Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries: Difference between revisions

As opposed to the winner-takes-all republican primaries, the democratic primaries reward delegates proportionally. Therefore, I believe that a map highlighting the winner in each of the states seems wholly inappropriate and potentially misleading, regardless of whether or not this is mentioned in the caption or image description. This is a basic principle of good data visualization.

Wikipedia should have higher standards for data visualization, and I'm sure our users can come up with better alternatives, or a way to qualitatively capture the actual nature of the primary race and how the total number of delegates are distributed in terms of popular vote.

The other map used in the article, further down the page, is an attempt to address this. While it may be more complex to read (and embedded pie charts also have their own issues) it does a better job at representing the results. — LucasVB | LucasVB_Wikipedia | Talk

Support compromise. Both maps can be included in the infobox. MB298 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the Republican primaries have some winner-take-all states and some that appoint delegates proportionally. MB298 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll bring this up on the republican primary talk page then. — LucasVB | Talk 06:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested map is shown later on the page. The infobox map should give an overview of each state and not be cluttered with extra data.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: I completely agree that Wikipedia should have higher standards for data visualization, which is precisely why we have the all the maps in the maps section of the article. The point of the infobox is to give an overview, and all the breakdown data should be detailed appropriately in the remained of the text, there seems to be little value in overcomplicating and cluttering the infobox with too much technical detail. Besides, even if we were to use another map it should be the final delegate count map (i.e. pledged + superdelegate) not the vote shares, since if anything it should be the final delegate counts that determine the nominee NOT the vote shares. Sleepingstar (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different number of delegates

Hi, is it possible to use the same counting? e.g. Pledged deleg. of Clinton:

• infobox at the top: 1132
• Candidates featured in major polls: 1139
• Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses: 1099

It means three different values. Thank you.--Kacir 00:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be fixed CNN, and The Associated Press are saying two different totals. Which one is correct? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. But I think we should use CNN since the number of delegates projected is larger than the AP number. That way, if/when CNN projects that a candidate has reached the magical number of 2383 and thus would be the projected nominee for the Democratic party, our article will not be behind in the delegate count. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think CNN might need to be used in such a case.Sleepingstar (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which source should we use for the delegate count?

VOTING IS NOW OPEN IN A NEW SECTION BELOW FOR THE SOURCE WE WILL USE. Nike4564 (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After using AP for this long, I am beginning to question the source. Of course, there are plenty of reliable sources (AP, CNN, Green Papers, etc...). I am just wondering which one should be the most reliable and right on track with the numbers. AP seems too conservative on the numbers as some people have said, therefore they are lagging in the delegate count. Some people have said that CNN is the right source, but some say that CNN could be overestimating the numbers as compared to AP. So I am just wondering if you guys have any idea as to which source would be the best for the delegate count. We could all come to a consensus and vote on the best source. Thanks! Nike4564 (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer using Green Papers. → Call me Razr Nation 17:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green papers just collects data from sources that use AP. So, we have the same problem. Id prefer we go straight to the election websites, but they take an awful long amount of time to release results. Jp16103 18:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jp16103: Actually, I believe the Green Papers uses their own numbers as they seem to differ a bit from AP. By the way, what do you mean by "election websites"? Do you have a link to them that we can check out? Nike4564 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Green Papers is a good personal website, but as a personal website it is less of a WP:RS than newspapers and agencies are. At least, I would switch to official results as soon as they're published. --PanchoS (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to use official election website results it's important that we include a link to an archive as those links have a tendency to die pretty quickly. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we should use CNN since the number of delegates projected is larger than the AP number. That way, if/when CNN projects that a candidate has reached the magical number of 2383 and thus would be the projected nominee for the Democratic party, our article will not be behind in the delegate count." Prcc27🍀 (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Green Papers appears to be a somewhat reliable self-published source since it's referenced by outlets like The Washington Post and CNN, who mention it as "a long-running authority on the nominating process". Personally I have yet to find a better source to keep up with all coming data by every state (about delegate counting). Most reliable newspapers report data from AP; but sometimes both stay behind on reporting from precincts (see Massachusetts) and almost never try to project all the available delegates. (It's my personal POV that they do that to avoid any risk of being "over-optimistic" about any candidate, since allocation rules are so variable and sometimes messy). Often The Green Papers instead also lists in its sources "official" election authorities and/or party websites, but seems to care a lot less about the "popular vote count" (not often accurate or updated), focusing most on the delegate numbers, and also mentioning the allocation rules. So, I would use The Green Papers too (about delegates), but since it's Wikipedia job to report from the most reliable sources and not judge who is more right or wrong, I would also list the other main (aka more reliable, aka more popular/referenced out there), more "conservative" counts. --Supernino (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most people despite some internal conflicts, seem to be leaning towards Green Papers even if they're not sure. Should we do a vote on it or wait for more suggestions? Potentially some other than CNN, AP and Green Papers hopefully? Nike4564 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Papers mentions the allocation rules and explains the specific pledged delegates' categories. Furthermore they allocate all the pledged delegates, while AP even after many days still doesn't allocate several delegates (at now about 19 pledged delegates aren't allocated in AP's count). I would use The Green Papers.EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Associated Press is the best source. It's commonly used as a reliable source when citing delegate counts. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green papers is really disagreeing with a lot of sources, Missouri for example for the longest time had the delegates tied with a change just done recently to match the other sources. The same problem is now revolving around Illinois despite what a majority of other sources say, if a candidate won a state then the delegates will not be tied. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support using AP. I do think they are unduly conservative and that conservative figures should not be assumed to be a marker of reliability; however, my feelings aside, they are clearly the source preferred by most outside outlets: e.g., Bloomberg, the NYT, WaPo. One thing to consider would be including a range of delegates according to some handful of sources: CNN, NBC, AP, and Green Papers. We might consider these different "viewpoints" on the subject, and as such it may be warranted to be inclusive rather than exclusive.PotvinSux (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support using Associated Press More reliable sources are useing AP, as far as CNN goes they have numbers that are different than the Green Papers, and AP [6]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support PotvinSux view. All major projections should be listed at least in reporting 'totals'. In state-by-state data I personally prefer Green Papers (they even list superdelegates names) but I do recognize too that AP appears to be the most popular. --Supernino (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which source should we use for the delegate count? (Proposal)

@Jp16103:@Razr Nation:@PanchoS:@Prcc27:@Supernino:@EricCantonaTheKing:@Bobtinin:@Knowledgekid87:@PotvinSux: How about this? Since the template is on the Green Papers as users have constantly kept on switching it to the Green Papers, as well as the "States" template below and on the Republican page as well, how about we switch to Green Papers as our source for delegates? That way we can be consistent all around for our delegate counts here and also at the Republican page as well. The vote seems to be going nowhere and I think that this is the best way forward. Plus, Green Papers is more up-to-date. Anybody support this? Nike4564 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that, but good luck convincing the others. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer AP. Jp16103 23:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with whatever. MB298 (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Change the template back to the AP, or remove the template and use an infobox. We don't need so much bullshit for a simple count. Use the source all the other sources use, the damn AP. Dave Dial (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Dial: Well, users keep on changing the source in the template so I don't know what to do about it! I absolutely do not know why they are doing it! That's why I am proposing this instead! Nike4564 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nike4564:The Green Papers is not a reliable source, they use the AP and then guess at the delegate results using proportional delegates by percentage. They might be right, but they could be wrong. That..is not a reliable source and not the official counts.I could do the same thing and call it The Dave Papers. Why not use use Google Doc updates? No. Use a reliable source, the source that other reliable sources use, the official count from the AP. Dave Dial (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the numbers back to AP as I see a majority of editors here on this page in multiple sections argue in favor of AP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Papers; the AP is outdated with delegates that are listed as "available." Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show how The Green Papers is reliable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove the AP is reliable? It's been weeks, and the AP still lists states with incomplete delegate counts. Personally, I think it shows negligence on their part. The Green Papers calculates their number by the percentage received under the contest guidelines. Honestly, I'm fine with another source, but not the AP, per the aforementioned reason. If ABC, CNN, 538, or another news agency or political website has the information, then I'm content. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87 and Buzzards-Watch Me Work: Please see my comment regarding AP's reliability below. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which source should we use for the delegate count? (Vote)

@Jp16103:@Razr Nation:@PanchoS:@Prcc27:@Supernino:@EricCantonaTheKing:@Bobtinin:@Knowledgekid87:@PotvinSux: (Some of you guys might have already voiced your support, but I just wanted to include all users to make sure. Sorry if I left anyone out.) We've been discussing which source to use for the delegate count, and I think we should do a formal vote now just to get this over with. In a simple sentence, just state which source you support to use the delegate count for. The options are: CNN [7], The Associated Press [8], The Green Papers [9], Bloomberg [10] or NBC News [11] (Scroll down to see delegate tracker on NBC News). I'm hoping that all of you guys can weigh in. "New users" are allowed to vote as well (Those who did not weigh in in the original thread). I think we will leave voting open indefinitely for now. As for a majority or plurality support for a source, I think we will worry about that later. Nike4564 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CNN - In contrast to what I said before, it seems that they get the results quicker than AP but slightly slower than The Green Papers. This is a nice median between speed of results and reliability of the source. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say stick with AP only when the election websites are not available, but I'm okay with CNN. Jp16103 02:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jp16103:@Bobtinin:Sorry if I'm bothering you, but would you guys be willing to consider changing your vote to NBC News as a source that I just included as an option? (Link:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/ Just scroll down to see delegate tracker.) Nike4564 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it differentiates the Pledged Delegates from the Superdelegates. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, this isn't the place to be "voting" on this type of thing. There are several templates that are handling delegate totals in this article at this late date. Anything "decided" here can be easily undone elsewhere. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, a similar if not equal issue involve GOP primaries as well; maybe it would be better to discuss this in a more general talk page, notifying all interested wikiprojects. --Supernino (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy1890:@Supernino: I don't see your point. We resolved the superdelegates issue here as well with the users by "voting". I don't see any problem here at all. Nike4564 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The situation in this article here is that we have two templates that determine what is shown in both the infobox & the table that displays the results of all the individual states (the latter of which, I think, has consistently used the Green Papers as a source, even though some users try to change the values displayed there based on other, uncited sources). While I am very sympathetic to changing the source for the running delegate count to one source across all venues, this isn't the place to discuss that...unless someone wants to alert all those pages of a centralized discussion somewhere. Guy1890 (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pledged Delegate totals nationwide are reported incinsistently within the article. The total estimated pledged delegates at the bottom of the state summmaries (summing thrm) should be used in the overview section at the top of the article. This way and discrepancy can be traced to individual state or territory results. As it is, Sanders summing to 1938 but the overview showing 975 is inconsistent and the source of inconsistency is a mystery. Reuelrr (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1038 for Sanders intended above Reuelrr (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources are saying different things, we cant just go by any source and assume it is correct per WP:V. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point I have made previously - it might be most appropriate to provide a range based on the highest and lowest figure among the sources we find reliable. Failing that, I support using AP because it is the most widely used, by Bloomber for example. I don't actually think their figures are the "best." It's hard to know what is best because no one states their method and sources especially clearly (well except Bloomberg, which states that their source is the AP).PotvinSux (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took some time to hunt down the references provided at Green Papers. They are the only one that links everything back to the local Democratic Party pages and explains in detail where they get their numbers from. Also, the role of super delegates should be reviewed and explained here, in a way that it is not being explained elsewhere. it is nice to use the media for sources, but if that is all we have, why even bother to do a Wikipedia entry? Failing consensus, there needs to be a top level listing of all the numbers and explanation why there are discrepancies. Polanve (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)polanve[reply]

@Polanve: There is no way we can confirm this though which his a huge problem. They can say that they get their numbers from the national democratic party but in the end there is WP:V "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". If you can prove that The Green Papers are indeed getting these numbers from x then okay fine, but we cant go by what they say without any evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Papers is not a reliable source, and their count is based off 'soft' guesses at the delegate count. The AP has the official numbers, which can be verified. There is not rush to put in the rest of Washington's delegates until they are decided. So it should be clear as crystal that the Green Papers numbers should not be used anywhere in this article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A "soft count" is an estimation, not simply a guess; you can read TGP's specific definition here. Most crucially, a "soft count" includes unpledged as well as pledged delegates (in other words superdelegates are necessarily tallied by a "soft count"), whereas a "hard count" only includes pledged delegates. AP uses "soft delegates" as well: in Guam for the Republicans, all 9 delegates are officially unbound, but AP lists 1 delegate for Cruz since they've endorsed him. This is categorized as a soft count. Note also that TGP provides a hard count as well in any case (whereas AP doesn't). In regards to TGP's status as a reliable source, when this was discussed at the Republican page the consensus was that it is, because it's been cited in numerous academic publications and news sources have referred back to it. The only "official numbers" are from state parties and occasionally the state governments, not AP or any other media outlet. I haven't followed the Democratic race closely, but on the Republican side AP showed an incorrect result for New Hampshire well after the official results had been released and other sources updated, and they still show an incorrect result in Aroostook County, Maine (per the official state party's results; see the discussion at Commons—NYT's numbers are syndicated from AP), which is why I'd be sceptical of using it as the source. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the offcial delegate count as it stands right now. Dave Dial (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use TGP. AP has outdated information (typically stays with whatever numbers were available on the evening of voting day), and these AP numbers are in turn quoted by most of the press, so you can't say for example that NYT is a secondary source to AP, because it's just a repeat. Only The Green Papers provides regular updates and bothers to detail the vote counts per congressional district in each state. TGP quotes its own sources and explains the counts in detail, so it qualifies as the textbook definition of a reliable, secondary source. — JFG ^talk 10:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to start up a website, and quote my own sources explaining the counts in detail I would be considered a reliable source? The problem again is this runs into WP:V, can you prove that they are legit quotes? Anyone can claim to quote anything online, I would think there needs to be some kind of link. I know many here want up to date info but I am throwing out a policy based argument here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can verify TGP's sources, for example Florida, Michigan, South Carolina... And with the (admittedly arcane) election rules at hand, we can also perform the calculations to verify TGP's or AP's analysis. Then we can decide who we trust to be both reasonably accurate and reasonably fast. TGP is not perfect but AP is usually much worse. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use Green Papers, they are not a reliable source, and have no way to verify their numbers. Whereas the AP and NYT do. I understand that editors want to use the most up-to-date numbers, and multiplying 73% X 101 gives you an estimate of Sanders delegates, and same as multiplying 27% X 101 will give an estimate of HRC's numbers. But it is not the fault of real reliable sources that Washington's effed up caucus system gives out delegates in stages and by different manners. Sanders could have 74 delegates from Washington, or he could have 72, 73 or even 75. We won't know until around June 19th. Look at this stupid shit(scroll down to 'Delegate Selection'). They select 67 delegates from congressional districts, based on proportional voting. That is finalized May, 6. Then they select 12 & 22 delegates based on proportional votes by those delegates selected in May. As well as 7 alternates. Those are all of the 101 delegates, not counting the 18 'unpledged' delegates. Stupid. Dave Dial (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Dial: you make a compelling case against TGP, but the AP is outdated on numerous states, not just Washington. [Washington's system is definitely screwed-up.] With that being said, the AP was wrong in Maine, and were misguided or outdated in other states, like Illinois where seven delegates are still "available." If it was just Maine or Washington, I'd leave this alone, but the AP, in my opinion, is being negligent with their reporting. I believe a mistake or two is fine, and if TGP is wrong in Washington, it's their first. The AP and the New York Times are batting a sixty or seventy. Since TGP is the most accurate tracker I've seen, it's my vote. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Papers also differs with AP/NYT when it comes to the popular vote numbers on a number of different states. In some cases the number is off by 2 or so digits, but others are plus or minus 100 people or more. So which is correct? Right now I am increasingly becoming in favor of providing a range of numbers. Compare for yourself with the numbers AP provides, and ones by TGP, added people I understand but not ones subtracted with 100% in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, screw it. How about this. Put a note in the Washington numbers linking to the stupid PDF file from Washington Dems, use TGP numbers but add in the note it is subject to change because the Washington Democratic party are asshats. Or something like that. Dave Dial (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the delegate selection process is unduly complex, however the voting rules for delegates are clearly spelled out, so it is legitimate for a secondary source like the Associated Press or The Green Papers to do the analysis and present us with their projection. It wouldn't be legitimate for one of us to do it on our own. Now the question boils down to which secondary source we choose to report. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a lot of time searching for a good source of info on how many delegates each candidate has. Then I found this Wikipedia entry with a complete, detailed accounting of every delegate. I was so happy to finally be able to wrap my head around the numbers, and to use the data to answer questions. The big question I had was "Who is ahead and by how much?" So I used the data from the table to create a graph and I posted it here (my very first foray into editing Wikipedia!) As I was learning how to edit, I also saw the source of the information in the table and saw that it was all sourced right back to the actual official sources of the info, which is the local Democratic Party bodies themselves. I see some people are calling various media sources "official", this is not just wrong, it also shows a lack of understanding of the relationship between the press and government in our country. Unlike other countries, our media are independent of government and are not the official mouthpiece of government. Every media source of official information should be traceable back to the original government body that reports that info. This page has a lot of problems with use of super delegates and very little explanation of the real role according to Party rules. It features media counts not sourced back to the official pages. I know what I am talking about, I am a Democratic Committee person in my county. When we want the real info, we go to the board of elections webpage. we don't go by what the media reports. Here on Wikipedia we need to do more than just regurgitate what the AP says. We are taking on the role of editors of an encyclopedia, we need to review and weigh original sources. I find that The Green Papers is most helpful because they include links to every original source. Therefore, AT THE VERY LEAST it should be at the top alongside other summaries of the data. That is my opinion. Also, someone posted on my newly created user page that I am some kind of agent for someone else. I put my own real name and credentials up for the world to see. I hope I get the help here that a newb deserves, and I hope that people take time to get to know me before making any further accusations.Polanve (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with your analysis. Information starts from the primary sources (state party, election commission) then gets compiled, vetted and summarized by secondary sources (AP, TGP) and finally comes into the encyclopedia (tertiary source). We can decide to show any of the secondary sources, but certainly I'll put more weight on a source who describes their process in detail and allows us to check the numbers by ourselves if we want to take the trouble of tracing them to the primary sources. See WP's sourcing policy and guidelines on picking secondary sources. — JFG ^talk 18:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe using the official statistics, and then TGP for projections, like Washington, is the best process. For projections, we'd list the projected delegates, like the normal ones, and have a note saying: "This is a projected count by The Green Pages." Once states, like Washington assign their delegates, we'd remove the note and use the official citation. With that being said, @Polanve: welcome to Wikipedia! The note you received is an automated message that a concerned user sent, so don't be offended. I've received one after thousands of mainstream edits, so it's not a significant issue. If you need help with anything, let me know. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good compromise, better than introducing ranges of values which would make results unreadable. So we would keep NYT as source for settled states and switch back to TGP for recent contests where there are discrepancies. Here are the states where not all pledged delegates are allotted to candidates according to NYT source: Michigan (127 of 130, 3 missing), Florida (211 of 214, 3 missing), Illinois (149 of 156, 7 missing), Missouri (68 of 71, 3 missing), North Carolina (104 of 107, 3 missing), Arizona (74 of 75, 1 missing), Idaho (22 of 23, 1 missing), Utah (32 of 33, 1 missing) and the famous Washington (34 of 101, 67 missing). Ready to use TGP numbers for these in Template:2016USDem, with a note to readers in the source citation. Do we have consensus, folks? — JFG ^talk 22:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great: all results adjusted in the template, with proper sources and explanation note. — JFG ^talk 06:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think we should use the official party count. My hunch is the Democratic Party of Michigan, for example, has the correct delegate proportion on their website. In the forthcoming states, like Washington, we should use TGP. I'm just not a fan of the AP and the New York Times, given their record. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If we are really going to "vote" here..."Which source should we use for the delegate count?" The Green Papers because it has been historically the most comphrensive & accurate for many years now. NOTE: We are all being watched off Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still skeptical as some of the numbers from TGP are less not more than some that the AP reports. Nobody has been able to independently verify or check their sources, as a result all of these major media sources use different figures. An agreement has been made though, time for all of us to move on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Green Papers"

I've just read the discussion above and as far as I can tell the only editor inveighing against The Green Papers' credibility is Dave Dial. Is this wrong? The template on the article seems non-conventional and disruptive to me; it should either be removed or replaced with one of the proper maintenance tags. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see that one or two others have questioned it as well, though not to the same extent; the template still seems unnecessary (?) —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased the notice to make it neutral, just explaining why numbers may look out of date and inviting readers to take part in the sourcing debate here. — JFG ^talk 10:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh....see above. Dave Dial (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if I were to start up a website, and quote my own sources explaining the counts in detail I would be considered a reliable source? Yes, if you will be considered reliable/worth of using as a source at least once by NYT, Chicago Tribune, The Atlantic, TIME, Washington Post, CNN, HP, etc. If it can be used by them, it can be used by us. (It's also worth noting that "the green papers" + "delegates" returns more than 200 results on google books.) So the question isn't if it is reliable (IMO), but if it is enough to be used more than/as much AP & others. I still support the idea of reporting a range of the most popular source and I still think that the discussion should be carried on a more general place, since it doesn't make sense TGP to be ok/more than ok for GOP primaries and not for Democrats.--Supernino (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernino: Since all of the sources disagree with each other a range of numbers sounds like a reasonable compromise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown of sources

• Numbers aligned with AP

New York Times [12]

USA Today [13]

Real Clear Politics [14]

Bloomberg [15]

Politico [16]

Huffington Post [17]

• Numbers aligned with TGP

• Numbers different than both

CNN [18]

Feel free to add more sources you can find, but I want people to see what the problem is here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the newspapers get their numbers from AP (it's not called the Associated Press for nothing), so you can't say there are 6 sources that agree with AP; in fact there is one AP source which is copied by 6 media outlets. Now if this source does sloppy or late reporting, everybody lags. WP readers want reasonably up-to-date and reasonably reliable information; TGP has proven over many races that their projections are the closest to the eventual results. And we can't wait until the convention, as an astute reader says below... — JFG ^talk 18:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother you that no other major respectable news-source is using TGP's numbers? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As Supernino pointed out above, many of those respectable news outlets have turned to Mr. Berg-Andersson of TGP for his expertise on the nomination process for both parties. That's legit enough to me. — JFG ^talk 19:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers remain though where they are so they must not trust his expertise enough to follow suit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd question CNN because no other major outlet is using its numbers (according your breakdown). BTW, NYT currently list TGP as a source alongside AP; Vox prefers them. AP numbers are the most popular because AP is the only news agency actually reporting data (votes from precincts) state by state on election nights. Votes come from AP, parties and state government offices. As of today, considering how primaries work and how messy the actual rules are, it makes more sense to say that "HRC has around 1712-1742 estimated delegates". --Supernino (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]