![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It has been said here (against established consensus, in my opinion) that pledged delegate counts should be shown as reported by [1]. These numbers have been added repeatedly to the article despite there being a consensus that we should wait until final results are available. Even when these current counts are reported by reputable sources, it would be very misleading in my opinion, to present these results as fact in the infobox, seeing as the votes are being recounted. As it has been said, TBA is exactly the situation we are in. Kindly cast your vote here: @ Impru20:, @ David O. Johnson:, @ Leonardo Lazov:, @ Smith0124:, @ Nixinova:, @ Vanilla Wizard:, @ Danish Expert:, @ GoodDay:, @ MrX:, @ WMSR: Homo logos ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
No, we do not hold votes on whether reliable sources are reliable. The consensus you referenced was to wait for delegate projections from reliable sources. The results are no longer partial and the Associated Press has reported delegate counts. There is one delegate that has not yet been allocated, but that is the norm in close races like this. The official allocation of delegates doesn't occur until the convention, so I'm not sure what you're getting at, but this is turning into edit warring and needs to stop. -- WMSR ( talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
How Sanders gets less delegates then Buttigieg, while finishing with nearly 3,000 more votes, is DNC math I reckon. Either way we'll have to go with the official numbers. GoodDay ( talk) 21:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
13+12+8+6+1=40. Adam Dent ( talk) 21:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Instead of "Controversy" (singular) you could write "Reactions" / "Incidents" / "Controversies" (plural), because this is not limited to the App. For an international reaction covering
4chan you could add
Heise.
[2] For reactions in satire
Trevor Noah +
Stephen Colbert are notable.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Of course not all, but more than nothing.
For progressive—add grains of salt per personal preferences—views you have
The Hill once, maybe pick more and/or add
Kim Iversen.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] The Iversen video explains the wonders of
rounding. The math. construct SDE is not known to be better than, say,
D'Hondt method, but as long as the real delegates don't misrepresent the realignment the rounding doesn't matter. –
84.46.52.123 (
talk)
17:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the delegate count, as it's currently unofficial, but I was reverted by Centrist1 in this edit here: [11]. I'd rather not get into an edit war over it, so let's start a discussion here. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@ WMSR: @ David O. Johnson: You are arguing that NYT is a reputable source, which of course it is. But it is reporting an estimation by the AP. The final results have not been announced, so much so, that the estimation reported by the NYT does not add up to 41. Please let's respect the consensus reached here, or else let's open the discussion again. Homo logos ( talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The infobox has bloated into a Frankenstein's monster (compare it to last years) and this is not helped by the additional county map which has appeared. I don't see any virtue at all in having two near-identical county maps, especially when one of those maps (first alignment vote) is meaningless and only of statistical interest, while the other determines who won the actual caucus. There is no way for the reader who doesn't already know all about this topic to discern which map they should be looking at. Ultimately, we should be removing a lot of the information from the infobox (SDE counts, first alignment percentages), but for the time being can we at least remove this valueless second map? Wikiditm ( talk) 15:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The results in the table are unofficial and not confirmed by the Iowa Democratic Party. All of the major news organizations like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the AP are yet to report any results, and it seems to be that only Wikipedia is reporting these results — with sources like The Daily Kos and The Green Papers listed. Should something be done about it? Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 17:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
In the table the second percentage column is the percentage of delegates not the percentage of votes. It's placement in the table structure is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.81.77 ( talk) 11:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
There's some back-and-forth going on over which candidate name goes first in the table. I'm not sure how are we sorting them? Buttigieg is obviously the winner so I really think he should be the first one in the table, then Sanders, then Warren, then Biden. With each roll out, the others seem to change places but my vote is to sort all according to their SDEs. Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 21:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The Green Papers source should IMHO be used throughout the article to report the expected preliminary result of national pledged delegates (instead of the currently used NYT source - which for an unknown reason opted so far only to distribute 27 out of 41 national pledged delegates). Reason why the "Green Papers" source should be used, is that it is regarded as the most accurate and neutral source for reporting these results - and because it previously was used as such a result source by most (if not all) of the primary/caucus wikipedia articles in previous years. The final result of national pledged delegates will only be reported by the primary official IDP source when 100% of the precinct results has been counted (and the "IDP source" will at that time publish results that are 100% identical with the results published by the "Green Papers"). Danish Expert ( talk) 06:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. "
No mass media estimate on an evolving story like the Iowa Caucus results ought to be used in our article. WP:NOTNEWS says:
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. "
News media estimates of election results are by their nature not permanent or notable enough by themselves to be in an encyclopedia article. Now, if there's a notable difference between enough news media estimates and the results as announced by the Iowa Democratic Party ("notable" meaning the controversy generates comment in reliable secondary sources), that would belong here in a new section. Not until then, so the deletion of the "Controversy" section was appropriate under WP:NOTNEWS.
Likewise, the entire content of the "Analysis" section is premature, because the Iowa Democratic Party haven't confirmed any of those numbers (some of which need to be attributed in the text, they seem on casual reading to be in wikivoice). -- loupgarous ( talk) 21:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead section has six paragraphs. That's way too many! According to the Manual of Style, leads should normally not be longer than four paragraphs (unless it's clearly warranted). See MOS:LEADLENGTH. Even articles about presidential elections and party primaries don't have more than four. Many are less than four. The 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 U.S. presidential election articles all have just four. This article isn't even about a state's general election or primary; it's about a caucus. Therefore, I think someone should edit the lead by eliminating some content and merging paragraphs, and reducing it no more than three paragraphs. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 ( talk) 14:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fill in the map to show the results of the Iowa Caucus Bootedgeedge ( talk) 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! There is a note on the Infobox regarding the national delegates that says:
A candidate wins the Democratic primary by receiving a majority of delegates, not votes. Delegates are awarded based on number of State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs) won.
The method is, however, more complicated that this and I don't think it is properly explained in the Procedure section. I think it would be great value for the article if someone could better explain this Byzantine procedure. My guideline is that the explanation ought to be good enough that one can predict the final number looking at the given results, but I'm afraid I cannot do it myself. In the meantime, I will delete the first phrase of the note, as it is incorrect. The second one is valuable, in my opinion, as at least it indicates from where the national delegates number will come from, but I caution that it might be misleading without the proper explanation in the core of the article. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Sarilho1: For your information - In the past few days I have updated the Procedure chapter and added tables to display the SDE figures. All based on a carefull further read of the Iowa delegate selection plan. The Iowa SDE system is quiet complicated to explain, but I think its possible now to understand when someone reads the chapter - also for the satellite caucuses. :-) Best regard, Danish Expert ( talk) 15:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Could someone create a color scale and shade the map based on % by county? MB298 ( talk) 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2001:5B0:2548:83D0:E539:ED3B:A55A:D75A ( talk) 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Bernie won Iowa by 6.000 votes. He's the winner.
Please correct the popular votes in the infobox. The infobox incorrectly diplays the final alignment as popular vote. The initial alignment is the popular vote. Then supporters of non-viable candidates (below 15%) need to realign themselves to other candidates. This creates the final alignment which is the basis for calculating SDEs. Xenagoras ( talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The first alignment numbers essentially amount to a tally of the popular vote.NYT
The first expression of preference, the popular vote.NYT
...the first alignment, considered to be a popular vote...ABC
The “first alignment” result will show caucus-goers’ preferences in the first round of voting (this is equivalent to the popular vote in the state).Forbes
The Iowa Democratic Party is trying to manage expectations about the new “popular vote,” and in a Monday morning memo, it compared the first alignment to “the score at halftime.”Washington Post
Our campaign is winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes.Rawstory
...pointing to his 6,000-vote lead in raw popular votes in the first alignment...USA Today
Pointing to the initial popular vote totals in Monday’s caucuses...USA Today
In the final alignment, this massive popular vote margin dropped to a still-healthy 2,500.jacobin mag There are also some sources saying that both the first and the final alignment are popular votes. We could therefore write both in the infobox. Xenagoras ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The mobile/preview image is Joe Biden's picture, which makes no sense. Since the results are not final I don't know what it should be, but certainly not Biden.
Please don't delete this again.
123popos123 ( talk) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section says, "Due to the need for an initial correction of results from 3.1% (55) of the precincts found to have reported incorrect figures compared to their signed official caucus result document,[5] the calculation of won pledged national convention delegates (which is the true metric of dermining the winner of the Iowa caucuses), was only published six days after the election on February 9." First, the sentence is awkward, complicated, and too wordy. A good writer should condense it and get to the point in a clearer way. Second, the use of the word "only" ("was only published six days after") is improperly used. I suggest replacing "was only published" with "was not published until" for clarity. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 ( talk) 19:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
As noted in for example, the CNN source linked by MrX ( talk · contribs) "With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules. Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts."
The result is updated, but not yet settled. Gambling8nt ( talk) 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of what AP said. They are not running the show.
As I have already shown, CNN reported:
The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party.
— [16]
The Hill reported similar:
Buttigieg retains his 14-12 advantage in delegates to the Democratic National Convention due to caucus rules regarding delegate allocation. However, that result could change if either campaign asks for a recount. Both campaigns now have 24 hours to officially request a recount.
— [17]
The Des Moines Register reported:
As it stands, Buttigieg, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor, has 14 of Iowa's national delegates and Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has 12, the Iowa party reported.
— [18]
The article needs to be updated accordingly. The current footnoted claim of 13 is misleading to our readers. - Mr X 🖋 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
USA Today:
The twists of the caucus aren't necessarily finished: An official with the Sanders campaign said it will ask for a recount. A recanvass was a prerequisite to a recount request, according to party rules.
— [19]
CNN, from the same article you quoted:
With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules.
Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race
Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts.
— [20]
PBS:
Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign plans to ask for a partial recount of the Iowa caucus results,after the state Democratic Party released results of its recanvass late Tuesday that show Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in an effective tie.
— [21]
Politico:
In the results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party, Buttigieg still had 14 delegates to the national convention to 12 for Sanders — a result that could flip after a recount.
— [22]
If you want the results table and infobox to say 14-12 instead of 13-12, without removing the note indicating that the process is not yet over and a recount is pending, I personally will not stop you (although you may find yourself in an edit war with Sanders partisans who will care about the distinction). My--reliably sourced--objection is to the removal of the footnote noting that the results are not yet final as a recount is likely pending. Gambling8nt ( talk) 04:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea why the Iowa Democratic Party's assertion of delegates is not being taken at face value, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. The information in this article directly contradicts the result as (preliminarily, so sure, add an efn note) decided by the organisation in charge of providing the results. Domeditrix ( talk) 09:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This page cites results.thecaucuses.org, which states that Buttigieg won 14 pledged delegates.
The main article cites the New York Times, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.
The Des Moines Register backs up the New York Times page, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.
How should we handle this discrepancy? I'd assume that thecaucuses.org is ran by the Iowa Democratic Party and that it's a primary source, but are the NYT and DMR just being slow to update their numbers, or do they have legitimate reason to report that the number is 13? They're both reputable reliable secondary sources. Is it actually the case that we don't know for certain what the final number is? Should we leave a footnote explaining this to the reader?
I'm not prescribing any solutions myself since I'm not sure what to do here, but I do want to invite discussion to see if anyone else knows relevant information, to see if anyone believes one number is more correct than the other, or if anyone believes that we truly don't know the final result of the Iowa caucuses yet. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this conversation. I put the count to 13 and added a footnote explaining the undecided delegate. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Nice4What: Will you please point out where it was " agreed to on the talk page" to list 13 delegates for Buttigieg? I see 2 for; 2 against; and 2 undeclared. That is not consensus by any stretch. - Mr X 🖋 02:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are the SDEs displayed in the results section roughly divided by 18 compared to the results at the top of the results from results.thecaucuses.org ? 209.54.86.136 ( talk) 05:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Nvm upon refreshing the page, they were no longer multiplied by 18 on that website. I guess it wasn't changed at that moment. 209.54.86.136 ( talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The IDP webpage found using https://results.thecaucuses.org/ only shows the latest version of the results. It does not show a history of the many different sets of figures, before all precincts reported, or after there were results for all 1765 precincts.
I do not know of any way of finding all of these earlier sets of results. If someone does know of such, it would be useful.
The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems in referring to this webpage as is done 5 times in the Wikipedia article, as reference 1, (which is to a footnote. Is that OK?) and references 4 a, b, c, and d, as anyone using to link to the page will only find the latest results. The reference notes are sometimes about the latest results, but sometimes about earlier sets of results.
Should the reference to the 9 February version of the results note 4 c, be made into a different reference to, for example, 4 d, which is for the latest results in the results table? Or are there other things which should be changed instead of or as well?
I do not have enough knowledge about what and how to do about this, but thought I should raise the questions.
Hoping that some of you may find this useful,
Redhill54 ( talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
use references to previous versions of a primary source to explain to readers that the results have morphed.Redhill54 asked how to solve the problem that different text passages in the article refer to different version of IDP's result. I proposed to link to the archived result version that is meant at a specific text passage. This would avoid confusing the readers. In addition, we should use RS to explain that the IDP's results have changed over time, e.g. [36] Xenagoras ( talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems... "I answered no, and explained how we should be approaching the issue. I'm firmly opposed to linking to an obsolete version of a primary source, for obvious reasons. - Mr X 🖋 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for change to infobox for caucus results:
Several reliable sources say that first alignment is the popular vote (see details below). These two proposals would result in an infobox display like this.
Edit 20 February: changed proposed text from "popular vote" to "First alignment (popular vote)" to adapt to editors' comments. Xenagoras ( talk) 21:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The reliable sources New York Times [38] [39], Washington Post [40], ABC News [41], USA Today [42] [43], Forbes [44] and The Raw Story [45] say that the first alignment is the popular vote (see detailed quotes there). Xenagoras ( talk) 23:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
As in Iowa, any supporters of candidates with more than 15 percent support in the precinct (including both in-person and early votes) get locked in. Supporters of candidates below that threshold, though, get to realign. They can back a viable candidate, combine forces to make a nonviable candidate viable, or refuse to support anyone.[46] Xenagoras ( talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
the infobox for a caucus shall display the first alignment vote count and percentage as "First alignment (popular vote)", and for proposal 2:
the infobox for a caucus shall display the "Final alignment" vote count and percentage below the line of "First alignment (popular vote)" (together with a mouse-over hint explaining: "supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to other candidates"). 10 editors support proposal 1. 8 editors support both proposals, arguing that these data points are important, reported as headline stories by reliable sources, help readers understand the realignment during a caucus, allow for comparing caucus results with primary results, and are already displayed for counties. 2 editors support only proposal 1, arguing that the final alignment is not important enough for the infobox. 11 editors want to display the final alignment in some form in the infobox. 3 editors want to only display the final alignment as popular vote in the infobox, with one arguing via space consumption and two arguing that the final alignment is the relevant one / the popular vote because it gets converted into SDEs. 1 editor does not want any of that data in the infobox by arguing, it would consume too much space. Xenagoras ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. It also begins with a list, contrary to RFCBRIEF. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)displaying a "First alignment popular vote."ResultingConstant has
no objection to displaying the information, but describing this as a popular vote is grossly inaccurate.Xenagoras ( talk) 20:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Xenagoras: You cannot close your own RfC. -- WMSR ( talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
there are several ways in which RfCs end: ... 5. The discussion may just stop. ... Please remove the rfc tag when ... discussion has ended.During the last 3 days no additional editors commented and during the last 6 days only 1 additional editor commented. The discussion appears to have ended on its own. So I ended the RfC (and wrote the optional summary of comments). Request for closure states,
Many discussions do not need formal closure. Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. ... When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.The WP:ANRFC page has a long list of RfCs waiting for formal closure, therefore I heeded the advice given at WP:ANRFC and ended the RfC without formal closure to avoid a long waiting time in the queue. Xenagoras ( talk) 23:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I think people meant we were going to use the final votes and SDEs and then that was spun by an Rfc that wasn’t neutral into including the first alignment votes as well. Smith0124 ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a two question RfC to determine if there consensus to include the recently added popular vote statistics in the infobox.
- Mr X 🖋 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
CNN [48] is reporting that "The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party." We need to stop reporting outdated information. Sanders count challenge does not change this official result unless the party determines such. - Mr X 🖋 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. -
Mr
X 🖋
01:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This line currently exists in the article (with the bit in squared brackets hidden): | candidate1 = Pete Buttigieg [Do NOT bold until a winner is declared by the AP (likely won't happen until a recount is completed due to reported inconsistencies)]
Where, when, why and how was it decided that AP, not Reuters, the Des Moines Register, or the Iowa Democratic Party themselves determine the winner? It seems absurd to me. I have removed it from the article because I can think of no sane justifiation for it.
Domeditrix (
talk) 09:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Edited
Domeditrix (
talk)
09:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
SDE will be the only information used to determine the allocation of ... Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates, and ... national delegates.[53] I understand this means if Sanders receives the same or more SDE than Buttigieg, that will result in Sanders receiving the same or more national delegates than Buttigieg. The candidate with the most SDE will receive one additional national delegate via PLEO.
[A Sanders adviser] said, "We now believe a recount will give Sen. Sanders enough [SDE] to put him over the top." If the specific errors Mr. Sanders’s campaign claimed were all verified, he would net about six [SDE], moving him into first place.[54] Xenagoras ( talk) 15:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
other top tier sources are not disputing the results.The following RS did their own data analysis and found the IDP's result to be erroneous: New York Times [55] [56] [57], NBC News [58], CNN [59] and DesMoines Register. [60] You wrote,
the AP does not have superior standing.The AP explains, it's
race calls are used by media on both sides of the political spectrum and have been regarded for years as highly reliable.[61] You also wrote,
I'm not aware that the AP is actually saying that the IDP results are incorrect per se, which is disproven by the AP:
Xenagoras ( talk) 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)After observing irregularities in the results once they did arrive, The Associated Press decided it cannot declare a winner. Numbers could yet still change. An AP review of the results provided by the Iowa Democratic Party also found numerous precinct results that contained errors or were inconsistent with party rules. For example, dozens of precincts reported more final alignment votes than first alignment votes. In one precinct in Polk County, home to the state capital of Des Moines, the party’s data showed no candidates winning any votes in the first alignment but winning 215 votes in the final alignment. In some other precincts, candidates won state delegate equivalents even though officials recorded them as receiving no votes in the final alignment. There were also a handful of precincts in which officials awarded more state delegate equivalents to candidates than there were available to be won. [62]
@Domeditrix I’m sorry that I was rude toward you and that I attacked you. It is necessary to show a lead. We know what the final results are now. I will show a 0.04 point lead (26.17 to 26.13) under the results table. But in the top table table I will leave it at 26.2 to 26.1. If you want to change the top results to 26.17 to 26.13, I don’t care. I just don’t want to keep this going anymore. Whatever you think is best, I will support. But based on the discussion I think we both agree that this is what’s best. Pentock ( talk) 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It has been said here (against established consensus, in my opinion) that pledged delegate counts should be shown as reported by [1]. These numbers have been added repeatedly to the article despite there being a consensus that we should wait until final results are available. Even when these current counts are reported by reputable sources, it would be very misleading in my opinion, to present these results as fact in the infobox, seeing as the votes are being recounted. As it has been said, TBA is exactly the situation we are in. Kindly cast your vote here: @ Impru20:, @ David O. Johnson:, @ Leonardo Lazov:, @ Smith0124:, @ Nixinova:, @ Vanilla Wizard:, @ Danish Expert:, @ GoodDay:, @ MrX:, @ WMSR: Homo logos ( talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
No, we do not hold votes on whether reliable sources are reliable. The consensus you referenced was to wait for delegate projections from reliable sources. The results are no longer partial and the Associated Press has reported delegate counts. There is one delegate that has not yet been allocated, but that is the norm in close races like this. The official allocation of delegates doesn't occur until the convention, so I'm not sure what you're getting at, but this is turning into edit warring and needs to stop. -- WMSR ( talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
How Sanders gets less delegates then Buttigieg, while finishing with nearly 3,000 more votes, is DNC math I reckon. Either way we'll have to go with the official numbers. GoodDay ( talk) 21:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
13+12+8+6+1=40. Adam Dent ( talk) 21:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Instead of "Controversy" (singular) you could write "Reactions" / "Incidents" / "Controversies" (plural), because this is not limited to the App. For an international reaction covering
4chan you could add
Heise.
[2] For reactions in satire
Trevor Noah +
Stephen Colbert are notable.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Of course not all, but more than nothing.
For progressive—add grains of salt per personal preferences—views you have
The Hill once, maybe pick more and/or add
Kim Iversen.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] The Iversen video explains the wonders of
rounding. The math. construct SDE is not known to be better than, say,
D'Hondt method, but as long as the real delegates don't misrepresent the realignment the rounding doesn't matter. –
84.46.52.123 (
talk)
17:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the delegate count, as it's currently unofficial, but I was reverted by Centrist1 in this edit here: [11]. I'd rather not get into an edit war over it, so let's start a discussion here. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@ WMSR: @ David O. Johnson: You are arguing that NYT is a reputable source, which of course it is. But it is reporting an estimation by the AP. The final results have not been announced, so much so, that the estimation reported by the NYT does not add up to 41. Please let's respect the consensus reached here, or else let's open the discussion again. Homo logos ( talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The infobox has bloated into a Frankenstein's monster (compare it to last years) and this is not helped by the additional county map which has appeared. I don't see any virtue at all in having two near-identical county maps, especially when one of those maps (first alignment vote) is meaningless and only of statistical interest, while the other determines who won the actual caucus. There is no way for the reader who doesn't already know all about this topic to discern which map they should be looking at. Ultimately, we should be removing a lot of the information from the infobox (SDE counts, first alignment percentages), but for the time being can we at least remove this valueless second map? Wikiditm ( talk) 15:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The results in the table are unofficial and not confirmed by the Iowa Democratic Party. All of the major news organizations like CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the AP are yet to report any results, and it seems to be that only Wikipedia is reporting these results — with sources like The Daily Kos and The Green Papers listed. Should something be done about it? Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 17:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
In the table the second percentage column is the percentage of delegates not the percentage of votes. It's placement in the table structure is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.81.77 ( talk) 11:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
There's some back-and-forth going on over which candidate name goes first in the table. I'm not sure how are we sorting them? Buttigieg is obviously the winner so I really think he should be the first one in the table, then Sanders, then Warren, then Biden. With each roll out, the others seem to change places but my vote is to sort all according to their SDEs. Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 21:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The Green Papers source should IMHO be used throughout the article to report the expected preliminary result of national pledged delegates (instead of the currently used NYT source - which for an unknown reason opted so far only to distribute 27 out of 41 national pledged delegates). Reason why the "Green Papers" source should be used, is that it is regarded as the most accurate and neutral source for reporting these results - and because it previously was used as such a result source by most (if not all) of the primary/caucus wikipedia articles in previous years. The final result of national pledged delegates will only be reported by the primary official IDP source when 100% of the precinct results has been counted (and the "IDP source" will at that time publish results that are 100% identical with the results published by the "Green Papers"). Danish Expert ( talk) 06:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. "
No mass media estimate on an evolving story like the Iowa Caucus results ought to be used in our article. WP:NOTNEWS says:
"News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. "
News media estimates of election results are by their nature not permanent or notable enough by themselves to be in an encyclopedia article. Now, if there's a notable difference between enough news media estimates and the results as announced by the Iowa Democratic Party ("notable" meaning the controversy generates comment in reliable secondary sources), that would belong here in a new section. Not until then, so the deletion of the "Controversy" section was appropriate under WP:NOTNEWS.
Likewise, the entire content of the "Analysis" section is premature, because the Iowa Democratic Party haven't confirmed any of those numbers (some of which need to be attributed in the text, they seem on casual reading to be in wikivoice). -- loupgarous ( talk) 21:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The lead section has six paragraphs. That's way too many! According to the Manual of Style, leads should normally not be longer than four paragraphs (unless it's clearly warranted). See MOS:LEADLENGTH. Even articles about presidential elections and party primaries don't have more than four. Many are less than four. The 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 U.S. presidential election articles all have just four. This article isn't even about a state's general election or primary; it's about a caucus. Therefore, I think someone should edit the lead by eliminating some content and merging paragraphs, and reducing it no more than three paragraphs. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 ( talk) 14:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fill in the map to show the results of the Iowa Caucus Bootedgeedge ( talk) 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! There is a note on the Infobox regarding the national delegates that says:
A candidate wins the Democratic primary by receiving a majority of delegates, not votes. Delegates are awarded based on number of State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs) won.
The method is, however, more complicated that this and I don't think it is properly explained in the Procedure section. I think it would be great value for the article if someone could better explain this Byzantine procedure. My guideline is that the explanation ought to be good enough that one can predict the final number looking at the given results, but I'm afraid I cannot do it myself. In the meantime, I will delete the first phrase of the note, as it is incorrect. The second one is valuable, in my opinion, as at least it indicates from where the national delegates number will come from, but I caution that it might be misleading without the proper explanation in the core of the article. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Sarilho1: For your information - In the past few days I have updated the Procedure chapter and added tables to display the SDE figures. All based on a carefull further read of the Iowa delegate selection plan. The Iowa SDE system is quiet complicated to explain, but I think its possible now to understand when someone reads the chapter - also for the satellite caucuses. :-) Best regard, Danish Expert ( talk) 15:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Could someone create a color scale and shade the map based on % by county? MB298 ( talk) 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2001:5B0:2548:83D0:E539:ED3B:A55A:D75A ( talk) 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Bernie won Iowa by 6.000 votes. He's the winner.
Please correct the popular votes in the infobox. The infobox incorrectly diplays the final alignment as popular vote. The initial alignment is the popular vote. Then supporters of non-viable candidates (below 15%) need to realign themselves to other candidates. This creates the final alignment which is the basis for calculating SDEs. Xenagoras ( talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The first alignment numbers essentially amount to a tally of the popular vote.NYT
The first expression of preference, the popular vote.NYT
...the first alignment, considered to be a popular vote...ABC
The “first alignment” result will show caucus-goers’ preferences in the first round of voting (this is equivalent to the popular vote in the state).Forbes
The Iowa Democratic Party is trying to manage expectations about the new “popular vote,” and in a Monday morning memo, it compared the first alignment to “the score at halftime.”Washington Post
Our campaign is winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes.Rawstory
...pointing to his 6,000-vote lead in raw popular votes in the first alignment...USA Today
Pointing to the initial popular vote totals in Monday’s caucuses...USA Today
In the final alignment, this massive popular vote margin dropped to a still-healthy 2,500.jacobin mag There are also some sources saying that both the first and the final alignment are popular votes. We could therefore write both in the infobox. Xenagoras ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The mobile/preview image is Joe Biden's picture, which makes no sense. Since the results are not final I don't know what it should be, but certainly not Biden.
Please don't delete this again.
123popos123 ( talk) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section says, "Due to the need for an initial correction of results from 3.1% (55) of the precincts found to have reported incorrect figures compared to their signed official caucus result document,[5] the calculation of won pledged national convention delegates (which is the true metric of dermining the winner of the Iowa caucuses), was only published six days after the election on February 9." First, the sentence is awkward, complicated, and too wordy. A good writer should condense it and get to the point in a clearer way. Second, the use of the word "only" ("was only published six days after") is improperly used. I suggest replacing "was only published" with "was not published until" for clarity. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 ( talk) 19:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
As noted in for example, the CNN source linked by MrX ( talk · contribs) "With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules. Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts."
The result is updated, but not yet settled. Gambling8nt ( talk) 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of what AP said. They are not running the show.
As I have already shown, CNN reported:
The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party.
— [16]
The Hill reported similar:
Buttigieg retains his 14-12 advantage in delegates to the Democratic National Convention due to caucus rules regarding delegate allocation. However, that result could change if either campaign asks for a recount. Both campaigns now have 24 hours to officially request a recount.
— [17]
The Des Moines Register reported:
As it stands, Buttigieg, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor, has 14 of Iowa's national delegates and Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has 12, the Iowa party reported.
— [18]
The article needs to be updated accordingly. The current footnoted claim of 13 is misleading to our readers. - Mr X 🖋 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
USA Today:
The twists of the caucus aren't necessarily finished: An official with the Sanders campaign said it will ask for a recount. A recanvass was a prerequisite to a recount request, according to party rules.
— [19]
CNN, from the same article you quoted:
With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules.
Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race
Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts.
— [20]
PBS:
Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign plans to ask for a partial recount of the Iowa caucus results,after the state Democratic Party released results of its recanvass late Tuesday that show Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in an effective tie.
— [21]
Politico:
In the results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party, Buttigieg still had 14 delegates to the national convention to 12 for Sanders — a result that could flip after a recount.
— [22]
If you want the results table and infobox to say 14-12 instead of 13-12, without removing the note indicating that the process is not yet over and a recount is pending, I personally will not stop you (although you may find yourself in an edit war with Sanders partisans who will care about the distinction). My--reliably sourced--objection is to the removal of the footnote noting that the results are not yet final as a recount is likely pending. Gambling8nt ( talk) 04:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea why the Iowa Democratic Party's assertion of delegates is not being taken at face value, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. The information in this article directly contradicts the result as (preliminarily, so sure, add an efn note) decided by the organisation in charge of providing the results. Domeditrix ( talk) 09:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This page cites results.thecaucuses.org, which states that Buttigieg won 14 pledged delegates.
The main article cites the New York Times, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.
The Des Moines Register backs up the New York Times page, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.
How should we handle this discrepancy? I'd assume that thecaucuses.org is ran by the Iowa Democratic Party and that it's a primary source, but are the NYT and DMR just being slow to update their numbers, or do they have legitimate reason to report that the number is 13? They're both reputable reliable secondary sources. Is it actually the case that we don't know for certain what the final number is? Should we leave a footnote explaining this to the reader?
I'm not prescribing any solutions myself since I'm not sure what to do here, but I do want to invite discussion to see if anyone else knows relevant information, to see if anyone believes one number is more correct than the other, or if anyone believes that we truly don't know the final result of the Iowa caucuses yet. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Just saw this conversation. I put the count to 13 and added a footnote explaining the undecided delegate. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Nice4What: Will you please point out where it was " agreed to on the talk page" to list 13 delegates for Buttigieg? I see 2 for; 2 against; and 2 undeclared. That is not consensus by any stretch. - Mr X 🖋 02:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Why are the SDEs displayed in the results section roughly divided by 18 compared to the results at the top of the results from results.thecaucuses.org ? 209.54.86.136 ( talk) 05:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Nvm upon refreshing the page, they were no longer multiplied by 18 on that website. I guess it wasn't changed at that moment. 209.54.86.136 ( talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The IDP webpage found using https://results.thecaucuses.org/ only shows the latest version of the results. It does not show a history of the many different sets of figures, before all precincts reported, or after there were results for all 1765 precincts.
I do not know of any way of finding all of these earlier sets of results. If someone does know of such, it would be useful.
The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems in referring to this webpage as is done 5 times in the Wikipedia article, as reference 1, (which is to a footnote. Is that OK?) and references 4 a, b, c, and d, as anyone using to link to the page will only find the latest results. The reference notes are sometimes about the latest results, but sometimes about earlier sets of results.
Should the reference to the 9 February version of the results note 4 c, be made into a different reference to, for example, 4 d, which is for the latest results in the results table? Or are there other things which should be changed instead of or as well?
I do not have enough knowledge about what and how to do about this, but thought I should raise the questions.
Hoping that some of you may find this useful,
Redhill54 ( talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
use references to previous versions of a primary source to explain to readers that the results have morphed.Redhill54 asked how to solve the problem that different text passages in the article refer to different version of IDP's result. I proposed to link to the archived result version that is meant at a specific text passage. This would avoid confusing the readers. In addition, we should use RS to explain that the IDP's results have changed over time, e.g. [36] Xenagoras ( talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
"The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems... "I answered no, and explained how we should be approaching the issue. I'm firmly opposed to linking to an obsolete version of a primary source, for obvious reasons. - Mr X 🖋 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for change to infobox for caucus results:
Several reliable sources say that first alignment is the popular vote (see details below). These two proposals would result in an infobox display like this.
Edit 20 February: changed proposed text from "popular vote" to "First alignment (popular vote)" to adapt to editors' comments. Xenagoras ( talk) 21:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The reliable sources New York Times [38] [39], Washington Post [40], ABC News [41], USA Today [42] [43], Forbes [44] and The Raw Story [45] say that the first alignment is the popular vote (see detailed quotes there). Xenagoras ( talk) 23:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
As in Iowa, any supporters of candidates with more than 15 percent support in the precinct (including both in-person and early votes) get locked in. Supporters of candidates below that threshold, though, get to realign. They can back a viable candidate, combine forces to make a nonviable candidate viable, or refuse to support anyone.[46] Xenagoras ( talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
the infobox for a caucus shall display the first alignment vote count and percentage as "First alignment (popular vote)", and for proposal 2:
the infobox for a caucus shall display the "Final alignment" vote count and percentage below the line of "First alignment (popular vote)" (together with a mouse-over hint explaining: "supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to other candidates"). 10 editors support proposal 1. 8 editors support both proposals, arguing that these data points are important, reported as headline stories by reliable sources, help readers understand the realignment during a caucus, allow for comparing caucus results with primary results, and are already displayed for counties. 2 editors support only proposal 1, arguing that the final alignment is not important enough for the infobox. 11 editors want to display the final alignment in some form in the infobox. 3 editors want to only display the final alignment as popular vote in the infobox, with one arguing via space consumption and two arguing that the final alignment is the relevant one / the popular vote because it gets converted into SDEs. 1 editor does not want any of that data in the infobox by arguing, it would consume too much space. Xenagoras ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for
Legobot (
talk ·
contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through
WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. It also begins with a list, contrary to RFCBRIEF. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)displaying a "First alignment popular vote."ResultingConstant has
no objection to displaying the information, but describing this as a popular vote is grossly inaccurate.Xenagoras ( talk) 20:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Xenagoras: You cannot close your own RfC. -- WMSR ( talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
there are several ways in which RfCs end: ... 5. The discussion may just stop. ... Please remove the rfc tag when ... discussion has ended.During the last 3 days no additional editors commented and during the last 6 days only 1 additional editor commented. The discussion appears to have ended on its own. So I ended the RfC (and wrote the optional summary of comments). Request for closure states,
Many discussions do not need formal closure. Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. ... When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.The WP:ANRFC page has a long list of RfCs waiting for formal closure, therefore I heeded the advice given at WP:ANRFC and ended the RfC without formal closure to avoid a long waiting time in the queue. Xenagoras ( talk) 23:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I think people meant we were going to use the final votes and SDEs and then that was spun by an Rfc that wasn’t neutral into including the first alignment votes as well. Smith0124 ( talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a two question RfC to determine if there consensus to include the recently added popular vote statistics in the infobox.
- Mr X 🖋 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
CNN [48] is reporting that "The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party." We need to stop reporting outdated information. Sanders count challenge does not change this official result unless the party determines such. - Mr X 🖋 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. -
Mr
X 🖋
01:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This line currently exists in the article (with the bit in squared brackets hidden): | candidate1 = Pete Buttigieg [Do NOT bold until a winner is declared by the AP (likely won't happen until a recount is completed due to reported inconsistencies)]
Where, when, why and how was it decided that AP, not Reuters, the Des Moines Register, or the Iowa Democratic Party themselves determine the winner? It seems absurd to me. I have removed it from the article because I can think of no sane justifiation for it.
Domeditrix (
talk) 09:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Edited
Domeditrix (
talk)
09:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
SDE will be the only information used to determine the allocation of ... Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates, and ... national delegates.[53] I understand this means if Sanders receives the same or more SDE than Buttigieg, that will result in Sanders receiving the same or more national delegates than Buttigieg. The candidate with the most SDE will receive one additional national delegate via PLEO.
[A Sanders adviser] said, "We now believe a recount will give Sen. Sanders enough [SDE] to put him over the top." If the specific errors Mr. Sanders’s campaign claimed were all verified, he would net about six [SDE], moving him into first place.[54] Xenagoras ( talk) 15:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
other top tier sources are not disputing the results.The following RS did their own data analysis and found the IDP's result to be erroneous: New York Times [55] [56] [57], NBC News [58], CNN [59] and DesMoines Register. [60] You wrote,
the AP does not have superior standing.The AP explains, it's
race calls are used by media on both sides of the political spectrum and have been regarded for years as highly reliable.[61] You also wrote,
I'm not aware that the AP is actually saying that the IDP results are incorrect per se, which is disproven by the AP:
Xenagoras ( talk) 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)After observing irregularities in the results once they did arrive, The Associated Press decided it cannot declare a winner. Numbers could yet still change. An AP review of the results provided by the Iowa Democratic Party also found numerous precinct results that contained errors or were inconsistent with party rules. For example, dozens of precincts reported more final alignment votes than first alignment votes. In one precinct in Polk County, home to the state capital of Des Moines, the party’s data showed no candidates winning any votes in the first alignment but winning 215 votes in the final alignment. In some other precincts, candidates won state delegate equivalents even though officials recorded them as receiving no votes in the final alignment. There were also a handful of precincts in which officials awarded more state delegate equivalents to candidates than there were available to be won. [62]
@Domeditrix I’m sorry that I was rude toward you and that I attacked you. It is necessary to show a lead. We know what the final results are now. I will show a 0.04 point lead (26.17 to 26.13) under the results table. But in the top table table I will leave it at 26.2 to 26.1. If you want to change the top results to 26.17 to 26.13, I don’t care. I just don’t want to keep this going anymore. Whatever you think is best, I will support. But based on the discussion I think we both agree that this is what’s best. Pentock ( talk) 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)