Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Rfc on withdrawn candidates for the individual primary pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a disagreement on whether withdrawn candidates who have gotten 5% of the vote or more. The standard for a longtime now has been to only include the withdrawn candidate who got the second most votes if there is only one candidate still in, as is the case right now with Joe Biden. This is because of a 2017 Rfc that requires at least two candidates in an infobox. This Rfc applies only to the individual primary pages for each state/territory, not this page. Question: For the individual primary pages, should withdrawn candidates who got >5% of the vote or >5% of delegates be removed from the infobox?

Here are the options:

A. Withdrawn candidates should only be removed from the infobox if they did not receive >5% of delegates or received less than 5% of the vote.
B. All withdrawn candidates should be removed from the infobox unless we need a second place finisher in the infobox (due to the 2017 Rfc).

Thanks all! Smith0124 (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Survey

B It is clear that the previous Rfc was unclear on withdrawn candidates. To me, it is completely silly to put withdrawn candidates in the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary of the race. The results box is where we put their numbers. The infobox is supposed to be a summary, it is misleading to put withdrawn candidates in that summary. The Democratic primary is not a three or four way race anymore. It is not between Biden, Sanders, and Warren, or Biden, Sanders, and Bloomberg, etc. It is simply misleading. If the candidates were in it would make sense, but they have withdrawn. Also, I see no reason to change what has been the standard since the beginning for the individual primary pages. Since the beginning withdrawn candidates haven't been included unless we need a second place finisher in the infobox. Why change this standard when it works well? Smith0124 (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A, except any delegates We have always included candidates that received 5% of the vote; your framing is wrong. The above consensus here was to do so: consensus for part B (a delegate) with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. If you remove all candidates that have withdrawn, only Biden would be in the box. You are making a mess of this, and re-litigating the last RfC. Any candidate who receives a delegate or 5% of the vote should be included in the infobox on the sub-pages. The one here is a different story, not addressed in the first of the now old RfCs.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This was the solution agreed upon by the administrator. If you don't like it that's fine but you have to respect it. Smith0124 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Another editor, unfamiliar with the discussions here, suggested the possibility of holding a RfC. It was not a solution "agreed to by an administrator".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A I think withdrawn candidates should be included, just for the sake of thoroughness. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by thoroughness? Smith0124 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124 , given the points Darryl Kerrigan made regarding the consensus reached on B, isn't this RFC invalid? We've already established that some withdrawn candidates should be included. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we move on, please? There is no reason to re-argue the same points over and over again. Nihlus 05:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@David O. Johnson: this was the solution agreed upon by an administrator, I am simply following their orders. We had a lengthy discussion on this. Darryl is unhappy because it is not the outcome he/she wanted. Smith0124 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC) This RFC contravenes the established consensus. There is no need to discuss whether withdrawn candidates should be included as it has already been determined that they will be. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) @Davemoth: Look I’ve already had to argue this once but it specifically states that there’s no consensus on withdrawn candidates and for months now we’ve removed all withdrawn candidates except the second place finisher (usually Sanders). Option B has been the standard for months so clearly the Rfc was at the very least unclear. The consensus was established on March 10 and substantial discussion largely ended on March 22. Smith0124 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC) The RfC closed on May 22. The consensus since then is all candidates that receive 5% of votes or a delegate in a primary are included in the sub-page's infobox. Your interpretation of what has happened in the last few months is irrelevant. The RfC closed a couple weeks ago created a consensus. You are free to relitigate this as much as you want but it is disruptive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: Stop accusing me of stuff otherwise you’re the next person reported on that notice board. We’ve already established that I wasn’t disruptive. You also must honor the decision whether you like it or not. You can complain as much as you like but it won’t change anything. At this point it’s in your best interest and mine to stop arguing and let the people decide. Smith0124 (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC) You do what you need to do. Your edits violating the consensus are vandalism and disruptive. I tried to explain this to you on your talk page, on the DC page, here and then at ANI. WP:AGF has limits. I no longer believe you are here to build a better encyclopedia. There are few things more disruptive to our processes than refusing to follow consensus when achieved after a long RfC. You want to report me to ANI, go for it. It would just be one more action in your disruptive behaviour over the last few days.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: I know you’re just trying to piss me off. You already failed once to pointlessly report me. The administrator gave a fair solution that is literally just asking the people. Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I’m disruptive or vandalizing. The administrator already decided this. This matter has already been settled can we please just put it to rest and stop arguing. Cool it with the personal attacks, you’re just trying to drag this on because you don’t like the decision. I’m ready to move on and just let the people decide. I hope you are too. Smith0124 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Roll the dice bro. The admin did not find that you were not being disruptive. They proposed this as an admin that doesn't want to take the time to read the RfCs and go through all your diffs. Anyone, who has been involved in this page or takes the time to review what you have been doing will see how disruptive you have been and how much you have been refusing to get the point. I do take it quite personally when editors refuse to abide by our basic rules like WP:CONSENSUS. You also started lying to me saying there was an RfC that decided withdrawn candidates needed to be excluded. No respect for you or what you are doing here. I do not accept that we need to leave the sub-pages in the vandalized state you have left them while this RfC continues. --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: Insulting me and the admin is getting you nowhere. I am breaking no rules here and this Rfc is totally valid because if people agree with you they can vote choice A. If you want to keep saying I’m a disruptive editor who vandalizes everything that’s fine, you know it’s not true and it just makes you look like someone who can’t stop arguing. I’d like to stop this argument. It is better if we just move on and never talk to each other again. Arguing is only making you more angry. Smith0124 (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC) You are edit warring to override a WP:CONSENSUS. That is very much against our rules. Where is the link to that RfC you said exists which says we remove candidates who have withdrawn? Still waiting for that, lol.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: What do you not understand by let’s never talk again? We clearly don’t get along. I’m sick of your baseless accusations that you know aren’t true and I’m sure you are sick of me. How about we just agree to disagree and part ways forever so this doesn’t have to get more nasty. Sometimes people aren’t meant to work together, you just need to accept that and we need to move on. I promise you’ll feel better. Smith0124 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) If my accusations are baseless where is this link to the RfC you promised me exists. Where you mistaken or lying to me? Sure, I would only be too happy to leave you alone if you weren't refusing to allow us to implement the consensus on the sub-pages.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: The decision has already been made to have this Rfc. It was made by an administrator, and it was a good compromise in my opinion. There’s no point dragging this on. The most productive thing for you to do isn’t to attack me, but to let the people decide. If you know you are right there’s no reason not to agree. If all of your points are right then the people will vote choice A. Smith0124 (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC) An admin didn't start this RfC, you did. And now you are using it to try to maintain your disruptive edits on the sub-pages as long as you can in the time it takes for an RfC to run its course. No respect friend. None.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: The admin ordered me to start it. You know that. Now let’s just agree to disagree and never talk again. Smith0124 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC) The admin didn't order you to do anything. They raised the RfC as a possibility. And you are now using it to try to keep your invalid edits online for as long as you can. We are bound to bump into eachother again when I undo your edits soon. If you want to put down your stick then we can go our seperate ways but you insisting on maintaining your invalid edits means we are likely to continue to collide because I will not allow you to ignore consensus and overide the RfC. Regards.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: you have to respect the decision even if you don’t like it. It’s up to you to put down the stick. Again, let the people decide. It also isn’t just my edits. It’s been the standard for months. Let’s not argue over that again though. Let’s both just walk away from this and respect the admin’s decision. Smith0124 (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Again, the RfC closed on May 22, so all your blathing about months of other stuff is irrelevant. You do what you will. I will be reversing your edits soon. You want to war about it, you do that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) You can’t. The admin said to keep things the initial way. Even if you believe you are right it’s against the admin’s decision. Please, let’s not continue this fight. You know reverting those edits is against the decision and will lead to more fighting. Let’s just back off until a consensus is reached, things are out of our hands now. Smith0124 (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC) I sure can. Your intention is clear here. You want to maintain your edits against consensus for as long as you can. No respect mate. Where is that link you promised me? Still waiting bro. Ready to admit you made it up?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) To the 2017 Rfc? I provided that. What other link did I promise? You’re spiraling out of control here. I’m not sure what to do. I wish we could just respect the decision but you clearly what to go against the admin despite the risk of consequence. Smith0124 (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) You told me there was an RfC that decided there was a consensus to exclude candidates who have withdrawn. People can read this for themselves in the links provided above. You told me you couldn't find it right away but that it exists, you promised. Still haven't provided it.... because you made it up. Now trying to pretend I was talking about the 2017 RfC that I provided you a link to further shows me that you are not here for an honest discussion. Keep digging bro.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) @Darryl Kerrigan: No I said that for the state by state pages it was the ‘’standard. I never claimed there was an Rfc for that. Not once. I said that that’s how it’s been done since the start with no pushback. It’s the standard. Smith0124 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC) You told me that there is no consensus to include withdrawn candidates and that it is standard to remove them. I asked you for a link to that consensus and said I would reconsider if you did. You told me you couldn't remember where to find it, but promised me it existed. It doesn't and you continue to refuse to admit you simply made this consensus up. You have now had three editors tell you to put down the stick, you ready yet?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) I was referring to the 2017 Rfc. If you took it differently it was just a misunderstanding. If you want proof of that I then went and got the link to that 2017 Rfc. Let’s not continue this argument. The decision has been made and it’s final. Smith0124 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC) The excuse you are making now doesn't make any sense, because I had already provided you with a link to that 2017 RfC. It also doesn't make sense because you then tried to tell me that this ongoing RfC I started (and which doesn't apply here anyway), was the one you were talking about.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. I never mentioned the Rfc you just linked. I think we misunderstood each other in multiple instances here. That’s why I think we should listen to the third party, the admin. The admin clearly has better perspective than either of us because we can’t see eye to eye. So let’s just leave things at the decision made like we literally have to do and let this argument be. We aren’t getting anywhere. I just reread the thread and I clearly misread your comment. I was talking about the 2017 Rfc, which is the link I provided shortly after. You were asking for something different. But that doesn’t prove anything. I repeatedly said it was the standard to remove withdrawn candidates, something that is 100% true. I never intended claim that there was an Rfc on the matter, totally honest. I’m sorry that I gave a misleading response. Smith0124 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A, Withdrawn candidates should be held to the same standards as everyone else, they should be included in the infobox if they pass the same threshold as everyone else has to pass. Now hopefully we can stop beating this dead horse. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A, though if I understand the argument correctly, the "or" in that option should be changed to "and". --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A, though I am weakly attached to this opinion. The only "2017 rfc"s related to this that I am aware of are this rfc and this, related, earlier rfc. Donald Trump received less than 5% of the vote in Washington, DC, in 2016, and there was some discussion on whether or not he should be included in the infobox, resulting in a consensus to include a second place finisher in the infobox if only one candidate would otherwise qualify. If another RFC exists with a consensus that withdrawn candidates should generally not be included in infoboxes, I am not deeply attached to my vote, but I am not aware of a prior discussion settling the issue apart from the more general 5% minimum threshold.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak support for A (if I'm understanding the RFC correctly – should that "or" be an "and"?). It seems to me that if a candidate got a significant portion of votes or delegates, that candidate is equally relevant in the infobox whether or not they withdrew before the contest. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A - 5% threshold is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NOT A, NOT B — Withdrawn candidates should not be removed. Humanengr (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Request for WP:SNOW close, Smith0124 opposes.

Comment - Can we WP:SNOW close this now? If this doesn't need to be discussed for the next 29 days, I would like to get the articles in a place where they show who received significant votes. I feel like we have beating this horse for months now?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC) No, we cannot close it, I haven’t even put up the Rfc notice on the individual pages yet. Smith0124 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC) I suggest you place what appropriate notices you intend to, and get on with this. You do not have the right to veto past consensus, or assert WP:OWNERSHIP of articles, while your RfC slowly plays out.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC) We are done arguing about this. I’m not vetoing anything. I’m just taking about withdrawn candidates specifically. PLEASE STOP ENDLESSLY ARGUING. I GET THE IDEA. WE DO NOT NEED TO DRAG THIS ON ANY LONGER. LET THE RFC PLAY OUT. Smith0124 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC) If you refuse to do the right thing and withdraw this, I do not feel any obligation to leave your edits as is. You have been told to put down the stick. If you want to keep beating a dead horse, don't expect the rest of us to not to push it off the road so we can be on our way.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Since the opener refuses to withdraw this, I have asked for a speedy close.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears the opener remains unwilling to do the right thing and withdraw this invalid RfC. If a speedy close is not available soon, I will close it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is poorly written. The proposer 1) made a claim ("The standard for a longtime now has been to only include the withdrawn candidate who got the second most votes if there is only one candidate still in, as is the case right now with Joe Biden.") without providing any links to support; 2) referenced an unspecified '2017 RfC' without providing a link, 3) referenced 'The Rfc where a consensus was reached', presumably one of the prior RfC's on the page but without providing a link, 4) unduly constrained options in such a way that several respondents have had to qualify their responses.

The poor quality and bias of this RfC is plainly seen in the proposer's own comment, which begins "It is clear that the previous Rfc was unclear on withdrawn candidates. To me, it is completely silly to put withdrawn candidates in the infobox … ". So, rather than ask a relevant question such as "Should withdrawn candidates be retained in the infobox?", the proposer offers a set of options that excludes an option to retain withdrawn candidates. Respondents were then forced to awkwardly inject that view into their response. Humanengr (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is an edit war occurring over the closure of this Rfc? Let the thing run its 1-month course. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t even have to be a month just until all voices are heard and a neutral person who wasn’t involved in the Rfc closes it and writes up a consensus. I’m so tired of arguing I just wish that the rules would be followed. Smith0124 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no requirement we wait a month. It was clear where the RfC was going, so I closed it. I would only be too happy for Smith0124 to run a RfC on this if he A) removed his bias from the wording of the RfC AND B) agreed that the pre-existing consensus would be respected on the sub-articles for the time-being. Unfortunately, this RfC is simply a tool for him to veto the consensus that was already reached and freeze the "status quo" (ie his edits) on the pages for the next two months while it runs and while we wait for a formal close. He is WP:GAMING the system, and I do not respect his bad faith attempts to impose his will on the articles. He should stop immediately.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, I do not take orders from you and this Rfc will be closed fairly, not by someone who has a clear opinion and is not allowed to close it. I said that there’s no requirement to wait a month, just until all voices are heard. Please wait for formal closure by an unbiased person. I removed the wording you found problematic in hopes that you will just agree to wait, follow the rules, and be fair. Smith0124 (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow the damn consensus from the last RfC. You have serious issues with following consensus friend. If you can't you don't belong here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You know my stance on the matter. There’s no point arguing over it again. Let the Rfc play out fairly and then this whole thing will be over. Smith0124 (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for another speedy close. No, I will not respect your bad faith attempt to game the system here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t care if you think I’m acting in bad faith because I know that I’m acting in good faith. I’m fine with a closure as long as it’s done fairly. Smith0124 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Apparently not, because you fight a closure every time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There has only been one closure and it was by you, which as I said was against the rules. Stop trying to rewrite what happened it’s all in the page history. Smith0124 (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Both times, I have requested a close you have run off there to fight it. That is also there for anyone to read. This RfC remains bias. You have not addressed the issues Humanengr raised, and you continue to refuse to follow the consensus from the last RfC, or the writing on the wall here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You are both going to end up blocked, if yas don't put away your 'revert' buttons. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

And now they both have been. Hopefully that will help cool passions a bit. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Smith0124 was a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notes re Smith0124's efforts here

Thank you, David O. Johnson. for reporting on the blocking of Smith0124 as a sockpuppet (of a previously blocked user).

It should be noted that, on February 26 (which was prior to Gabbard earning any delegates), Smith0124 voted in favor of "Option B No (delegate or >5%)", i.e., 'a delegate -or- more than 5% of the popular vote' — in the original RfC.

Then, on March 4, the day after it was reported Gabbard won her first delegate, Smith0124 opened another RfC that included the prefacing statement, "Previously, there was an Rfc about state pages" [emphasis added]. That statement conflicts with Davemoth's summary of the earlier Two-part RfC, i.e., that the "[Two-part RfC] would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article" [emphasis added]. Smith0124 did not object to Davemoth's summary.

In the body of his RfC, Smith0124 included an 'Option A', "Remove all withdrawn candidates and candidates with no possible path." [emphasis added] along with an 'Option C — Keep as is'. Option A was contrived specifically to exclude Gabbard. On March 6, Michelangelo1992 wrote an "Edit for clarity: Option C, Keep as is, means to include the 7 candidates Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Gabbard." Smith0124 did not object.

Then, on March 19, the day Gabbard suspended her campaign, Smith0124 offered "Another clarification: Option C [of his RfC] does not include Gabbard now that she has dropped out" [emphasis revised], here implicitly acknowledging that 'Keep as is' had been intended to mean retaining Gabbard in the infobox. Humanengr (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that summary of the sock puppet editor's offered opinions. My personal take on that is that the opinions and suggestions offered under any account that's a sock puppet of another user, especially when the sock account and origin account editor has been blocked, should not have any bearing whatsoever on the established consenses on this page. As a consequence, any consensus going against suggestions made by such sock editors on pages like this should be taken as the status quo, and any subsequent RfCs made in an effort to overturn those prior decisions going against the sock's offered opinions should be rendered null and void. I know that sock puppetry has had far too great a bearing on some aspects of Wikipedia than should have been the case in the past on some articles, so we'd need to amend the content of this article with the null and void decisions in mind. IMHO, that would be the wisest course here. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree sock puppet comments and edits, cannot be influence our decisions, unfortunately he participated here for sometime. He also created a significant and widely participated in RfC above. How do we ensure he is not influencing our decisions, but still respect the comments and votes of others? It is a tangled web.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can start by recognizing the sockpuppet does not respect community practices and that they can be reasonably viewed as not acting in good faith? Humanengr (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, agreed. Do you think you I of all editors would have a problem with that? Of course, he was acting in bad faith. He might have made some good edits despite being here for the wrong reasons, or perhaps as an attempt to avoid detection. I am not arguing we should respect Smith's comments or edits, but completely ignoring this RfC which dozens of good editors commented in because Smith started it, doesn't just discount what he did, it also ignores their comments and votes. That said, that RfC was closed without consensus (or with consensus that could not be determined) so it might just be better to wipe it clean and start fresh as I have said above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about your interactions with him — his various unsupported premises, deflections, etc., that you persistently critiqued. You deserve credit for that. My thought on this is that the 2nd RfC was tainted by an unsupported premise — that Smith slipped in and no one critically examined. The fact that that premise and that RfC was offered only AFTER Gabbard earned a delegate should have triggered suspicions; but it didn't AFAICS. (I wasn't following this page at the time.)

Regarding votes and comments for that 2nd RfC, I do respect them but, also note that the RfC, its framing, and its timing (after Gabbard's achievement) arguably played a role. Humanengr (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not use a different source for the popular vote?

The green papers seem to be behind in their vote totals, for instance they haven't updated Pennsylvania or Indiana's numbers for over a week, while us election atlas has. Greenpapers seem to be missing half a million votes for Biden.

thegreenpapers

uselectionatlas — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDestroyer354 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Map Update?

February   March 3 (Super Tuesday)   March 10   March 14–17   March 24–29   April 4–7   April 28   May   June   February   March 3 (Super Tuesday)   March 10   March 14–17   April 7–17   April 28   May   June   July–August

I think this map needs to be updated now that New Jersey and Delaware are occurring in July.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I updated the map. As usual, it may take some time for the new image to propagate. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden's photo

On the article 2020 Democratic National Convention, we decided to change the photo to . I think we should change it here because:

1. It makes Biden look more heroic.
2. It is consistent with Democratic National Convention photo
3. It looks more like an improvement to the current one. Nojus R (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

None of these points actually make a good case for this photo. 1) Our goal is not to make candidates look "heroic." That would be against WP:NPOV. 2) You only just decided to change the photo to this on the Convention page. 3) You haven't said why this one "looks more like an improvement." It's a good picture, but I'd oppose changing it because the current one harmonizes well with the other photos in the infobox. In previous discussion (1, 2) it was accepted that it would be best to pick photos with similar framing and poses (such as having photos be head-on where possible). He appears to be sitting/reclining in this picture, while all the current pictures feature candidates standing up on a stage talking, i.e. they appear more active. His head is smaller in this picture and the shot isn't as head-on. So, I think it deviates a bit too much from the feel of the set of photos we currently have in the infobox. That being said, on its own it is just as good a photo, so I wouldn't at all be opposed to using it on the Convention page, where there is going to be a different aesthetic to the infobox. This new one does look nice on the Convention page. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It is also not our job to have photos that make the person look awful, either. The photos should be flattering unless there's no other choice. Oh, BTW, Thank you @Nojus R:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arglebargle79 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. My point was more that he/she hadn’t explained very well why he/she thought we should change it here. I thought about it based on the standards I had in mind, but I’m happy to discuss it more if there are more detailed aesthetic reasons for changing it here. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 20:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I like the new photo because in the old one, Biden looks like he is squinting. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am mostly indifferent. Either is going to be fine. That said we usually try for photos where the candidates are looking forward (or mostly forward), not to the left or right. It can look odd in an infobox if it makes it look like a candidate is looking at the candidate next to him or her. On this main page, that won't be a problem as Biden is on the left and looking towards the left (ie not at any other candidate). As he is almost certainly going to have the most delegates, and be the nominee, his position in the infobox is unlikely to change. The same cannot be said for the infoboxes on the sub-pages. In many states, Biden came 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. In those state/territory pages, he might be staring into Bernie or Warren's eyes, which could be odd. That said, all of these are style considerations and not that important.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We should change it here and all the other primary pages because the one already there is ugly. The quinting nd the buck teeth--ik!!!! More important, does anyone LIKE the other picture?Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: I like the current picture. He's smiling and facing forward against a black background, which matches the aesthetic of the other photos nicely. The issue I take with this proposed replacement is that he's facing to the side. As Darryl Kerrigan said, this would look especially strange where he's placed to the right of another candidate. It would also make him the only candidate in the infobox not facing forward (except for possibly Klobuchar, for which there weren't many options), which would stand out. This is unnecessary as we already have a high quality photo that matches the aesthetic characteristics of the others. Also see what I wrote above in my response to Nojus R about Biden's reclined position in the new photo. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Most votes?

Biden has got more votes than any Democrat in Democratic Presidential Primary history, is that noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.4.21 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That's probably noteworthy if and only if it's well-established in multiple reliable sources that it's clearly true without qualifications, special interpretations, or pending recounts. --Closeapple (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I tend to think it is not. He has slightly more than 2008 Obama. Saying he has the most votes ever suggests he is the "most popular" candidate ever, which I tend to think is not at all true. The US is always growing. The US added about 24 million people to its population between 2008 and 2019. Of course, Biden would have more votes than someone like FDR. In 1944, the last time FDR ran the US population was about 132 million (much less than half the population today). So are we counting comparable vote totals or population increase? Furthermore, my understanding is that 1976 was the first year that all states held democratic primaries/caucuses. So of course, candidates before then would have fewer votes because folks in many states weren't voting. Also, historically our vote totals didn't include caucuses because they weren't really votes and weren't really counted (state delegate equivalents were what mattered). There have been fewer and fewer caucuses over the years so does Biden have more votes because he is a "more popular" candidate or because more people are voting in primaries, as opposed to caucuses? Finally, rules have also changed over the years about who can vote in primaries. Some of these "who can vote issues" were more general registration issues (ie whether a person registered as a party member) and deadlines to register (did they register early enough) etc, others might be part of the racist history of preventing black people from participating politically. Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, literacy tests, poll taxes, property-ownership requirements, moral character tests, and other measures commonly prevented many black people from voting. All of these factors, mean that the "Biden has the most votes ever" factoid might be correct, but it seems pretty misleading.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is misleading for the reasons stated. Trump actually has more primary votes right now meaning he has got more primary votes than anyone in history. None of these numbers mean anything without context provided. TFD (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Well I said Democratic, so that would naturally exclude Trump. I do believe Obama's 69 million votes in the 2008 presidential election were noted, I'd have to find the exact reference. Trump also getting the most votes in Republican Primary history would also be notable, in my opinion. "Saying he has the most votes ever suggests he is the "most popular" candidate ever". Ummm... I don't know, I think this is a semantic argument, either way it's valid to state at this junction in time he has has gotten more votes than any other Democrat in Democratic Presidential Primary history, good chance someone will surpass that in the future. Popularity is kind of a fickle concept, and of course votes per % of the population concerns are valid. Was Obama the most popular president ever by that metric or was it Washington or Monroe? Washington won with 100% of the popular vote. Not to mention Roosevelt, Coolridge and Nixon won by big popular vote margins. I guess you could say Reagan was the most popular president ever because he won in one of the biggest landslides, but that's neither here nor there. I really don't know who's the most popular, but we do know Obama got most votes in a General Election ever, and Trump and Biden got the most votes in their respective primaries ever. 68.189.4.21 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we need to include it. As WP:ONUS points out, there are other factors we must consider. Policies like WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION require us to present things in a way that is neutral, doesn't hide information from readers, and achieves the proper balance (ie puts things in perspective). If you want to point out that the most people ever voted for Biden, but it was only slightly more than voted for Obama in his 2008 primary when he was running against the higher profile Hillary Clinton, and when the US population was lower, and when less people voted because there were caucuses in more states then have at it (but it really isn't a helpful factoid for a reader). It also would likely need context about about other modern primaries (as noted above). It just seems to be one of those factoids that obscures (or glosses over) as much as it illuminates, so I don't think we should include it. While I am sure you don't intend it that way, it also seems to be a bit WP:PUFFERY, though that definition does not fit perfectly. While true, it seems to be the sort of thing that would go out in Biden talking points to promote him (and try to suggest he was extremely popular) and I don't think that is our purpose.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree if it counts as WP:PUFFERY, which I don't think your stating I think, it's just a note. The connotation that Biden received the most votes in a Democratic Presidential Primary in history or to date, does not equal in my mind, (therefore he is the most popular Democrat ever.) Not only are you correct about more primaries and less caucuses, but it's also true that the population was smaller. Those are not things that anyone should dispute, it's also notable that the amount of political challengers in a contest also determines the amount of votes anyone challenger can get. Had Edwards (in 08) or Sanders (in 20) stayed in longer it's likely both Obama and Biden would have much less votes. I don't think anyone is going to use Biden's vote total in a largely challenger-less primary for months now as a point to promote him. That's hardly used by most campaigns and is only usually tangentially stated by surrogates. The fact that one candidate has received more votes than any other is a good gauge what percentage of the population is participating in a democracy at any one snapshot of time. It also a good gauge of how much political solidarity there was at any given point in time. For example the amount of individuals registered as Democrats, and the historical peaks and valleys in participation associated with that. When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton if I recall correctly one of the facts regarding that election was that it was the largest discrepancy between a popular vote winner and who actually went on to win the election. I don't see that as a point of WP:PUFFERY but just as a fact. If there's a section on voter attitudes or opinion polls you might note that a lot of voters just consolidated with who they thought is the most tolerable, not that Biden is some über political super star. This I don't see as a point of WP:PUFFERY stating facts about an election

"Obama won a decisive victory over McCain, winning the Electoral College and the popular vote by a sizable margin, including states that had not voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since 1976 (North Carolina) and 1964 (Indiana and Virginia). Obama received the largest share of the popular vote won by a Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. As of the 2016 presidential election Obama's total count of 69.5 million votes still stands as the largest tally ever won by a presidential candidate."

If there was just a small sentence that stated something like As of (date), Biden has received the most votes in history in a Democratic Presidential Primary. or , "has received more votes than any democrat in democratic presidential primary history". Again that's not WP:PUFFERY because it's not saying he's the most well liked democrat, or the most popular, it's just more of historical marker that will probably change in elections in the future.

As far as the actual context of the election, voter consolidation, dropped out candidates who endorsed, and a president with a low approval rating, all provide that context. The reader fills in their own context, but the statement itself is not WP:UNDUE. Just like stating the coldest temperature for a specific area, the most points scored in a game, the biggest or smallest objects, and so forth. It's also a great sentence as it contains a lot of information prepacked, and it's used in virtually every article where something crosses a threshold. Nobody says that those are WP:UNDUE, when one team for example, scores the most points in a final's history. Or when an building like the Burj Khalifa is noted as the tallest building.Or when a day is recorded as the hottest or coldest day. Or when a city is recorded as having the highest altitude. Or when a person is regarded as the tallest or shortest. It saves people and fact checkers a lot of time, and it's used nearly ubiquitously the world over in virtually every article. Even third party articles note who had the most votes in their primary history, or who of that had the most votes of their party in general election history, like Gary Johnson in 2016.

"Johnson received nearly 4.5 million votes (3.27% of the total vote), which is the most for a third party presidential candidate since 1996 and the highest national vote share for a Libertarian candidate in history"

That doesn't seem like WP:UNDUE for Johnson, again the reader fills in the context by reading the article for why that is so. It also doesn't explicitly say Johnson was the most popular Libertarian to run for president, because that would depend on opinion polls, surveys, historians, and more data.

68.189.4.21 (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

While Washington may have received the highest percentage of votes cast for a presidential candidate, he received the lowest number of votes overall. Without understanding the voting process at the time or that the U.S. electorate has grown, neither stat tells us anything. I realize that some people are interested in meaningless statistics, but this article is not the place for them. TFD (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

It's literally not a meaningless statistic, it's a relevant statistic, a meaningless statistic would be like how many cavities Biden has compared to past nominees.

"Without understanding the voting process at the time or that the U.S. electorate has grown, neither stat tells us anything."

It's not suppose to tell us the electoral processes! Or how many new voters there are, it didn't tell us that when it was mentioned in literally every other article regarding firsts or thresholds. When literally every article was written where a candidate passed some kind of threshold or was the first, it was mentioned. Obama was mentioned having the most votes in general election history, at 69.5 million, Hillary was mentioned as being the candidate with the highest popular vote differential and not winning. Gary Johnson was noted as having the highest popular vote of 3rd party ever at 4 million.

Gary Johnson was noted as having the highest votes in libertarian primary. Donald Trump was mentioned about having the lowest percentage of votes of any Republican Nominee in history.

Gary Johnson was noted as having the highest percentage of votes for a Libertarian canididate. The 2000 primary mentions Gore having the most votes untill that point. 2008 election mentions an all time high voter turnout of 27% for eligible voters at the point. Are all those "meaningless statistics", maybe they should be deleted? I mean I could go on and on, when something statistical relevant happens it's mentioned. Not one of these articles, all on Wikipedia, has a paragraph directly before or after providing "context" for why that is so, that's in different sections, and is explained!. Context in this situation, is basically you stating "context I like" which is heavily WP:UNDUE, it's basically only relevant when you like the context, like when Trump gets the most votes. I mean there's literally several news outlets already talking about voter participation in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. It's not a "meaningless statistic" that both Trump and Biden got 17.5+ million votes in both their respective primaries, and that is both collectively the most any Democratic or Republican candidate has received. I know you only want to mention Trump getting the most votes in a Republican Primary ever, but that's WP:UNDUE. You mine as well say Obama getting 69.5 million votes in the general election as the most in United States Presidential history is meaningless because in the 18th century less people voted! That's literally the same logic. "Well we have to provide context for why Obama got 69.5 million votes, and we don't want to puff Obama up because in 1920 there was less voters, it's therefore a meaningless statistic to state Obama got the most votes in general election history" News coverage from everywhere talked about voter registration in every state and how many people came out to vote during Covid-19. I understand you like Trump, but be a little more impartial and WP:DUE please. 68.189.4.21 (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

We'll (Probably) Need Another Map

When the delegates officially vote on the nominee at this week's convention, some of the delegates that had previously been pledged to other candidates will vote for Biden instead. For example, some Iowa delegates that were previously pledged to Buttigieg are now expected to vote for Biden. Therefore, I believe we will need another map. I would suggest that we make one similar to the map on the 2016 page labeled "convention roll call". I believe it is preferable to keep all three maps; the first to show the initial delegate allocation, the second to show the popular vote, and the final map to show the results of the convention roll call. I wanted to suggest this in advance so we can discuss if needed. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. It is important for us to document what the initial delegate allocations were, AND how delegates vote at the convention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made a map that I plan on updating as the roll call progresses. I added it (commented out) to Template:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries: [2]. It's located here: File:2020 Democratic National Convention roll call map.svg. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)