Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

Candidate Colors

I don't know if there's any specific way Wikipedia editors come up with colors for various candidates. In advance, I'd just like to suggest some colors that I think .svg maps of the caucuses should use.

  Joe Biden

I chose the color purple to represent his connections with the Obama administration (whose 2008 primary run was colored a lighter purple). I also picked it because blue is commonly a color of conservatism, and Biden definitely represents the right-wing of the Democratic Party (in 2020 at least).

  Bernie Sanders

Green for Bernie because that was what he used in 2016.

  Elizabeth Warren

Red for Warren because of her more left-wing, labor stances. Also because it looks good. The rest were less thought out, but I still think they "fit" the candidates pretty well.

  Kamala Harris

  Pete Buttigieg

  Andrew Yang

  Cory Booker

  Beto O'Rourke

  Amy Klobuchar

... and, just in case,

  Marianne Williamson

I've made a few sample maps where the colors are forced to interact with one another (see this link to a fake 2020 NY Primary), and they look really good in my opinion! Hopefully whoever makes the eventual .svg file will consider using these colors. Thanks! :) Beccabecco –(talk) 03:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

why Yellow for Andrew Yang? looks like racism 92.233.56.7 (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a blank where the reason goes. I've invited the author to explain her (or his) motivation for this missing piece. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Initially I was gonna choose grey for Andrew because he's all about robots and technology, but I went with cream bc it was the only color I wasn't using for the other candidates. I'm really sorry, I promise it was a total coincidence!!! I feel super bad that there was any confusion. Beccabecco (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That is Yellow not Cream, certain colors shouldn't be used for certain candidates. For example if you used pink for Buttigieg it would seem wrong considering he is gay and pink is generally associated as an unmasculine color, so it would seem like a subliminal cometary on his sexuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.56.7 (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I get it, and I've already said it was an unfortunate coincidence I made 6 months ago. Beccabecco (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know Buttigieg was gay when I treated "fudge" as a slur below, for the record. Just innocently appropriated a joke from The Simpsons, because I think those yellow people talk funny. Wasn't suggesting he can't be Mr. Purple for the same reason Buscemi's character in Reservoir Dogs (allegedly) had to be Mr. Pink. Just a different time earlier in the week, some things naturally aren't going to hold up or age well in today's political climate. Like rich, creamy Beto O'Rourke! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually it's a positive that you didn't know he was gay. It shouldn't matter. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Results

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)

Here is the official IDP site where they report the results and it confirms 0 out of 1765 precincts have been reported. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

NYT was reporting these results as well before they just deleted half their page for some reason.  Nixinova   T   C   18:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The AP source here: [1] still has some results up.David O. Johnson (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

While hopefully this question will momentarily be moot, speaking as someone very involved in trying to put the data up and keep it up to date in the first place, I think there is actually a fair argument to be made that it should have been taken down. The data came from unofficial election night estimates reported by reliable sources (the NY Times and AP), but they report this sort of unofficial estimate with the expectation that it will soon be verified against official numbers, and will provide a more accurate picture than saying nothing. In this case, no such verification was forthcoming, and the data we have may or may not be misleading. But misleading data is worse than no data at all, putting us in a position to reasonably question the utility of its inclusion.Gambling8nt (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It there some reason why the results are based on The Green Papers and not a reputable source like the New York Times? - MrX 🖋 23:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'd imagine that part of the reason why editors may use a source other than the New York Times is that NYT's paywall prevents editors and readers alike from even viewing said results.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 00:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• I removed the table. Let's get consensus on which source we are using for the table. We can't cite three sources reporting different results and only include results from a marginal source in the table. - MrX 🖋 00:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have different tables for the different sources? It would be confusing, but it would be better than leaving the results out of the article completely while we try to figure out which source is right. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment If the results are to be removed from the article temporarily due to a lack of consensus, would anyone mind if I also set the estimated delegate counts back to TBD and change the candidates' positions back to the polling averages until we have either the official results or a consensus on which early results to use?  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 00:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

What source would you cite? - MrX 🖋 01:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The sole purpose of temporarily setting the estimates to To be determined is because we'd lack a consensus on what sources to cite for said estimates.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I see. The TBD would be fine, but using polling data would probably not. We should be able to restore the table soon. Maybe we can use the New York Times (which has delegate counts, but is semi-paywalled) and Politico which doesn't have delegate counts but is not paywalled. - MrX 🖋 02:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, and The Associated Press are all reporting identical numbers which they're getting directly from the Iowa Democratic Party. The reason why we should use these is because they are official. It should be our goal to publish accurate and official information, not assumptions, rumors, or mathematical predictions. Please, let's get the results table back soon. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Let's just pick one of those sources (I nominate the New York Times) and use it. - MrX 🖋 01:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

We can use any of them or all of them. My preference is either the AP or CNN. Just not one with a paywall.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

AP and CNN do not have delegate counts. - MrX 🖋 01:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Then we can use the Des Moines Register which has delegate counts but not a paywall.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That works for me. - MrX 🖋 02:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I should also link here which is where the Des Moines Register lists the popular vote.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of the results were ever actually sourced from the Green Papers ref; I added it while I was playing around with structuring the table (and trying to match the appearance of the Election Box template as well as I could, since I couldn't find a way to use the template for the unusual reporting structure of the caucus without splitting into 3-4 tables, at best) and neglected to remove it afterwards. There should be no significant problem with restoring the table with either (or both) of the New York Times and the Des Moines Register as sources (since they agree), but do note that the numbers have changed from when the table was last in the article, as the number of precincts reporting initial and final alignments (but not yet SDEs) has increased from 1099 to 1111).Gambling8nt (talk) 02:37, 5 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)

I know what you mean but I'm not sure how it can be fixed without making the table a confusing mess. Perhaps we can add footnotes to the % column headings. - MrX 🖋 14:07, 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)

Agree. Candidates should be automatically sorted as per those who won most: (1) National pledged delegates, (2) SDEs, (3) Final Alignment Votes, (4) First Alignment Votes. Danish Expert (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

National pledged delegates

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)

Oppose. The official results from the IDP should be out pretty soon; it's already at 97% counted. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: Sometimes the last 3% can take days. The article has now for 24 hours displayed distribution of 27 national pledged delegates (11+11+5), which I presume was based on a previous edition of the NYT source and WP source. Because none of the 4 sources listed in the results table of our wikipedia article currently display distriubtion of any national pledged delegates. My proposal to use a more accurate "Green Papers" source for "estimated national pledged delegates", was only posted here because the previous source was outdated and not accurate. Yesterday, I attempted to replace the 11+11+5 figures by the words "TBD", but this was reverted by MrX. If there is consensus not to report any "estimated preliminary figures" for "national pledged delegates" (but only the final figures, which can only be reported when 100% of precincts has been counted), then we at least need to replace the current outdated 11+11+5 figures by "TBD" throughout the article. Danish Expert (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: My revert of the TBDs was based on style and the fact that everything is TBD until all the tally is completed. I think we should use the pledged delegate projections from a top source like the New York Times, provided that it is not contradicted by any other top source. I am opposed to using Green Papers, but I'm open to being convinced that it is a high quality source and that using its projection instead of a projection from a top source improves the article. - MrX 🖋 12:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: The wikipedia article The Green Papers is a recommended read, which has evaluated the source to be of a very high quality. Moreover it was also used as a result source in the previous edition of the same article 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses. The GP source has currently after 97% of the results are known, now calculated both a:

• "Certain win of national pledged delegates" (displayed in the first box): Buttigieg=13, Sanders=11, Warren=7, Biden=5, Still available delegates (not yet won by any candidate)=5.
• "Expected number of national pledgede delegates after counting 97% of the results" (based on the assumption that the last 3% of the precinct results wont change anything): Buttigieg=14, Sanders=12, Warren=8, Biden=6, Klobuchar=1.

I propose that we replace the TBD figures. Personally I prefer to use the first bulletpoint data rather than the second, as I believe its best to report what we know for sure and what we dont know yet (rather than reporting predictive uncertain figures that might still change once the remaining 3% of the results has been calculated). I could not find any national delegate count posted yet by CNN/NBC/IDP/desmoinesregister/NYT/WP (for the last two I however only checked the already sourced links which are listed in the result table of our wikipedia article). Can you now after this reply, support my proposal to use the GP source for the national pledged delegates? Danish Expert (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: Please stop adding estimates from Green Papers to this article. Seek consensus if you wish to elevate this source above established source like the New York Times. - MrX 🖋 18:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:: Please read my argued reply above. Reason why I boldly reinstated the figures based by the The Green Papers as per my reply above, was that other editors constantly continue to replace my tempoary TBD figures added this morning at 08:30. Right now we only have 3 options. Either to write TBD throughout the article. Or to report the figures as I just did according to the first bulletpoint in my reply abov. Or alternatively you have to come up with a better sourceed alternative. Currently the wikipedia article features NO source for your previously reported and now very outdated 11+11+5 figures. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: My vote is for the TBDs throughout the entire article. No reputable source is reporting ND figures and the rest are reporting predictions based on mathematical calculations which may or may not be correct. Until 100% of the results are out and NDs are OFFICIALLY released, let's keep TBDs throughout the article. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danish Expert:You cited a the stub article The Green Papers as evidence that The Green Papers is highly reliable. You did not make the case, and instead have edit warred your preferred version in. We are to use the best sources. I don't know if you are affiliated with this publication, but your obsession with it suggests that you are not able to approach this subject objectively. I have started poll below to get more input. - MrX 🖋 18:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:I did no editwar, but only reverted outdated and unsourced 11+11+5 figures with a highly reliable source (previously widely accepted and used by most if not all of the previous caucus/primary wikipedia articles, i.e. see 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses). FYI I have no affiliation with "The Green Papers". I just found it throughout the past 4 years to be more reliable and accurate compared to newspaper sources like the WP/NYT. You have still not replied back with a link to source your posted 11+11+5 figures. As a minimum, you need to source your data input both in the wikipedia article and here at the talkpage. The current linked ref sources in the wikipedia article do not display any calculated national pledged delegates. The GP source is the best one we have at the moment, to post these figures. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It looked like you had put that information in the article several times after having been reverted, but I guess I could be wrong about that. I trust you will not put that source or information from that source back in the article until consensus is obtained below. - MrX 🖋 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

No mass media estimate on a fast-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. --loupgarous (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Colors revisited

In U.S., red is usually for more conservative candidates. I find it weird to choose blue for Biden and Red for Warren. That seems backwards. Buttigieg and Sanders have good colors. But what is up with pink for Klobushar? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

May I suggest:

  Pete Buttigieg

  Bernie Sanders

  Elizabeth Warren

  Joe Biden

  Amy Klobuchar

  Tie

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, I'd rather pink for the feminine candidate than that demonic shade of purplish grey. Yellow isn't a good look for any supposed leader, maybe a different green or blue? You nailed Biden's hue perfectly, I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Old-fashioned: There is no purple in that grey but it is demonic: #666666. - MrX 🖋 01:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

No pink. Ever. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In my country, pink signifies the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be. But if you think it's about prettiness, I get it. Yellow forever! (And yeah, the purple tinge was just an optical illusion, my bad.) InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that changing the colors on an individual contest is the best idea, this would be best discussed on the main page of the democratic primary, but I prefer the current colors to this suggestion. However, I'm still open to changing some of them. Sanders being green & Biden being blue is something I'd keep, but if I made my own color key I'd have Klobuchar and Gabbard switch colors.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

If we gave Amy Pete's yellow and turned the beastly colour to orange, we'd be in alphabetical and rainbow order. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You're not going to make Mayor Pete Mr Pink are you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0SowB3CGtY?t=94 MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, he sure as fu*ge ain't Mr. Purple! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Coincidentally, you said that right as I was in the midst of suggesting purple for him :)  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Kamala Harris could've rocked the purple. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

While we're still discussing this here (though I would really recommend moving this to the main page for the election if we want to change anything), here's my own take on the candidate colors:

  Michael Bloomberg

  Tom Steyer

  Elizabeth Warren

  Bernie Sanders

  Amy Klobuchar

  Andrew Yang

  Joe Biden

  Pete Buttigieg

  Tulsi Gabbard

  Tie

My synesthesia tells me that Buttigieg should be a grayish blue, but I recognize how terrible that would look on a map so I went with what I think contrasts better.

I don't expect anyone to be on board with this suggestion (especially since it changes Buttigieg's yellow) but I hope at least some parts of it might be agreeable. Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Give the yellow to Steyer, nobody knows who he is. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks pretty good to me, except the orange and red are very similar, as are the teal and sea foam, which could cause some issues. Let me suggest a slightly different palette:

  Michael Bloomberg

  Elizabeth Warren

  Tom Steyer

  Bernie Sanders

  Amy Klobuchar

  Andrew Yang

  Joe Biden

  Pete Buttigieg

  Tulsi Gabbard

  Tie

- MrX 🖋 14:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I like that a lot, thank you! I don't have any issues with it  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar uses green in much of her campaign imagery, and Pete uses yellow. Fitting to have those colors assigned respectively. Perathian (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping Pete yellow to match the campaign logo (since Klobuchar's blue and green campaign logo was why I proposed a blue green for her to replace the bright pink), but it looks like we might be able to have a discussion solely about what to do with the yellow :) As long as the colors are all easy on the eyes and contrast well with each other, I'm happy with it  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't realized Buttigieg used yellow offline, on purpose. In that case, there's no point trying to save him from himself. Beats pretending he's Mr. Purple, on the bright side! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I guess Mr. Steyer can be Mr. Purple, unless orange Steyer and purple Warren sounds like a good idea.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That relatively shallow purple is fine for any hopeless candidate, in my books. But if Harris rises from the ashes later, it would warrant going all the way deep for her. And let me tell you something, Wizard, I won't be so easily dissuaded from that trivial preference! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidate colors should be consistent across all Wikipedia articles on this subject. This issue was discussed on the talk page for the main Democratic primary article, most recently at Archive 7. I suggest that any further discussion be moved to Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries before any changes are made here. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm probably tuning back out till sweeps week, so I delegate my support in this key battle to MrX and the Vanilla Wizard. Whatever they agree is what's best for the English-speaking viewers of the world. Except I remain firm on deep purple, and would take this opportunity to formally curse any who would waste it on someone who's clearly not ready to dethrone the Donald (nothing major, just shadflies and vertigo forever). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I strongly am against changing the colors again from the ones agreed on and used presently unless there is something wrong with them; and furthermore it has already been discussed multiple times before that choosing colors for candidates based on how you perceive their policies to be, or how you perceive them personally; ie, red=more conservative=bloomberg, or red=left wing=sanders (see main talk page archive 3) or as someone once suggested on archive 7, purple/pink=gay=buttigieg (!!!), constitutes WP:OR. The colors used presently don't really have any problems other than that some here have had trouble identifying colors with candidates or have a dislike of yellow; compare to Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries map where yellow is used and it looks great. Additionally, the current colors were picked specifically with color-blind accessibility in mind, and undoing that is very unnecessary. Cookieo131 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you read way too far into the methodology of my color recommendations. I picked red for Bloomberg because this thread started due to a criticism of red being used for Warren, and Bloomberg's campaign colors are light blue and dark red (we already have enough bluish candidates). I would've done the same with Cory Booker had he been in the race, because those were his campaign colors as well. Since red was no longer being used for Warren, I gave her Pete's yellow because it's a high contrast color that easily stands out, and I then moved Buttigieg to purple because it complements the yellow. This naturally required moving Bloomberg out of purple, hence him being moved to red as I previously mentioned. By no means did I pick purple for Buttigieg because he's LGBT and by no means did I pick red for Bloomberg because of his comparatively conservative politics. These were all somewhat arbitrary decisions based on what I think looks the best, but the one and only color change that I highly recommend is giving Amy Klobuchar a greenish bluish color because multiple people have complained about the bright pink, and green is her main campaign color while blue is her second campaign color. The pink is more fitting for Gabbard anyways, as her campaign imagery uses a sort of sunrise red. I'll have to admit that I'm slightly offended by some of the assumptions you've made (they came off as borderline assuming bad faith), but I hope this explains how I arrived at those suggestions.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 07:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

WittyRecluse suggested this shade of green       for Klobuchar in a previous discussion, for reference. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 11:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if I made myself unclear; it was a different user from a previous time I was referencing who explicitly suggested that Buttigieg should have purple or pink because he is LGBT. Additionally, my comment was not really directed to you, and was really just to the discussion as a whole. This discussion was opened by someone who suggested that Biden should be given red because they perceive him as being more conservative, so my view of the entire discussion was shaped on that. I was mistaken by thinking that Bloomberg was reassigned red because he is viewed as being more conservative. I recognize your criticisms of Klobuchar's color and am open to that change. Cookieo131 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I like Pete's new colour, slightly less pukey looking. By the way Amy is man enough to wear pink. (I linked to the reservoir dogs scene to highlight how stupid this whole discussion is). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

Pete Buttigieg has NOT explicitly claimed an electoral victory with regards to his internal data.

The internal data released by the Bernie Sanders campaign includes the tally of his own votes and delegate share along with those of the other candidates which shows him winning.

The only data released by the Buttigieg campaign are his own numbers. This absolutely does not “show him winning” as is erroneously claimed in the Results section of the page. (If anything, it raises some suspicions).

I recommend the line

“During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders... ...that Klobuchar either exceeded or equaled the number of votes that Joe Biden received.” 

be replaced by something by the lines of

“During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders both released incomplete results taken by their respective precinct captains, respectively showing a higher-than-projected vote share for Buttigieg and an electoral win for Sanders, leading both to claim victory. Also during the delay, Amy Klobuchar's campaign manager, Justin Buoen, claimed that Klobuchar either exceeded or equaled the number of votes that Joe Biden received.”

GGLLFFP (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

​ The article is no longer protected so you can now edit the article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

All material has to be verifiable in a reliable source. - MrX 🖋 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Say what? The current paragraph is not sourced and in fact is evidently misleading. Please return my edit and if it is necessary use these sources: https://news.yahoo.com/campaigns-use-internal-numbers-to-declare-victory-in-iowas-democratic-caucus-072931013.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/buttigieg-claims-victory-in-iowa-though-no-results-have-been-released.html https://www.salon.com/2020/02/04/sanders-campaign-releases-internal-caucus-numbers-signaling-victory-in-iowa/GGLLFFP (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You wrote:

"During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders both released incomplete results taken by their respective precinct captains, the former publishing his own numbers and the latter those of the entire field."

"the former publishing his own numbers and the latter those of the entire field" is not supported by any of the four sources. - MrX 🖋 17:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not bothered to respond but from his actions on this page and that of Pete Buttigieg make it recorded and clear that user user:MrX is either a Buttigieg operative or is very biased. To other users, keep that in mind in your interactions. GGLLFFP (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

There are clear rules against making comments like this. You have provided no evidence for your claims. Please strike your comment. In my view, you also owe MrX an apology. --WMSR (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Buttigieg's color

@TheNavigatrr: Hi, could you change Buttigieg's color, using "#f2ba42", decided on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article's talk page? Thank you :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Poll: Should the popular vote statistics be included in the infobox?

This is a two question RfC to determine if there consensus to include the recently added popular vote statistics in the infobox.

A. Should the popular vote count be included in the infobox?

B. Should the popular vote percentage be included in the infobox?

- MrX 🖋 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• No to both - The popular vote does not determine the outcome of the caucuses. Best practice would be to adhere to the precedents established at 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses and 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The examples you gave only present the national delegates. If you are arguing they are a standard, shouldn't SDEs also disappear from the Infobox? It would cloth a lot of information about this particular article, but that's the standard you are proposing. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Probably, but we can tackle that separately. I'm neutral on the SDEs. - MrX 🖋
      • Just out of curiousity, what drives you to have an opinion on popular vote, but not SDEs, if it is not to keep consistency with the style on past caucuses? - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - They weren’t reported before because the numbers weren’t released for the Democrats. This is the first year they released the popular vote totals. Smith0124 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• No to both - The first alignment and final alignment voting percentages are meaningful additional information for the results section of this article, but should not be in the infobox as they do not reflect the outcome of the caucus. There is no good reason to move from precedent on this.Wikiditm (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - The precedent is to include the numbers, as the presidential election pages include both yet only the electoral college matters. So by not including them we are moving from precedent. The reason they aren’t in previous years for Iowa is because the numbers weren’t released for the Democrats. Smith0124 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both, but only once numbers are verified. The popular vote did not determine the outcome of the 2016 election either, and those numbers are pretty important! As of right now, I can see why they'd be onerous given that the numbers are still updating. But once the caucus results are fully released, the raw total of votes given to each candidate will be information readers interested in this topic would want to know, and it therefore deserves to be front-and-centre. - EditDude (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• No to both - Adding the extra info clutters up the infobox. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both The total number of votes is meaningful information and the percentage allows to put those values in perspective. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both for all the reasons stated plus the fact that the popular vote and percentage is shown on presidential election pages, yet only the electoral college matters. So it’s consistent with Wikipedia standard. The Democratic Party changed their ways, so we should too. It’s important info, not clutter. Smith0124 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• No to both Those numbers have no impact on the actual consequences of the election, and there is no precedent for their inclusion. Most media outlets are reporting results in SDEs, not popular vote. Obviously they belong in the article, but not in the infobox. --WMSR (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Both are included in presidential election pages even though they have no effect on the outcome, so there’s only precedent for their inclusion. Caucuses work the same way. Smith0124 (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Compromise - Seems an issue people have is clutter in to infobox. So I propose that we remove Klobuchar since she’s not viable or close to viable (like, less than 1%) for delegates and make it a 2 by 2 to reduce clutter. I will edit the article so you see what I mean. Smith0124 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - That's not a compromise, nor does it relate to the subject of this RfC. Kindly stay on topic. - MrX 🖋

Comment - Yes it is. Some who say no say it’s because they think it’s too much clutter, so I propose only having the top 4 candidates to reduce the clutter yet keep the popular vote. Look at the previous edit where I removed Klobuchar. It makes sense because Klobuchar didn’t get 15% of the SDEs, so won’t be getting any pledged delegates. Smith0124 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That is not how delegate allocation works. Klobuchar is very likely to get a delegate from CD4, since she has exceeded 15% of SDEs there. Even if every remaining vote to be counted is for Yang, he would not reach viability statewide or in any congressional district. --WMSR (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to stay away from this article for a while. This is not a political battleground and your so-called compromise makes absolute no sense. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I’m doing here is influenced by my political beliefs. I like Mayor Pete yet I say we keep the popular vote because I think it’s right. This was an honest compromise, personally I could care less if Klobuchar is there. If you hate the compromise, fine, but don’t attack me. Smith0124 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to A or B - Unlike previous years, the popular vote is part of the official results, which merits a change in the way this is reported, and including this info in some way matches general elections in which both popular vote and EC delegates are reported. However, I think we only need one or the other, to minimize clutter. My preference would be the percentage, but I could see arguments for the count instead. We should also make clear that we're referring to post-realignment numbers in either case. 204.246.8.98 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both - Useful info. The infobox should be a summary, these numbers help.  Nixinova   T   C   19:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both, it is very clear that the popular vote is being reported and covered by both campaigns and the media, and is almost certainly something readers will want to know, and as such it should be included in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both - These are official statistics being widely reported by reliable outlets. I don't think it's a factor that popular vote doesn't determine the winner - by that logic, we might as well remove it from the presidential election as well.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  Or remove the home states and portraits from everywhere (Klobuchar isn't even smiling in hers). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  You're right, a candidate's portrait or home state doesn't determine who won the election, neither does the number of contests won or states carried - we spent a lot of time in 2016 trying to find the right portraits for each of the candidates, and this would be avoided once and for all if we cut out all of the inconsequential stuff!  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - include what's in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses article. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both - these statistics are now being collected for the first year, and being reported by major news sources. -Kai445 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both Popular vote is a key element of elections, even if it is not the determining factor of the final result. Number 57 10:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both The Iowa Democratic County tallied and reported the popular vote, so the information should be included. We include the popular vote in infoboxes on state primaries and state presidential elections, too, even though delegates and electoral votes are what respectively determine the outcome of those elections. Surachit (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both - per the 3 above mine. Jusdafax (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both Of course they should be included. The popular vote in the Iowa caucuses is now, for the first time, released publicly as part of the official results (which makes this information even more noteworthy). So, if they're released publicly and part of the official results, then they must be included in a Wikipedia article in any places where results are displayed. Like U.S. presidential elections, while the raw votes don't ultimately determine the winner and the place in which each candidate finishes, it is vital, necessary data for obvious reasons. Imagine if the results in presidential election articles on Wikipedia only included electoral votes, with the popular vote totals left out. There would be an uproar like Wikipedia has never seen. The Iowa caucuses are no different; only the SDEs and delegate count (essentially, Iowa's equivalent to electoral votes) determine the winner, not the popular vote. But the popular vote tells us how many individual ballots were cast for each candidate (in each round of voting). The sole reason these raw vote totals were never included previously in Wikipedia articles is because they were kept secret from the public by those counting the votes. They aren't any more and therefore there's no longer any reasonable excuse for purposely excluding them from the infobox. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes but below delegates - relevant information but should be below delegates just like is done with electoral vs popular vote in with US presidential elections.--Staberinde (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to A, no to B – relevant, yes, but the infobox is quite cluttered and difficutlt to understand. I'd also put SDEs above popular vote (in the order), as that is used to determine how Iowa awards its delegates. Domeditrix (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• No to A and B - Iowa's Democratic Party haven't declared a winner yet. If we put anything in the infobox (itself a debatable proposition) it ought to be the winner as declared by the IDP. --loupgarous (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both. It is politically relevant that (a)the party decided to report it this time and (b)that it affects post-Iowa media coverage of the Democratic primaries. 538 has done a rough-and-ready analysis suggesting Sanders receives 15% of the traditional "Iowa bump" on account of winning the popular vote. More importantly, there is no official means to declare the "winner" if the popular vote and SDEs diverge; only tradition implies the latter (but SDEs are obviously still relevant as the tradition drives the bulk post-election media coverage). PutItOnAMap (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the current delegate count be included in the infobox?

I've removed the delegate count, as it's currently unofficial, but I was reverted by Centrist1 in this edit here: [2]. 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)

• Oppose - The current delegate count is not yet final.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm starting to sound like a broken record but let's not deal with predictions and wait for the official results. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Leave as TBD The delegates are what matter. Not having them in the infobox just doesn’t work. TBD is exactly what the situation is. Not sure if that counts as support or oppose. Smith0124 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Leave as blank The delegates should remain blank until they are revealed, they were on the New York Post, now they are not for some reason. Centrist1 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - TBD is essentially blank. But the section needs to be there. Otherwise it won’t show delegate count at all. Causes confusion. Smith0124 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Leave blank until 100% reporting.  Nixinova   T   C   00:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion / Leave blank or TBD Showing unofficial estimates based on incomplete data is misleading. We can include and sort by SDEs, but we'll show delegates when we have them. We should also edit the main 2020 democratic primary article to not include delegates, if this hasn't been done already.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Leave as TBD for now. Support however including the currently won national pledged delegate count, when we hopefully soon reach a consensus for using the GP source for displaying this latest calculated number of won national pledged delegates (calculated by GP to be: But=13, San=11, War=7, Bid=5, with the remaining 5 delegates still to be decided according to the incoming still pending last 3% of the results).

The main argument for my position is that the infobox currently also report all SDE statewide totals won by each candidate, eventhough we still have a 3% chunk of SDE's still to be decided pending the incoming last 3% of the results. Yet we do not list a "TBD" for all the SDE figures, but instead opted to list the won SDEs after 97% reporting. In a similair way (after 97% reporting), it does not make any sence to type TBD for all data about "national pledgede delegates". These data should instead be listed by the provided GP source as soon as we have a majority consensus approving the use of this source (as we currently discuss in the talkpage debate above). Danish Expert (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting a lot of WP:IDHT from you. There is a clear consensus that The Green Papers should not be used as a primary source for delegate counts, certainly not in preference to mainstream sources. Please stop trying to push The Green Papers. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - We can wait until 100% is reported. Hopefully, it'll be before the end of February. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (exclude) - Until a reliable source reports official results. Even the New York Times removed their projections. - MrX 🖋 14:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - We should wait until the results are final, given that by all indications there could still be many changes to all numbers. Homo logos (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Note: NY Times is reporting delegate counts. --WMSR (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: Please see above and self-revert. NYT is a reliable source. As far as I know, delegate projections by reliable sources have consistently been used in articles. --WMSR (talk) 20:14, 7 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)

If you add the delegate counts, it adds up to 40, which is all of the delegates, minus the unallocated delegate mentioned in the ref. [3] David O. Johnson (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, I am not discussing what NYT is reporting. I am just insisting that we do not include in the article numbers that are not final, especially since a recount has been called. Showing these results is misleading to the reader, that likely comes to find out what the final results were. As it has been said, TBD is exactly the situation we are in. I suggest that we involve more people in the discussion, but I think the consensus is clear from above. Homo logos (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Homo logos: They are final, except for that one. That discussion was from before there was any clear word on delegates from reliable sources. We now have that. --WMSR (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - This is a statistic that hasn't been confirmed by the Iowa Democratic Party. Nothing like an updated delegate count, based on estimates of unknown reliability, should be placed in the Infobox along with statistics which have been confirmed. Running delegate counts so far have come straight from news media analysts. WP:VERIFIABLE counsels we trust secondary sources which don't generate their own data for the article, but report and analyze WP:PRIMARY source statements. IDP hasn't been giving updated delegate counts. --loupgarous (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)--loupgarous (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Second vote on showing partial results

It has been said here (against established consensus, in my opinion) that pledged delegate counts should be shown as reported by [4]. 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)

• Oppose 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)

As I said before, I am not discussing whether NYT is a reliable source. I am discussing whether we should show partial results. I do not see how these are not partial results if not all delegates have been allocated. That is the substance of the vote I am proposing. In good faith, I will stop reverting edits seeing as more than one person has put in this (against what the consensus is, in my view). Homo logos (talk) 21:31, 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)

• Oppose - I can't wrap my head around how certain people don't understand that Wikipedia is not The New York Times or The Associated Press and its goal is not to PREDICT but to publish official info. The official info is that right now there are no national delegates allotted because there is a recanvass going on. So why are we saying "if these were the final results then these would be the national delegates etc etc" instead of saying "this is all that we have from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY itself, and that's all that we are presenting"? This fight is going on for days and it is part of the reason why people don't consider Wikipedia reliable, it's because people are way too stubborn, stick to their own opinion and do COUNTLESS reverts without consulting making it extremely confusing for people visiting. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There is not a recanvass going on. None of the campaigns have requested one. Once again, official allocation of delegates does not occur until the convention, so the proposal not to use reliable sources here also ignores precedent. AP projections are considered fact; elections are often called before every vote has been tallied. --WMSR (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply (comment@WMSR:):Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price said the results were "categorically unacceptable" and the deadline for campaigns to ask for recanvass or recount was just extended. This all indicates that the results are not final and the Wikipedia page should reflect this. Leonardo Lazov (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• What's the problem? - A highly reliable source, cited by another highly reliable source has declared that Buttigieg has taken 13 pledged delegates and Sanders has won 12. Unless there are other highly reliable sources disputing that, it belongs in this article as official results. - MrX 🖋 21:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply (comment@MrX:): 2 problems exist:

• First problem (as stated above by Leonardo Lazov) is that a display of "estimated predictive results" violates the WP policies WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS, even if the "estimated predictive results" have been sourced by a reliable source. Therefore a display of "estimated pledged national convention delegates" should normally be avoided, as we are only allowed to display the final official hard count of "calculated pledged national convention delegates" (which is still to be published by the IDP official result website, and likely wont get published officially until it has been decided by Feb.10 whether or not a recanvass/recount will also be needed).
• Second problem: The latest AP/NYT source used by our wikipedia article apparently made a 100% correct calculation of the allocated "pledged national convention delegates" according to the "official published SDE results", but then decided for their published results to subtract 1 delegate from Buttigieg in order to take account of "observed result uncertainty" (which changes their figures from being "calculated" to being "estimated"). In comparison, the GP source made the exact same calculation as AP/NYT (based on the official published preliminary SDE results) and arrived at the exact same "calculated result" (But=14, San=12, War=8, Bid=6, Klo=1), however, the GP source in comparison chose to label their "calculated result" as an "estimated result (soft count)" until such time when the IDP official website confirms their SDE results to be final and valid - and the GP source disagree with the AP/NYT source about how many delegates should be subtracted from the "calculated result" in order to display a 100% certainly won (hard count) delegates based on the so far preliminary officially published SDE results. The GP source witheld allocation of 5 delegates (compared to AP's decision only to withold allocating 1 delegate), so the 100% certainly won (hard count) delegate figures are currently listed by the GP source to be: But=13, San=11, War=7, Bid=5, Klo=0 - with allocation of the remaining 5 delegates awaiting the official final results to be published Feb.10 or later by the IDP official website result source.
• Conclusion: So we have a disagreement between 2 reliable sources (GP and AP) about their estimation figures for "certainly won delegates", although it should be noted GP+AP are in 100% agreement about the calculated delegates under the assumption that all IDP reported SDEs are accurate and final. The disagreement between GP and AP about how many delegates should not yet be allocated due to "SDE result uncertainty" arise because they disagree about the amount of "SDE result uncertainty" they have observed. Assessing "SDE result uncertainty" is a subjective and not objective/scientific part of the process. Only when the official IDP website publish its final SDE results and calculated pledged national convention delegates, we can expect to see a full agreement between all 3 sources (IDP+GP+AP) about the number of certainly won pledged national convention delegates. The question "What we should report until then?" and this "Second vote on showing partial results", is therefor a valid question. Danish Expert (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In a disagreement between AP and GP, we go with AP. I don't believe that using the figures from AP would violate WP:CRYSTAL, with the understanding that they are provisional until the final results are called by the party. - MrX 🖋 16:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• conditional support: As per the arguments listed in my reply above, my vote is only "conditional support" for showing the current estimated preliminary figures for "pledged national convention delegate" count in the infobox and result table of the article. WP policy would under a strict interpretation dictate us only to show "TBD" for these figures in the article (which I attempted to enforce yesterday), at least until the IDP official result website publish its final official result for these figures. My condition for supporting the current display of "estimated pledged national convention delegates" therefor is, that we as minimum should add the same efn note behind each of these figures, in order to explain (1) they are "only preliminary estimated and not yet official" and (2) AP+GP disagree about the degree of observed result uncertainty - and therefor also disagree about the "preliminary estimated figures" for "certainly won pledged national convention delegates". Danish Expert (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2020

The results are yet to be known with a thin razor margin separating the two leading candidates, with Sanders in the lead with the popular vote, and Buttigieg in the lead with the SDEs although the New York Times predict a Sanders victory overall with 97% in

The Associated Press cannot declare a winner. Please include this.

The results are yet to be known with a thin razor margin separating the two leading candidates, with Sanders in the lead with the popular vote, and Buttigieg in the lead with the SDEs although the New York Times predict a Sanders victory overall with 97% in However, the Assoicated Press reported on February 6 that no winner can be declared due to the technical problems. 2601:447:4100:C120:9904:D520:EFA1:D5D0 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Stale

The request is mooted by the fact that 100% of the results are in, and Buttigieg is still in the lead. - MrX 🖋 21:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote in infobox

Should the popular vote in the infobox list the Initial or Final alignments? (It is currently showing final alignment.) I would think initial alignment would be a more accurate "popular vote" as it is what people voted by default.  Nixinova   T   C   02:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to show both. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is a Democracy. It is really votes that count. Any other system is designed to distort the results. Trackinfo (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now added the official results as reported with a single precinct missing. Perhaps a note should be added to information about the concerns and irregularities Homo logos (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

I think people are missing what I'm saying... I'm asking whether we should list both the initial and final votes in the infobox along with SDE count. Valid responses are "initial", "final" or "both".  Nixinova   T   C   07:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The initial alignment vote makes a lot more sense than the final alignment vote as it currently shows. There are many people who voted for inviable candidates who are currently being counted towards other candidates in "popular vote." Of course, the caucus system works on delegates so this information shouldn't be in the infobox anyway.Wikiditm (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be asterisks everywhere for the delegate counts

Many people come to this article for reputable data related to delegate counts. I don't think that it's appropriate to bold or highlight vote totals that have been publicly debated and critiqued for being fundamentally flawed to to the most basic errors, from coin flips to row switches in Excel. Keeping these edits published here further misleads and confuses the public as to what the true counts are, which not even the Iowa Democratic Party knows.

The solution I propose is removing bolding and highlighting for vote totals and percentages. Buffaboy ^talk 04:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend against this proposition since there's an active RFC on whether or not to include vote totals, and as of right now there's a lot of support for their inclusion.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

You say you don't want delegates listed but finish by saying you want vote counts unbolded. What are you actually arguing?  Nixinova  T   C   05:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I never said that I wanted delegate counts removed. I'm suggesting that the bolding of the popular vote/percentage and delegate count in the infobox should be removed, and that the highlighting in the results table be removed too, simply because the integrity of the results are in doubt with all of the errors and botched coin tosses that have been covered extensively in media. Buffaboy ^talk 15:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, we are citing reputable sources and updating the results according to them, so I think they should stay. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Tara McGowan -- Potentional RS on the App

• "Maker of glitchy Iowa caucus app has Democratic Party ties". AP NEWS. 2020-02-04. Retrieved 2020-02-07.:

Shadow Inc. was launched by ACRONYM, a nonprofit corporation founded in 2017 by Tara McGowan, a political strategist who runs companies aimed at promoting Democratic candidates and priorities. McGowan, 34, is married to Michael Halle, a senior strategist for Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign, which records show has also paid Shadow Inc. $42,500 for software.

• February 6, Ian Schwartz On Date; 2020. "OAN: Suspicious Democrat Caucus App With Buttigieg Connections Blamed For Iowa Results Delay". www.realclearpolitics.com. Retrieved 2020-02-07. {{cite web}}: |last2= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

I believe some mention of Tara McGowan's link to Buttigieg should be made. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the company has ties to the Democratic Party is not in itself scandalous, but the AP source is certainly reliable and can be worked into the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

To make conspiratorial connections is ridiculous.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The order in which candidates are listed in the infobox while there are no delegates

I submit that the natural order to present the candidates while there are no official results on delegates is through the popular vote. Homo logos (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, since the delegate count itself, really won't be known for quite sometime. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why the popular vote would be the most natural measure, in particular because SDEs is the number that determines the national delegates, as far as I am aware. However, if we are to change because the results aren't final, I would favour listing the candidates by surname, instead. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

National delegates

The thing that really matters is who wins the national delegates, those are the ones who vote for president. That's the first thing that comes up on a google search when you do Iowa results 2020. So why is this not on the results on the top of this page? AHC300 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

↑ scroll up ↑ - MrX 🖋 14:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Transclusion

Only the chart itself should be transcluded. Half the article is now on the results page.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, applying the style of the previous caucus. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of the procedure to determine national delegates

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)

It's quite difficult to explain the mess that the DNC has created. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: Your edits in the procedure section were all good. But I do not support your request for adding a "complete explanation" about the "procedure to determine pledged national convention delegates". The underlying math and procedure is so complicated, that the section about it would most likely be around 100 lines in length. The Green Papers source has posted a "complete explanation" and "complete data"", which I was able to understand to the degree that I can now myself calculate and verify whether or not the source did a correct calculation. One of the important details (which also has been outlined by the results section of our wikipedia article), is that:

• The number of "pledged national convention delegates" is determined proportionally to the candidate's total number of SDEs won statewide and in each of the state's four congressional districts, but only for those candidates who won more than a 15.0% share of the SDEs statewide or in the specific district.

The consequence of the above rule, is that after all SDEs won in each local precinct has been added up for each district along with the statewide total, then all those candidates winning less than 15.0% will have their SDE score (inside the district or statewide) elliminated from the equation of calculating pledged national convention delegates inside that specific district/statewide where the candidate had less than a 15% SDE share (meaning they win 0 pledged delegates for such districts or statewide totals). Finaly all those candidates who qualified for the determination of pledged national convention delegates in each district and statewide (by winning at least a 15% of the SDEs inside the specific district or statewide), will then proportionally win the number of available pledged national convention delegates in each district and statewide according to their share of "qualified SDEs" inside the specific district and statewide. In example, Klobuchar did not win above 15% in CD1+CD2+CD3 and statewide, but only won above 15% in CD4, and hence her SDE result is elliminated for CD1+CD2+CD3+Statewide (meaning she won 0 national convention delegates here). Klobuchar only had "qualified SDEs" in CD4, where she proportionally won 1 out of 5 available delegates). So despite the fact that Klobuchar won 12.3% of all SDE totals statewide, she will only win 2.4% (1/41) of the pledged national convention delegates available in Iowa.

Bottomline is, that the candidate winning the highest SDE statewide total therefore will not necesarilly also win the highest number of pledged national convention delegates. I.e. in the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses, Hillary won more pledged national convention delegates in the caucuses compared to Edwards, despite the fact that Edwards had won a higher SDE statewide total than Hillary. Danish Expert (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Misleading Reference

Changes to my comment in italics

Hello all,

Just looked at this source:

https://apnews.com/afs:Content:8464590602

It disputes that Buttigieg paid for the creation of the app. It does not dispute that he paid the company that made the app. Specifically, it claims he did pay the company that made the app. This wiki claims it has been debunked that Buttigieg paid the app.

In summary, it would appear based on the source the Butigieg did not pay for the app itself, but paid the company that made the app. In my opinion, this needs to be pointed out.

Just a heads up. I have never commented on this site before so let me know if I'm breaking any rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fcc8:ad81:6500:d56:a81c:e1a3:500f (talk • contribs) 17:50, February 7, 2020 (UTC)

I changed the wording.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. We still must assume "social media posts claim Buttigieg paid for the creation of the app", even thought the AP did not point out or screenshot the social media posts in question. I just did a cursory glance at social media posts on the matter, and it seems many are claiming he paid Shadow, the company which made the app. I just wonder if saying the following is accurate:

"Social media posts claimed that the Buttigieg campaign paid for the creation of the results reporting app, ..."

I see many social media posts claiming he paid the company behind the app, a point that the AP does not dispute. Maybe the AP's claim is kind of a straw man?

The next sentence in the wiki addresses the matter in more detail, but it is the third or fourth point in that sentence. For clarity, I wonder if the sentence "Social media posts claimed that the Buttigieg campaign paid for the creation of the results reporting app, a theory which was debunked by the Associated Press.[5]" should be deleted altogether.

Also, while that claim may indeed be "debunked" (the AP cites Buttigieg's campaign spokesperson, not the developers themselves), I think "misleading" or "inaccurate" would be better adjectives describing this alleged claim by social media users.

Thanks again. --2607:FCC8:AD81:6500:D56:A81C:E1A3:500F (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources for official results

Incomplete results seem to be appearing in various websites for the national delegates. Could we add a reference for these results before adding them in the article? What is the mechanism to announce final national delegate results? I have seen various numbers here, but none add up to 41. Homo logos (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

There's at least 1 delegate that has yet to be decided. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect endorsement listed

In the polling section, the Data for Progress poll contains a note that Data for Progress endorsed Elizabeth Warren. This is not accurate, Data for Progress has not and will not endorse in the race. Please remove this reference as it is incorrect. Jasnonaz (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 15:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

I would like to update the photo on search results to be the popular vote count winner, Bernie Sanders. Zbassham (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The delegate count determines the winner of the Iowa caucus, not the popular vote. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Has nobody else noticed we're missing one pledged delegate?

13+12+8+6+1=40. Adam Dent (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

See here. --WMSR (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thing is the actual delegates don't even get decided until the state convention. Caucuses are not a straight voting process, they're a discussion. And the discussion will continue at the County Conventions in March, the District Conventions in April and the State Convention in June. When they actually choose the delegates at the state convention, the final makeup will probably be different. Amy Klobuchar will probably have dropped out by then, for example. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Two maps in infobox

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)

I consolidated the infobox by placing the percentages and raw data on the same lines. I would be ok with leaving only the SDE map, but I did not remove it yet in case other editors have any opinions as to why both maps should stay. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a switcher so that only the SDE map is displayed by default, but with the other maps still there for readers to switch between them if they are interested. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The second county map is *not* valueless, as it concerns the actual votes not SDEs. It might not belong in the infobox, but it should still be in the article. 2001:569:FACB:DA00:781A:497A:5C2A:9A5A (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

"Votes versus delegates in the Iowa caucus" belongs out of the Infobox, but deserves its own section in our article. It's a controversy which is developing, because both the Buttigieg and Sanders campaigns are claiming victories in Iowa depending on whose opinion you accept on the issue. However, I believe as well we ought to wait on the Iowa Democratic Party to announce who got the most delegates and votes, then in a new section place the official announcement, alongside other organizations' estimates of vote and delegate counts. That's where, if any place in the article, that maps broken down by county ought to go - but I am not convinced those county figures are WP:NOTABLE enough for wikipedia purposes. The Iowa caucus is a discussion on who the Iowa state Democratic convention ought to send to the national convention as delegates. That's going to be the really notable story in the Iowa primary process. --loupgarous (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

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.^[5] For reactions in satire Trevor Noah + Stephen Colbert are notable.^{[6] [7] [8] [9]} 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.^{[10] [11] [12] [13]} 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 simply took out the "Controversy" header. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS Applies Here - Especially to the "Analysis" Section.

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)

Lead section

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)

I've been WP:BOLD and amended the lead section. I believe the amended lead section still accurately summarises the content of the article. Domeditrix (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you. I would just remove the last sentence/paragraph that says, "The next primary contest is the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary, to be held on February 11." There's absolutely no need for that to be in the article, let alone the lead. No other Iowa caucus article mentions the next state to vote. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I removed it.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

Fill in the map to show the results of the Iowa Caucus Bootedgeedge (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done - MrX 🖋 00:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Data error in infobox

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 realignment vote is the binding one. --WMSR (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Following sources state that the first alignment is the popular vote: 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)