Wikipedia

Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 10

< Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Humanengr in topic Vandalism of sub-pages
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Rfc regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries infobox template

Latest comment: 4 years ago143 comments70 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Sorry, but I'm going to close this as impossible to determine consensus. The only thing that can definitely be said is that option B has failed. Here's the problem, no single option got an overall majority of the votes. It is not possible to determine how many of the other participants would have supported the option with the highest number of votes. To compound this, the option that did get the highest number was option D, but since that option was "other", not everybody who voted for it had the same suggestion. RfCs work best when a simple yes or no question is asked, preferably after a discussion has teased out a proposal that might have broad consensus. Having "other" as an option is guaranteed to make the discussion a mess; it's an invitation to get as many different answers as there were participants. It's also unnecessary; people can and do recommend their own solution even when it is not an option. Finally, I note that Michelangelo1992's suggestion got a lot of support, but consensus would need to be tested on that in a separate RfC SpinningSpark 10:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is an Rfc exclusively regarding the infobox template for the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Previously, there was an Rfc about state pages, and this does not affect that result.

The question is:
Should withdrawn candidates that have delegates (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg) and candidates still in but with no possible path to victory (Gabbard) still be included in the infobox?

The options are:
A - Remove all withdrawn candidates and candidates with no possible path.
B - Remove withdrawn candidates but keep all candidates still in the race. Possibly with a 5% threshold?
C - Keep as is.
D - Other.

Thanks all! Smith0124 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit for clarity: Option C, Keep as is, means to include the 7 candidates Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Gabbard. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment/Question:@Smith0124: Is Option A broken if we head into a contested convention? As we get to the last primaries ALL candidate would have no possible path.--Davemoth (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

(Another clarification: Option C does not include Gabbard now that she has dropped out.) Smith0124 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Strong disagree. When people commented below in support of option C, they were stating that Gabbard should remain. We can’t change the definition of a term after people have already voted using a different definition of it.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This is why I'm questioning editing the template while the RFC is underway in the talk page section here Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Editing_of_template_while_RFC_is_ongoing. It doesn't make sense to move the goalposts, so to speak. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I have been trying to restore the status quo (or how the template looked when the RfC began). Changing it throughout makes things very confusing. I agree with Michelangelo1992's explaination of what C means. If Gabbard dropping out changes things for people, they should say so by claifying or changing their !vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree with all 3 of you. In my opinion, the fact that Gabbard earned 2 delegates moved her into the first part of the RfC question. Gabbard should now be in the same class as Klobuchar (under 5% but with Delegates) - Warren might also end up in this boat. Buttigieg is in a similar boat but also has a win - Bloomberg may end up there too. This one will be difficult (and scary) to close. As for part C, the other RfC will be closed with the Local Consensus applying to this template until this RfC closes. It will set the bar at inclusion based on having a delegate or 5% of the popular vote. With Gabbard suspending today I figured to hold off on the first RfC closure for a few days. I guess I should get my statement there and let people mull that over for a few days before officially closing that one.--Davemoth (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

  • C for sure. Even after a candidate suspends his/her campaign, the delegates still matter. As long as a candidate has delegates, they should be displayed here. Think about it, after the primary is over, should we just list the one winning candidate in the infobox? Of course not. We should display everyone who has delegates. There are only a few, and it is a helpful tool while reading the article and following the election. After all, it doesn't hurt to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.118.241.67 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D, other. (C, of the given options). This stems down to a disagreement about the purpose of the infobox. In my view it should summarize the entire race, not just the race as it stands at this exact moment. Therefore, any candidate who has been a significant factor in the race should stay. I propose the following criteria for inclusion in this infobox, as opposed to the individual state contest infoboxes. Any candidate who (a) wins a contest or (b) gets 5% of the popular vote or (c) gets 5% of the delegates belongs in the infobox. Dropping out does not mean a candidate should be removed. I'll give a hypothetical, which I discussed above. Imagine a two-candidate race. If one candidate drops out, do we just have the winner sit alone in the infobox before re-adding the runner-up after the convention? That does not make sense. So, according to my criteria, the candidates who would stay are Biden and Bernie (have won states), Bloomberg (won AS), Warren (delegates + popular vote), and Buttigieg (won IA, tied NH). Klobuchar and Gabbard should be removed because they do not have a significant number of delegates and did not win any contests. In particular, Gabbard's single delegate from American Samoa is trivial and I believe including her is giving her WP:UNDUE weight.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Smith0124: Would you mind self-reverting the edit you made to remove three candidates from the infobox? I do not believe there was consensus for it and I believe it should remain for now. That's the entire purpose of this RFC: to discuss whether or not to remove those candidates. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I will. Smith0124 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D - I like Michelangelo1992's option because it is in line with previous standards and the usual 5% threshold, and represents both the popular vote and the delegates. Personally I would add Klobuchar in addition since she was a major candidates all the way up to Super Tuesday almost, but that's subjective and these standards represent the most fair way to keep control of the infobox while still having it be a representation of the race now and when it is over. In addition, it was the most popular option in the previous Rfc without even being an option, so I think it has a good amount of public support. Smith0124 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • C - Keep as is. It's helpful to see who won delegates, even if some of those candidates suspended their campaigns. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D I tend to generally agree with Michelangelo1992. Leave in withdrawn candidates and only include candidates who have a significant number of delegates (maybe 5, or 10). Our job is to summarize the race not list the current candidates. When the story of the 2020 primaries is told in the future, I think Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar will require mention. Furthermore, if a brokered convention happens it may matter which candidates also have delegates, how many, if they try to persuade their delegates to support a remaining candidate, and if so who. As the withdrawn candidates have less than the three "leading" candidate who have remained in the race, they will appear below them in the infobox which works well. I have a preference of limiting the infobox to six candidates. No nock on Gabbard but she only has one delegate, has less than 1% of the vote so far, and is polling between 1-2% nationally. She deserves mention in the article including in the candidates section, debates etc, but I am not sure she deserves a spot in the infobox unless she picks up more delegates, wins a state/contest, or pulls above 5% of the vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
* Withdrawn candidate photos in black and white? - If we are going to keep withdrawn candidates in the infobox would it be appropriate for us to stylize their photos in black and white to further emphasize that they have dropped out of the race? I had the thought after seeing this on a news site. Not sure if that is appropriate but thought it might be something we should consider.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure it is necessary or appropriate either, just thought I would throw it out for discussion. Some editors seem concerned that leaving withdrawn candidates in the infobox would be misleading or not accurately represent the race. Perhaps, if appropriate, black and white images could be a compromise between the A/B and C/D folks that everyone could live with. Maybe not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Now that Tulsi Gabbard has suspended her campaign, I think the case is stronger that it should be the top six in order of their delegates. She did not receive a significant number of votes or delegates, and did not play any significant role in the race. I think we should include Biden, Bernie, Warren, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar in order of their delegates.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Someone in SoCal Area: Then how about option B but with a 5% threshold? Smith0124 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D The infobox should contain any candidates who have won delegates, whether they suspended or withdrew their candidacy at some point. Gabbard, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and (possibly) Bloomberg should appear in the infobox. There should be no cutoff percentage or number, other than the limit imposed by the template (which could be extended). An arbitrary cutoff would distort the subject, running foul of WP:NPOV.- MrX 🖋 01:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Aren't you just proposing a different cut off though? Ie. one delegate. There are others running too, including Henry Hewes and Robby Wells. In addition to them, there are others who are only on the ballot in a few states. Should we include them in the infobox too? If not, on what basis? What is the cutoff you are proposing?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
But consider articles such as 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries. Is it a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, and Carly Fiorina from the infobox? After all, all of them won delegates. I say no, of course not: it is quite clear that their campaigns were not as crucial to the subject as those of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich, all of whom met all three of the criteria winning a contest, getting 5% of the popular vote and getting 5% of the (pledges) delegates. The many candidates who meet none of those criteria simply aren't as crucial as those who have. Asking for candidates to meet only one of those three criteria is plenty inclusive enough. I agree that the 5% number is arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere; and admitting that some candidates have had a bigger impact on the primaries than others isn't non-neutral: WP:NPOV says right there in the first line that representation should be proportional, and one single delegate or ten is clearly not equal to five hundred. We're not arguing on the personal merits of these candidates or anything; the primaries aren't even over, and although I think I'm very sure as to which candidates will stay on the infobox, I don't know for sure and no one is making suggestions on which candidates personally should be kept long term. It's just an artifact of how large this candidate field was that so many candidates got these tiny numbers of delegates, just as in the 2016 Republican primaries. In a borderline case I'd be willing to hear arguments for inclusion of someone who had, say, 4.9% of the vote/delegates or maybe a string of second place finishes, but frankly 5% of delegates is a very small amount to ask. Cookieo131 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The Republican template limits the candidates in the template to the top 4 candidates sorted by delegate count. It is not a violation of WP:NOV to exclude candidates since they did not place higher than the 4 top delegate/vote-getters. I say that we should do the same thing that template has done: limit clutter and confusion and redundancy by limiting the candidates to 4 in the infobox, sort these 4 candidates based on delegate/vote totals, and include all active campaigns. Makes no sense to exclude any candidate because of % total or who has made a bigger impact on the race or not.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D; 100% agree with Michelangelo1992 above. This should be about *notable* candidates, not just those in the race or who have won a delegate. So, keep only candidates who have won contests or have considerable numbers of votes and/or delegates (5%).--Wikibojopayne (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D, in concurrence with comments made by Darryl Kerrigan. I couldn't agree more with what he said. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D; I agree with everything Michelangelo1992 said. The criteria for inclusion in the infobox should be exactly (a) wins a contest or (b) gets 5% of the popular vote or (c) gets 5% of the delegates. Getting such a tiny fraction of delegates as Klobuchar or Gabbard did/have does not warrant a spot in the infobox; their campaigns are covered elsewhere. Cookieo131 (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
After giving some thought, I would also like to include the addendum of including any candidate that received more delegates than another candidate already in the infobox, as I do understand why some would have WP:NPOV concerns if a candidate got, say, 150 delegates but wasn't included in lieu of, say, Buttigieg, who won one state and dropped out at 26 delegates. Cookieo131 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The inclusion in the infobox should simply be 4 candidates based on vote total/delegate total order including all active candidates. Limiting the infobox to arbitrary information such as - (a) wins a contest or (b) gets 5% of the popular vote or (c) gets 5% of the delegates - presents bias and makes us gatekeepers of information. This is wikipedia, not CNN or Fox News.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Is Option A a non-starter if we head into a contested convention we would have no candidates in the info box.Davemoth (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C per David O. Johnson Koopinator (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D: Another choice, in line with my earlier comments, and with Darryl Kerrigan and Michelangelo1992 — ultimately, our first duty is to keep those who have won a contest, whether or not they drop out (so yes, keep Buttgieg and Bloomberg); that, of course, allows for the maps, that immediately follow the candidates section in the infobox, to make sense and transmit information (the first goal of Wikipedia per WP:5P1). Secondary to that duty, it would behoove us to continue to include those candidates who, as Cookieo131 notes, win more delegates than those currently within the infobox (say, if Gabbard surges, for instance), or those who pass the 5% threshold in delegates or the popular vote overall. That's the conclusion I've come to over the past few days. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
So if Gabbard wins Hawaii, or an additional candidate (not even a major candidate) wins another contest, we are going to have around 5 or 6 candidates who have won a contest, and nearly 7 or 8 who have won multiple delegates. This gives us a cluttered infobox that's purpose is defeated because all of this information is a few scrolls away in the article. Limiting the infobox to the top 4 candidates (based on votes/delegates) is a much more concise, clean and easily agreeable way to declutter the infobox and present a snapshot of information in an unbiased way. It just so happens that 3 candidates are currently still active. The 4th candidate should be the next vote-getter/delegate-getter.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, if Gabbard wins Hawaii, she should be added to the infobox; and, indeed, minor candidates should, if they win a contest, be counted, too. Look at the 1992 Democratic Party presidential primaries and the 1948 Republican Party presidential primaries: it makes no sense to limit the infobox to just four or so — that fails to take all the winners into account, and a limit to the candidates in the infobox would not be unbiased or neutral by any means. Even if it's cluttered, we can count all the winners within our infobox, no problem. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A: (But I would be OK with B). The infobox is meant to be a useful tool for a quick overview of the race. Keeping people who are not going to win in there is just clutter. After the race is over the infobox can be changed to include anyone with a delegate (to preserve the historical info), but right now that's not its purpose. Ariel. (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
How do you know who is going to win or not? I agree, we need to remove clutter. Limiting the infobox to 4 candidates, similar to previous elections and primaries (like the 2016 Republican primary) reduces clutter, gives a quick overview of the race, and reduces bias toward candidates. Those that remain in the race, followed by those who have the most votes/delegates.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Just because the Republican 2016 primaries have 4 candidates in the infobox does not mean that they specifically chose to limit it at four, any more than the fact that the Democratic 2016 primaries page chose to specifically limit it to two. Why not include Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee in the 2016 Democratic infobox? It's because they weren't notable enough. Deciding upon notability isn't bias; it's one of the purposes of Wikipedia. See WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:DUE. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee dropped out of the primary race prior to voting taking place. I would agree that WP:NOTEWORTHY was used to remove O'Malley from that infobox, considering he only was in the race and noteworthy for 1 primary. I don't think there was any question as to excluding Chafee and Webb from that infobox though. On that basis, though, I would argue that having an active campaign in this primary makes you notable enough to be included in an infobox. As for the Rep page, according to the talkpage, the decision in 2012 and 2016 was to keep all active candidates and all candidates who have won a contest in both infoboxes. In 2012 and 2016, that limited both to 4 candidates. DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D Michelangelo1992's idea is fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D - the template should have 4 candidates, like most templates in previous primaries. I see 1992 as the last Democratic Primary with more than 4, and quite frankly I think I could take initiative to narrow the infobox to just 4 candidates. It allows for better readability and condenses information down to the basics. This isn't a full article on every detail of the race, it's an infobox. The template should have all active candidates, no questions asked. Considering that leaves 3 candidates, the 4th position should then go to the next top-vote-getter/delegate-getter. This would mean Sanders/Biden/Gabbard - top 3 sorted by votes, then delegates. Then Warren, since she is #4 in vote totals. Once Biden/Sanders/Gabbard withdraw, the infobox should only be sorted, again, by active candidates (which are sorted by votes, then delegates) then the next 2 positions would be sorted by votes, then delegates. So in this case, today, the infobox would be sorted as follows: Biden, Sanders, Gabbard, Warren if Gabbard drops out tomorrow, the infobox would be sorted as Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg. It's ridiculous to have a vote threshold or a delegate threshold, or a state winning threshold. We aren't gatekeepers here and that presents a bias.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You state “we aren’t gatekeepers” and that having a vote threshold would introduce bias. But isn’t limited the info box to four candidates also an arbitrary threshold? Doesn’t that also introduce bias, especially in a race such as this one, where there were more than four significant candidates? Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an infobox that presents a snapshot of the race. Limiting the infobox to only active candidates and/or the top 4 candidates does not introduce bias since we are presenting information as it is. We are excluding candidate #5 regardless if they played a huge part in the race or not. It's not gatekeeping or introducing bias. 4 candidates is an arbitrary threshold that is selected based on readability, fast information, and precedent with previous elections and primaries. Having 5, 6, 7, 8 candidates in an infobox defeats the purpose of having an infobox.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@DoubleTrouble16: you cited "precedent" against having more than 4 candidates in the infobox, but precedent is clearly against your idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6. We need to judge candidates based on how well they did based on a clear criterion, not based on a made-up threshold of 4 that violates clear precedent.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
But there is an additional candidate that is still in the race.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources indicate that this is a Sanders v. Biden race. Let's not give undue weight towards Gabbard. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
But wouldn't leaving Gabbard out violate WP:NPOV? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not giving undue weight to Gabbard. We are including her in the infobox because previous discussions about infoboxes have historically established that the infobox should include all active candidates and all candidates who have won a contest. The info-box should have Biden, Sanders, Gabbard, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg based on this criteria. I argue that we should limit the number of candidates in an infobox, no matter their notability to 4 candidates because this results in a neat infobox without excessive information or formatting. By doing this, we should thus remove Buttigieg since he has received less delegates and less votes than Bloomberg.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
There's more than just one "additional candidate that is still in the race" beyond Sanders and Biden. Tulsi Gabbard no more merits inclusion in the infobox than do Henry Hewes and Robby Wells. Infoboxes should be limited to top 4 candidates as has typically been done in past election articles, except in the rare instances where at least 5 candidates are considered (per reliable sources) to be serious contenders to win. — Red XIV (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@David O. Johnson: - Yes, it does.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
These infoboxes regularly exclude those who receive less than 5% of the vote. It has become a general rule for elections (which of course may be deviated from). To say that imposing some sort of threshold violates WP:NPOV flies in the face of decisions which have been made on this sort of thing for articles covering US, Canadian, UK and other elections. The reality is that in nearly every election there are candidates who run who receive a small amount of the vote and do not have any meaningful effect on the campaign, coverage, or outcome. We have already created a distinction in this article by speaking of "major" and "minor" candidates (ie Henry Hewes, Robby Wells, Vermin Supreme etc). It looks like Tulsi Gabbard is going to receive one delegate (maybe two), have less than 1% of the popular vote, and not win a contest. The DNC has also said that the debate rules will likely change following Super Tuesday. She is unlikely to be invited to debate going forward. She will not be in the March 15 debate unless she can amass 20% of the delegates by then, which remains quite unlikely. In all of these circumstances, reasonable folks could reach the conclusion that it would be undue to give her the same prominence in the article as Bernie or Biden, or more than Warren or Bloomberg.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A' TrailBlzr (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A That is how all the other Wikiepdia articles about previous democratic primaries seem to be organized. I don't see why we have to change it now just because this one is ongoing. We should update as we get new info using the same consistent system used in previous primaries. I definitely don't see the logic of why we would include Buttigieg but remove Gabbard. I understand that he won a state. But Gabbard's home state of Hawaii has not even come up yet. She may win Democrats abroad as well. Is the idea to add her retroactively once she wins? That is not a logical structure for making this decision. So are we for example going to include Bloomberg because he won the irrelevant American Samoa contest? Poyani (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
That is not at all how the other Wikipedia articles are organized. They included people regardless of whether they were actively campaigning, based on notability. We would include Buttigieg because he has won a state and we would not include Gabbard because she has not (and add her if she eventually does). Despite the fact that Buttigieg has already dropped out, he has more votes and more delegates than Gabbard, so it makes no sense to include her over him. So does Klobuchar, for that matter. Including "active campaigns" over ones with more delegates simply gives undue attention to people running quixotic campaigns with no chance at winning. By this logic we could eventually end up including Vermin Supreme or someone similar in a presidential infobox if they are "actively" campaigning, in place of someone who actually impacted the race. And yes, Bloomberg should be included not only because he won a contest, but because he got a significant number of votes and delegates. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
According to previous articles and discussions about infoboxes (this being the most extensive discussion I've found) 2008, 2012, 2016 Republican primaries limit the # of candidates to 4 in the infobox. The 2016 Dem primary, the 2012 Dem Primary, and the 2008 Dem Primary had no major discussions about limiting candidates in the infobox. As such, I really think we should establish a limit to the number of candidates so, going forward, we can link back to this discussion. The limit should be 4 candidates. Based on 2012 and 2016 Republican primary discussions on the infobox, the 4 should be limited to active candidates and candidates who have won a contest. We should also come up with a way to sort: based on delegate totals or vote totals. I vote delegate totals, since it seems like that has been what 2016 and 2012 has done. If only 2 candidates are active, only 1 or 2 of them have won contests, we should include 4 candidates based on notability and sorted by vote totals. ie: when Gabbard drops out, Warren and Bloomberg would be included in the infobox. This changes my previous analysis. The infobox should have Biden, Sanders, Gabbard as active candidates and Bloomberg since he won a contest. Should Gabbard drop out without winning a contest, having a delegate and popular vote total less than the top 4 candidates, then the infobox should be changed to Biden, Sanders (as active candidates), Bloomberg as a candidate who won a contest, and Warren as a notable candidate. The sort order would be based on delegate count, followed by vote totals.DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D per Michelangelo1992 and past precedent. See the infoboxes for 2004 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries as examples of the criteria that were used to determine who gets a spot in these infoboxes. These are not meant to be simple trackers of the current progress of the race, they give a brief overview of the important parts of the race. Wesley Clark did not earn 5% of the national popular vote in the 2004 Democratic Party primaries, yet he is given a spot in the infobox because he won a contest. Likewise, Ron Paul did not win any contests in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, but he is given a spot in the infobox because he got over 5% of the national popular vote. Using these criteria, Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg should have a permanent spot in the infobox regardless of the popular vote they end up with, Warren should be dropped from the infobox if she drops below 5% of the national popular vote, and Gabbard should be included in the infobox if she wins a contest or rises to more than 5% of the national popular vote. If we want to change these rules, that is fine. But we cannot be inconsistent from one election to another.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There has not been any discussion about limiting based on % of popular vote, according to what I have looked at. The most extensive discussion about an infobox came from here. The examples you state seem to list the top 4 candidates in the infobox based on delegates and votes. I don't see why we wouldn't use that same logic here. For current events, we should follow the precedent from my link I just sourced, where all active candidates and candidates who have won a contest are included in the infobox. This critera would include the primaries you mentioned as well. Like I explained above, that would also make this infobox have 5 candidates, whereas I believe we should follow precedent and limit infoboxes for elections to 4 candidates to reduce clutter, redundancy, and provide a quick snapshot of information. DoubleTrouble16 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Talk:2008 Republican Party presidential primaries#Paul on the info-box is a discussion on the subject from the perspective of a past election. Your idea of including Gabbard in the infobox yet not including candidates who have received significantly more of the vote, or candidates who have actually won contests, is giving loads of undue weight to the candidates who are currently in the running. Wikipedia is not a news source and these templates are only meant to give an overview of the important parts of the race as a whole.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
You wrote about "following precedent" but then listed two different (and possibly contradictory) precedents. Personally I do not know that limiting the infobox to 4 candidates is even a precedent. I read the link you provided and it did not specifically speak about limiting the size of the infobox. Has there been past discussion on it? Even if it, consensus can change. It's notable that this has been the largest field in primary history from either party. It makes sense, then, that we might end up with more candidates in this infobox. Reducing clutter is not a good reason to remove notable candidates from the infobox, especially since 6 candidates and 4 candidates both fit on two lines. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Michelangelo1992: you are right, DoubleTrouble16 is wrong. Precedent is clearly against the "limit to 4" idea: 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D – in the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries article, the infobox features Romney, Santorum, Paul and Gingrich: the four candidates that won states in that year's primaries. I suggest we do the same and include Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg and Buttigieg in the infobox. Willwal1 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D – We should include all candidates who have won a state (Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg & Buttigieg) plus all other candidates who are active and have won any delegates (Gabbard). I would not object to including Warren too given that she won more popular votes than 2 of the candidates that won states. Ultimately, if Gabbard withdraws (or the race ends) without her winning any states or a substantial enough number of delegates to make a difference in the convention, she should be removed from the infobox. But she should be there as long as she is active with delegates. Rlendog (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I should point out that now that the infobox shows all candidates who have won delegates (the 5 I think should be in plus Klobuchar and Warren), I am fine with C for now as well. I do think some trimming will be in order after the contest is over, and less than 7 would be preferable for appearances, but I am ok with the 7 that are in as of now. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C, Just because someone has dropped out it does not mean that their campaign should not be in the Infobox. Winning delegates is something that should be cataloged in the infobox, regardless of how many they won. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124, the C option would add back Klobuchar and Gabbard, right? If that's the case, could they be added back to the infobox so other editors can have clarity on the issue? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure, I think so. Smith0124 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I addded them back. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C winning delegates should be the criteria. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C, assuming that by "keep as is" you mean keep everyone with delegates. At the very least Klobuchar was definitely a notable contender, and although Gabbard I'd say is only really relevant in the context of the American Samoa primary, we've kept regional candidates who have won in past primaries. pluma♫ ♯ 23:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, Since the template appears to have changed a few times since this post was written, I think a clarification would be useful in the poll description.

  • C, keep as is (that is, include everyone who has won at least one delegate). It seems the simplest and fairest approach. The approaches that seek to limit it further raise tricky questions: e.g. if we limit it to those who won a state/territory, that includes Bloomberg but excludes Warren, who won more delegates than him. Is that fair? Keeping all candidates who won delegates (while informing the reader which ones are no longer in the race) is most informative and most neutral. And seven candidates is hardly too many for an infobox, it isn't particularly cluttering the article on my screen. Robofish (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A for the reasons stated by Smith0124. Mgasparin (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D Buttigieg is significant in that he won Iowa (delegate count). So Buttigieg and everyone with more delegates than he are significant and should remain. Klobuchar should probably be removed, Gabbard should definitely be removed.--Mrodowicz (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D Any candidate who gets more than 5% of the popular vote or 5% of pledged delegates should be included in the infobox. Additionally any candidate that has won a contest should be included, even if they do not get 5% in popular vote or pledged delegates. It is worth noting that in previous election articles (2016 R, 2008 D), there have been candidates who have won some delegates but not been included in the delegate count because of how few delegates they won. So, Klobuchar and Gabbard should not be included in the infobox. TheSubmarine (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D: just have Tulsi because she's better looking than the others.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question: I agree with other editors who have stated that there should be a uniform standard across all similar pages. To that end, is there a broader forum where we should take this discussion? SunCrow (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • B or A. No need for candidates who have dropped out and are no longer seeking the nomination. Omnibus (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a news source. The candidates who have dropped out, but won contests, will be much more notable in the long term than Tulsi Gabbard, assuming she doesn't win any contests or rack up 5% of the vote.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
So we should be consistent in our summaries from every election cycle and include candidates who won a contest or got >5% of the popular vote then. What makes this different from the 2004 Democratic primaries?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D Remove withdrawn candidates for now, include any candidates still running that have won at least one delegate. Revisit the topic after the primaries are concluded. Domeditrix (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A or C Either we keep the current way or we go with our traditional way of presenting campaigns. All of the D options remove Tulsi Gabbard for no reasonable reason. We don't know if she is going to gather more votes or delegates, but it appears to be bias to knock her out now with random, arbitrary limits set. She is a significant presence like it or not. And I am not a Gabbard supporter, but she needs to be treated fairly. There is zero reason to move the goalposts on her over and over. Also, with Gabbard still in and Bloomberg and Warren out she could start picking up very significant numbers such as John Kasich did in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, who served mostly as a vehicle for disaffected voters to vote for someone other than Trump or Cruz. Gabbard could become the None of the Above candidate in the Biden/Sanders race just like Kasich was.-- CharlesShirley (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C it is my belief that if a candidate has earned delegates they should be included in the infobox, if after the nomination is decided you would like to simplify it that is fine, but for the duration of the primary all candidates who have received delegates should be in the infobox Edwyth (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D Remove anyone who has dropped out and show the current list as whatever the current winning order is.... Biden, Sanders, Gabbard. If you're in the race, no matter what your chance of victory, you should be displayed. 73.221.194.79 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)— 73.221.194.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: I have asked for a close here. Not sure if that is premature or not given the amount of responses received already, and the fast moving nature of this article and topic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally I would suggest holding a general RfC for this topic after the primary season has concluded. There should more uniform rules how primary infoboxes are composed at different stages of primary (before, ongoing, finished), so we wouldn't need to have such discussions during an ongoing primary.--Staberinde (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A general RfC is a great idea. In the meantime, let's remember that based on all the Democratic primaries since 1968, the number of candidates in the infobox can be more than 4: see 1972, 1976, 1988, and 1992. Based on that, Bob Kerrey's 15 delegates in 1992 is the fewest delegates of anyone in an infobox; 15 delegates seems a good threshold for inclusion.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A (but open to B) — Infobox should be a summary of contents; less will be said about withdrawn candidates (Bloomberg, Warren), and candidates who stand no chance (Gabbard). This is obviously a race between Biden and Sanders -- if not just per the sources, but rather per reality. I've noticed editors mentioning WP:NPOV regarding the removal of Gabbard; I'd argue it is undue (and therefore a violation of NPOV) to keep her in the infobox considering 1. how few delegates she has, 2. she has yet to carry any state/territory, and 3. the fact that she has no likely path to victory or second place. Moreover, I'd advocate following the same standard of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, where only the two viable candidates were retained (Clinton, Sanders) as opposed to all of them (Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley). —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Why can't every candidate who won a contest be included in a summary? Winning a contest is a good indicator of a candidate's importance in the race. Should Howard Dean and Wesley Clark be excluded from the 2004 Democratic Party presidential primaries article since they dropped out earlier than John Kerry and John Edwards?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Because that would be undue on the basis that 1) only two candidates are winning an overwhelming number of contests (whereas Bloomberg only won one, Tulsi is still at zero), 2) infobox should be a summary of contents - little will be said about Bloomberg or Gabbard with their lack of contest victories, as opposed to Biden and Sanders, and 3) the sources/literature are not touching Bloomberg as much anymore and aren't mentioning Gabbard when discussing the current race (which they've even designated as one between Biden and Sanders). Re the 2004 article, I'm not quite sure; I thought the most recent primary season in 2016 would be more relevant and consistency should be taken from the newer consensus, as opposed to the older. Nonetheless, I suppose we can leave 2016 and 2004 as is and focus on this article. —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Why are we even talking about who won contests or who is still in the race? What matters is delegates. Winning states doesn't matter--this is not the electoral college. Dropping out doesn't matter if a candidate has won a significant number of delegates. Warren, for instance, despite getting no better than 3rd place in any state, got more delegates than Bloomberg and Pete, who each won a state/territory. I'm not against contest winners being included (I think they should be), but delegates are the significant threshold for relevance. Of course not everyone with one or two delegates should be in the infobox. But everyone who meets a basic delegate criterion, maybe 10 or 20. I don't care how many. But we need to set the threshold at delegates; everything else is a sideshow. It's astonishing this obvious fact is not getting talked about more.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 06:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I concur with you, @Wikibojopayne: I would be open to all candidates with a significant number of delegates to be listed (and a focus on delegates as opposed to states/territories carried), but it would have to be a high number. Because a few delegates here and there is hardly noteworthy. —MelbourneStar☆talk 06:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
So you don't care about internal consistency at all and would prefer to have this article series as a free-for-all which different rules apply to different articles? Martin O'Malley didn't win a significant number of delegates and no states in 2016, so that isn't the best example to cite for excluding candidates who are significantly more notable this time around.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
We all care about internal consistency. As I noted below, several Democratic primaries had 5 or more candidates listed in the infobox: 1972, 1976, 1988, and 1992. I think the cutoff should be no fewer than 15 delegates, since that's what Bob Kerrey got in 1992, and he's in the infobox. A 15-delegate cutoff would be consistent with past usage and resolve our issue here: Yes Pete, no Amy and no Tulsi.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
"significantly more notable this time" = I don't think that applies to Tulsi, and as this campaign goes on, probably won't apply to those who dropped out too. Internal consistency is great, but as you can evidently see the only consistency between these articles is inconsistency. So do I rate what is due/undue as an issue of greater importance, as opposed to 'internal inconsistencies'? yep, any day of the week. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I would argue in regard to WP:NPOV that wiki-editors should be looking to respectable 3rd parties to determine who are major candidates. We are already using (while we wait on this and the other RfC) the poll aggregators of 270, RCP, and 538 to determine for future primaries both the order and 5% threshold. Both 270 and 538 still include Gabbard and I think (could not find a statement) that RCP may have dropped Gabbard out of their aggregate/averages. If any of aggregators (or maybe a majority) are still considering a candidate to be 'major' then we should use that too. An active 'major' candidate should be included in the infobox at least until the convention.--Davemoth (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
C for now. At any rate, is this really a POV issue affecting the whole article that we need to keep a hatnote in place for? There's obviously been a lot of contributors without drawing more attention to the conversation. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
There are still people arguing WP:NPOV should and shouldn't apply. Until a neutral 3rd party closer can evaluate consensus and reconcile with WP:NPOV policy the hatnote should apply. By the way, you do not include an explicit statement on if NPOV comes into play here - does you support for option C (status quo) imply anything about your feelings about NPOV? --Davemoth (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
A We do not in 2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries or 2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries show candidates who dropped out early. Samboy (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
No candidate that dropped out eary in either 2008 or 2016 won a state/contest or any significant amount of delegates. That doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. Arguably, if O'Malley had won a State and delegates he would be in the infobox for 2016. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
D - I suggest to either keep Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg & Warren or Biden, Sanders, Bloomberg & Buttigieg. Neither Klobuchar nor Gabbard have made enough of an impact in this race to be listed in the infobox. It should either be the candidates that were around on Super Tuesday or the ones who won contests. ~CJ Melon (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes in principle, but why limit it to 4? Other infoboxes have more: Democratic primaries for 1972, 1988, and 1992 have 5 candidates; 1976 has 6. For 2020, it probably makes most sense to include Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg, and Buttigieg. They are the top 5 delegate winners and all of them got >500,000 votes. (Also, all except Warren won a state or territory.) So, sorry Klobuchar and Gabbard, but <10 delegates and <500,000 votes is not enough to place.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
D I just want to point out that there is a major difference between suspending and withdrawing when it comes to delegates. My understanding is that if a candidate suspends they still get awarded the delegates and retain them to the convention. If they withdraw, depending on what point they withdraw, especially if it's before delegates are officially allocated, then those delegates that would have been awarded to the now withdrawn candidate instead get allocated to the remaining candidates. This is very important for the delegate count in both uncontested and contested convention scenarios.--CriticalThinking26 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
My choice would be C, but I would also point out that the problem with A can be fixed by considering a 'path to victory' to include superdelegates; that is, if a candidate has won enough pledged delegates so far and is on the ballot in enough of the remaining contests that if they were to win all the pledged delegates from the rest of the ballots they're on AND then all the superdelagates at a contested convention, then they'd win overall. Then even by the time no candidate has a path to win enough delegates for an uncontested convention, by definition there will still be at least two candidates with a path to victory at a contested one. By that version of option A, Gabbard still has a path even if she doesn't win any pledged delegates on the second Tuesday or in the N Marianas, and will only be truly out of the race if she wins fewer than 92 delegates between now and the 17th inclusive; Biden and Sanders will now both still be 'safe' in terms of my version of option A however many or few delegates they win between now and mid-April; Hewes, Wells and almost all the other minor candidates already had no path to victory in these terms before Iowa even started, just based on the number of ballots they had failed to make it onto. But to reiterate, my first choice would be C, for the reasons others have already said. Adam Dent (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

D - Other. remove all but active candidates. I'm not choosing B because the path is irrelevant as the person is still active. Removing a candidate that is active I think would be disingenuous and unfair. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • A - Since Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out and endorsed Biden, this has turned into a race between two frontrunners, Biden and Sanders. It would be logical for the infobox to reflect this two-way race. Mimihitam (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C Someday, possibly soon, this race will be over. At that point it will be nice to have the top candidates in the infobox with the amounts they won for easy viewing. Actually, it might be nice to add Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang even though they didn't get any delegates, they had enough support in the early states to be included (and that would make it nine candidates which would look nicer in a 3x3 box.), so I guess my vote is C or D (add Steyer/Yang) Nablais (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • B with 1 delegate. Obviously this can be switched around after the election, but I think the three remaining candidates should be included for now. Anyone with a delegate and still actively campaigning should be kept. This removes the all the clutter and confusion that comes with keeping all candidates with a delegate. It also means that we don't need to make a bunch of changes in the run up to the convention if it's brokered because we're just keeping literally all the active candidates with delegates. Unless the number of candidates changes, then the infobox won't need to change. All problems solved, and we can go home. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    For clarity, the end result would be: Biden, Sanders, Gabbard. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That is the temporary result isn't it? Two of the remaining candidates are either going to withdraw or lose the nomination. When they do should they be removed from the infobox? When the primary is over, should some of the withdrawn candidates be added back in? If so, why should we remove them now?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

* B without a 5% threshold, until the convention takes place. Until the convention, as I said in an earlier post, delegates of candidates who have dropped out don't matter, since those candidates have dropped out and therefore cannot receive any more valid/worthwhile delegates. Tulsi Gabbard, however, is still in the race, and still has the opportunity to gain a substantial number of delegates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

  • C. This is how primaries are done elsewhere on the Wiki, they still have their delegates, they are still getting votes anyway, and there's no reason to remove them. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C. Suspended candidates still have their delegates count and are meaningful to the race, so it only makes sense. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A, Just leave Biden and Sanders, they are getting all the attention of the press and scholars, we should follow the path of RS.Cinadon36 08:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A Throughout most of Wiki's election article history the threshold has always been %5 to allow the candidate in the info-box. I know its been debated quite extensively in the past, but there needs to be a threshold... Benjamin.P.L (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D (I might be arguing for what option C originally meant, but it's too ambiguously worded to endorse.) An encyclopedia article documents the entire primary process as it will be remembered in history, which means including 'any notable campaign (not the same as a notable candidate -- a perennial candidate may be notable as a person but not run a campaign notable in its own right). We can and will debate exactly what `notable' means for a campaign (proposal: repeatedly discussed in detail in nationally-distributed news), but it clearly is broader than just chances to win the nomination. For a voter guide or a forecasting tool, cutting out the non-viable candidates may be appropriate, but that isn't Wikipedia's purpose. eritain (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D. The 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries infobox seems to exclude some candidates who got at least one delegate. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • C. Keeping everyone with at least one delegate seems reasonable. This was a historically large field of candidates, and was not widely reported on as a two-person race until Super Tuesday. Oeoi (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't have anything useful to add that hasn't been said already, but C Nevermore27 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A: With Gabbard dropping out, keeping just Biden and Sanders seems timely. Wpeneditor (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A - Biden and Sanders are the only two candidates currently running. We should re-add Warren and Bloomberg post convention JamesVilla44 (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D: Cut Gabbard and keep everybody else. pbp 20:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D: Keep only candidates that won a contest or had over 5% of total popular vote. Klobuchar's low percentage shows her irrelevance after she dropped out, in comparison to Warren and Bloomberg. Buttigieg winning Iowa is significant. One could say Biden and Sanders were the only important candidates, but by the time Buttigieg, Warren, and Bloomberg dropped out, Sanders hardly had a chance anyways.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • D Top 4 candidates, determined by number of delegates. Zaathras (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A at this point, there's only two candidates (Biden & Sanders) with any chance at the presidential nomination (indeed, they're the only candidates left). GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • C candidates that received delegates are still relevant to the race even if there is no chance of their winning the election. We look at primaries from a historical perspective; we are not a news organization. VQuakr (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to Close@Davemoth: I think there is enough discussion here to close. When closing I hope you will see that the race is in a very different state than it was when this Rfc started. Candidates like Gabbard have well under 5% of the votes and delegates. If this waarants voiding this discussion and starting a new one, that is understandable. I plan to open a new Rfc. Smith0124 (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  • C - Not sure if I'm too late to this, but it hasn't been marked as closed? It makes sense to me that we have all candidates who won delegates. Gazamp (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Participant agreement about closing Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for infoboxes

Latest comment: 4 years ago26 comments15 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See the lengthy discussion and closes in the above two sections. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is in reference to Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Two_part_RfC_about_inclusion_criteria_for_listing_candidates_in_infoboxes above and to see if the participants can agree to close this RfC.

Note to closer and participants: The last real discussion appears to have ended on March 4th and Darryl Kerrigan asked for a close on March 6th. I am concerned that it may be a long wait to get a closer for this and the 2nd RfC. One of the acceptable methods for ending an RfC is for the RfC Participants to agree to end it. I am not an experienced closer (although I strive to be) and I have participated in this RfC, but I will attempt to neutrally summarize the discussion here and see if we (RfC Participants) can get a consensus on the consensus here and maybe move on (and save an official closer from an unenviable slog through multiple threads in several talk articles). A consensus here may also assist with some of the edit warring that seems to continue to occur both before and after primaries and caucuses.

Participant Summary Table

Participants: Can each participant in the RfC please review and add your thoughts (especially if I interpreted your votes/comments wrong)? important: Please indicate (and sign) if you object to either of the proposed consensus below in the participant table in the last 3 columns.

In this RfC there are 20 Participants with clear votes/comments and 5 where I interpreted their comments as indicated in the below table:

Participant Part A Response Part B Response Object Consensus A Object Consensus B Comments
MrX N N Agree Agree
Darryl Kerrigan C C Agree Agree Part A concern about lack of clear definition of "major" and "active" candidates
Arglebargle79 N N
Jiminyhcricket N C
Jjj1238 Y C
Danish Expert Y C
Devonian Wombat C C? Agree Agree
Gambling8nt C C
Wikiditm C C
Smith0124 C C Object Agree Consensus on A is too rough
Davemoth N C Agree Agree Considering closing A with no finding and following up with RfC(s) to define Major and Active candidates
Trillfendi N Y
David O. Johnson N Y Agree Agree
Nixinova Y Y
Gnerphk N C
Mirek2 N Y
power~enwiki Y N
Onetwothreeip N C
Staberinde N C
MJL N Y Agree Agree
Michelangelo1992 C C Agree* Agree No objections to closing A with the caveat that we hold another RFC on the definition of “major/minor candidate”.
The Four Deuces N N Agree Agree
Jgstokes N C Agree Agree
2 participants where I tried to interpret comments into a vote:
Naddruf U U
WMSR Y? N?

Votes key: Y = yes, N = No, C = Conditional, U = Unclear

Analysis and Proposed Consensus

Scope: The initial scope of this as noted by the submitter was that the guideline would apply to the individual primary and caucus articles, as well as this main article.

'Out of Scope:' The following were not presented and did not receive any significant discussion:

  • The 2nd Rfc Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Rfc_regarding_the_2020_Democratic_presidential_primaries_infobox_template would apply to only the main article and the Infobox Template. My assumption is that Option C would accept the findings of this RfC as the new status quo to "keep as is" for the main article (while individual primary and caucus articles would follow this RfC.)
  • Caucus Result Popular vote calculation/reporting (5% of what numbers?). There was limited discussion by a few participants.
  • Different thresholds for inclusion: A few (2 or 3) participants included other thresholds, but there was no significant discussion.

Part A: Prior to a Caucus or Primary A. Prior to a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they are polling at an average of 5% or above on FiveThirtyEight.com?

Yes: 5
No: 13
Conditional (Y = Use average of aggregates): 6
Unclear: 1

My observation: at this point this applies only to future state/territory primary/caucus infoboxes and to future elections.

Analysis: Consensus edges to the NO vote (13 vs 11), but consensus is based on the merits of the argument, not by counting votes.

Yes and Conditional vote arguments: 5 note (or agree) we need some cutoff and 5% has been used in the past, 1 makes reference to how things have stood this primary season thus far, 1 argues we would be better with no infobox but 5% limits length of infobox, 1 makes arguments about not including non-major candidates, 3 make no argument.
No vote arguments: 4 note potentially influencing the vote and/or unreliability or unavailability of polls (or similar), 1 mentions including all candidates aggregated by 538, 1 notes excluding active candidates would be counter to precedents for prior elections, 3 mentions WP:NPOV and potential influence, 1 argues limiting only if we will have a contested convention, 1 implies sorting by national delegates but make no further argument, 1 suggest no infobox or being as inclusive as possible, 1 makes no argument.
I feel that the merits of the arguments tip the balance further to the NO side of consensus.

Secondary Discussions:
Strong consensus: Use average of aggregates, not just 538. No one opposed this idea.
Rough consensus: Limit to just major candidates (exclude non-serious candidates). Most of the YES voter and several of the NO voters expressed agreement with this.

Part A Proposed Rough Consensus: Prior to a caucus or primary, all major candidates should be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles.

Note: There is no clear definition of major candidate, so I removed the last italic part: if they are listed as Active candidates on the main page for that election.. A new RfC at the Wikiproject for elections will be opened to define what a major candidate is.

Part B: After a Caucus or Primary B. After a caucus or primary, should candidates only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest?

YES: 5
NO: 5 (3 want no restrictions; 1 wants only a Pop Vote % threshold instead of delegates; 1 only if a contested convention)
Conditional (Y = delegate or 5% Popular Vote): 14
Unclear: 1

Analysis: With the conditional votes this weighs heavily toward the YES consensus with using the Delegate or 5% Popular threshold.

Part B Proposed Consensus: After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in result infoboxes if they have earned a delegate OR 5% Popular Vote in that race.

Conclusion I think there is rough consensus on Part A and strong consensus on Part B. We would appreciate the thoughts of an official closer or any other neutral parties to review and comment. Participants, please indicate if you object to any of these proposed consensus and/or the process used here. Davemoth (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Threaded Discussion Starts Here Davemoth (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: It looks fine to me. No objections here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems like an excellent judge of consensus, no objections from me. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Object to A - Thank you for the FANTASTIC judge of consensus, this is seriously amazing. Thank you so much for your hard work. That said, I think that the consensus on A is too rough to really be a consensus, as plenty of people could’ve voted yes or no when they really just had conditions, as said in the judge of consensus. The comments are too conflicting to give us a clear answer. However, Part B has a clear consensus as stated. Smith0124 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this Davemoth. I agree this appears to capture the consensus on both Part A and B. Concerning Part A, I would say though I am concerned we have not defined what "major" and "active candidates" are. Many of those who have commented in the RfC opposed to a "Yes" on Part A, have said there should be no cut off, or made references to all "major" or all "active" candidates being included. As you note above this is not really a defined term. What makes a candidate a "major" candidate? In my view, that is precisely why the 5% threshold has been used before. It is objective and defined. Those arguing that there should be no cutoff have refused to comment on whether candidates like Henry Hewes, Robby Wells, or Vermin Supreme should be included. There has been no discussion of why they should not be included, and what if anything results in them being considered "minor" candidates. We seem to be imposing a cutoff of sorts without honestly defining what the cutoff is exactly. If not >5%, what does "major" candidate mean?
At the time of the New Hampshire primary, Deval Patrick, Michael Bennet, Andrew Yang, Tom Steyer, and Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente III could all make a claim to being "major" candidates. There were a total of 33 candidates on the ballot. Some had withdrawn by the time of the primary. Many had not. Should we have included them all along with Biden, Sanders, Klobuchar, Warren, Buttigieg and Gabbard? That would have easily left us with more than ten people in an infobox that is built for a maximum of nine. Many included would have been polling well below 1% in advance of the primary. Furthermore, if we are going to differ from the 5% threshold generally used elsewhere, what exactly is our reason for doing so?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This is why I’m opposed to concluding part A. There’s no clear answer. Smith0124 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I will wait for input from more participants before making further comments. Smith0124 I am leaning to suggesting that Part A be closed with no finding with the suggestion that another RfC be submitted to define "major" and "active" as part of the selection (perhaps going back to who the aggregates include.) Davemoth (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no objections. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
No objections. - MrX 🖋 02:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the work you did here. No objections to closing A with the caveat that we hold another RFC on the definition of “major/minor candidate”. No objections to closing Part B with the caveat that we should revisit the info box after the conclusion of the primary (perhaps even after the general election) to re-evaluate for notability. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I had heard of the >5% guideline several times before but didn't remember where that was from. Thanks Davemoth for linking to that original RfC or one of them anyway in the discussion on the Republican primary infobox. That is something we may wish to discuss further, I do not think there was reference to where the 5% came from in this RfC or that it was a discussion on the Elections and Referendums project.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I have been digging to try and find the origin of the 5% tradition. There is an even older Vote/RfC that had a smallish group of participants. There will need to be some better guidelines made and I will (eventually) start some on the project page. I will start with Instant Runoff Voting and how that would apply to inclusion -- maybe this can be generic enough to also cover caucuses and reapportioned votes. LOL - maybe I should start with something a little more straightforward... --Davemoth (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, you have the correct interpretation of my opinion in the table above, and I have no objection to whatever the consensus decides on this matter. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: It has been 7 days since I requested participant agreement on closing this RfC. The most vocal participants have made comments in this section. I have removed my limited definition of a major candidate from the proposed part A rough consensus and intend to follow up with a RfC at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums to get a better definition for future elections.

Smith0124, is this enough to remove your objection to closing part A? If Yes, then I will write up a closing statement for both parts. If No, I will write up a statement for only part B and will leave Part A up to an experienced neutral closer. My closing will follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. As this closing is a bit out of the ordinary I will let my closing statements sit for a few days in case there is any discussion on wording before removing the RfC tags and updating the Request for Closure.--Davemoth (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Davemoth: Yes, you may proceed. Smith0124 (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with consensus here.--Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent summation, and well presented. However: While I can certainly agree with the proposed consensus for A, it seems to me that the consensus for B is quite evidently "Conditional". We're looking for an answer that fits all cases, but the correct judgment here is that nothing fits all cases. Question B is complex, and the answer ought to be either a complex one or something that instead encourages a judgment call. Gnerphk (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I want to clarify/change my position. I !vote to include the top six candidates by delegates. --WMSR (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Missing votes?

@Davemoth: I strongly objectam confused -- the second part of the RfC was not closed by Darryl Kerrigan; they asked for it to be closed - but it wasn't, and still hasn't been closed. As such, it is still active. Any conclusions made by the table you've created in this discussion are therefore inconclusive, as the table does not include the votes of myself, UpdateNerd, Samboy, CJ Melon, CriticalThinking26, Adam Dent, ImUglyButPrettyUgly, Mimihitam, Nablais, MJL, SelfieCity, Titanium Dragon, Chessrat, Cinadon36, Benjamin.P.L, eritain, and Shhhhwwww!!. If the discussion was marked as closed, where we couldn't re-open it -- okay. But that discussion is still open, and was open long enough for another 17 editors to participate in the RfC. Please update your table as the votes of the latter 17 users should be consideredreply to my dotpoint under this. Thanks, —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Davemoth, having re-read and re-read -- I'm now confused. Is this discussion to close part A, which will therefore render part B closed too - or is it to close both together? if the latter, shouldn't the participants/their discussion in Part B be factored into consensus? Or, which might be likely, have I really just word vomited everywhere and confused myself (and anyone reading this) in the process? kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Where you were not a participant in the first RfC I would welcome your (somewhat neutral) review and input on if I have judged and presented the consensus in a reasonable and NPOV manner (or any other input you have.)
The 2nd RfC Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Rfc_regarding_the_2020_Democratic_presidential_primaries_infobox_template has still had activity within the last few days, but I may take a similar process there as well. By my reading this RfC would apply to the Template and main primary article, but not to the individual state/territory articles. The first RfC would apply (IMHO) to choice C (status quo) in the 2nd RfC.
These political RfCs look to be taking several weeks or longer to get an experienced closer. I am both trying to make their job easier and to maybe simplify parts of the process.
I also plan to introduce some RfCs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums to see if there is consensus on some of these RfCs to include in the general process. I will probably start with a RfC on how to report (and consider for 5% threshold and polling) for instant-runoff voting elections as we have primaries in Maine for Senate and Representative in June that will likely include that (5 candidates in the Democratic Senate Primary, and 3 Parties + Independents in the November General Election)--Davemoth (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The ongoing discussion is rendered pretty much void and null now that Gabbard has dropped out. It would seem that the discussion needs to restart with a blank slate to get a clear idea of consensus. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
A change in the race does not invalidate the discussions and RfCs to date. I presume many that voted did so with the expectation that Tulsi Gabbard would drop out at some point and was unlikely to gain many votes or delegates. Others probably, hoped or expected she would not. While the situation has changed, I do not think that permits us to completely ignore the RfCs. We are of course permitted to consider the new events, but we should not place more significance on them than is appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm too confused about which section to even find the active RFC to know what the options are, but since I was asked for my vote, I'm for removing candidates who did not reach certain criteria (in other words, the top 5 would remain), or only keeping active candidates Biden & Sanders. It seems like previous election articles would make it less ambiguous what to do. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename the primaries

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Howdy. @Butwhatdoiknow: suggests that we change the Democratic primaries & caucuses to include the term presidential - see dispute at 2020 Hawaii Democratic primary for an example. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I will let @GoodDay: argue his case. My case for including "presidential" is that many (most? all?) other states have separate primaries for presidential races and for other races. Calling one or the other the primary can be confusing to the reader. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The only case that I'm arguing is that 'all' be the same. Be it with or without presidential included. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Support, I have always found it confusing that those pages include no info on other primaries (Senate, State) run on the same day in the same state. Ideally, those pages should include info on the other races too, but right now they are organized entirely around the presidential primaries. Cookieo131 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Amy Klobuchar should be removed as a candidate, as to follow the rules, she won less than >5% of the vote and won 0 contests. If you're going to include Klobuchar then you would have to include Gabbard or Yang, so best to remove her to make it seem like Wikipedia has a bias. Thank you. NormanP20 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The section #Infobox (Part II) appears to show no consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Klobuchar got delegates and therefore she should be included in the infobox Melvindillinger (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This is hardly the time to use arbitrary criteria to exclude a PoC from WP recognition

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The only credible constraint I have seen discussed is that the number of candidates cannot exceed nine.

But arbitrary criteria can be used to move goalposts — in this case, so that the only PoC who won delegates in the primary, is excluded from the template.

It does not require lengthy consensus-building to justify that every candidate who won delegates in the 2020 Democratic Primary should be included in the summary encyclopedic record. Humanengr (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@TheSubmarine: You reverted my edit with edit summary "Addition of Gabbard was without consensus; the Rfc went nowhere". You are misrepresenting the RfC as if consensus there was required before Gabbard's photo could be added. At the time that RfC was opened, Gabbard's photo was included. If anything, an RfC that 'went nowhere' would reinforce the status quo at the time the RfC was opened. Please undo your revert. Humanengr (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This has hardly anything to do with the fact that Gabbard is a PoC. Candidates are not put in infoboxes because of their ethnicity. Gabbard won 2 delegates, a fraction of one percent of the total number and a popular vote total less than 1%. If you look at previous presidential primaries in both parties, candidates who win an extremely low number of delegates are not included in the infobox. In'08, John Edwards is not in the Dem infobox. That same year, Fred Thompson, Alan Keyes (who also had 2 delegates) and Duncan Hunter were not in the infobox. Gabbard is still featured on the page, but she is not notable enough to be in the infobox. The fact that she is a PoC has nothing to do with this. TheSubmarine (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Guam

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Guam's election has been scheduled for tomorrow, June 6. https://www.facebook.com/guamdemocrats 2601:982:8380:4940:65DD:12F0:53B3:DA88 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, if the information about Guam is not already confirmed in this article, it would need to be confirmed by a different source than Facebook for the primary citation, with Facebook then used as a supporting source for corroboration. Of course, that's just my inclination, based on my understanding of the relevant policies. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a better source: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the Guam primary page, following Politico, Biden has won that and thus reached the 1991 delegate threshold, which doesn't match the informatio on this page European Prehistorian (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Apologies, I've just noticed that the introductory text and the infobox do say that, it is just the results box which needs updating European Prehistorian (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

iowa delegate update

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

According to AP, Biden now has 14 delegates from Iowa, Sanders 12, Buttigieg 9, Warren 5, Klobuchar 1. Should the map be updated here since we're going by AP delegate count? https://interactives.ap.org/delegate-tracker/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by XDestroyer354 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden came in fourth in the caucuses and wasn't expected to win many delegates. I think we should show the estimated number of delegates with a footnote that delegates switched to Biden after their candidate dropped out. It frequently happens in caucuses that the final results differ from the projected ones and we should have a policy for this. TFD (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Do we have another source for this? I tend to think we need to be clear about when this changed. As a non-American, this always seems like an exercise in revisionist narrative building to me. Joe Biden is the winner, he was always the winner. How dare you say he came in forth. We have always been at war with East Asia. I think we need to be clear about when this changed and why. That said the American system is not great about this level of accountability, and I have not been able to find any explanation of this in other WP:RS. And the AP just seems to have "updated" this without explanation. Notwithstanding this our Iowa article has not been changed. We should not be inconsistent here. An explanation would help.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Biden was never the winner of the Iowa caucuses. If anything, it was a question of whether Buttigieg or Sanders won. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
And it was more widespread than just Iowa. At the same time the AP updated the delegate count from Iowa, they also updated the delegate counts from Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Tennessee, all Super Tuesday states. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, so how do we deal with this? Ensure the state pages are up to date, and the change is explained? Yes, David O. Johnson the issue is that now since Biden has been "reassigned" many of Buttigieg's delegates. Now Biden has "won" Iowa if we are looking only at national delegates (even though the Iowa page has not been updated). That would also require the map to be changed. But I think it is problematic changing this without an explanatory note, and WP:RS that explain this change.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

When did Biden pass the magic 1991 number of delegates?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

There are contradicting sources for this:

  • June 5, during the continuing counting of votes of the June 2 races: NPR, VOX
  • June 6, when Biden won Guam: CNN, The Hill

As of now, I put "depending on the source," in the lead section,[2] and mentioned both views in the Timeline section. The June 5 date is more based on delegate estimates by the AP and others, while the June 6 date is based on the fact that Guam was able to provide a final count on that day.

Discuss. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To be extremely literal about it, nobody's passed the threshold until the delegates vote at the convention in August. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It was early June. Or after the primaries held on June 2. Various trackers will have gone over 1,991 on different dates. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I do not think we need to (or should) be precise about this. In reality it is not official until the delegates vote, and he passed the number on June 5, except it takes time to count etc. Probably best to just say early June as we have been.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Map

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know if this is the right place to propose this, but I think there should be an easier way to click on the DC primary because it's so small. Ideas include a line pointing from the circle to text saying "DC" or pointing to a large outline of the borders of the state. What do you think? Nojus R (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a perfectly fine place to propose this. I agree, and suggest using Template:2020 United States presidential election imagemap as a starting point, with the electoral vote numbers removed. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Update required. Guam & Virgin Islands need to be coloured Biden blue. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox (Part II)

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Well, since the RfC concerning the infobox here has now been closed without any consensus. I suggest we remove those from the infobox who are <5% of the vote or have not won a contest. This would mean removal of Amy Klobuchar who won 7 delegates, no contests, and currently has 1.79% of the vote (of course this will decrease as voting continues). It would also mean the removal of Tulsi Gabbard who won 2 delegates, but no contests, and only 0.69% of the vote. I think this generally accords with what we have done in the past, as seems to have been raised here in balancing what is WP:DUE for 3rd, 4th, 5th, +th candidates. I will WP:BOLDly remove them. If anyone disagrees, let's talk.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: Wow, this is messy. Not only was the last RfC closed without consensus, but the very lengthy prior two were, as well. I don't see any realistic path to resolution in the immediate future - not for anything as definitive as you're proposing, at least. Because there's still no consensus, and this has been discussed in great length, we have to preserve the status quo for now. I have a feeling that this will be easier once the election is over, but of course hope that it can be resolved sooner. The only thing I can think of would be to start a new RfC that is much more carefully worded with simpler options, since the closers of these seemed to think their construction was problematic. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree we are stuck with the "status quo". There was never really any consensus at all to include Tulsi Gabbard and it was shaky concerning Amy Klobuchar. The main arguments for including Gabbard was that since all but Biden and Sanders had withdrawn she has a real opportunity to pick up many delegates and votes. That didn't materialize, and she has now withdrawn. This RfC was closed without any consensus for anything. I don't think that binds us to the status quo any more than any other option. If editors want to make an argument that Gabbard or Klobuchar should be in the infobox let them do that, but I don't think we should just stand on ceremony to preserve a status quo that nobody seems to want.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The only reason she's there is because the Rfc trapped us. She should be off until there is a real consensus as the norm is >5%. Smith0124 (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
If someone wants to argue they should be included that is fine. We can have that discussion, but I strongly disagree with Tartan357 that we have to leave either in indefinitely because the RfC trapped us, so now we stuck with a status quo no one seemed to want. If folks want them in, let them say why. Until then WP:ONUS is to exclude them. Gabbard had ~0.69% of the vote before the contests yesterday, when those votes are finally added, her portion will have fallen even further.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There have been several long RfCs that were inconclusive, after which the status quo has held up for a long time. The status quo errs on the side of being overinclusive by going by the most inclusive metric discussed (winning any delegates). Inclusion criteria are highly controversial, as evidenced by the lengthy and inconclusive RfCs, so it is inappropriate to make changes without a new discussion of that scale, and especially to make those changes without any consensus at all. This is something that desperately needs a consensus not only for this page, but for many others, as well. I encourage you to start a new RfC; any decision without one is unlikely to hold up. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Well if you are going to include Gabbard, we might as well include Yang and others. There was never any consensus for Gabbard to be included. The "status quo" was accepted while the RfC was going, because editors like me said it should be maintained while the RfC was ongoing. Shortly after it closed, I boldly removed them. You added them back. Now Smith has removed Gabbard, and you have added her back. It is not helpful to try to use a failed RfC as a veto on any change, particularly when refusing to even give an argument why the status quo is a good result. I will say again, two of the primary reasons editors argued initially that Gabbard should have been included were 1) she had not withdrawn when others (who had done better) had, and 2) since she was still in the race she had significant potential to do better. Both of those arguments no longer carry any weight. She has withdrawn, and hope that some editors had, that she would excel in a smaller field proved wrong. That significantly weakens any argument she should be in there, and unless some editor wants to lift the torch and make an argument she SHOULD be in the infobox, the WP:ONUS would be to exclude her.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The scale of the past RfCs means we should have a larger discussion about this. Personally, I would support removing Gabbard in a new RfC. And past RfCs that were inconclusive do mean preserving the status quo. This is something that needs lots of comments and a neutral closer. This is not about my belief that Gabbard should or should not be included – it’s about respecting the need for a consensus that was made abundantly clear by these lengthy RfCs. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons I tend to hate RfCs. Someone always comes along arguing that the state of the article needs to be preserved in a form there was NEVER any consensus for, disregards changes that have occurred, and attempts to use the existence of an ongoing RfC (or one that closed without any consensus) as a permanent veto on any other changes. If you want to start another RfC, you are free to do so. But insisting on preserving a status quo that no one (yourself included wants) is rather short sighted and disruptive whether intended or not. We are supposed to ignore rules when they act as a straight-jacket. If someone, anyone, wants to oppose Gabbard's removal on the MERITS, lets hear it. The WP:ONUS rests on those wanting to include her to explain why, and convince others. That has not happened. So she should be removed. We are not bound to a status quo no one wants, nor are we required waste more time on this. Countless hours of editors time were already spent on the last three RfCs, which came up with "no consensus". Do you really propose we waste more time debating a result, no one has come here to say they want?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I am proposing that we create a new RfC so we can create criteria that are agreed upon. An RfC is needed to reach a consensus on something this controversial. We need to be able to define the consensus on inclusion criteria. RfCs can be slow, yes, but they exist exactly for situations like this. You “hating” the RfC process is an entirely irrelevant matter; it is the established process. That being said, I do not have time to create one right now, and I concede that there is no apparent support for keeping Gabbard. You may go ahead and remove her. I don’t think we should remove Klobuchar until the new RfC is over, though. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I see Smith has done this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that Biden has acquired a majority of the pledged delegates for the party's presidential nomination, perhaps another RFC is required. GoodDay (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Biden now the nominee?

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

Hi,

I noticed Interstellarity changed a section header from "Presumptive nominee" to "Nominee" in this edit here: [3]. Is this the correct interpretation? I thought Biden wasn't the nominee until he was officially selected at the convention. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source that supports my edit. Interstellarity (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it does, respectfully. The very first sentence of that ref states he still needs to win the nomination at the August convention. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The game is not over until the final buzzer sounds, no matter how insurmountable the lead. The "presumptive" label is still appropriate until the convention occurs, at which time the nomination is made official. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Biden got the 1991 delegates he needs. It’s over. Impossible for anyone else to win. Smith0124 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't make him the nominee.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

According to the DNC rules it does. Smith0124 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Where exactly is this stated? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
He becomes the nominee when he is elected the nominee. The delegates haven't voted yet. That's why it's called the "presumptive" nominee.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
He's still presumptive until at least the declaration is made at the convention, if not until the gavel falls to close the convention. This isn't like the Electoral College: The Democratic National Convention officially doesn't even have binding rules until they adopt those rules at the opening of the convention; and they can just pass whatever they want. Right now we're only following the pre-Convention rules set by Democratic National Committee in August 2018 (see 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Reforms since 2016). But there was plenty of hand-wringing over the winter about whether the Convention rules would be rigged to make sure that one candidate or the other was the winner; see for example:

Siders, David (2020-01-31). "DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention". Politico. Retrieved 2020-06-06. I do believe we should re-open the rules. I hear it from others as well [...] There's talk about somehow trying to change this rule at this convention — just casual conversation [...] I think it would be not in good faith if those of us who lost that fight in committee would somehow regenerate that fight in a national convention. ... [would result in] the most hellacious fight you've ever seen at the Democratic convention. [...] [The convention body is the] ultimate authority of the party, so the convention body can do anything they want to.

Since "the establishment's candidate" is now the one that appears to have over 1,991 pledged popular delegates, and therefore a majority win on the first ballot under the currently-recommended rules, the talk of a rules ambush at the Convention will die down a bit, but the principle still applies: If Biden bumps his head, or some political scandal or uncovered election scandal blows up — and this would be the year for it — we'll see how far the Convention on August 17 is willing to go to do what some opposing forces think needs to be done. --Closeapple (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Biden is stil the presumptive nominee, and he will be until the convention. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually it could be compared to the electoral college. We don't refer to the president-elect as the president until they are sworn in. Biden will not become the nominee until he is nominated. TFD (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW - Nobody is the Democratic presidential nominee, until a majority of the delegates at the 2020 Democratic National Convention vote for an individual. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism of sub-pages

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

Could I get some eyes on the sub-pages? As many of you know the general rule is that we include all candidates who receive over 5% in the infobox. This was restated in an RfC in 2017: Candidate must receive 5% of the vote. More recently we had a RfC which decided for the sub-pages that there was consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. Notwithstanding this Smith0124 has been removing Sanders, Warren and Bloomberg from infoboxes, suggesting that only two people can be in them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You still haven’t found the part of the Rfc that says candidates that have withdrawn are part of the 5% rule. Smith0124 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing that says that. The consensus is to include all candidates which receive 5%. This has been a long standing consensus. If you want to alter it start an RfC, but you don't get to simply disregard consensus you don't like.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. There’s nothing that says withdrawn candidates are included. I rest my case. If you want to get a separate consensus to include withdrawn candidates, go ahead, but as of now that’s not the consensus. Smith0124 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
We are currently including withdrawn candidates on this page and other sub-pages. You are making this up, and disregarding multiple RfC consensus. Stop it, revert your edits or I will take this to ANI. You are being disruptive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The withdrawn candidates on this page all won a contest, except for Klobuchar who should be removed because she didn’t. And stop accusing me. You’re not being productive. Smith0124 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I can only say it so many times. You have been pointed to two RfCs that were closed with consensus to include all candidates which received 5%. I suggest you read them and reconsider your comments and edits here. If you don't I will go to ANI. You can't just disregard past consensus on a whim like you propose and have done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I read them. They don’t say anything about including withdrawn candidates. I can only say that so many times too. I’m not going against any consensus here. I’m also not threatening and accusing, something you could learn from. I’m trying to discuss this. You’re just not listening. Smith0124 (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Withdrawn candidates were discussed in the most recent RfC and there was no consensus to remove them. It was also considered here, again with no consensus to remove them. Read it and reconsider your position. Even if it had not been considered you can't just make up a new criteria and disregard RfC consensus. You are being disruptive. First you said withdrawn candidates and that there was consensus for that in an RFC you swear (but you haven't provided that). Then you said there can only be two candidates in an infobox (that is also untrue). Now you are trying to argue that you can just disregard consensus because your new criteria isn't mentioned in the closing comments. This is not how it works. You are being disruptive. Reconsider or we go to ANI.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not reconsidering just because you threaten me. That’s just wrong. I know I’m right. You still haven’t found any consensus saying they should be included. No consensus means no consensus. If a candidate has withdrawn that means they aren’t part of the summary. I also never said that only two candidates are allowed. I said in this case two candidates are required INSTEAD of just Biden who’s the only one left because of that Rfc. Smith0124 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I asked you to reconsider your position many times, before I raised ANI. You refused to do so, and instead are continuing your disruptive behaviour. You are not listening, so I guess there is no other option but to go to ANI to sort it out.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, go ahead. I’ll make my case. You can blame me for everything but that gets us nowhere. Smith0124 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Striking sockpuppet comment. Humanengr (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I have made a report there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_10&oldid=967772137"