Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 [1]. These numbers have been added repeatedly to the article despite there being a consensus that we should wait until final results are available. Even when these current counts are reported by reputable sources, it would be very misleading in my opinion, to present these results as fact in the infobox, seeing as the votes are being recounted. As it has been said, TBA is exactly the situation we are in. Kindly cast your vote here: @Impru20:, @David O. Johnson:, @Leonardo Lazov:, @Smith0124:, @Nixinova:, @Vanilla Wizard:, @Danish Expert:, @GoodDay:, @MrX:, @WMSR: Homo logos (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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.^[2] For reactions in satire Trevor Noah + Stephen Colbert are notable.^{[3] [4] [5] [6]} Of course not all, but more than nothing.
For progressive—add grains of salt per personal preferences—views you have The Hill once, maybe pick more and/or add Kim Iversen.^{[7] [8] [9] [10]} The Iversen video explains the wonders of rounding. The math. construct SDE is not known to be better than, say, D'Hondt method, but as long as the real delegates don't misrepresent the realignment the rounding doesn't matter. –84.46.52.123 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I simply took out the "Controversy" header. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 9 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: [11]. I'd rather not get into an edit war over it, so let's start a discussion here.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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. [12] 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)

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)

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: [13] 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)

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)

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)

Brilliant, summary in my own words to explain at least Klobuchar: The SDEs march as virtual delegates to four virtual state caucuses. Klobuchar didn't have 15% in 3 of these virtual caucuses, and as virtual delegates can't realign, these SDEs are silently dropped. She had 15% in the 4th virtual caucus for 1 of the real delegates determined there. This math. could also explain how the real delegates misrepresent the final alignment, the virtual step can have odd effects worse than rounding. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: For your information - In the past few days I have updated the Procedure chapter and added tables to display the SDE figures. All based on a carefull further read of the Iowa delegate selection plan. The Iowa SDE system is quiet complicated to explain, but I think its possible now to understand when someone reads the chapter - also for the satellite caucuses. :-) Best regard, Danish Expert (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Shaded map

Could someone create a color scale and shade the map based on % by county? MB298 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

2001:5B0:2548:83D0:E539:ED3B:A55A:D75A (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Bernie won Iowa by 6.000 votes. He's the winner.

 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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:17, 12 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)

This is one of several reasons we should not include any popular votes in the infobox. Infoboxes are for summarizing key facts, not for displaying every fact. - MrX 🖋 03:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Both the first and the final alignment results are more important than the flag of Iowa, the great seal of Iowa, the map of counties (which is shown with great sophistication of displaying first alignment, final alignment and SDEs), and more important than the candidate's home states and the full history of election results for Des Moines, Iowa and the nationwide House, Senate and Presidential elections in the US. All of these things are shown in infobox. Currently, the infobox shows data that is contradicted by many top tier reliable sources and therefore it is necessary to either replace the final alignment with the first alignment, or even better: put the first and the final alignment results into the infobox. Xenagoras (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I changed the article [14] to: popular vote = first alignment and added the final alignment row. Xenagoras (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Please wait for consensus before making such bold changes to the article. - MrX 🖋 01:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@MrX:, please provide reliable sources which state that the first alignment is not the popular vote. Xenagoras (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: Why? - MrX 🖋 15:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Because you deleted my pertinent cited addition to have text in the article which is contradicted by many top tier reliable sources. Xenagoras (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus for listing two sets of popular votes in the infobox. Until now, several editors have settled on using the final alignment. If you want to replace that with the first alignment, or include both, then you need to seek a new consensus. Being sourced is a minimum requirement. See WP:ONUS. - MrX 🖋 00:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, please link to the discussion you refer to in your second revert's [15] edit summary. Xenagoras (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

With pleasure Xenagoras:#Poll: Should the popular vote statistics be included in the infobox? Note at the start of this discussion, the final alignment was in the infobox and commonly construed to mean "popular vote". - MrX 🖋 16:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mobile/preview image.

The mobile/preview image is Joe Biden's picture, which makes no sense. Since the results are not final I don't know what it should be, but certainly not Biden.

Please don't delete this again.

123popos123 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

1) We do not control what image you see on preview. 2) Your earlier post on this issue wasn't deleted, it was moved to an archive of this page. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Spiffy sperry, This discussion Wikipedia:Help_desk#Image_choice_for_mobile is relevant S Philbrick(Talk) 01:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Simplify sentence

The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section says, "Due to the need for an initial correction of results from 3.1% (55) of the precincts found to have reported incorrect figures compared to their signed official caucus result document,[5] the calculation of won pledged national convention delegates (which is the true metric of dermining the winner of the Iowa caucuses), was only published six days after the election on February 9." First, the sentence is awkward, complicated, and too wordy. A good writer should condense it and get to the point in a clearer way. Second, the use of the word "only" ("was only published six days after") is improperly used. I suggest replacing "was only published" with "was not published until" for clarity. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sentence now restructured and simplified. Danish Expert (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Very nicely done. Thank you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Recount still pending

As noted in for example, the CNN source linked by MrX (talk · contribs) "With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules. Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts."

The result is updated, but not yet settled.Gambling8nt (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean? I literally quoted the party's determination. What higher authority are you referencing?- MrX 🖋 03:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Going to leave it here as well. AP, These results are not final pending recount. HoxtonLyubov (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This USA Today article gives a basic view on the difference between a recanvass and a recount. In brief, a recanvass checks whether the reported results match the original written worksheets the individual precinct chairs used to record tallies of votes. If some precinct chairs incorrectly reported those worksheet results, that would be caught by a recanvass. (Given the modest changes caused by the recanvass, a few did precincts were incorrectly reported, either from an error by the precinct chair, or the phone line operator.)

But a recanvass will not correct errors made on the worksheets themselves; such errors require that a recount be called to tally the underlying votes.

The recanvass is completed. A recount is likely to occur. (The Sanders campaign has said it will call for one, the Buttigieg campaign hasn't yet said anything either way; I don't know if proper procedure is for them to call for theirs at the same time as Sanders, or sequentially after if they think it will shift enough votes to put them back in the lead.)

Hopefully that clears up some confusion.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting original research, but we can't use it. We have to reproduce what is reported in sources without trying to analyze the intricacies of the caucus. See below:

I am aware of what AP said. They are not running the show.

As I have already shown, CNN reported:

The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party.
— [16]

The Hill reported similar:

Buttigieg retains his 14-12 advantage in delegates to the Democratic National Convention due to caucus rules regarding delegate allocation. However, that result could change if either campaign asks for a recount. Both campaigns now have 24 hours to officially request a recount.
— [17]

The Des Moines Register reported:

As it stands, Buttigieg, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor, has 14 of Iowa's national delegates and Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has 12, the Iowa party reported.
— [18]

The article needs to be updated accordingly. The current footnoted claim of 13 is misleading to our readers. - MrX 🖋 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if the box says 14 or 13 (as is currently asserted by The New York Times and PBS, following AP's lead, for a few examples). Some might care, and have some reliable sources backing them up, but it makes no difference to me. I care that the current results are not necessarily final. The recount process is ongoing, and the last delegate may yet wind up going to Sanders. Or Buttigieg. Depending on the results of a likely partial recount.

USA Today:

The twists of the caucus aren't necessarily finished: An official with the Sanders campaign said it will ask for a recount. A recanvass was a prerequisite to a recount request, according to party rules.
— [19]

CNN, from the same article you quoted:

With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules.

Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race

Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts.
— [20]

PBS:

Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign plans to ask for a partial recount of the Iowa caucus results,after the state Democratic Party released results of its recanvass late Tuesday that show Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in an effective tie.
— [21]

Politico:

In the results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party, Buttigieg still had 14 delegates to the national convention to 12 for Sanders — a result that could flip after a recount.
— [22]

If you want the results table and infobox to say 14-12 instead of 13-12, without removing the note indicating that the process is not yet over and a recount is pending, I personally will not stop you (although you may find yourself in an edit war with Sanders partisans who will care about the distinction). My--reliably sourced--objection is to the removal of the footnote noting that the results are not yet final as a recount is likely pending.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

While I have no strong opinion on whether Buttigieg should be listed as having 14 or 13 delegates, I agree that it would be misleading to remove the note when a recount is almost certainly going to occur. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Iowa Democratic Party's assertion of delegates is not being taken at face value, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. The information in this article directly contradicts the result as (preliminarily, so sure, add an efn note) decided by the organisation in charge of providing the results. Domeditrix (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We can certainly leave a footnote about the recount (but without expression of doubt, or other WP:OR), but I don't think we should be undermine the reporting that the party has declared that Buttigieg has 14 delegates simply because a bunch of newly minted user accounts are using Wikipedia to astroturf. - MrX 🖋 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Devonian Wombat's account goes back to June 2019: [23]. Domeditrix goes to September of 2014: [24]. Gambling8nt goes to August 2007 [25]. You might want to read through this: [26].David O. Johnson (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm not talking about any of those users. - MrX 🖋 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, who did you talk about? Xenagoras (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not because you made 10000 more edit than someone else the other person doesn't make a valid point. Cleary there is a disagreement in the media about the reporting. The IDP reporting is known to be faulty, even after the recanvass. After all these days it's become very clear the actual results of the Iowa caucus might never be known but to me it makes more sense to follow the lead of the AP and not report on a final delegate count until all the recounts etc are done. Thalous (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree there is disagreement in sources about the delegates won. I do not agree that "The IDP reporting is known to be faulty", but if you would like to show some sources that say that, it would certainly influence my view that the IDP is an authoritative source. - MrX 🖋 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Now Nice4What has hidden the disputed tag, which I strongly object to. The claim that "If it's a disputed note, you place it inside the note so it doesn't break the infobox." There is no such guideline that I'm aware of. If fact, such tags are meant to draw editors to the discussion, which can't happen if they are buried in a footnote. - MrX 🖋 17:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

How many pledged delegates did Buttigieg win? 13 or 14?

This page cites results.thecaucuses.org, which states that Buttigieg won 14 pledged delegates.

The main article cites the New York Times, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.

The Des Moines Register backs up the New York Times page, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.

How should we handle this discrepancy? I'd assume that thecaucuses.org is ran by the Iowa Democratic Party and that it's a primary source, but are the NYT and DMR just being slow to update their numbers, or do they have legitimate reason to report that the number is 13? They're both reputable reliable secondary sources. Is it actually the case that we don't know for certain what the final number is? Should we leave a footnote explaining this to the reader?

I'm not prescribing any solutions myself since I'm not sure what to do here, but I do want to invite discussion to see if anyone else knows relevant information, to see if anyone believes one number is more correct than the other, or if anyone believes that we truly don't know the final result of the Iowa caucuses yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa results are being recanvassed in 134 precincts. First result of it is reducing Buttigieg's national delegates from 14 to 13. Xenagoras (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A Des Moines Register article dated after the "last update" of their results page states Buttigieg picked an additional delegate and had 14 instead of the initial 13. I think there should at least be a credible source presented to update the projected count to be something different than what the state party reports.Froo (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

In my edit of the delegate numbers you find the link to the AP article. Xenagoras (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Many news organizations are not forecasting who will get the last delegate, pending the current recanvassing and likely following recount where the incorrect arithmetic assigning delegates in a number of precincts is corrected. The final recipient will depend on how many SDEs are shifted by correcting both the errors (presumably against Sanders/in Buttigieg's favor) that the Sanders campaign identified, and the errors (presumably against Buttigieg/in Sanders' favor) that the Buttigieg campaign identified.Gambling8nt (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there some reason why we would not use the party's own numbers[27]? They are obviously aware of the recanvassing, yet they have published these numbers. Where are the secondary sources getting their information if not from the IDP? - MrX 🖋 00:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

They're following the AP's lead, I think. Broadly, the recanvassing throws into doubt the question of who will get the fifth delegate from the five delegate party leader pool, since there are enough SDEs in question to possibly flip who has the highest statewide total, with the delegates splitting 2-1-1-1 between the highest statewide total, the second highest total, Warren and Biden. Based on the AP's projection, none of the other close calls are evidently likely to be in play. (Biden barely managing the 15% viability threshold in the third district by a little more than 1 SDE, Warren narrowly failing to meet the viability threshold in the fourth district by about 2 SDEs, and, as you stretch the definition of close, Klobuchar meeting the viability threshold in the fourth district by 5ish SDEs, and Buttigieg beating Sanders in the third district by about 6.5 SDEs and the fourth district by about 7.5 SDEs) Just like the initial counting, I don't think we have any kind of timeline for how long this is expected to take; we're just left with the question of whether it is better to report the existing official count (which might change by enough to shift one pledged delegate) or the reliably sourced projections (which leaves open the question of who will get the last delegate).Gambling8nt (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your question. The recanvassing is in response to the initial numbers from the IDP; those official numbers were published first. I don't know if there is some sort of procedural rule causing them to leave them up during the recanvassing, or if they have some other reason to leave them up.Gambling8nt (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Because the reliable sources in the press and television found a ton of errors in the numbers reported by the IDP. The media did their own SDE calculations based on raw data from the precincts which is available at the party's website.[28] Already on the day of the caucus, AP noticed massive errors in the reported numbers by the IDP and AP calculated that "it is too early to call the race." Sanders' campaign calculated the SDEs from the raw data of votes and published their summary stating that 2.5 SDEs will switch from Buttigieg to Sanders when using correct calculation. This will switch positions of Buttigieg and Sanders. Xenagoras (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You have to be more specific. What press found what errors, and why should we use that over the press that are using the IDP's numbers? - MrX 🖋 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The following RS did their own data analysis and found the IDP's result to be erroneous at vote counting, realignment, SDE calculation, delegate allocation and result transmission: AP [29], NYT [30] [31] [32], NBC News [33], CNN [34] and DesMoines Register. [35] Xenagoras (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this conversation. I put the count to 13 and added a footnote explaining the undecided delegate. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 05:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You're still using a source from February 7th to say that the results reported on February 9th by the Iowa Democratic Party aren't accurate. I think it would be best to find an article dated after February 9th (from a credible/reliable source) saying why that one delegate shouldn't be estimated for either Buttigieg or Sanders. Again it's kind of a moot point because those totals sometimes change at the county/district/state caucuses historically.Froo (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't use old sources to contradict newer sources and the IDP. Reverted. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We should use the primary IDP official website results (last updated on Feb.9), for the pledged national convention delegates displayed in our article. Implicit it is understood that this calculation is based upon the results before the recanvass/recount, but I think an efn note should be added to explain this situation in the infobox. The Green Papers and CNN article (from Feb.10) now report the same calculated pledged delegates as the primary "IDP official website" source. The decision by AP not to allocate the last pledged delegate until a recanvass/recount has been made is notable (meaning the efn note about it is OK), but it should not replace the headline figures calculated and reported by the "IDP official website" source. Danish Expert (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I could agree to that as a compromise. The pledged delegate numbers should reflect the official IDP published results. I'm sure they will change them, if warranted, after the partial recanvassing. - MrX 🖋

NYT still reports just 13 delegates won. We use reliable sources over primary sources. Be patient for the recanvassing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Washington Post is reporting 14, for what it's worth. It also happens to agree with the IDP. - MrX 🖋 02:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Will you please point out where it was "agreed to on the talk page" to list 13 delegates for Buttigieg? I see 2 for; 2 against; and 2 undeclared. That is not consensus by any stretch. - MrX 🖋 02:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My point is that since the results are disputed and there is no consensus for 14, we should keep 13 with the footnote explaining the dispute. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't ask what your point was. I asked you to point to the agreement on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SDEs divided by 18?

Why are the SDEs displayed in the results section roughly divided by 18 compared to the results at the top of the results from results.thecaucuses.org ?209.54.86.136 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Nvm upon refreshing the page, they were no longer multiplied by 18 on that website. I guess it wasn't changed at that moment. 209.54.86.136 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As of this edit, the SDEs in the Results section are 3 times more than the SDEs in the infobox. I don't know enough about this process to know which is accurate, and wonder if the ongoing recount is a factor. Nonetheless, there is a discrepancy. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Spiffy sperry: Just [reverted the incorrect edit. The official results comprise 2151 SDE's. After the recount, we can expect the overall SDE to be pretty close to 2151 SDE's. If Sanders manage to win the statewide SDE count over Buttigieg he will however steel 1 pledged national convention delegate (in the at-large category); meaning he might still have a chance to get a 13 vs 13 result out of Iowa instead of a 14 vs 12 result. The recount will settle this question, but we should not expect any huge corrections to the already published SDE totals. A maximum of 14 SDEs can be switched by the recount, as its only partial (concerning 63 out of 1765 precincts). Danish Expert (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference to IDP results webpage

The IDP webpage found using https://results.thecaucuses.org/ only shows the latest version of the results. It does not show a history of the many different sets of figures, before all precincts reported, or after there were results for all 1765 precincts.

I do not know of any way of finding all of these earlier sets of results. If someone does know of such, it would be useful.

The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems in referring to this webpage as is done 5 times in the Wikipedia article, as reference 1, (which is to a footnote. Is that OK?) and references 4 a, b, c, and d, as anyone using to link to the page will only find the latest results. The reference notes are sometimes about the latest results, but sometimes about earlier sets of results.

Should the reference to the 9 February version of the results note 4 c, be made into a different reference to, for example, 4 d, which is for the latest results in the results table? Or are there other things which should be changed instead of or as well?

I do not have enough knowledge about what and how to do about this, but thought I should raise the questions.

Hoping that some of you may find this useful,

Redhill54 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We could replace the link to the IDP website with an archived version from the relevant time. Xenagoras (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I think we should only use their most recent results, and rely solely on secondary sources for any analysis of how the results have changed. We should not use references to previous versions of a primary source to explain to readers that the results have morphed. That's what news organizations are for. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not use straw man arguments. Neither Redhill54 nor me proposed to use references to previous versions of a primary source to explain to readers that the results have morphed. Redhill54 asked how to solve the problem that different text passages in the article refer to different version of IDP's result. I proposed to link to the archived result version that is meant at a specific text passage. This would avoid confusing the readers. In addition, we should use RS to explain that the IDP's results have changed over time, e.g. [36] Xenagoras (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Que? The OP asked "The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems... " I answered no, and explained how we should be approaching the issue. I'm firmly opposed to linking to an obsolete version of a primary source, for obvious reasons. - MrX 🖋 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Redhill54 raised the problem that some text in the article mentions vote/delegate numbers that are not anymore displayed on the linked IDP website because IDP changed these numbers but does not provide a history of their result changes. If we can replace these links with ones that match the article text, that is fine, but what if we cannot? Then we could link to the archived IDP site where their numbers match what is written in our article. Xenagoras (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This might make more sense if you could give an example of the issue. Until then, I stand firmly by my objection to linking to an obsolete version of a primary source. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Example 1: infobox, Buttigieg delegate count 14 has a footnote that contains a reference to IDP's result and quotes "100% reporting: 1765 of 1765 precincts." This should be replaced with the version from 2020-02-10 00:05:41 because this footnote mentions result disputes and corrections. Example 2: section Results, sentence with "February 9" refs to the same quote "100% reporting: 1765 of 1765 precincts" and should be replaced by the 2020-02-10 00:05:41 version because it is locked to a date and accompanied by result dispute and corrections. Example 3: the table "2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses" lists the current result and its header should therefore ref to the original IDP site. Example 4: the table "2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses" entry Buttigieg has the same footnote as the infobox and and should be replaced by the 2020-02-10 00:05:41 version. Example 5: in the lead "41 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the caucuses" should ref to the original IDP site because it describes the current result. Example 6: in the lead "correction of some incorrectly reported results" should not ref to any version of IDP's result but only to media reports about corrections. Xenagoras (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Examples 1, 2, and 4 are as they should be. They should not link to an old version of the official IDP results. Example 3 does not represent IDP results because Buttigieg's delegate count was forced back to 13 by zealous editors, some of them editing from "new" accounts. It represents AP results. Example 5 is a basic undisputed fact that can be verified in any number of secondary sources. It shouldn't be referenced to the IDP at all. Example 6 should reference to secondary sources, but also include a cite to the current IDP results for further reference. - MrX 🖋 15:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd missed this, edited accordingly. Yesterday I explained in an edit summary why the delegate count ought to show 14, at least until the Iowa Democratic Party says otherwise. I can't see any attempt to explain why this change was reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Domeditrix (talk • contribs) 15:25, February 21, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I advocated for using the official result of the party, but as of now, there is no consensus either way, so we will keep going back and forth between 13 and 14 until WMF's servers blow a gasket. Welcome to Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, my proposal to use archived result versions or media reports from that day is based on the fact that some article text refers to old result versions from the past which can differ from current and future result versions. Using a date-locked reference for these old results solves this problem. Example 2 means the result from February 9. Example 3 and Example 5 should link to the original IDP site because they mean the current result. We should add links to media reports for Example 5 as soon as available. Currently, the result is not final because a recount is pending [37]. Xenagoras (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Please know what you're talking about before linking to fallacies. OP mentioned wanting earlier versions of the results, and above the wayback machine has been linked, so there is absolutely no strawman here.  Nixinova   T   C   01:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results

Proposal for change to infobox for caucus results:

1. Shall the infobox for a caucus display the first alignment vote count and percentage as the popular vote "First alignment (popular vote)"?
2. Shall the infobox for a caucus display the final alignment vote count and percentage below the line of the popular vote "First alignment (popular vote)"? (together with a mouse-over hint explaining: "supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to other candidates")

Several reliable sources say that first alignment is the popular vote (see details below). These two proposals would result in an infobox display like this.

Edit 20 February: changed proposed text from "popular vote" to "First alignment (popular vote)" to adapt to editors' comments. Xenagoras (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources New York Times [38] [39], Washington Post [40], ABC News [41], USA Today [42] [43], Forbes [44] and The Raw Story [45] say that the first alignment is the popular vote (see detailed quotes there). Xenagoras (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, As a technical point, I believe the proposed mouse over text:

"supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to candidates above 15%")

is incorrect. Supporters of candidates below 15% and realign themselves to candidates above 15% or other candidates below 15% if the resulting combination would bring them about 15%. As an example, if one candidate had 9%, and another 8%, the supporters of the 8% candidate could join the supporters of the 9% candidate resulting in 17%. This is based on my recollection of hearing news reports, and so someone should check the actual wording. I also note that this RFC seems to be generically about caucuses and the rule I'm siding citing applies to Iowa. I don't know about the other states.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thanks for your info. I changed the wording for the final alignment hint. Could you please link to those news reports? I found Vox saying, rules in Nevada will the be same as in Iowa, and Vox confirms what you said, As in Iowa, any supporters of candidates with more than 15 percent support in the precinct (including both in-person and early votes) get locked in. Supporters of candidates below that threshold, though, get to realign. They can back a viable candidate, combine forces to make a nonviable candidate viable, or refuse to support anyone. [46] Xenagoras (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, Thanks for checking the rule, and the confirmation that Nevada is the same as Iowa. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Survey

• No to both – the only binding vote in the caucus is the final alignment vote. It is the popular vote, because that is the number that gets converted to SDEs. The first alignment is certainly an interesting data point, but it does not need to be in the infobox. --WMSR (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, you are right that the final alignment is used to calculate the SDEs. The first alignment of a caucus shows the same vote distribution that a primary in that state would show. It was widely reported in reliable sources and is a useful information for comparing voter preference between states with caucus results and states with primary results. Displaying both the first and final alignment data also allows to see the effect of realignment in a caucus. Xenagoras (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both - per explanation below the questions of this RfC, especially the top tier reliable sources supporting this proposal and the comparability of the first alignment of a caucus with the vote result of a primary. Xenagoras (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• No to both We need to be sparing with how much stuff we cram into infoboxes. Only the final alignment vote is relevant IMO. Number 57 21:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Both 1st and 2nd Alignment - Information on both is important and valuable. My preference would be for the 2nd alignment number to be given prominence above the 1st as it has more significance to the final results (but it is important to include the 1st alignment votes, otherwise it makes candidates who lost ground on the realignment (ie Biden and Klobuchar) who are top five/six candidates look less viable than they are. I don't think it is too much information, and all of those results are pretty important to be able to understand the caucus process as a whole.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both: Supported by these arguments: (1) Displaying a "First alignment popular vote" percentage will make the result 1:1 comparable with the popular vote results of the 50 primaries in 2020. (2) CNN and a majority of reliable sources reported as headline stories, that the caucus resulted in two winners: Sanders winning the undecisive popular vote while Buttigieg won the decisive SDEs and pledged delegates, (which support that a popular vote figure is important enough to be displayed in the infobox). (3) Infobox already display 3 county maps for "first popular vote" + "final popular vote" + "SDEs", which justify that we also display all these 3 statewide percentage figures at the top of the infobox. (4) For transperency reasons and the purpose to provide a fast educational overview for first time readers to learn how the caucus proces and math is working, its best to display all four figures. Danish Expert (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, no to 2: - While I personally disagree with the notion that the first alignment is the popular vote on the basis that there is no popular vote equivalent in a caucus, if reliable sources are stating en masse that the first alignment is the popular vote, then my opinion is superseded by the opinions portrayed in the RS documentation. As popular vote and delegate totals are the most critical pieces of information needed for portrayal to readers, then the info box should contain that information and not the final alignment numbers. Final alignment numbers are still relevant enough to warrant inclusion on the page, just not in the info box. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• No to both per my previous comments on the subject, as well as the comments by WMSR and Number 57. I think that the only tallies that should be displayed in the infobox are pledged delegates, and possibly SDEs. The percentage calculations and alignment votes are best covered in the body of the article. - MrX 🖋 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• No to 1, yes to 2: As the article currently is. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both, per Danish Expert.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both agree with Danish Expert arguments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both, for something as messy as the Iowa caucuses, it is necessary to display all four statistics to prevent confusion on the behalf of people unfamiliar with the caucus process. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• not described as popular vote No objection to displaying the information that reveals the process more fully, but describing this as a popular vote is grossly inaccurate. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

ResultingConstant, why do you think it's "grossly inaccurate"? Xenagoras (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras Pretending that thousands of local level multi preference processes are a state/nationwide single preference vote. Its like reporting on the world series, and the statistic we decide to show is the total number of runs summed across all the games. While its a "true" number, its completely irrelevant and misleading. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

ResultingConstant, how about we name that line "First alignment (Popular vote)" ? Danish Expert made the same proposal. Xenagoras (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to both as I've already said in a previous vote.  Nixinova   T   C   19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to 1, modification to 2 in any electoral process, the popular vote is the share of vote cast for you. The first ballot is the purest form of that. If you’re not on the second ballot in some places, that’s, in the view of the popular vote, akin to an election being fixed such that you do not appear on the ballot in some precincts. Still, the final alignment is an important caveat, although slightly redundant given the SDE count. Perhaps a separate section for the final alignment vote in the “Results” section or as a note, and a reference to it in the popular vote row.GGLLFFP (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
• Yes to both They're each useful in their own way. Sdkb (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Summary of comments. After comments from 14 editors and no comment during the last 3 days, I remove the RfC tag and give my summary of editors' comments. Rough consensus exists for proposal 1: the infobox for a caucus shall display the first alignment vote count and percentage as "First alignment (popular vote)", and for proposal 2: the infobox for a caucus shall display the "Final alignment" vote count and percentage below the line of "First alignment (popular vote)" (together with a mouse-over hint explaining: "supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to other candidates"). 10 editors support proposal 1. 8 editors support both proposals, arguing that these data points are important, reported as headline stories by reliable sources, help readers understand the realignment during a caucus, allow for comparing caucus results with primary results, and are already displayed for counties. 2 editors support only proposal 1, arguing that the final alignment is not important enough for the infobox. 11 editors want to display the final alignment in some form in the infobox. 3 editors want to only display the final alignment as popular vote in the infobox, with one arguing via space consumption and two arguing that the final alignment is the relevant one / the popular vote because it gets converted into SDEs. 1 editor does not want any of that data in the infobox by arguing, it would consume too much space. Xenagoras (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Discussion

• Question Xenagoras, what is your brief and neutral statement? At almost 2,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. It also begins with a list, contrary to RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, thanks for telling me about WP:RFCBRIEF. I shortened the RFC's text considerably. Will this enable Legobot to publish it? Could you please tell me the maximum length of an RFC? Xenagoras (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that Legobot published this RfC. Xenagoras (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that the statement accompanying the RFC is not neutral. --WMSR (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We've not yet determined the exact length above which Legobot will trip up, but it's known to be somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 bytes, including signature and timestamp. But Thank you for splitting into two (summary and detail), that's often the best way. Legobot runs once an hour, and if an RfC statement is altered at any point, Legobot will copy the modified statement to the listings on the next hourly run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Proposal adaption: after 7 days, on 20 February, I changed my proposed text from "popular vote" to "First alignment (popular vote)" as adaption to editors' comments. If my adaption of proposal creates a problem in assessing consensus, I have no problem reverting to my original proposal. Naming both data lines "...alignment..." makes them better synchronized with the result table in the article and it emphasizes that these two data lines are connected by the process of realignment. This aims to improve understanding of the caucus process by the reader, which appears important to editors like Darryl Kerrigan, Danish Expert, Kolya Butternut, SharʿabSalam, Devonian Wombat and ResultingConstant. The renaming to "First alignment (popular vote)" also adapts to proposals/objections by editors. Danish Expert proposed (agreed by Kolya Butternut and SharʿabSalam) displaying a "First alignment popular vote." ResultingConstant has no objection to displaying the information, but describing this as a popular vote is grossly inaccurate. Xenagoras (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Remark: @Sphilbrick: may I ask you to asses the consensus of this RfC? Xenagoras (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  Xenagoras, Sorry, but I haven't closed any RFC's and I have to be away for most of tomorrow, so not a good time to do my first. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: You cannot close your own RfC. --WMSR (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, I did not close the RfC. A closed RfC would have a colored background and a frame and a closing statement (the consensus assessment) and would prevent adding more comments. I asked [47] an uninvolved administrator to asses the consensus (implying to formally close the RfC), but he declined friendly. WP:RFCEND states, there are several ways in which RfCs end: ... 5. The discussion may just stop. ... Please remove the rfc tag when ... discussion has ended. During the last 3 days no additional editors commented and during the last 6 days only 1 additional editor commented. The discussion appears to have ended on its own. So I ended the RfC (and wrote the optional summary of comments). Request for closure states, Many discussions do not need formal closure. Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. ... When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure. The WP:ANRFC page has a long list of RfCs waiting for formal closure, therefore I heeded the advice given at WP:ANRFC and ended the RfC without formal closure to avoid a long waiting time in the queue. Xenagoras (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think people meant we were going to use the final votes and SDEs and then that was spun by an Rfc that wasn’t neutral into including the first alignment votes as well. Smith0124 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

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)
• Yes to both - Understanding the popular vote is key to understanding the caucus process. It is valuable in terms of understanding the results on the ground, and also the nature of a caucus to include the vote totals. It is also key so that readers can understand the strengthens/weaknesses of primaries/caucuses. Similarly, while only delegates matter in US Presidential elections (given the nature of the electoral college) we always include the popular vote for similar good reasons.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - If we are treating the first alignment vote as the popular vote, should we revisit the question of whether to include Yang in the infobox? On the one hand, he would be the only one in the box with no national delegates. On the other hand, as I understand it the usual cutoff for inclusion is 5% of the popular vote, and Yang met that threshold on the first alignment vote.Gambling8nt (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to include him. There is already a space for a sixth, so it won't mess up the formatting. It is perhaps of note that by that metric he would not qualify to be included in the infobox for NH or the infobox for the primaries as a whole. I don't think that is necessarily a reason to keep him out of the infobox here though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am against inclusion of Yang in the infobox because I was under the impression that 10% of the popular vote was the metric used, as that is what it is on the New Hampshire page. I thought 5% was the threshold for polling average. In any case, the point of the infobox is to include candidates who are relevant to the caucus, and Yang did not have a significant enough impact to warrant being included in the infobox. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• No to both - The numbers are not relevant to the final outcome of results.Idealigic (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

14 delegates for Buttigieg

CNN[48] is reporting that "The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party." We need to stop reporting outdated information. Sanders count challenge does not change this official result unless the party determines such. - MrX 🖋 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

→NBC[49] has also reported that the Iowa DNC officially awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates. Wikipedia has not historically held off reporting final information when a candidate challenges a count. This should be updated. Grabillr92 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 01:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is the AP the arbiter?

This line currently exists in the article (with the bit in squared brackets hidden): | candidate1 = Pete Buttigieg [Do NOT bold until a winner is declared by the AP (likely won't happen until a recount is completed due to reported inconsistencies)]

Where, when, why and how was it decided that AP, not Reuters, the Des Moines Register, or the Iowa Democratic Party themselves determine the winner? It seems absurd to me. I have removed it from the article because I can think of no sane justifiation for it. Domeditrix (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Edited Domeditrix (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not so much the Associated Press per se, it was the fact that other news organisations like The New York Times, PBS, NBC and Politico all refused to declare a winner, and they cited the decision of the Associated Press as one of the reasons for doing so. With so many reputable news organizations refusing to declare Buttigieg as having received 14 delegates it was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia to do so. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made the same argument that the AP is not the authority. I have cited multiple current sources that show Buttigieg with 14 delegates and that it consistent with declarations by the party itself. - MrX 🖋 17:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Because AP and many other top tier reliable secondary sources say that the claims from the primary source Iowa Democratic Party are incorrect. Xenagoras (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

At least it's clear then that the AP are disputing the result. Plenty of reliable sources, including Reuters and the Washington Post, have reported 14 as the delegate figure (meaning victory for Buttigieg). My question is then, why do we take the AP declaration sacrosanct and not Reuters' or the Washington Post's? Domeditrix (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We do not take AP sacrosanct. Many news organizations use AP as worldwide leading news source and let AP guide their own reporting. Some larger news organizations including the NYT have determined via their own reporters in Iowa that the IDP's results are erroneous. The sources you refer to are not refuting or even disputing anything AP, NYT etc have written about the problems with Iowa's result. They have only chosen to not do SDE calculations/verifications of Iowa's result and therefore report what the IDP tells them. We could definitely say that the Iowa result is "disputed" or "unclear", because the Sanders campaign has announced it will request a recount. [50] On 6 February, the Sanders campaign presented their own SDE calculation showing that the IDP's initial result gave Sanders 2.5 SDEs less than warranted. I had put this into the article [51], but MrX deleted it. [52] If Sanders gets these additional 2.5 SDEs, the overall result will flip to Sanders having 14 national delegates and Buttigieg 12 delegates. AP and NYT did the SDE calculation on their own and therefore have refused to call the race. Xenagoras (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that Sanders will receive 14 delegates? To my knowledge there is only one statewide delegate (in the PLEO category) which would flip to Sanders should he win the statewide SDE count. So the final results would be either the current 14-12 (Buttigieg-Sanders), or a tie at 13. Rogl94 (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Rogl94, the IDP's rules state, SDE will be the only information used to determine the allocation of ... Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates, and ... national delegates. [53] I understand this means if Sanders receives the same or more SDE than Buttigieg, that will result in Sanders receiving the same or more national delegates than Buttigieg. The candidate with the most SDE will receive one additional national delegate via PLEO. [A Sanders adviser] said, "We now believe a recount will give Sen. Sanders enough [SDE] to put him over the top." If the specific errors Mr. Sanders’s campaign claimed were all verified, he would net about six [SDE], moving him into first place. [54] Xenagoras (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

AP is disputing the results; other top tier sources are not. All we can do is dispassionately present both views. The AP does not have superior standing. I'm not aware that the AP is actually saying that the IDP results are incorrect per se. That wouldn't make a lot of sense. - MrX 🖋 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

MrX, please do not make false statement of facts like, other top tier sources are not disputing the results. The following RS did their own data analysis and found the IDP's result to be erroneous: New York Times [55] [56] [57], NBC News [58], CNN [59] and DesMoines Register. [60] You wrote, the AP does not have superior standing. The AP explains, it's race calls are used by media on both sides of the political spectrum and have been regarded for years as highly reliable. [61] You also wrote, I'm not aware that the AP is actually saying that the IDP results are incorrect per se, which is disproven by the AP:

After observing irregularities in the results once they did arrive, The Associated Press decided it cannot declare a winner. Numbers could yet still change. An AP review of the results provided by the Iowa Democratic Party also found numerous precinct results that contained errors or were inconsistent with party rules. For example, dozens of precincts reported more final alignment votes than first alignment votes. In one precinct in Polk County, home to the state capital of Des Moines, the party’s data showed no candidates winning any votes in the first alignment but winning 215 votes in the final alignment. In some other precincts, candidates won state delegate equivalents even though officials recorded them as receiving no votes in the final alignment. There were also a handful of precincts in which officials awarded more state delegate equivalents to candidates than there were available to be won. [62]

Xenagoras (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The NYT has a detailed analysis of the types of errors during vote counting, realignment, SDE calculation, delegate allocation and result transmission. [63] Xenagoras (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

My statement was fully factually. I already presented the relevant sources upthread. I stand by my original comment. - MrX 🖋 15:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Domeditrix I’m sorry that I was rude toward you and that I attacked you. It is necessary to show a lead. We know what the final results are now. I will show a 0.04 point lead (26.17 to 26.13) under the results table. But in the top table table I will leave it at 26.2 to 26.1. If you want to change the top results to 26.17 to 26.13, I don’t care. I just don’t want to keep this going anymore. Whatever you think is best, I will support. But based on the discussion I think we both agree that this is what’s best. Pentock (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)