Jump to content

Talk:List of superdelegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Alphabetize

Why would these names be alphabetized by first name? This makes no sense at all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree that list should be alpha by last name. Indeed, the alphabetization is currently inconsistent--why is Rep Rick Boucher the last name on the list of members of Congress? Also, overall organization is unclear--why is Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA) listed under "Other" and not with other members of Congress? Teresacurl (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be alphabetized. Is there a fast way to do that? --Rajah (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I imagine originally the info was cut-and-pasted from another source that had it alphabetized that way. Sadly, the change will have to be done manually. Kingturtle (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

Why are we listing endorsements here? This article is supposed to be a simple list of Democratic party superdelegates. If we're going to have a page with endorsements on it, it should be a separate page. The information here isn't as good as on other sources anyway.Zhinz (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree on endorsements. They should be on a separate page. 72.68.108.209 (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just have a sortable table of all the superdelegates with an endorsement field? --Rajah (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The chart should make it easier to follow. It is useful to list endorsements here. Kingturtle (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But again, this is not "List of who Democratic superdelegates are endorsing in the 2008 Democratic primary nomination process", which I guess would be the correct title. What are we going to do after the election? Delete all that? An article shouldn't have to be changed depending on whether it's an election year or not.Zhinz (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is someone seriously asking for a citation regarding whether or not Superdelegate and former President Bill Clinton would endorse and/or vote for his own wife. Are we so blinded by the rules here that this is worthy of [citation needed]? --Mostlymuppet (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need a reference. Kingturtle (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is even more silly is the idea of needing a citation for Hillary Clinton supporting herself. I mean what sort of journalist is going to ask either Bill or Hillary who they are supporting? What sort of article is going to be printed giving the information for it to be cited at all? I mean where is one going to find a source for a decent citation on this? I mean wouldn't it look less incomplete if their weren't locations looking for citations for something obvious? 151.203.59.132 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I remember in high school it was good form to vote for the candidate you were running against. Kingturtle (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of superdelegates

I count 740 on this list. Looks like you're missing 56, so I added the incomplete tag. 72.68.108.209 (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily incomplete as many have yet to be chosen. So, there are superdelegates spots in the 796 that haven't been assigned to a person. --Rajah (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
the text says "This is a list of 796 superdelegates", but you don't have 796 entries on the list. If that's not the definition of an incomplete list, I don't know what is. Also, the list of DNC members is still totally unsourced. 72.68.108.209 (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Only 720 delegates have been named. 76 more are "add-ons" and will not be decided until each state has its convention.Zhinz (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Over half of the links that are not to Congresspeople, Senators, etc... are to the wrong person. I didn't check the elected officials, and I assume that many more of those are accurate. Some of the people linked to include several Republicans, the captain of the Titanic (who verifiably drowned in 1912), Bob Dylan and a horse. Of these, only Bob Dylan (listed as Robert Zimmerman) is even vaguely possible as the same person - his Wikipedia article doesn't list Democratic involvement, but it is believable. I'll delink some of these to start cleaning this up. - update: I removed all the obvious bad links (they just don't link anywhere now. There are some where I'm not sure if it's the right person, and I left those in if the person was alive and had some verifiable connection to the Democratic Party


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.62.99 (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating that. In the future though, please realize that many of people are listed in wikipedia and you just have to disambiguate the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_United_States_Democratic_Party_Superdelegates&diff=190489120&oldid=190477655 Thanks again. --Rajah (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

--Check link for superdelegate Frank Dixon. It is linked to a deceased former governor.

"Other DNC members"?

Why is there a heading for Other DNC members in addition to the one for DNC members? If these do somehow make sense, why is the heading Organizations inserted between them? --169.230.94.28 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The DNC Members, Other DNC Members, Organizations and Members at Large sections should all be merged. THeir separation is a consequence of the original data list that was used to start the article. --Rajah (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Totals and subtotals

Does wikipedia not have an auto function to take each entry in a table so that subtotals and overall totals can automatically be computed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.70.167 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. --Rajah (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In that case I just did a word count on the page and added the totals. If anyone updates the table, they should also update the totals. It should also be periodically verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.165.5 (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent page to use to find citations

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html , just click on the person's name for a link to a news article detailing their endorsement. --Rajah (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tom Lantos

I will remove Rep. Tom Lantos from the list, following his death, on Feb. 11, 2008. Bouchecl (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not change it until there is official word from party leadership. They may decided that his endorsement sticks. Kingturtle (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Lantos should be removed. Superdelegates do not live on in eternity. If his replacement is elected before the convention, and if he is a Democrat, that replacement will become a superdelegate. (The same is true for all the other open House seats). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon12 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Tom Lantos has passed away and regardless of his endorsement he wont be there at the convention to cast a vote. The Superdelegate total officially declined by one on his death. A new representative will be elected before the convention and if he/she is a democrat they will become a superdelegate and the number will then increase by one. Lantos has no bearing on the nomination anymore. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Primary/Caucus Results

Anyone else think it be useful to add a column (where applicable) that'd list the result of the delegate's state primary/caucus results? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.191.220 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but this page is about the superdelegates. Please feel free to create the page List of 2008 United States Democratic Party Presidential Primaries and Caucuses. --Rajah (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what 64.81.191.220 wants to show is potential conflicts between superdelegates and state results. For example, Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Obama, but Massachusetts went with Clinton. Kingturtle (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he/she might want to show "potential conflicts" and/or "potential agreements", probably, but I'm not going to put words in his/her mouth. The request still isn't really a valid one as this page should not have data creep. It should list the Superdelegates, their endorsment, and appropriate citations. I could think of dozens of columns to add for datamining the vote, but Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a datamining platform. --Rajah (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

citation syntax

When citing a source here, please use one of the two formats:

  • <ref>{{cite news | last = | first = | coauthors = | title = | pages = | publisher = | date = | url = | accessdate = }}</ref>
  • <ref>{{cite web| url=URL | title=TITLE | accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD}}</ref>

Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that a lot of these will have February accessdates and should read: accessdate=2008-02-DAY , where DAY = the day of the month. (NB: The zero before the 2 for February.) --Rajah (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Color Coding

Have you checked out: List of 2008 United States Democratic Party Superdelegates (by endorsement) --Rajah (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Color coding would be great. I don't have the time to do it. Give it a shot. Kingturtle (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

796 total

"270 Members of Congress, 32 Democratic Governors, 20 Distinguished Leaders, and 313 Democratic National Committee Members." Where are the other 161 to get 796? Kingturtle (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are mostly unpledged add-on delegates that have yet to be named. They are mostly named by each state's Democratic party. --Rajah (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Theres something like 76 superdelegates that will be announced later.... The rest should be known now. There are currently 738 names listed on this article which is probably the result of a miscount so the numbers are pretty much there. I will recount the totals on the artcile later this evening. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC))
I made my own version of this article (which I sadly finished later in the day that this was posted). I've posted it temporarily at User:Zhinz. I count 51 Senators (49 if you exclude the Shadow Senators from the DC), 236 members of the House (231 actual Representatives, 4 non-voting deleagtes, and the Shadow Representative from DC), 32 governors (which includes the Mayor of DC), 22 party leaders, 40 top members of the DNC, 56 state chairs, 56 vice chairs, and the rest are regular DNC members chosen by the respective states. And by the way it's 795 now with Lantos's death.Zhinz (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the numbers are really off. If there are 738 names in the article, and 76 superdelegates to be named later, that adds up to 814. How is that if there are only supposed to be 796 superdelegates. This list is a real mess, and should be somehow be so noted. 72.68.108.209 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

72...., please note that Tjliles2007 wrote: "something like 76 superdelegates that will be announced later" "currently 738 names" "probably the result of a miscount". Notice the "something like" and "miscount" part. The list has hundreds of footnotes, and is citing virtually every endorsement so far, how exactly is the list a "real mess?" --Rajah (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8451.html for a good explanation: "In all, 50 superdelegates from Florida and Michigan currently have no vote at the convention. We gave these people a “vote weight” of zero. Other superdelegates have a vote weight of one, except for delegates representing Democrats Abroad, who are given half a vote under DNC rules. There are eight superdelegates from Democrats Abroad, resulting in four votes. Thus, we had 773 superdelegates, 723 voting superdelegates and 719 votes.

In addition to these 719, there are another 76 “add-on” superdelegates determined by the state parties, resulting in a grand total of 795. Many of these add-on delegates have yet to be named; we have omitted them from the list for now."

So, there will be 849 superdelegates in total, 799 which will have a vote, with 795 votes in total. The situations of Joan Fitz-Gerald, Tom Lantos etc. could make this value move up and down by a couple votes. (and the reinstatement of MI or FL delegates could alter it even further.) --Rajah (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

--Check accuracy, Gail Rassmussen, superdelegate from Oregon is not listed. Web link for more info: http://wweek.com/editorial/3414/10382/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaser (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

superdelegates or Superdelegates

Since the word superdelegates is not the official word used by the Democratic Party, shouldn't this article be called List of 2008 United States Democratic Party superdelegates? Kingturtle (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, moved it. --Rajah (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Content Reformatting

Tomorrow I will spend a few hours resorting all the names.

I will be adding a column for the states of each superdelegate and removing the state from the name section. I will then alphabetize by last name each section.

Once this is done each section will be alphabetized by default, you can then sort each group by state if so needed.

Does anyone else have any suggestions for when I go doing all this? Does anyone have issues with the way I intend to format it? (Tjliles2007 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Looking good. I actually would vote for a single list where the delegates title, e.g. President, State Chair, U.S. Senator would be a field. too. --Rajah (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The only concern with that is now you can edit a smaller section and it makes it easier to find the name, whereas if its all one section then its harder to find it to edit.... What about your idea only cut down into sections for each letter of the alphabet... A, B, C, D...? (Tjliles2007 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
If it's all one section you just do Ctrl-F when you are editing? Isn't that what everybody does? I think the alpha split is very artificial and clunky looking. --Rajah (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am currently working on alphabitizing. What im doing is sectioning off each letter of the alphabet and listing each delegate there alphabetically. Im working from the bottom up.... If anyone wants to help feel free. Im working on it on my user page when its all done I will move it to the article here. If someone wants to work on a letter go for it... after you enter a name just save it so if anyone else wants to help they can choose a letter thats not being worked on yet. just click to my user page in my signature. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Breakdown Totals Section

To help summerize the superdelegate breakdown, I created a table and started to populate it until I noticed that there was a difference in totals, for example, of Democratic Governors.

Is there 31 or 32 Democratic Governors?

Also, we should keep a tally of the TOTAL number of delegates as it is a changing number for many reasons such as:

  • Death of Rep. Lantos
  • Forfeiture of superdelegate status of Senator Lieberman for supporting a Sen. McCain.

Would the owner of this article either remove the new section, or if you agree it is a valuable source of information, update it with the correct information?

user:mnw2000 20:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • For the purposes of superdelates the Mayor of Washington DC is considered a Governor just as the two "shadow senators" are considered Senators. That why for instance while the Democrats have 49 US Senators the list includes 51. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC))
By the way, mnw2000, there is no "owner" of this or any other article on Wikipedia. In fact, we have a policy, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, that expressly condemns the idea.
The general rule is that every editor has an equal right to edit every article. There are some exceptions, such as people barred from editing specific articles because of conflict of interest or the like, but they don't apply here. JamesMLane t c 06:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Totaling Endorsements

  • When you add a new endorsement to the article can you please change the totals at the top of the page... It's time consuming to have to count up the totals time after time. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

I moved all the Distinguished Party Members to a single table to keep it aligned with the Totals by Group. I hope this will help in keeping the totals accurate. user:mnw2000 16:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of Endorsement

Should we include a sortable column with date of an announced endorsement? This would be quite interesting information to have. user:mnw2000 03:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Kingturtle (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add Terry McCallife to the former chairmen list, please.

Sort order

This list needs to be standardized to a single sort order. Governors, senators, members at-large, and Former National Chairmen are arranged alphabetically by last name; representative are arranged alphabetically by first name; "DNC members" are partially arranged alphabetically by state, then partially arranged alphabetically by first name; and organizations are without any apparent order.

I think alphabetically by last name or by state would be best. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


  • If you check a few topics above its well underway. I have alphabetized all the letters so far except L,M,N,R,S,T check my userpage. Once I finish I will go back and add in the endorsements that have been posted since I saved the list and then I will put the whole list onto the article. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Counts by group

Added a sourced statement from http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml about how many are Senators, Representatives, Governors, et cetera. I made one change from those numbers. For the number of Representatives, I increased it by 1 and decreased by 1 the number of Add-On Delegates. This is because, according to the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Committee ( http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/DC-D.phtml can corroborate), one of the two add-on delegates for the District of Columbia goes to the shadow Representative, Mike Panetta. Since the shadow senators are included in the senator count, it seems that the shadow representative should be included in the Representative count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhinz (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

How about removing the alphabetic breaks in the table?

If you remove the alphabetic breaks and make a single table, it could be sorted by position such as Senator, Representative, etc. Also, it would be more valuable to be able to sort it by endorsement and see all of Clinton's endorsements together and all of Obama's endorsements together and all the uncommitted together.

The alphabet is really a arbitrary form of grouping. Why did we move away form grouping by position anyway? user:mnw2000 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but the sorting is kind of lost when it is broken into 26 (or so) groups. What does everyone thing? user:mnw2000 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, we need fewer groups -- or perhaps one master list. From a user perspective, I think the most important sort is by State. That's the level where activists, party members, reporters, etc. are mainly concerned.
I saw that you'd edited this, Tjliles, into one list. How did it look? An administrator (Alexfusco5) swooped in and undid it and left a standard notice with Tjliles saying, among other things, that this should be discussed in the talk section first.
So - In my opinion, we should move forward with a condensed or unified list that is more sort-friendly. IMO. One last thing: if we do that, we should probably change the name format to Lastname, Firstname so the list can be sorted back and forth. I'm happy to chew away at that part. --Scantron2 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey all, I just sandboxed this out, and here are my thoughts... At first, the alpha list gives the appearance of being overwhelming. But once you start sorting it (by state, type, or endorsement) the table calms down -- there is a bit of intrinsic order. I also did a test swapping FNAME/LNAME to see how that looked, and it looked fine. In fact, it reinforced the alpha and made the list look "more settled". So here's what I'd recommend:
Moving forward with a single list not broken up by letters. I'd also recommend it be in "Clinton, Hillary Rodham" (or "Obama, Barack" if you prefer) format. I think that looks better and allows for re-sorting on alpha. Finally, I tried it both ways and I actually prefered the list **sorted by state first** and then alpha. First, this matches up with the DNC and demconwatch lists, but also gives a nice vibe of structure to what is otherwise a dangerously long list. Feedback??? Ciao. --Scantron2 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected some errors in the table structure, and I have joined in one single table the delegates. It is alphabetically sorted by default, then it's possible to re-sort by STATE or by CANDIDATE, just clicking on the column header. The next step I have in mind is detach FL and MI delegates into another table. --Subver (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

FL and MI have no delegates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008#Nullified_primaries ), consequently no more unpledged (super) delegates. You can verify it in the official site: http://www.demconvention.com/delegate-map/. So putting FL and MI pseudo-delegates in the same table has no sense, IMHO. Moreover detaching it it is more more simple to count and verify totals. I'm reverting, sorry. --Subver (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They do have delegates, just at this time the delegations wont be credentialed. The matter will be taken up by the seated delegates at the convention about wether to seat them or not. You can go and revert it, but I will revert it right back. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
No. See the official site please and click on Florida or Michigan. The decision to exclude all delegates from FL and MI has already been taken, the convention eventually could change it. Also the other wiki-pages related to the DemPrimaries say that. I think to resolve the debate we need the opinion of some other wiki user. I can't understand your will to maintain a unique table. --Subver (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Florida and Michigan has delegates. I don't care what links you provide to say otherwise. If they had no delegates then the matter wouldnt even be taken up at the convention. Florida and Michigan has elected delegates based on the results of their primary elections. The DNC leadership chooses not to recognize these delegates or the superdelegates, but they do exist. Ultimatly it is up to the delegates at the DNC Convention wether to recognize a delegate or not. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
The link I provided is the official site of DNC http://www.demconvention.com/delegate-map/. Just click on FL or MI. I think it is reliable! I agree with you that FL an MI have elected some delegates, but these delegates are not recognized by DNC. Because of that I changed "former"->"excluded". --Subver (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Seated & Unseated Superdelegates -- I'm changing the title of the two sections to "Seated" and "Unseated". This is their actual status. The issue will be whether the credentials committee "seats" the superdelegates from MI and FL. Right now, the DNC is in a rub-your-nose-in-your-pile-NO mode (editorializing??? sorry!). Anyway, I think these terms are more accurate than "Actual" and "Excluded" -- or are more clinically accurate, at least. IMHO. --Scantron2 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Format of Names to work in unified table

Hey all -- first, a quick kudos on the recent changes. I think this looks a lot better. And I like the retention & separation of the FL and MI delegates.

When I sandboxed a single list (no by-letter sections), I found that the list looked stronger with a "Lastname, Firstname" format.

Anyhoo, I thought I'd throw up a test for you to look at. I jiggled the names in the MI/FL section so y'all can see how that looks.

      • Thoughts?***

If you think this is a stronger presentation, then I'm happy to jiggle through the remaining list. Otherwise, no biggie. I'm not married to the idea, but I think it'll work better in the big-long-list approach; plus, it allows full sorting of the table (by group + name, by state + name, etc.). --Scantron2 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With "lastname,firstname" the alphabetical reordering does work, but it's a bit more ugly the so written name. :-) . But by default the table is already alphabetically ordered. So even applying other ordering, the last criterion applied will be the the alphabetical order. I'm making the first column unsortable (in non FL/MI table), then tell me what do you think about. --Subver (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • :-) * Hey Subver -- The non-sort on the name addresses all of the sorting concerns I have; whichever way a user sorts the table, each group is still sorted by name. I guess this is the preferable situation.
As far as whether a LName,_LName or Fname_LName format looks better -- this is in the air. Personally, I like the LName format because the alpha is apparent. But again, I'm not married to the idea. I'll cool my jets overnight and whetever the consensus is will work for me. Right now, let's set the tally at Fname_Lname - 1 vote; Lname,_Fname - 1/2 vote. Advantage Subver.
Ciao. --Scantron2 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
1-1 ! --Subver (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Subver -- I reverted back on the FL/MI list. I think the table is looking real settled now, so no need to meddle. Your unsort approach does the trick. Thx. --Scantron2 (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Standardization of "Position" needed

To make work the sorting, we need to standardize the "position" field in the 6 main categories (DPL, Sen, Gov, Rep, DNC member, Addons). When a delegate have another title, it will backs the main title, es: "DNC Member - Vice State Chair". --Subver (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Excellent idea on the standardization.
Some footnotes on special-case delegates:
Governor. Mayor Adrian Fenty should be categorized as a governor. This brings the total to 31(32): 28 D State Govs + 3 D Territorial Govs + DC = 32, including Michigan (unseated) for 31 counted delegates.
Senators. DC shadow senators Michael Brown and Paul Strauss are categorized as regular senators (bringing the total up to 48(51), 49 regular D Sen + 2 DC senators = 51 less 2 MI and 1 FL for 48 counted delegates.
Representatives. The totals here are 220(235) and are made up of the 231 current D representatives plus 4 representative delegates (DC - Norton, American Samoa - Faleomaueusa, Guam - Bordallo, and Virgin Islands - Christian-Christiansen). There are 9 unseated FL and 6 unseated MI representatives bringing the seated delegate count to 220.
Add-on delegates. There are 76. The DC statehood representative (Panetta) is an automatic DC add-on delegate. We initially included Panetta as a representative in our counts, but are now including him as an add-on delegate, which is consistent with the DNC take and the method used by demconwatch.
Distinguished Party Leaders. The DNC credentials 23 DPL's. We, however, are counting on 21 of these. PA's Ed Rendell is former DNC Chair but is also the sitting Governor. And CT's Chris Dodd is also former DNC Chair and is the sitting Senator. Though the DNC considers the DPL to be the stronger credential as it is automatic-for-life, we are including Rendell and Dodd within the counts of Governors and Senators, respectively. --Scantron2 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You're also including Byrd as a Senator, but he is officially a DPL as a Former Majority Leader. He's in the exact same situation as Dodd, and should be similarly noted. Also Don Fowler is a Member-at-large of the DNC, so he is officially listed as a DNC member by the DNC, not a DPL. Simon12 (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Good eye, Simon12. Byrd needs to be noted. That's why our count was one off, allowing us to miss Don Fowler who is a DNC Delegate, as you say. Thanks a ton! --Scantron2 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Revised DPL count is 20 per Simon12 catch. --Scantron2 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

compliments

By the way, you are all doing great work! This article is very useful, interactive, well-sourced and pretty! Kingturtle (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that, the page looks great. --Rajah (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ditto that, this page is real pleasing. And if HRC should pull out TX/OH wins, I think this page will get an unusual amount of attention. Ciao. --Scantron2 (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I'm founding a lot of inconsistency between sources. I can't understand which are best and more updated. Some of them: 1) Some superdelegates change home state very frequently! 2) Some superdelegates are no more superdelegates, and seats are vacant 3) position changes. 4) number of DPL/senator,ecc. 5) other My prefered sources are DCW, TGP, Washington Post And you Scantron2? Others? Which is more reliable? Any other official? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subver (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Subver. I agree with you -- the sourcing needs to be consistent, or the differences need to be noted.
I've been using two primary sources myself: the demconwatch blog, which you mention, and then the official delegate list provided by the DNC on their website (follow the Adrian Fenty link to find it). As for sources, demconwatch will often times link to other blogs, press releases, or to a newspaper out of the superdelegate's state. In those cases, I'll try to google a reference from the home-town paper in preference to blogs, aggregated lists (like NYTIMES GRAPHIC), or candidate press releases.
So you know, our list reconciles with demconwatch exactly as far as the number of named delegates (and their names, states) -- at least as of last last night. Our Clinton endorsements are also person-to-person exact with theirs, and the count is the same. As for Obama, we are +3 versus demconwatch.
Note - All three of these are attributed to a document called "NYTIMES GRAPHIC 2-17" which does show three more Obama supporters than demconwatch recognizes. (They're not my additions, BTW.) The NYTimes says that they used public endorsements plus internal campaign lists to generate that graphic, so I'm a bit at a loss as to what to do. I've done initial googling on the discrepencies but haven't found any original references. But they're in the list for now, FYI.
My general take on this is that we ought to march in lockstep with demconwatch and deviate only when we have a strong, reliable basis to do so. I forgot to jot down the three discrepencies mentioned above, but I'll be able to get around to that tonight.
  • What I'll do this evening is throw up a section in the discussion for that notes our discrepencies and the sources/reasons from demconwatch. If another aggregator, such as thegreenpapers has a different take and we feel good about it, it should go in our list but note it here for reconciliation purposes. IMO, --Scantron2 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC).

Ok. I think in TheGreenPapers there's an error caused by Pennsylvania...It lists 1 governor, 1 DPL and 13 DNC, while instead it should be 1 governor/DPL (he's both) and 14 DNC. Also the sum are affected, and that's the cause of our differences. Right? http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PA-D.phtml http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml (last table. Our data: 399 DNC, 21 DPL). Note: we and TGP prioritize Gov/Rep/Sen over DPL. PS: I splitted the position into 2 column, so the sorting works better. --Subver (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't say for sure. The DNC shows 13 DNC, 1 SEN, 11 REP, 1 DPL (Rendell) for 26. I guess that means there are 4 PA add-ons, for 30? If this helps... I like the split position. Much nicer for counting! Thx. --Scantron2 (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.demconvention.com/delegate-map/ Click on Pennsylvania. Also in our table, we have 14 DNC. No wait. We have 13 DNC...mystery. Maybe someone changed homestate...The totals are right, and that is the important thing :-). --Subver (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Found. Anna Burger PA->DC. --Subver (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The definitive source for names/states/position is DNC official site (now updated to 13 feb) http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/ (unpledged PLEO PDF...lacks only the Add-ons numbers). Thank you Scantron. WashingtonPost is obsolete, TheGreenPapers inaccurate. --Subver (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jill Derby - NV

Good catch, Tjliles. Both the press release and the NV Dem website show Teresa Benitez-Thompson in the vice-chair slot, which makes her automatic to the convention. So - we're ahead of the official DNC list now ...but they'll catch up.  ;-) --Scantron2 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of Endorsement

I am proposing a new column to the date - the date of the endorsement.

This would be a very powerful sort column to see who endorsed whom when. It would also allow us to see who has given the most recent endorsement. user:mnw2000 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea -- and it's one thing that we can offer that other sites don't. Velocity of delegates. I like it. Though making it complete or semi-complete would be a bit of work.
Do date sorts go in alpha or date format? Would we have to go "2008-02-27" for example? (or a euro-friendly 2008.02.27?) --Scantron2 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please wait to insert dates. I'm looking at this to find wich is best. Considering also that we must keep the page LIGHT, and it's already too heavy (>100K). --Subver (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping in there! FWIW, 2008-02-27 works but 2008.02.27 doesn't. And neither is very good. So I hope you can get a user-friendly format worked out.
I agree on the heavy. I know there's a fair bit of article duplication that can be culled. There are also some extraneous cites. We could also cut "Uncommitted"s. But by the time we get basic info entered for 500+ delegates, this will be a pretty large page. I'm not sure how to get around the problem in an elegant way. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well. I think the two possibilities (to stay light) are: 1) your 2) "04 Jan 2008" (example, only 1 byte heavier, automatically recognized as date and sorted consequently). But american format should be month before day. What do you think? --Subver (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Subver. I did have the benefit of both looking at and data-entering the 2008-02-27 style dates. They look bad and they're hard to type. I much prefer "02 Feb 2008" as an alternative. 1 byte per date is less than 1k bytes overall which seems like a reasonable price to pay. --Scantron2 (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. So let's do. Please everybody remember don't use blank spaces after pipe and remember the "0" ... "|01 Jan 2007" --Subver (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the year MUST COME FIRST or the sort will not work. user:mnw2000 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to work...doesn't work for you? --Subver (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No. It is sorted by the "day", then month, then year. user:mnw2000 00:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, the problem was a date with a note attached. Corrected. --Subver (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Works great now. I find the most interesting thing when you sort by date is that most of the recent endorsements are for Obama. This is a very valuable feature. I think we have a great article! user:mnw2000 04:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. This is something no other site has and it's quite interesting. --Scantron2 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey All, just wanted to make sure I'm on the same page. In a recent edit, Subver changed endorsement dates for two ID SD's from Feb 4 to Feb 17. This was in conjunction with culling the older citation (there were two for those del's.) It might not even have been intentional, but it raises an important issue.

I see a conflict between the Source(s) and Date column.

  • Source(s) should be the strongest citation that indicates the current position of a candidate. It has a bias toward newer articles.
  • Date should be the first date we can find for a candidate's support -- preferably of their endorsement (often gleaned from blogs).
Anyhoo, I don't want to add citations for all the dates because of the work, the clutter, and page size. On the other hand, this creates uncited information.
I'm going to throw a note on that column and see if that helps. Let me know what you think -- or if you have a better suggestion or approach. Thanks! --Scantron2 (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lewis

I wanted to update the status of Lewis endorsement but I'm not sure how to go about it. The Feb. 27 issue of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution says he is now firm in his support of Obama. Should we remove the old refs, or leave them and add the most recent one? Bouchecl (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

good question. Lewis has some x-factor here. Today's article sounds like a pretty solid endorsement. Maybe move those other ref's into this section for safe keeping? Or add a footnote? This site had actually moved him to BHO only to move him back when he got cagey, then silent. For him to come out again is probably more serious. ...maybe he was holding out for the right job promise??? -who knows. ;-) But nice find there, Bouchecl. --Scantron2 (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Good... I'll do it in the next few minutes. --Bouchecl (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


I've updated Lewis. Here are the old references, documenting his wavering:

-- Bouchecl (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Heavy page

If you want to see the Diff of my big edits in the history "compare" function, you have to use Opera browser. Both IE and firefox go crash if try. The page is heavy, but there is no much other to do to keep it lighter. I also suggest in your "preferences->Misc" to enable "Don't show page content below diffs". PS: wikEd (if you use it) have to be disabled, if not also Opera go crash! --Subver (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements with no source

Sort the table on Source and then on Endorsement. You'll find a lot of endorsed superdelegates without source. Please someone would add them. --Subver (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth Curtis

  • Apparently Mr. Curtis a former DNC Chairman and Former Governor of Maine is currently listed as a Maine superdelegate, yet he confirms he has live in Florida fulltime for the past two years. This for the time being would jeopodize his ability to vote at the DNC Convention in Colorado. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
  • But how can he be a Maine delegate when he has live in Florida for the past couple years. It should also be noted that until recently the DNC listed George Mitchell as a Maine delegate as well, he was recently moved to the New York delegation. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Interesting, Tjliles... Do you have a source for him saying he lives in FL/that his vote is jeapordized? If so, we should note that somehow -- and maybe post the info to the demconwatch site as well. And yes, the DNC materials do not reflect his new location. --Scantron2 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As I read the article, the reporter is a bit behind the facts as far as Mitchell is concerned -- the DNC has already moved him to NY.
  • But Curtis -- hmmm. I think the article is right that he's got a problem. Whaddaya wanna do? We could be bold and strike Curtis - assert that there are 794 superdel's, and move him to FL, and note/cite the situation. That might be fun, and would help to raise the visibility of the FL/MI issue among our readers. --Scantron2 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree about moving Curtis. We have to follow official sources (DNC PDF).OK for a note, even in a specific chapter (that we can name as "issues").--Subver (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, the voice of moderation (a European sensibility?).
  • Perhaps you're right, Subver. We might stick to tagging DPL-Clinton and Curtis with a note that he may not be credentialed because of his residency situation. I'd be happy with that. --Scantron2 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Status Of Florida and Michigan

  • About 10 days ago maybe, I changed the wording on the notes under the totals section from Florida and Michigan will not be seated to may not be seated, because the status of the two delegations isn't set in stone. It is more accurate to leave it worded to show they still could be seated.
    When the convention convenes, a motion will be made to seat the two delegation, the delegates will vote on the matter then. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

keep track of who switched and when

It is still early enough to start this. We need a way to indicate superdels who switched, and when. It can either be its own chart, or we can just do it within the existing chart somehow. Any ideas? Kingturtle (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know that we need to track this--but, it might be interesting. I do know that this is one element of the superdelegate race that gets media attention. Superdelegate loyalty, pressure on the superdel's, etc...
If we're going to do it, we should start now. I'm thinking we've got in the ballpark of 4 "flips" but that number will start to grow. --Scantron2 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'd prefer not to put it in the big table, unless it's just a footnote designator. I think the "flips" have a narrative that needs its own table/section. Lewis comes to mind. --Scantron2 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)--Subver (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • GA Rep David Scott, HRC endorsement 10/13/07(HC.com), switch to BHO 2/14/08
  • GA Rep John Lewis, HRC endorsement 10/12/07(HC.com), switch to BHO 2/27/08
  • GA DNC Christine "Roz" Samuels, HRC endorsement date???, switch to BHO 2/14/08
  • NJ DNC Dana Redd, HRC endorsement date???, switch to BHO 2/20/08 (see her njpoliticker cite)
  • IA DNC Sarah Swisher, JRE -> HRC (after JRE withdrawal) -> BHO 2/15/08
  • TX DNC Senfronia Thompson, HRC endorsement 6/15/07 (HC.com), switch to BHO 2/27/08
  • AZ Rep Raul Grijalva, JRE endorsement date??? -> switch to BHO 1/29/2008

I think we *need* to keep track because of this historical record. Kingturtle (talk) 19:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I just updated the list above and got a confimation from demconwatch. Anyhoo, I think this is the complete list of "flips" as they stand now. Can you think of a useful way to present the topic? Cheers, --Scantron2 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Before thinking on it we have to complete the sources (see above). Moreover...all the hillaryclinton.com references forward to a blank page... --Subver (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) to the list above. --Bouchecl (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it would prove practical to record every individual superdelegate's change of heart, but I for one would like to see a chart or graph of pledged superdelegate totals on, say, a week-by-week basis,in order to see momentum shifts among this crucial group. Patzer42 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

all superdelates are notable

59 million people voted for the Democratic candidate in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. There are currently a total of 4,047 delegates that will participate in the 2008 Democratic Convention. With these numbers in mind, it isn't outlandish to estimate that each delegate represents ~14,500 people. Pledged delegates do not have a choice who they support on the first ballot at the convention; they must follow the will of their constituents. Superdelegates are not bound by constituents. Some don't even have constituents. Therefore, a superdelegate has the power of ~14,500 people, and therefore a Superdelegate is notable, and therefore (IMHO) all superdelegates are worthy of having their own Wikipedia article.

I propose that we red-ink all superdelegates. Kingturtle (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The page is already out of Wikipedia standards because it's >100K. See the generated HTML code for a red-link...a tremendous waste. If you think some delegates are so important, first do the article. Moreover superdelegates represents only themselves and not any people. It could be an idea also delete every link, also blue. --Subver (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

  • This article is terribly titled. It should be "List of 2008 United States Democratic Party superdelegates" as this is much more common throughout Wikipedia and is more friendly to the Manual of Style. Grsz11 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008" OK for everybody? --Subver (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please. Kingturtle (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Utah Vice Chair - new superdelegate?

Karen Hale (UT) was the Vice Chair of Utah Dem. Party: http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/utah.php and she is currently listed as superdelegate in the official source. But currently the Utah Vice Chair seems to be Rob Miller:

--Subver (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work there, "subvertigo." I put an email in to the Utah Democrats for clarification. FYI, the vice-chair would normally go, but he may not be automatic in this case because of the DNC gender equality provision. We should hopefully know fairly soon. Ciao. --Scantron2 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that Karen Hale is still a superdelegate for Utah. Oreo at demconwatch followed up on Subver's inquiry. Here is the response he posted over there: --Scantron2 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Subvertigo, We got confirmation from both Rob Miller and Wayne Holland Jr. that although Rob Miller is the Vice Chair Karen Hale is the DNC member and superdelegate. The DNC will not recognize delegations from any state where the Chair and Vice Chair are not of the opposite gender. Karen Hale is the highest ranking female member on the executive committee and is recognized as vice chair on any DNC voting issues.
The problem is solved. I don't know what write in Details! :-) --Subver (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger - new superdelegate?

  • Near the bottom of this article, MI Gov. Granholm seems to imply (in an indirect quote) that UAW President Ron Gettelfinger is a DNC-member and a superdelegate. I will add him to the list (as uncommitted, as the article states) unless someone has conflicting information. --Simply Agrestic (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It could be an error by the newswriter.--Subver (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That was my first thought, but it did seem to come directly from Gov. Granholm...but technically, MI and FL have no valid superdelegates, so I suppose it doesn't matter either way... --Simply Agrestic (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Lansing State Journal

http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080217/NEWS04/802170542/1005/news04

shows a list of MI's 26 delegates on the 2/17. He's not there, nor is he on demconwatch. The most recent DNC list doesn't show MI at all. If you're right, Agrestic, that this is a superdelegate, you're definitely in the vanguard "of the know." I'd say leave Gettelfinger out until we have confirmation. --Scantron2 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement vs Intent

I'm going to revert the Endorsement-to-Intent change made by IP 217.44.132.81 -- to make sure that's what we want to do first.

  • The issue is: Boxer's non-endorsement, intent-to-vote decision shows that there are two not-totally-aligned things we're tracking here: votes and endorsements.
Because we've got ~450 endorsements and 1 vote-not-endorse, I'd prefer to maintain our emphasis on "endorsements" and note variances if they arise. I think "intent to vote" undercuts the meaning of the endorsements we're representing. ...but I'll go along with the consensus on this. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)--216.161.142.10 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (oops, that was me)
One little aside - I've been very mindful of this distinction. The only other case I can think is the delegate who switched from HRC to BHO after her union endorsed (she's their DNC member). Anyhoo, if we decide to stick with "endorsement" we may want to be mindful, and I'll track down that union representative. --Scantron2 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
But isn't the whole purpose of the listing here to indicate intent to vote at the Convention? The definition of a superdelegate is someone who has a vote. If you read through the article, it's all about who is seated at the convention, how many votes do they have etc. There are plenty of other articles listing endorsements (Congressional endorsements for the 2008 United States presidential election; List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements etc).86.145.1.63 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Al Edwards

Here's an interesting one. I'm updating the Texas scorecard, and I found an article from the Houston Chronicle stating that Rep. Al Edwards endorsed Obama on Saturday last week. But... the Obama campaign says it doesn't count on Edwards' support! Do we leave him as uncommitted? --Bouchecl (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If other sources confirm it, I think we have to add him. --Subver (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a problem, I see. My reading is the Obama camp thinks that was a pre-election gimmick? He's from Houston, which Obama carried by 13 points. Demconwatch has him on their uncommitted list, for what it's worth. I'd say if he reiterates his support, we can include his endorsement. Otherwise, I'd vote for standing on the sidelines 'till it's clear. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found any other reference to the Edwards "endorsement". I won't touch it for the time being. --Bouchecl (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill Foster

I will add Rep.-elect Bill Foster in the next few minutes. Foster won the special election in IL-14 on 3/8/2008. This addition will increase the number of superdelegates to 795. --Bouchecl (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

While Foster is clearly going to support Obama, the source cited does not support the claim. Simon12 (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Simon12. This is a tough one. Demconwatch has already moved him to Obama, but their source (different than ours) isn't explicit, either. The handwriting's on the wall, but not on "virtual paper." This is one case where I might be comfortable sloughing, though I agree at the same time with the point you raise. (I.e., I guess I'm "woosing" with this one.)  :-( --Scantron2 (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've got Halperin stating Foster endorses Obama. But, it's not the quality source (it's bloggish) I like to quote in a WP article... Anyway, the writing is on the wall... Foster benefited from the coattails and the GOTV operation of Sen. Obama. --Bouchecl (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've now changed the reference with a more explicit mention of Foster's endorsement of Obama. --Bouchecl (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Denise Johnson (TX)

Here's another find... DNC delegate Denise Johnson (TX) is listed in our list as a Clinton superdelegate. However, a story published two days ago in the Dallas Morning News states:

"While the Web site Politico.com lists Democratic national committeewoman Denise Johnson of Houston as a Clinton superdelegate, she said she voted for Mr. Obama on Tuesday and that she'll probably cast her convention vote for the candidate who wins more pledged delegates – very likely, Mr. Obama."

Our source for this Clinton endorsement isn't very strong. I'm tempted to move her to the Obama column? Any objection? --Bouchecl (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a follow-up on Ms. Johnson. Demconwatch removed her name from the Clinton endorsement list on 2/17/2008 and now lists her as "Uncommitted". I will do the same for the time being. --Bouchecl (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New colors please

My eyes hurt. New colors, please. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How about one or two of these:
Color 1
Color 2
Color 3
--Bouchecl (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Grey color has been removed to reduce page size. In my opinion present colors are fine,NPOV and accessible. --Subver (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind the current colors as they are :). --Bouchecl (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Democratic Primaries page has changed to a "less subjective" scheme of green for Clinton and Purple for Obama. I guess we could go with 1 for HRC and 3 for BHO. This isn't my issue, though. I don't need a change, but whatever... --Scantron2 (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Andre Carson elected, IN-7

Election called for Andre Carson (D) in Indiana special election, 7th district.

http://www.wishtv.com/default.asp

Adding to list. --Scantron2 (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer

Spitzer announced his resignation today, effective on Monday the 17th.

Once that happens, we will need to:

  • Remove Spitzer entry
  • Update Paterson as governor
  • Create vacancy for NY DNC at-large seat formerly occupied by Paterson, unless it's filled by that time.
  • Update counts: -1 HRC endorse, +1 Unassigned endorse, -1 HRC category DNC, +1 DNC Unassigned --Scantron2 (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we know that Paterson will be resigning his DNC seat? I can't find any indication of this. If he doesn't he should be listed as Governor, but with a note that officially he is counted as a DNC member. (DNC always takes priority in credentials). If he does resign his DNC seat remember that the vacancy would be unassigned to a state and would simply be a fifth unassigned vacancy (the third at-large vacancy). Galois E (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You may be right. If he doesn't resign the DNC seat, then it "goes away" for practical purposes -- he only gets one vote at the convention. We'll need to note that. Right now, the at-large seat is assigned to NY by the DNC. But I don't know how that works -- it may not be NY's to fill. I'd read on Demconwatch that the process would break down as described above. But you're correct -- let's wait on the at-large vacancy 'till there's a hard determination. --Scantron2 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW - Demconwatch has removed Spitzer already. Any thoughts? Is this appropriate, or do we wait 'till Monday? --Scantron2 (talk)
I don't think there is a need to wait. We aren't waiting until Foster or Carson are sworn in. The idea is that we now know that by the time of the convention they will be sworn in. Shortly thereafter the Democratic Congressional Caucus will officially notify the Secretary of the DNC of that fact. Their states will then each be awarded one more unpledged delegate spot for them. It may officially take some time, but the expectation that it will happen is enough to count them now. By the same reasoning I think Spitzer can be removed now even though the official process of removing the delegate assignment may take some time. If by some chance he changes his mind and does not resign, we could always add him back. Galois E (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts, Galois. An IP user got on that, and I added notes reflecting that Paterson currently holds both delegate seats. We'll address that at-large if the situation changes. regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Florida & Michigan

Jon Ausman of Florida has filed an appeal with the DNC regarding the status of Florida and Michigan superdelegates. He argues that not seating the superdelegates from the states violates the DNC Charter.
I must agree with him. I was surprised when I found out that the superdelegates were also not being seated. They are not tied to the results of the primaries so it never made sense to take away their vote.
The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee will likely decide on his appeal at a meeting in April. [1] (Tjliles2007 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Avoiding lists and follow DemConWatch

I see that a lot of endorsement sources in this page are merely lists. I think that lists have to be avoided. I propose to freely follow the DemConWatch as primary "source of sources", obviously indicating this fact in the page. I hope that someone would spend time to change and correct the sources (the quickest method is to follow DemConWatch). --Subver (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Donatucci (PA) / Newspaper lists

Ronald Donatucci, a DNC superdelegate from PA, is listed here as endorsing Clinton, citing an article that appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Feb. 17, which was merely a list of delegates names/endorsements (i.e., there was no direct quote from Donatucci or any other sort of elaboration). I've searched all over the Intertron and can't find anything on a Donatucci endorsement other than articles/posts citing the Post-Gazette article or unelaborated-upon, unsourced list-type things (which probably also got their info from the Post-Gazette).

Demconwatch has kept Donatucci as "uncommitted" pursuant to the site's policy "not to add endorsements based on newspaper lists, as we've seen mistakes in them, and we have no way of verifying their source" (says Matt). This policy of taking only direct quotes or official press releases (from either the respective campaigns or the superdelegates) as authoritative sources seems to be a good one. So...

Issue 1: The Donatucci endorsement? Yea? Nay?

Issue 2: Should there be some sort of standard for what counts as authoritative for superdelegate endorsement sources? Should unelaborated-upon, uncorroborated, unsourced lists count? Any thoughts? // Yocko (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the endorsement: I believe he campaigns for HRC. I found this in the Philadelphia Daily News blog, in an entry from last friday (March 7):

Ron Donatucci has a lot of titles: Philadelphia Register of Wills, 26th Democratic ward leader and presidential super-delegate.

[...]

PhillyClout's Catherine Lucey is staking out the party headquarters on Walnut Street. Here's what Donatucci, a Clinton supporter, told her just a few minutes ago: "I believe we're going to do an open primary. For party unity, I think it's best to keep an open primary."

--Bouchecl (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But then there's reports like this one, from the Inquirer's "Heard in the Halls" blog: "Oh, and Register of Wills (and uncommited superdelegate) Ron Donatucci? Get ready to be wooed." While he very well could be supporting Clinton, this stuff is just too soft. I'm gonna follow DemConWatch's lead and switch Donatucci back to uncommitted until there's a clear, public endorsement from him. // Yocko (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary table

It seems we have an obtinate IP who likes to change the totals from the summary tables. I've rv'ed his edit for the second time in 24 hours. Any ideas? --Bouchecl (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did the math again. The summary now matches with what we have in the main table. --Bouchecl (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw that. IP did new edits just a bit ago, including totals. This time, however, the totals are right on -- there was an incremental adjustment based on a new addition. I wonder if the confusion was with the 1/2 vote DA delegates. I'm watching for new totals from that IP as well, but hopefully it's worked itself out. The recent edits were straightforward and constructive. --75.167.179.153 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC) ...that was me just now. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

New Section or Article

History of Superdelegates

With the number and makeup of superdelegates changing everyday, I thought it would be valuable information to see this. For example, just today Governor Spitzer, a Clinton supporter, was removed from the list of superdelegates because of his resignation. Even though his successor is also a Clinton supporter, he was already a superdelegate as a DNC member, so the number of superdelegates is reduced by one, and, more importantly, the number of superdelegates that have announced their Clinton, has been reduced by one.

What do you think?

BTW, I think the idea to add the date of endorsement has been well received since it demonstrates how fluid the topic is. Thanks to all that have been updating the dates. 75.193.255.79 (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Date Total Name Effect Notes
3/17/2008 795 Eliott Spitzer ↓ Total, ↓ Clinton Resignation (Governor, NY)
3/13/2008 796 André Carson ↑ Total Election (Representative, IN-7)
3/08/2008 795 Bill Foster ↑ Total, ↑ Obama Election (Representative, IL-14)
2/13/2008 794 Kenneth Curtis ↓ Total, ↓ Clinton Relocation (Maine to Florida)
2/11/2008 795 Tom Lantos ↓ Total, ↓ Clinton Death (Representative, CA-12)
12/15/2007 796 Julia Carson ↓ Total Death (Representative, IN-07)

user:mnw2000 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've wikified the table above and added Julia Carson to the tally. --Bouchecl (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Andre Carson hasn't been sworn in yet today. (we need it sourced if he has) Should he really be on the page?--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • He will be sworn in and will be a superdelegate at the 2008 DNC Convention. Theres no reason not to include him just because he hasnt taken his oath of office yet. (Tjliles2007 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC))
I added an up or down arrow based on the direction of the number of superdelegates. Should I move this to the article ? user:mnw2000 22:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I notice this history now includes Melcher of MT which simply filled a vacancy and did not change the total number of superdelegates. I'm not so keen on this section to begin with, but if it is to include every single vacancy created and/or filled the table is going to be huge. Since Dec 2007 (why is that the start?) there have already been probably at least a dozen DNC spots that have either gone vacant, been filled, or both. And each time an add-on was selected that would also be a change in the list. If we're going to keep this section at all I would suggest that it be limited to events which change the total number of superdelegates and not simply the number of assigned superdelegates. I will respectfully not make any such change, though, until I see some consensus one way or the other. Galois E (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lieberman

There is contradictory evidence of whether Joe Lieberman was a superdelegate even before he endorsed McCain. At superdelegate, the text is in favor of him not being a superdelegate before December, 2007. At 2008 Democratic Convention Watch[2], a strong case is made that he was never a superdelegate. Given this information, I think a strong source (other than the ones already mentioned at superdelegate) is needed to support the claim in this article that Lieberman was a superdelegate until December of 2007. Simon12 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I had the same concern when I saw Lieberman on there. I remember reading an article or two about a month back about Lieberman/superdelegate never being an issue -- that he, like the other independents who caucus with the D's, aren't superdelegates as a matter of DNC policy because of pure party affiliation. I'd be inclined to pull him, personally, unless we can verify he ever was a super. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Joe Lieberman has been outside the Democratic party since his defeat to Ned Lamont in the senatorial primary of 2006. He was re-elected under the banner of "Connecticut for Lieberman", thus he is no longer a Democrat (even if he caucuses with Dems). His name should be removed from the list. --Bouchecl (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I pulled Lieberman's entry per consensus. If documentation can be found to show that he ever was a superdelegate, then we can reinstate him, in which case he would be dropped as of Dec 17, 2007 because of McCain endorsement. --Scantron2 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree that all the evidence supports the fact that Lieberman (or any Independent member of Congress) does automatically have Democratic superdelegate status. I saw so many "articles" that said he was "stripped" of his superdelegate status, which assumes that he was a superdelegate to begin with. I also remember seeing Saunder's name in the superdelegate list somewhere. Thank you for clearing this up. user:mnw2000 12:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there Unpledged add-on delegates on this list

I'm concerned that there may be Unpledged add-on delegates on this list. Superdelgates are only DNC Party Leader and Elected Offical (PLEO) Delegates. Can somebody explain to me how content (or arternatively the naming convention of this article) is accurate If there are add on delegates on it?--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Q DrWho. The superdelegates (or "unpledged" delegates) are Party Leaders (DNC) and Elected Officials (Sen, Rep, Gov) -- hence "unpledged PLEO." The DNC accounts for roughly 475 of the total superdelegate count, and these are all state party officials, national party officials, representatives of affiliated organizations, add-ons etc. Approximately 400 of the "PL" delegates are DNC delegates and 76 are add'ons. The DNC list of "superdelegates" can be found on their site here, though they do not track add-on delegates:
http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20080213_2008UnpledgedPLEOList.pdf
You might check out the list -- it's an interesting look at the party organization. Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So Add-on delegate ARE on the list? I guess I'll have to compare this list to the DNC list and remove them.--Dr who1975 (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The DNC has TWO lists for unpledged delegates. There is the list referenced above, and the delegate allocation list by state that shows the additional add-on unpledged delegates. DO NOT REMOVE THE ADD-ONS. They are superdelegates allocated by the DNC to the states on an add-on basis. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No - the add-on delegates are NOT on the list I mentioned. We don't have rows for these unselected add-ons. But we DO have rows for add-ons once they've been selected. They get picked at the various state conventions. Once they're selected at the state conventions, we add them to our list. The DNC has published the "schedule" of how many add-ons there are for each state. You can find that here:
http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20070607_DistrictAllocationChart.pdf
Hope that helps. --Scantron2 (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
We do have 6 unpledged add-on delegates in the list. They are listed separately in the summary table, and you can sort the main table by type to find who has been nominated to the position. As Scantron2 said earlier, the UAD are superdelegates, so they are included in the list. If Dr. Who has evidence to the contrary, would he please provide some supporting documentation? --Bouchecl (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
      • DON'T REMOVE THE ADD-ONS WE HAVE. Once they're picked, they're full fledged superdelegates. The ones we have are the real, final, selected add-ons and full-on supperdelegates. --Scantron2 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Add on delegatea ARE NOT superdelegates. You're totally missing the point of what I'm getting at. I will not remove them, I will rename the page to Democratic Party (United States) unpledged delegates, 2008.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for not removing the add-on delegates. As for your contention that add-on delegates are not superdelegates, can you please provide a citation to back that up? I believe you have misread something along the way, and you haven't said what. Please provide some basis for your contention. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Who. Your DISPUTE OF FACTUAL ACCURACY is incorrect and unwarranted.

The add-on delegates are full fledged superdelegates. First, the term "superdelegates" is a euphemism for "unpledged" delegates. There are, at present, 795 current or scheduled superdelegate positions.

The DNC selects virtually all of the superdelegates by way of their criteria and process. The add-on delegates are allocated by the DNC but not explicitly selected by them. They are selected by the states at their state conventions. Although they may not appear on the DNC-produced list, they are fully recognized superdlelegates by the DNC.

The DNC-produced delegate allocation table

http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20070607_DistrictAllocationChart.pdf

shows the distrubution of these delegates, and the DNC by-laws available on the democrats.org site clearly specify these delegates' status and process of selection.

The add-on delegates that we have in our table are full voting delegates included alongside the other "PLEO" delegates in that allocation list. They are full "superdelegates".

    • If you could remove your objection to the accuracy of this article, I would appreciate it. If it would be of any comfort to you, you can read extensively about this issue at the premier source of information regarding superdelegates: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com.
      • There are comments on that very blog regarding this specific subject... a user named Mark asked them to differentiate between add ons and superdelegates... this blog only supports what I'm saying.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Scantron2's comment. The objection is unwarranted; the article is factual and accurate as of this writing. --Bouchecl (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Show me a citation that says add on delegates are superdelegates... and don't make from a generic media source like CNN, Fox, or MSNBC... it has to be somethign related to the Democratic party itself.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, the convention on this page is to use the commonly accepted terminology for these delegates. The DNC has its own internal terminology, but the media, pundits, newspapers, TV stations, and political analysts use the term "superdelegate". This is our standard. If CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Demconwatch, politico, the green papers, etc. are all using "superdelegate" then why are you preoccupied with wikipedia following unused, technical descriptors -- especially when this site exists to be a service to interested readers who google "superdelegate". We've adequately explained the DNC terminology in the text. I believe it is incumbent on you to provide a basis for not using the term "superdelegate" --Scantron2 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Who are the six add-on delegates on the list... I would like to mark them accordingly.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Because they are superdelegates. They have been selected as DNC-credentialed delegates. Why would you want to remove or mark them "accordingly". They are already identified as add-ons.
Superdelegate were invented after the 1980 democratic primary... add on delegates pre date this. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have add on delegates yet nobody uses the term Superdelgate in reference to Republican add on delegates and even many media sites differentiate between the two if you drill down on what they're trying to say... people don't seem to know the history behind this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I need to reiterate my question... people are telling me there's 6 add on delegates on the list... where can I fing a list of the 76 add on delegates that exist (I think maybe the these are the 76 "unasigned" delegates mentioned but I'm not sure and I demand accuracy).... I keep getting the impression that these 76 add ons are in the news just as much as the regular superdelegates... I also get the impression that they are indeed on this list.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute: List not complete

OK... I have a new accuracy concern now that the page is named apropriatly.. I get the impression this list contains some but not all 76 add on delegates. We need to include all the add on delegates.. how else are we going to be able to use this list to get a true impression of all the unpledged delegates who will decide between Clinton and Obama come the convention. Now do you see where I was going with this? Any small bit of help would be apreciated... if somebody were to just tell me where to go to look up the add ons I would be happy to go the leg work.--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No I don't know where you are going with this. As of today, only 6 of the 76 are known. See here for the nomination schedule. The last UAD will be named by Nebraska on June 21, 2008 and won't be added to the list until then. As I said, we add the new names as soon as we learn about them. As for the UAD we know about, they're listed in the main table and you can find about them by sorting the main list by "position". Here are the names and states of the six UAD we currently know about.
  • Stewart Burkhalter, AL
  • Vicki Harwell, TN
  • Jerry Lee, TN
  • Mike Panetta, DC
  • Reggie Whitten, OK
  • Mark Wilcox, AR

Hope it helps --Bouchecl (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The total (795) includes 76 "unassigned" delegates; 70 of which are UAD. The other 6 are unfilled vacancies on the DNC (1 in IL, 1 in AZ, 1 Nat'l Conf. Dem. Mayors, 1 Nat'l Dem. Seniors Coor. and 2 at-large). The Totals and totals by group table show how many delegates are still unassigned (or unknown) at this time. Once a delegate is known to us, he/she moves to the uncommitted category if he/she has not committed to a particular candidate. --Bouchecl (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
OK... my biggest concern was calling all unpledged delegates superdelegates when that is not the case. It might be interesting to see how the remaining unassigned delegates breakdown by state but that's not entirely garmain to what I was concerned about.
I want to leave the tag up for a bit longer to make sure some of the other people who have chimed in are satisfied but I am fine with the page the way it is right at this moment (with Democratic Party (United States) unpledged delegates, 2008 as the name). I also want to start a list of Republican party add on delegates too but I'll have to do some reaserch for that.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The superdelegates are both Unpledged PLEOs (currently 719, including 6 vacancies)and Unpledged Add-Ons (76). Total 795 superdelegates. There is nothing to dispute.--Subver (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the following comments as though I am speaking with a concerned inflection. I do not want to be confused with some of these pushy, self righteous, misinformed people that post to discussion boards (and no I am not talking about anyone in this discussion)... I have an honest concern here regarding the facts.
Subver, Considering the term superdelagtes is not an official term. How can you write that? Please site me a reliable source from the Democratic party that says what you just said. Even the news media differs on how they define superdelegates. You are misinformed. Please examine the history of what you are discussing. Unpledged add-on delegates predate the creation of Superdelegates. They are noit superdelegates.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Superdelegates is an informal term for "unpledged delegates". The unpledged delegates are two groups. The Unpledged PLEOs and the unpledged Addons. If you read every source, you'll read 795 (or 796 or slightly different) which is 719+76. --Subver (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As you can see here: http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/FINAL2008CalltotheConvention.pdf , page 33. Unpledged Add-ons are treated and counted as all the other unpledged delegates. Because of "superdelegate" is a term not used by DNC I can't demonstrate you that superdelegates=unpledged delegates by official sources, but informally, superdelegates = "delegates that are not nominated through primaries/caucuses, and not pledged to a candidate" = "unpledged delegates". The term "unpledged delegates" is instead widely used by DNC (see above PDF, page 33) indicating both Unpledged PLEOs and Unpledged Add-ons. Moreover what you wrote (superdelegates=PLEOs) was totally wrong, because with term PLEO, without adjectives DNC indicates Pledged PLEOs (which are normally elected delegates). Please don't modify the page, without any consensus.--Subver (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes... that link does not use the word superdelegates... so.. we have to look into the history of the term to see how it is defined... The term first came about in 1984 when the Democratic party added PLEO delegates to the primary process. Add on delegates already existed and were thus not Superdelgates... we don;t call Republican Add ons superdelegates do we? My argument is based on facts and history.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Because of "superdelegates" is an informal term, we have to use the most common used meaning. Commonly people make a distinction between elected delegates and super-delegates, meaning all not elected delegates. The term used by DNC for all non-elected delegates is "unpleded delegates" and formally and officially DNC sums Unpledged PLEOs(9.A)(divided into DNC Members, DPL, Congresspeople and Governors) and Unpledged Add-ons(9.B). Moreover Add-ons are totally comparable with "party leaders" because they are chosen directly the state party officials. There is nobody among mass media that don't include the Add-ons among the informal term "superdelegates". And the term "superdelegates" has been created by mass media... --Subver (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Title: Superdelegates versus Unpledged Delegates.

The statement below by Scantron2 is NOT an accurate representation of my opinion.

--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the conversation got out of hand and I unfairly characterized your position. We disagree on this issue, but your contribution is well-intentioned and deserves my attention and respect. My apologies. --Scantron2 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Here's a fair characterization: Dr. Who. has been concerned recently about two issues: is "superdelegate" the correct term for this list and it's title, versus "unpledged delegates"? and are add-on delegates superdelegates or not?

...I deleted my previous (long - LOL) edit here as it's covered below. I'm running for the official "blowhard" prize, apparently. --Scantron2 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Look I can open new sections too

  • To people reading this... please examine the 3 sections above to get a pictucre of the entire discussion. This section above has been opened in an attempt to fool you into missing very important points made above. It's the type of tactic used by somebody who a cannot debate a point on it's actual merits. Scantron2, Why do you keep trying to bury sectrions I open under new sections? This is the second time you've done it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I never said we should not use the term superdelegate. Again.. you've missed my point entirely.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Scantron2 I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot here.. it is largely my fault as I made an extreme suggestion (notice I never actually deleted any names from the list). I apologize if I've put you on the defensive. I am ok with article as-is as long as it retains the name unpledged delegates... I have no problem using the term suyperdelgate within the text of the article. Is this OK?--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To both Scantron2 and Subver. Can we erase the insanity above and start over? I will make a simple explanation of what my goals are and you can respond. We can keep it simple so anyone reading it can follow. I need a yes from both of you to do this.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. We should start over here. That's why I opened new sections. I think the text above is too confused and is no longer helpful, IMO. I want to be constructive here. I've been contributing to this page for a while and I want it to be relevant, accurate, fair, unbiased, and useful.
In truth, I'm not sure exactly what you're hoping to accomplish, but I have the idea it revolves around two issues: first, that you think add-ons aren't superdelegates (or that they should be handled differently), and second, that you prefer the term "superdelegate" to "unpledged delegates" (changing the page title, for instance). Do I have that right?
So please, let's take it from the top. I want a constructive and clear dialogue on whatever your concerns are. I think a step back would be good for me. And I'd like to have a fresh look at those concerns. And I admittedly got overly hot in response to the disputes, page title changes, etc. My apologies. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
First is correct... my studies indicate add on delegates are not superdelegates... 2nd, I actually prefer "Unpledged delegates" to "superdelegates" but I can see how our early discussion could lead you to think I have the opposite preference. Through this discourse, I figured out that my main goal is just to keep the title of the page as Democratic Party (United States) unpledged delegates, 2008 ... the term superdelegates should be used often in the text but the overall page is about more than just superdelegates. You don't seem averse this name so I actually think we can conclude the discussion. What do you think?--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. First of all, I would like to know the specific indications that add-ons should not be referred to as "superdelegates". You mention that historically the term was not coined until after unpledged PLEO's were introduced which occurred after the date of unpledged add-ons. That in itself does not indicated that the term was reserved solely for the PLEO's and not for all unpledged delegates. The second argument was that Republican delegates are never referred to as superdelegates. For the Republican convention each state gets 3 positions reserved for the national committeeman and committewoman and state chair. These spots are often unpledged, but not always. For example, in New Jersey and Missouri (maybe others), even they are pledged to the statewide winner. On the other hand in some states like New York many of the delegates go to the convention officially unpledged. It is up to each state. So the Republican Party has a very different process of delegate allocation and how or if they are pledged. It is not surprising then that people would not use the same term for some of their delegates. It is no indication of how the term should be used for Democrats. As the term is "unofficial" I certainly don't think this is cause for a big argument. There is no "right answer". Still if we discover that the term has been used in different ways by different people over time that in itself might make an interesting and useful section to the main article on superdelegates with a very quick reference here. Galois E (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the post, DrWho75. And thanks for taking a step back. I think that I, for one, am better off for that, so thanks. It sounds like the add-on issue is set aside for the moment.

As for the page title, I don't think we are actually on the same page. And please don't take this as being argumentative -- it's not. And look -- no new sections! ;-) My view on the matter is like so:

The page should be called the "superdelegates" page as opposed to the "unpledged delegates" page.

These delegates are commonly and popularly called and known by the term "superdelegates." As a wikipage, our job is not to parse linguistic hairs. Our job is to be representative, useful, fair, and accurate. If we use the term "unpledged delegates," our title will misguide our users.

  • the general public (as well as insiders) uses the term superdelegate. Many won't know what "unpledged delegate" means -- or that it's the same thing as "superdelegates."
I did a google search on various terms and got the following counts:
search term "superdelegate" - 558,000 hits
search term "superdelegates" - 2,660,000 hits (total 3,218,000)
search term "unpledged delegate" - 3,880 hits
search term "unpledged delegates" - 35,770 hits
search term "unpledged PLEO" - 1,400 hits (total 41,050 hits)
Thus, "superdelegate" is used 80 times as often, or accounts for roughly 98.75% of the usage.
I also did a search restricted to the domain http://www.democrats.org -- the DNC site -- and got the following counts:
search term "superdelegate" - 618 hits
search term "superdelegates" - 1,780 hits (total 2,398)
search term "unpledged delegate" - 3 hits
search term "unpledged delegates" - 144 hits
search term "unpledged PLEO" - 1 hit (total 148 hits)
Thus, even on the DNC site, "superdelegate" is used 15 times as often as "unpledged x," and represents roughly 94% of the usage.
note: the only use of "unpledged PLEO" was the .pdf doc www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20080213_2008UnpledgedPLEOList.pdf
On the basis of this, it is clear that for us to use the title "unpledged delegates" represents a small minority or usage even on the DNC site and is flat-out arcane in the popular community.

Or to put it another way, if we were to drop "superdelegate" from our page title, this wikipage would be the only delegate count page NOT using the term "superdelegate" in its title. I don't see how uniquely non-conforming language in this wikipage is a service to our readers or the public at large.

The other objection I have is the following:

  • "Unpledged delegates" can be confused with "uncommitted delegates" or non-endorsing candidates. I believe that this title is, in fact, misinformative as a title. While everyone on this talk board understands this distinction, the general population is not sensitive to the linguistic distinctions between "unpledged" and "uncommitted". The wiki "list of unpledged delegates" page sounds like a list of undecideds, whereas it is, in fact, all superdelegates.

In conclusion, the fair, useful, and representative terminology must the superdelegate rather than unpledged delegate.

I agree with you that in order to address accuracy, we must make (and have made) the linguistic distinction between the common term "superdelegate" and the technical terminology of "unpledged delegate" or "unpledged PLEO." My hope is that we can all agree that our narrative has adequately drawn these distinctions. If more clarification is necessary, then we should by all means add it.

DrWho75...having said all that, I am willing to go along with the consensus of the board here. I hope you don't take me as overly argumentative -- I haven't been before. I've expressed my view in full above and don't particularly need to say more on the subject. Please do reply with counters as you see fit, and don't worry that I'll jump in again (unless you want me to clarify anything I've said). Mainly, I want to get the perspectives out there so that the other editors can weigh in if they'd like. At this point, I'll go-along, get-along. Regards, DrWho75. --Scantron2 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Superdelegatges is the "defacto" term that is used in the media and what most people call these delegates. Unpledged delegates may be the "official" term, but most people would be confused between pledged and unpledged and searching could add to the confusion since the word pledged is in both. In fact, I find the term to be inaccurate because the so-called pledged delegates from Iowa recently changed thier votes a series of conventions and can be changed again at the state convention. So are they pledged if they cannot be changed? If so, then is a "superdelegate" that has "pledged" to support a candidate now changed is "unpledged" status to "pledged"? By the way, the DNC calls them "automatic delegates". Talk about double-speak.

Let's change it back to Superdelegates as that is the term most people use (as demonstrated with a Google Search).

user:mnw2000 02:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've been doing some reading.

  • There seems to be little argument that the overwhelming majority of references in the media this year to "superdelegates" uses the term to refer to all unpledged delegates. Hence we have the much ballyhooed number 796 which has gone up and down (and now stands at 794). For example, this excellent Boston Globe article http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/17/80s_rules_reform_skews_democrats_nominee_process/?page=1 talks about the history of these delegates and refers to 795 "superdelegates" (quotes in original) thus implicitly counting all unpledged delegates. In fact, I have yet to see a current source refer to 718 superdelegates. (This argument is also detailed above by others).
  • What about the party? Well, as noted the party doesn't ever refer officially to "superdelegate". It's information office's delegate allocation pdf http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/20070607_DistrictAllocationChart.pdf makes a primary distinction between pledged and unpledged delegates. Within the unpledged category it breaks it down further into DNC, U.S. Cong., Dem. Gov., DPL, and Add-On unpledged making no distinction that groups the first four categories together apart from the fifth. The official delegate selection rules http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf has a section 9 titled "Unpledged and Pledged Party Leader and Elected Officials" which includes Rule 9A detailing those that will be certified as unpledged delegates based on their position (DNC, DPL, Dem. Gov., and US Cong.). Rule 9B details the unpledged add-ons. Rule 9C details pledged PLEO's. Rule 9D talks about how PLEO's can be selected implicitly including the 9B add-on's in this. Rule 9E says that only 9A delegates have an automatic status. Thus the term "automatic" delegate should be used only for 9A delegates. There seems to be an argument, though, that even the term unpledged PLEO should include add-ons. I'm comfortable, though, continuing to resere the term unpledged PLEO for 9A delegates but I just wanted to point out this distinction isn't even so clear.
  • What about the history of the term "superdelegate"? I'm definitely interested in learning more, but so far I found the following op-ed by Elaine Kamarck(lecturer at the JFK school of Government and superdelegate herself) http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18072/history_of_superdelegates_in_the_democratic_party.html?breadcrumb=%2F helpful. She notes that the Hunt Commission reforms after the 1980 convention were designed not only to include more PLEO's at the convention, but also to give some flexibility by having a significant number of unpledged delegates at the convention. She writes the following

Organized feminists, on and off the Commission, however, make a new argument. Speaking on their behalf, Technical Advisory Committee Member Susan Estrich of Massachusetts argued that creating a new category of delegates who were not subject to the fair reflection and candidate right of approval rules would create a new status of delegate which she referred to as “super-delegates.” These delegates, argued Estrich, would be overwhelmingly white and male. Even were they balanced by an equal number of women in the total delegation — there would still be the problem of “equal power.” The “super-delegates” because of their greater flexibility in the choice of a nominee, would have greater power than the female delegates committed to presidential candidates. (“Unintended Consequences,” by Susan Estrich, Memorandum to the Hunt Commission, September 9, 1981.)

Thus the name "super-delegate" was used because these delegates would have greater power because of their greater flexibility. Thus the term should apply to ALL unpledged delegates (for they all have that power).

Based on these findings and the arguments made by other editors above, I strongly believe that we should use "superdelegate" to refer to all unpledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention and the title of this article should be changed back to reflect this. Galois E (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • None of your citations discusses the total history of unpledged delegates. Many news sources only recently started lumping all democratic unpledged delegates under that moniker.
  • If the terms both mean the same thing then we should use the more neutral term... "unpledged delegates" for the name of this page.
  • You talk about the term being misleading but the page explains itself and what it means. Superdelegates is a controversial term. I am not the only one with this opinion. Please bear in mind, the term should be used in the text of the article... but wikipedia must also attemp to maintain a neutral point of view.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
An effect of changing to "unpledged delegates" (the formal term, used by DNC) against "superdelegates" (informal term, widely and commonly used to indicate not pledged delegates == unpledged delegates) is the disappearance in Google results of this page. With this name the page is very difficult to find. I'm for reverting to the previous name, only for this reason ("unpledged delegates" is surely correct) and also because the title was changed without any consensus. --Subver (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • When I look up "Superdelegates" in google, I get Superdelegate a different page from this one that
    a) relatively accuratly describes the history of superdelegates (it's not perfect and still needs work but it's close) and
    b) links to this page so people will still be able to find it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the discussion is enough, so let's decide (voting).--Subver (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

====Agree reverting to informal "superdelegates"====

  • --Subver (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • --Scantron2 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (will back consensus, if different, but do believe this is the more appropriate title)
  • --Rrius (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1) The term "superdelegate" is in general usage. Despite Dr who1975's assertion, the term has been in use for more ages. That superdelegates had not received much press attention in past election years is a function of how quickly those elections were decided. 2) The main purpose of a title is to help readers find articles. Far more people looking for unpledged PLEOs will search for "superdelegates" than anything else. 3) Wikipedia policy puts the onus on the editor trying to change from one controversial title to another. I am granting for the sake of argument that "superdelegate is actually controversial. "Unpledged delegates" is controversial for the reasons stated in my contribution and those of others. 4) It is not clear to my why you believe "superdelegate" is POV (I have read a lot of the arguments, but gave up looking). If it is because it sounds like these delegates are more important, a short sentence in the lead is sufficient to clear things up.

====Disagree, keeping formal "unpledged delegates"====

Wikipedia is not a Democracy

This "vote" that has been started doesn't even follow the rules of dispute resolution. I do not want uniformed people weighing in on this issue... particularily when the points I made have been buried in volumes and volumes of text, we need to use an alternate source of dispute resolution. Where both sides make a 1 or 2 sentence summary of their points and a neutral party decides.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been done. It seems you are alone with your ideas. Previously there was consensus on "superdelegates" and you changed it without any consensus (by anyone). Many times voting is used to summarize the discussion. But I think the positions are clear, you are right, in this case voting is useless. So now I'm reverting to previous consensus.--Subver (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the correct decision, Subver.
Well, the article's neutrality is now disputed. I'm guessing the best way to resolve this is to move to a third-party opinion. I will contact DrWho75 to see if he'd like to provide the "unpledged delegates" perspective. In reading the rules, it appears that there is only one editor on each side involved in the process. If you'd like to represent the superdelegates, I'm fine with that. I am willing to go through the process, as well. Or if anyone else would like to step in, pipe up!
it's unfortunate we've had a failure of consensus here, but it could be worse. I'll contact DrWho now. --Scantron2 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DrWho75. So how does this work -- do we kick it up to a wikipedia arbitrator? I've never used a formal arbitrator before.

I roughed out a template along the lines of what I think you're contemplating. I'm assuming you'll provide the alternative perspective. We should probably wait 'till other editors have had a chance to review the superdelegate side. --Scantron2 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee addresses issues of user conduct. It does not resolve content disputes.
I suggest a Request for Comment. Do not assume that readers coming to this page for the first time will wade through all the previous argumentation. On the other hand, I don't think it's realistic to expect other editors to give an opinion based on just a sentence or two about each side of the dispute.
The last one I was closely involved with concerned Barney Frank. I set up a template for the RfC and invited the dissenting editor to provide the article for his preferred version. When we had it ready to go, to both sides' satisfaction, we listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics with a link to the specific part of the talk page set up for newcomers to the issue -- in that instance, Talk:Barney Frank#Request for comment. This one should be easier to set up because you don't have two different versions of a paragraph to present; it's just a page-move question.
By the way, concerning the terminology: Our article on Superdelegate concerns only the unpledged PLEO delegates. The media more often use the term to include unpledged add-on delegates as well, but the usage isn't completely consistent. JamesMLane t c 00:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The superdelegate article is actually inconsistent on this issue. The opening text implies that only the regular unpledged PLEOs are included, but it is misleading, as add-ons are PLEOs (see below). And then look at the 2008 section - what's the number of superdelegates? 796/795/etc. That section clearly includes the add-ons. So that article shouldn't be taken as evidence either way.Simon12 (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

At question: should this article use "superdelegates" or "unpledged delegates" in its title?

  • Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008
  • Democratic Party (United States) unpledged delegates, 2008
Argument for "superdelegates" - Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008
"Superdelegates" is the commonly accepted and defacto term for unpledged delegates in the Democraticy Party primary. The use of this term conforms to use in companion wikipages, the media, delegate counting websites, political blogs, and everyday speech. "Superdelegates" is also the term that has been used in this article's title up until now. The term "superdelegates" is neither controversial nor an expression of POV, and it accounts for 99% of the usage in Google searches when compared to searches on "unpledged delegates" The latter term is not useful because is not used by the public and would be mis-representative by causing confusion with "uncommitted delegates." This article's purpose is to be the most relevant, unbiased, and timely reference on a topic of great public interest.
Argument for "unpledged delegates" - Democratic Party (United States) unpledged delegates, 2008
Superdelegates is a controversial term that has only recently become synonmous with Democratic party Unpledged delegates. Since both terms mean the same thind, the page should be named the more neutral term.


Comments???

Q from Scantron2: is it fair to note that the page name was unilaterally changed by Dr.Who1975? My concern is that if we don't note this, the arbitrator may think the context is "superdelegates" wanting to replace "unpledged delegates" rather than the other way around, which is what has happened with Dr Who1975. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC) ...removed the unilateral change comment as the page now reads "superdelegates" as it has. --Scantron2 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who1975. I inserted your argument from your template for dispute resolution (version as of 20:43 18 March 2008) but would encourage you to add or improve this so that it reflects your best argument for the use of "unpledged delegates." Regards, --Scantron2 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good faith offer to Dr Who1975, consensus or amicable arbitration

Hey all -- a dispute's been entered in the article over the recent controversy regarding the use of "superdelegates" in the page title. My thought is that the issues have been laid out and that consensus has not been reached. We should seek to remove the dispute tag, and this may require moving forward with a third-party resolution. However,

I would absolutely prefer to reach consensus if that is at all possible.

To move the process forward, I contacted Dr Who1975, who represents the one side of the discussion. Here is my offer to him. I present it publicly because if anyone can come up with a way to amicably resolve this dispute, we should pursue that. However, the disputed tag which has been place on and off for the last few days needs to be addressed. Failing any creative resolution, we should move forward with third-party resolution. --Scantron2 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


        • My post to Dr Who1975:


Dr Who1975. As you may know, Subver undid your move of the page title from ...superdelegates, 2008 to ...unpledged delegates, 2008 so that it now reads "Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008." This is probably the best starting point to proceed from as it reflects the traditional title of the page.

Another user, Grsz11 has thrown a dispute tag up -- not presenting any disagreement, but merely referencing the ongoing discussion between between yourself and the other editors of the article.

Although the dispute was entered by the above-referenced user, I'm assuming that you would like to be the counterparty to this dispute's resolution. It is, after all, your dispute that Grsz11 references.

I have provided a template to present in the conflict resolution process. It will need to be moved to its own section. I put in the argument you had entered before -- before you reverted your edits. I believe you should have the opportunity to add or amend this before we move forward.

So - a few questions:

  • First, is it possible to reach a consensus here? I'd rather not move to dispute resolution if there is a third option -- although Grsz11's entry may make that more difficult. The tradition for this article is to resolve disputes amicably and by consensus.
  • Second, if we move to dispute resolution, would you like to be the party to this conflict, or should I approach Grsz11? All things considered, I'd prefer that you represent the "unpledged delegates" perspective because the concern appears to be yours.
  • Third, is there anything you'd like to add to the "unpledged delegates" text to be submitted for dispute resolution? The text there is your own, but I want to give you every opportunity to contribute so that the process is fair to you.
  • Fourth, do you care whether the counterparty is Subver, me, or anyone else? My ego's not wrapped up in this -- I'd be happy to have any of the editors who have spoken up represent our side. But if you have a particular preference, let me know.
  • Fifth, is there anything I've missed here? I realize both sides got off on the wrong foot. If there's anything I'm not understanding, that you haven't been able to say, or any out-of-the-box ideas you can come up with, please let me know.

Regards, Scantron2


        • Proposed timeline. Failing an agreeable resolution, I believe that we should submit this to third-party arbitration at 02:00 20 March 2008 UDT (10:00 PM EDT, March 19) unless another time makes more sense. That is 72+ hours from when Dr Who1975 placed his first dispute tag, following some discussion on talk. For an article like this with high traffic, and a cut-and-dried issue such as this is, I don't see much benefit in waiting longer than that if we can't reach consensus. --Scantron2 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the blog 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, which is mentioned above and also used as the official source of superdelegate numbers in Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008, has left this as a comment on their list of add-on superdelegates:

Attention Wikipedia editors: Here's an official statement from 2008 Democratic Convention Watch: The term "superdelegates" has almost always been used by the media to cover all Unpledged PLEOs, both regular Unpledged PLEOs and Add-on PLEOs. Here at DCW, we also considered the add-ons as superdelegates. Having Wikipedia not include the add-ons under the term "superdelegates" will just confuse people, and makes no sense.

I agree with these thoughts, and believe this article should use the term "superdelegates", not "unpledged delegates". Simon12 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment you quote is itself a little muddled. In the party rules, "add-on" is the term used for the unpledged delegates selected under Rule 9.B. They don't need to be PLEOs. The additional PLEOs are pledged, not unpledged, and are chosen under Rule 9.C. I think the Dem Con Watch blogger means that he considers as superdelegates the unpledged PLEOs (Rule 9.A) and the unpledged add-ons (Rule 9.B), but he's leaving it unclear whether he includes the pledged PLEOs (Rule 9.C). JamesMLane t c 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that add-ons are not considered PLEOs. Section 9 is titled "UNPLEDGED AND PLEDGED PARTY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIAL DELEGATES". Therefore all delegates under section 9 are PLEOs, and therefore add-ons are PLEOs. Addtionally, add-ons are clearly unpledged, so they are therefore Unpledged PLEOs. Therefore the comment from Dem Con Watch is clear: superdelegates are "Unpledged PLEOs". I will grant that the rest of the comment probably should have read "regular Unpledged PLEOs and Add-on Unpledged PLEOs, but since all Add-ons are unpledged anyway, I think the comment is clear. Simon12 (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Simon12 and was about to say the same thing about the title of section9. Rule 9.B delegates are inherently considered party leaders simply by virtue of their selection in this process. I think it is clear that the blogger (as well as most everyone else) considers all unpledged delegates (9.A or 9.B) to be superdelegates. This can be seen by the way the endorsement list at the blog and the number 794. Someone who refers to 794 superdelegates (or an approximation of that) is clearly referring to all unpledged delegates as superdelegates. If someone were to refer to 718 superdelegates (or an approximation of that) he or she would be counting only 9.A delegates. If someone were to refer to 1209 superdelegates (or an approximation of taht) he or she would be counting all PLEO's. I have not seen either of those latter numbers referenced. The Wikipedia superdelegate article even uses the 795 number despite claims elsewhere in the article that it intends to discuss only 9.A delegates. Galois E (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter for purposes of titling and organizing our articles, but I don't think the unpledged add-ons can reasonably be considered party leaders. By that logic, all 4,000+ delegates are party leaders (as, in a sense, they are, certainly more so than the average rank-and-file Democrat). In the rules, Rule 9.A refers to "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates". Those slots are open only to people holding the named positions. Rule 9.C refers to "pledged party leader and elected official delegates", and Rule 9.C.1 sets forth the priority of party positions and elected positions that's to be followed in filling these spots. By contrast, there's no such language in Rule 9.B. That rule uses the PLEO term only in distinguishing a different stage of the process: "Following the selection of district-level delegates, and prior to the selection of pledged party leader and elected official delegates, unpledged add-on delegates shall be selected according to the following procedures...." That's why I consider the blogger's term "Add-on PLEOs" to be confusing. You have to be a PLEO before becoming a delegate under Rule 9.A or 9.C, but any Democrat with a pulse can become a delegate under Rule 9.B.
What does matter for our articles is how we use the terms. The Superdelegate article as it now stands devotes most of its attention to explaining the unusual rule by which some people (the unpledged PLEOs under Rule 9.A) got to be delegates by virtue of their status, not because anyone chose them as delegates. The add-ons weren't addressed in detail because their selection is more in keeping with the norm. As you point out, though, other editors added information about specific numbers and included the unpledged add-ons (Rule 9.B). Because those numbers are so widely used, that's a reasonable choice. It's been on my to-do list for a while to edit the Superdelegate article by eliminating this internal inconsistency. JamesMLane t c 06:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: I've now made the change to the Superdelegate article. With regard to the question raised by Dr Who1975, the exchanges on this page illustrate why the Superdelegate article begins by explaining that the term is an informal one. In Talk:Superdelegate#Introductory section, it was suggested that the article should instead begin, "Superdelegates are special delegates in a political party's presidential nominating convention...." Treating it as informal term is more informative, though. One could argue from history, as Dr Who1975 does, that it should exclude unpledged add-on delegates, or argue from current media usage, as the DemConWatch blogger does, that it should include them. Because there's no formal definition, any reasonable approach is defensible if it's explicitly spelled out. In this instance, the approach of including the unpledged add-ons is preferable so that we aren't constantly explaining why our numbers are so different from everyone else's. JamesMLane t c 10:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Superdelegates a non-neutral term?

In a couple of places above, it has been claimed that the term 'superdelegates' by itself is non-neutral, and that is one reason to change the name of the page. While the concept of superdelegates is certainly a hot topic for political discussion, it would be helpful to the discussion if the editor could explain why he or she things the term itself violates NPOV? Simon12 (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that the neutrality tag has been changed to "The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed.", it obviously important for the proponents of this idea to explain whey they think the title or subject matter violates WP:NPOV. Simon12 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Give me a day or two.. I have work to do in the real world.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All of us. --Subver (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
We can;t seem to have a proper concesus getting vote because YOU KEEP REMOVING THE DISCUSSION TAGS. I took you previous removal to mean that you were fine with the page the way it was (unpledged delegates)... if you had a problem with the title... why did you end discussion by removing the tag I originally put up? Next thing i know, we're starting a vote! Either you're being careless or trying to game the system. Please have a little patience. I really have to get back to work now... I promise to open a proper debate soon (with no more bold changes... please note that I didn't edit war with Subver at any time when he reverted my changes, I followed WP:BOLD and now that that hasn't met approval I'll be concensus getting). You should be able to deal with this since the page is currently in the state you prefer it in.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I repeat. The discussion has been done. Everybody except you agree on using "superdelegates" as informal term relating to "unpledged delegates" (formal term, described in Rule 6.C). You talked about "your research" (sorry, but I'm a bit dubious). So please don't continue with the same arguments, without bring any source. We can't continue a discussion indefinitely. A user has added a tag again, I think (with others) not appropriate, so I removed it. If later you'll have new arguments or sources we could re-open the discussion. --Subver (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Subver -- as you know, Dr Who1975 has said that he would like to pursue a formal dispute resolution process. Talk and consensus has failed (or succeeded, except that he won't accept the consensus). As you know, I accepted his offer to present arguments for third-party review yesterday, and have provided a template below. I will initiate the Request for Comment at 22:00 Eastern (04:00 UDT). Dr Who has been notified by me twice and is aware that I have accepted his proposal.
  • Based on this, I might suggest you restore the dispute tag. It was placed there by user Grsz11 (or something like that) based on Dr Who's vigorous activity -- even though Dr Who defends it as though it were his own.
  • Although you are correct that Dr Who has yet to provide a single piece of evidence to back up his claims, and is clearly showing intense personal POV on this matter, I think we should let the process play out -- as much as I dislike that tag.
  • It's your call, but these are my thoughts. --Scantron2 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert of this kind of tags and I'm surely not expert of formal dispute resolutions but I think that are not appropriate in a situation with "1 against all"...it is my personal dumb opinion. If someone would re-add an appropriate tag, motivating it, I will not revert it. Is it necessary to keep a tag to begin a formal resolution ?(I really don't know). --Subver (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you're right, Subver. Since it is "1 against all" as you say, it may not be necessary to maintain the tag. The tag wasn't even Dr Who's, but was a third party observing all the discussion. Since the discussion has been resolved, there's no need for the tag. It can be removed cleanly. There really is no lack of consensus on this issue.
I think the request for comment would be useful, however. First, it's how Dr Who said he prefers to handle the discussion -- since he clearly hasn't won or accepted the consensus. That'll formally end this as one of Dr Who's personal POV protesting against all contrary evidence.
If you see a problem with the Request for Comment, let me know. Otherwise, I'll pursue it. And if Dr Who files a protest on the removal of the flag, I'll back you up. The talk board has completely addressed the disagreement the poster cites. --Scantron2 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Special elections - update probably needed

A footnote in the History of the total number of superdelegates section states, "There are two open House seats where a special election prior to the Democratic convention is planned...." Are there really still two open seats? I'm guessing this referred to the special elections won by Foster and Carson. If so, this passage should now be removed. JamesMLane t c 10:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There are four open seats and special elections scheduled. See List_of_special_elections_to_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives. And as far as I can tell, Democrats are still alive in all 4. (Only likely to win 1, but thats crystal balling). Simon12 (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected, there are four open seats: LA-1, LA-6, MS-1 and CA-12 and there is a Democrat will be running in all four. user:mnw2000 16:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor consensus achieved. Accept Users proposal for formal resolution.

Consensus among the editors, besides you, has been achieved. You have written extensively over the last three days and the editors have replied at length. The opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of the use of "superdelegates" in this article's title. Based on your recent edits, you clearly do not accept the consensus achieved on the talk page.

As I mentioned yesterday, I agree that we should use the tools of a more formal resolution process. You specifically proposed an argument/counter-argument structure that can be presented to neutral parties. Per your suggestion, and following your template, I have prepared the Request for Comments below.

This template includes the verbatim argument you offered in favor of the use of "unpledged delegates" in this article's title. (Refer to your edit as of 20:43 18 March 2008 UDT -- before you replaced this with your "Wikipedia is not a Democracy" post.) Please feel free to revise as you see fit.

I will initiate Request for Comments today at 22:00 EDT, at which point we will be in our fourth day since placed your original dispute tag, and in the second day since you proposed and I agreed to pursue added steps toward resolution.

Regards, --02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you decide that you are unhappy with the explanation of "unpledged delegates" that you initially offered, I have no objection to an edit. Again, this process is meant to draw neutral, independent feedback. Regards, --02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created the Request for Comments section.

What it is

A request for comments is an informal process of attracting neutral wiki users to the debate section to offer their feedback. This is a tool to assist this page's editors in hopefully arriving at a consensus.

What it is not

A request for comments is not a binding process. Nor is it a vote. The process should not be taken as an end-all, be-all step, but rather, a process that may shed light on the issue or provide unique insights.

03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_superdelegates_at_the_2008_Democratic_National_Convention/Archive_1&oldid=1018712535"