This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 South Carolina Democratic presidential primary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What is the precedent on the number of candidates to show on the polling tables? Are we concerned about the table being too wide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgoodwinv ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Given that the result is likely to include Joe Biden and Tom Steyer, it seems misleading to not include one of these candidates and put another last. As discussed on the Nevada Caucus talk page, this table should be ordered by polling average order (grabbed from an independent website like RealClearPolitics) so that it can better reflect the primary. User:Rivere123 04:51, 15 February 2020
@ Rivere123: Let’s keep this to just the Nevada page. One discussion is enough, it’s the same issue. Though I will tell you again to read WP: CRYSTAL. Smith0124 ( talk) 04:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is it that Tulsi Gabbard's picture isn't here? She's polling quite well at present, and she's the seventh on the ballot. Gnerphk ( talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This reasoning does not make sense. There are two other major candidates that you appear to be intentionally cutting out - Bloomberg and Tulsi Gabbard. The # being 8 instead of 6 is such a weak excuse for excluding them. - wigbate 2/23/20
Hello everyone. Not too sure if this is the right place for this but here goes. I was just curious to what is gonna be done with the state navigation in the infobox after South Carolina. Currently it just links to the main super tuesday page. Shouldn't it still link to indiviudual states? I know its kinda hard since there's like 14 states on that day but I'm sure we can figure something out. Perhaps order multiple state days like March 3 based on pledged delegates? So California would be next in the navigation then Texas, NC etc. I guess we could also maybe order by poll closings but I thinks its probably easier to do some order of delegates. Ainsworth anderson ( talk) 21:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I was the one who linked it to the Super Tuesday page, but I like your way better. Smith0124 ( talk) 23:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I am starting this to foster open dialogue since there seems to be a disagreement of who/how many candidates should be in the infobox. My last revert was done to hold it till it can be discussed here. ContentEditman ( talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia absolutely is a platform for a candidate to have a voice, indirect though it may be. Tulsi is the ONLY candidate being excluded, as usual, and you all are discussing it as though this is acceptable. - Wigbate 18:21pm EST 23 Feb 2020
No because we should keep with the consensus reached in Nevada. She’s well below the 5% threshold established. That has nothing to do with silencing her. Smith0124 ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes because there are only 7 candidates left. It made sense to "weed out" candidates who did not poll as strongly where there were a large number of them, so we could have the prominent candidates be displayed. We're down to 7 candidates now--that's not an unreasonable number. Serenity18 ( talk) 02:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No, my argument on the Nevada Page was that including Gabbard would be Undue Weight, and that argument applies here too. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. However, this seems like a larger debate that shouldn't be being done per-page, but ideally a Wikipedia-wide discussion on election infoboxes overall. The approach taken here has the power to influence elections and therefore should both not be taken lightly as well as shouldn't be in the hands of a few select Wikipedians who happen to be interested in the primaries. My take on this is that, as it stands now, the infobox at the top of the Wikipedia page is deeply misleading, making it seem like only the 6 pictured candidates are running. There doesn't even seem to be any other info about the number of candidates or which candidates are partaking in the primary above the fold, which is always the most commonly viewed part of any webpage (and there usually tends to be a sharp drop-off in views under the area). If picturing all candidates is out of the picture, NONE of the candidates should be pictured to avoid being misleading. Mirek2 ( talk) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) This isn't an RfC. As per Nevada consensus, Gabbard shouldn't be in the infobox here. It would constitute undue weight. The fact she's polling below someone who isn't even on the ballot should say it all. Wikiditm ( talk) 08:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Readers would expect the infoboxes to show candidates, not just some arbitrary 'contender' cutoff. Candidates are the ones who have passed the state's party rules to be on the ballot, and before the vote people will be using this article to decide between the candidates- we should not be narrowing this choice for voters. With 9 or fewer candidates, there isn't a need to filter any. After the vote, only including the winners is natural, but before that filtering would be influencing the vote. Jiminyhcricket ( talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
While I believe the consensus on the Nevada page shouldn’t be overturned for consistency and because I believe in the 5% threshold, which has always been used and not just for this primary, if people want to overturn it they should have to get a 2/3 majority like a true veto, and should reach out to those who made the original consensus and have them join the discussion here. That way people have a way to voice concern and changes can be made but it provides us with a safety net from having to discuss this for every single state and territory. Smith0124 ( talk) 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I think we should not include any candidates until after the vote or results are available. We should remain as neutral as possible and not look to impose any artificial weight to any candidate. A mistake was made if this was done on the Nevada page. What would we do in states that have very little recent polling information such Alabama? Davemoth ( talk) 17:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes Reconsidering my earlier post. What polling do we use? If latest SC individual poll then Klobuchar (3%) should be dropped and Gabbard (6%) added. Do we consider the Margin of Error? Even the Aggregate has statistical problems - 270 and RCP have the exact same numbers based on the same polls and we count them twice... This is too easily manipulated unless we use simple criteria for inclusion and sorting. Poll results are not simple and there are Primaries with ZERO polling (AS) or very old (AL) that make polling a mess. Keep it simple and include all active candidates and sort based on Delegate Count (National before results, local after results). Davemoth ( talk) 16:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I uncommented Klobuchar. No one has established that there is actually a 5% threshold. I think we are getting a bit aggressive in removing candidates without having a consensus for specific inclusion criteria. - Mr X 🖋 01:24, 26 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 🖋
01:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
As in previous states, there have been recent edits changing the order of candidates to match pledged delegates won so far. I'm adding this talk section so that anyone who thinks the order convention should be changed can say so here instead of us flicking between orderings in the actual article. In each previous state, the decision has been to order based on polling average for that state, and I think we should stick with that precedent for this article. Wikiditm ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
We aren’t worrying about future primaries here, and both Klobuchar and Gabbard aren’t on the infobox because both their polling averages are <5%. You’re just talking about one single poll, that’s not how it works. Please look through the previous discussion and see the many arguments against having no threshold. Smith0124 ( talk) 21:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Just so there are no confusions that "it's too early" to put Biden in as the winner, the AP announced this literally two minutes after polls closed. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, New York Times all followed. Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the source for the 39-15 delegate totals? As I have been looking for that information elsewhere, I can only find sources showing 33-11 with 10 delegates yet to be determined. (As of 1:51ET on election night) Anon, a mouse... ( talk) 06:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
CNN has the totals at Biden 41, Sanders 13. Smith0124 ( talk) 23:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's pick and choose between sources then:
Publication | Biden | Sanders | Steyer | Unallocated |
---|---|---|---|---|
CNN | 38 | 15 | 0 | 1 |
The New York Times | 39 | 14 | 1 | 0 |
NPR | 35 | 15 | 0 | 6 |
Associated Press | 35 | 15 | 0 | 6 |
I say we go with the Associated Press estimate. That's what we used for Iowa and that's what seems most accurate. Final results are still pending, and there's no denying that Biden was the outright winner of this primary. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Quote from article: "Exit polls showed that Buttigieg, who won Iowa and did well in New Hampshire, received only 2% of the black vote despite receiving endorsements from many prominent African Americans.Exit polls showed that Buttigieg, who won Iowa and did well in New Hampshire, received only 2% of the black vote despite receiving endorsements from many prominent African Americans." Sanders won more votes, at the very least this sentence is inaccurate and it needs to be specified that he got the most delegates in Iowa but lost the popular vote. Also the statement that Buttigieg did win the most delegates is highly questionable according to this quote from the Wiki-entry on the Iowa caucus. "According to the IDP, errors on the handwritten caucus math worksheets could not be corrected because they are unalterable legal records.“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by IDP chair Troy Price.[94] Photographs of caucus math worksheets taken by caucus "captains" showed errors in adding up votes for candidates and in calculating "state delegate equivalents".[11] IDP chair Troy Price said that a recount of votes would be required to correct the miscalculations on the handwritten tally sheets from precincts.[13]" The proper way of working would be to not publish any 'result' until this issue has been solved. At the very least this context should be given if the statement is made that Buttigieg would have won Iowa. From /info/en/?search=2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses#Inconsistencies_in_votes 145.132.75.218 ( talk) 09:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 South Carolina Democratic presidential primary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
What is the precedent on the number of candidates to show on the polling tables? Are we concerned about the table being too wide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgoodwinv ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Given that the result is likely to include Joe Biden and Tom Steyer, it seems misleading to not include one of these candidates and put another last. As discussed on the Nevada Caucus talk page, this table should be ordered by polling average order (grabbed from an independent website like RealClearPolitics) so that it can better reflect the primary. User:Rivere123 04:51, 15 February 2020
@ Rivere123: Let’s keep this to just the Nevada page. One discussion is enough, it’s the same issue. Though I will tell you again to read WP: CRYSTAL. Smith0124 ( talk) 04:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is it that Tulsi Gabbard's picture isn't here? She's polling quite well at present, and she's the seventh on the ballot. Gnerphk ( talk) 06:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This reasoning does not make sense. There are two other major candidates that you appear to be intentionally cutting out - Bloomberg and Tulsi Gabbard. The # being 8 instead of 6 is such a weak excuse for excluding them. - wigbate 2/23/20
Hello everyone. Not too sure if this is the right place for this but here goes. I was just curious to what is gonna be done with the state navigation in the infobox after South Carolina. Currently it just links to the main super tuesday page. Shouldn't it still link to indiviudual states? I know its kinda hard since there's like 14 states on that day but I'm sure we can figure something out. Perhaps order multiple state days like March 3 based on pledged delegates? So California would be next in the navigation then Texas, NC etc. I guess we could also maybe order by poll closings but I thinks its probably easier to do some order of delegates. Ainsworth anderson ( talk) 21:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I was the one who linked it to the Super Tuesday page, but I like your way better. Smith0124 ( talk) 23:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
I am starting this to foster open dialogue since there seems to be a disagreement of who/how many candidates should be in the infobox. My last revert was done to hold it till it can be discussed here. ContentEditman ( talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia absolutely is a platform for a candidate to have a voice, indirect though it may be. Tulsi is the ONLY candidate being excluded, as usual, and you all are discussing it as though this is acceptable. - Wigbate 18:21pm EST 23 Feb 2020
No because we should keep with the consensus reached in Nevada. She’s well below the 5% threshold established. That has nothing to do with silencing her. Smith0124 ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes because there are only 7 candidates left. It made sense to "weed out" candidates who did not poll as strongly where there were a large number of them, so we could have the prominent candidates be displayed. We're down to 7 candidates now--that's not an unreasonable number. Serenity18 ( talk) 02:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No, my argument on the Nevada Page was that including Gabbard would be Undue Weight, and that argument applies here too. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 05:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes. However, this seems like a larger debate that shouldn't be being done per-page, but ideally a Wikipedia-wide discussion on election infoboxes overall. The approach taken here has the power to influence elections and therefore should both not be taken lightly as well as shouldn't be in the hands of a few select Wikipedians who happen to be interested in the primaries. My take on this is that, as it stands now, the infobox at the top of the Wikipedia page is deeply misleading, making it seem like only the 6 pictured candidates are running. There doesn't even seem to be any other info about the number of candidates or which candidates are partaking in the primary above the fold, which is always the most commonly viewed part of any webpage (and there usually tends to be a sharp drop-off in views under the area). If picturing all candidates is out of the picture, NONE of the candidates should be pictured to avoid being misleading. Mirek2 ( talk) 07:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC) This isn't an RfC. As per Nevada consensus, Gabbard shouldn't be in the infobox here. It would constitute undue weight. The fact she's polling below someone who isn't even on the ballot should say it all. Wikiditm ( talk) 08:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Readers would expect the infoboxes to show candidates, not just some arbitrary 'contender' cutoff. Candidates are the ones who have passed the state's party rules to be on the ballot, and before the vote people will be using this article to decide between the candidates- we should not be narrowing this choice for voters. With 9 or fewer candidates, there isn't a need to filter any. After the vote, only including the winners is natural, but before that filtering would be influencing the vote. Jiminyhcricket ( talk) 11:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
While I believe the consensus on the Nevada page shouldn’t be overturned for consistency and because I believe in the 5% threshold, which has always been used and not just for this primary, if people want to overturn it they should have to get a 2/3 majority like a true veto, and should reach out to those who made the original consensus and have them join the discussion here. That way people have a way to voice concern and changes can be made but it provides us with a safety net from having to discuss this for every single state and territory. Smith0124 ( talk) 12:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I think we should not include any candidates until after the vote or results are available. We should remain as neutral as possible and not look to impose any artificial weight to any candidate. A mistake was made if this was done on the Nevada page. What would we do in states that have very little recent polling information such Alabama? Davemoth ( talk) 17:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes Reconsidering my earlier post. What polling do we use? If latest SC individual poll then Klobuchar (3%) should be dropped and Gabbard (6%) added. Do we consider the Margin of Error? Even the Aggregate has statistical problems - 270 and RCP have the exact same numbers based on the same polls and we count them twice... This is too easily manipulated unless we use simple criteria for inclusion and sorting. Poll results are not simple and there are Primaries with ZERO polling (AS) or very old (AL) that make polling a mess. Keep it simple and include all active candidates and sort based on Delegate Count (National before results, local after results). Davemoth ( talk) 16:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I uncommented Klobuchar. No one has established that there is actually a 5% threshold. I think we are getting a bit aggressive in removing candidates without having a consensus for specific inclusion criteria. - Mr X 🖋 01:24, 26 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 🖋
01:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
As in previous states, there have been recent edits changing the order of candidates to match pledged delegates won so far. I'm adding this talk section so that anyone who thinks the order convention should be changed can say so here instead of us flicking between orderings in the actual article. In each previous state, the decision has been to order based on polling average for that state, and I think we should stick with that precedent for this article. Wikiditm ( talk) 09:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
We aren’t worrying about future primaries here, and both Klobuchar and Gabbard aren’t on the infobox because both their polling averages are <5%. You’re just talking about one single poll, that’s not how it works. Please look through the previous discussion and see the many arguments against having no threshold. Smith0124 ( talk) 21:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Just so there are no confusions that "it's too early" to put Biden in as the winner, the AP announced this literally two minutes after polls closed. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, New York Times all followed. Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the source for the 39-15 delegate totals? As I have been looking for that information elsewhere, I can only find sources showing 33-11 with 10 delegates yet to be determined. (As of 1:51ET on election night) Anon, a mouse... ( talk) 06:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
CNN has the totals at Biden 41, Sanders 13. Smith0124 ( talk) 23:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's pick and choose between sources then:
Publication | Biden | Sanders | Steyer | Unallocated |
---|---|---|---|---|
CNN | 38 | 15 | 0 | 1 |
The New York Times | 39 | 14 | 1 | 0 |
NPR | 35 | 15 | 0 | 6 |
Associated Press | 35 | 15 | 0 | 6 |
I say we go with the Associated Press estimate. That's what we used for Iowa and that's what seems most accurate. Final results are still pending, and there's no denying that Biden was the outright winner of this primary. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Quote from article: "Exit polls showed that Buttigieg, who won Iowa and did well in New Hampshire, received only 2% of the black vote despite receiving endorsements from many prominent African Americans.Exit polls showed that Buttigieg, who won Iowa and did well in New Hampshire, received only 2% of the black vote despite receiving endorsements from many prominent African Americans." Sanders won more votes, at the very least this sentence is inaccurate and it needs to be specified that he got the most delegates in Iowa but lost the popular vote. Also the statement that Buttigieg did win the most delegates is highly questionable according to this quote from the Wiki-entry on the Iowa caucus. "According to the IDP, errors on the handwritten caucus math worksheets could not be corrected because they are unalterable legal records.“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by IDP chair Troy Price.[94] Photographs of caucus math worksheets taken by caucus "captains" showed errors in adding up votes for candidates and in calculating "state delegate equivalents".[11] IDP chair Troy Price said that a recount of votes would be required to correct the miscalculations on the handwritten tally sheets from precincts.[13]" The proper way of working would be to not publish any 'result' until this issue has been solved. At the very least this context should be given if the statement is made that Buttigieg would have won Iowa. From /info/en/?search=2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses#Inconsistencies_in_votes 145.132.75.218 ( talk) 09:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)