating. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. In every modern presidential primary campaign, a presumptive nominee was declared by the media when a candidate reached the threshold delegate number (in this case 2383), consisting of both pledged and superdelegates. This is exactly how the race was called in 2008 when Barack Obama clinched the nomination with a number of superdelegates declaring for Obama as the final primaries were underway. Last night, with the quiet commitment of more superdelegates to Clinton, as reported by the AP and other news outlets, the media has rightly declared Secretary Clinton the presumptive nominee. Whether the Sanders campaign wants to admit it, and whether his supporters want to accept it, she is the presumptive nominee unless something unforeseen happens in the future. As such, the article's lead should reflect that. Nations United (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like how the media are reporting on it, but this is what they do and we need to reflect that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

All of those links merely report the AP story and say that she is the presumptive nominee based on the AP poll. That's not exactly the same as multiple independent WP:RSs saying that she's the presumptive nominee. Has anyone called her the presumptive nominee for any reason besides that single AP poll?

Besides, according to Shaun King of the New York Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-not-won-democratic-primary-article-1.2664569 the AP survey was done with the cooperation and encouragement of the Clinton campaign. So what you should really say is that a media creation of the Clinton campaign has called her the presumptive nominee. --Nbauman (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Most mention AP as calling her that, but most also call her that without attributing it to AP. If you search the articles for the word "presumptive" you'll see it used in that manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You cite a single opinion piece in the New York Daily News, not exactly the gold standard of journalism, and distort what even it says to accommodate your argument. Not very convincing. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, I checked the first 5 or 6 links at the beginning of the section, and they all referred to the AP report. (The NBC story seems to have used the AP poll without directly attributing it.) I don't think there are any WP:RS that call Clinton the "presumptive" candidate without citing the AP poll. So it's all one WP:RS -- the AP story.

User:Mandruss, Shaun King cited a Los Angleles Times source, so that's two sources. The New York Daily News is a WP:RS. I've been reading them on and off for years. The Wall Street Journal once did a profile of the Daily News, and their media reporter said that despite superficial appearances, it's a high-quality accurate newspaper that follows good journalistic standards. Some people have a bias against working-class newspapers.

It does seem reasonable that the AP poll could have been done with the cooperation of the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign. How else could they do a poll like that? --Nbauman (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nbauman: Added quotes for you. All of them refer to either the AP or NBC projection, but all but one also use the word presumptive independent of that attribution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

They're all calling Clinton the presumptive nominee. None are disputing that description. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

So NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and the AP are all declaring her the presumptive nominee, who else do we need to have it accepted?....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Listing those sources here might be a start. Jonathunder (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

see above...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Those sources are all one source -- the AP -- which they all repeat. --Nbauman (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

They're all basically agreeing with the AP. No reliable sources are disputing the presumptive nominee description. Clinton is indisputably the presumptive nominee according to reliable sources, and she should be described as such on Wikipedia. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)