Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Removing many steps caucuses

I propose to remove multi-steps caucuses (Washington, Texas) from general table and 0 sized elections (except MI/FL). The [B] note already well indicate the multi-step process, and the detailed steps are already present in the specific articles. Moreover it resolves the problem that there are 0 sized contests with awarded delegates indicated (washington precint conventions, texas precint conventions). Now this creates a lot of confusion. I'm doing it.--Subver (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Subver, I have reverted this change you made. I understand the desire to Be Bold, but making this change without reading past discussion on the subject and without waiting for a response here to me seems more reckless than bold. Consensus was reached on this talk page earlier to list caucus/primary events in the main table of this article, not summaries of state votes as is given in the main primaries article. Now, perhaps we might want to revisit this decision, but let's at least get consensus to change our earlier decision first. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok sorry for the hurry. But I thought 0 sized events with delegates awarded to the candidates were not nice. And introducing only some conventions provoke inconsistencies...almost every state officially nominates delegates to a state convetion, but this does not influence the fact that number of awarded delegates is determined by the first step of caucuses/primaries. I think that TGP generated a lot of misunderstandings. IMHO the modification, previous consensus, have to be done. --Subver (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But if no delegates are determined in Texas precinct conventions (0 of 193), then why is there a delegates estimate? Shouldn't there be only voting percentages like in February 19 Washington primary (0 of 78)? It would be clearer. Hope you understand my English... 79.17.2.115 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit had solved it. I think that it's misleading as now, me too. --Subver (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Washington's primary has no effect whatsoever on determining delegates so no estimates are appropriate, but the Texas precinct conventions do have an effect on the eventual delegate distribution, even though the event itself doesn't conclusively determine delegates. Therefore providing estimates of the eventual delegate distribution based on the results of the Texas precinct conventions is helpful and appropriate to include. That said, I'll grant that the way we currently display this information invokes some confusion. Perhaps there's some better way to do it without simply deleting events or fudging the "0 of 193" display to show that delegates have been awarded when in fact they haven't. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasoning like that, almost all events would be 0 sized, just read some delegation plans and you will see that the official date of delegate selection does not match with the primary/caucuses date. I don't understand. The complete explanation is already in the specific page, why would you double it here? PS:(In my edit, I left washington primary because because it was not misleading, and even if 0sized event, it has a popular value) --Subver (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true that in almost all states, the actual people who will serve as delegates are not certified until the state conventions. But as you've noted, there is a difference betweeen selecting and certifying the delegates-as-persons and determining delegate-to-candidate distribution. What we care about in this article is the latter. In many states, some or all of the delegate-to-candidate distribution decisions are made in events prior to the state conventions (where you and I disagree below is when these decisions are made in states like Idaho). I think it makes sense to display events in this article when they can influence delegate-to-candidate distribution, but its ok to leave out events that only determine delegates-as-persons. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the question, for instance, is: did washington caucuses determined 52-26? If yes "0 (of 78)" is actual wrong, if no "52-26" is wrong and should be removed. Obviously I think the first option is right, and the other steps serve only to nominate the 52 and 26 delegates. Nominating process could have some different shade among states, but the core is that. (e.g. we know that pledged delegates are not really bound, but a candidate can substitute the pl.delegate,so...). --Subver (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: note [a] already explain that the total delegate votes indicated are only estimated, and official determining is at state conventions.Putting 0s on events with awarded delegates create a lot of confusion. --Subver (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Washington caucuses held on February 9 were precinct-level caucuses and determined that Obama won 21,768 precinct delegates and Clinton won 10,038 pecinct delegates. They did not determine how many district-level delegates for each candidate will be sent to the National Convention, only how many delegates for each candidate will attend the next step in the caucus process. The 52-26 numbers are estimates of how many congressional district-level delegates for each candidate will be sent to the National Convention, extrapolated from the numbers of precinct-level delegates. Even though they are only estimates, I think including them provides a useful indicator of the present progress of the state's nomination process. However, you could make a case that including estimates needlessly complicates this article. If we decided that, many of the caucus numbers in this article's tables would need to be removed (unless you're ultimately correct below that the first step in most caucus races irrevocably determines the delegate-to-candidate distribution). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for changing to 78 (removing 0 of 78) for WH and similarly to Texas caucuses, with note [a] (real delegate allocaction will be decided in future state convention) for all the reasons explained above (and avoid future double counted numbers!). I'm looking for consensus on that. And consequently remove other steps (leaving them in single state pages). You are against, clear. I would read other opinions. --Subver (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to what exactly you're seeking consensus on here. Is it to change the numbers that appear after "Delegates:" in each row or is it to change each row from being based on specific events to being a state overview? If it's the latter, consensus was already reached on that point above. Are you wanting to revisit this decision? And what does "KO" stand for? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true. A lot of states have a many steps procedure to determine their delegates. What should be done is try to make clearer the fact that the "delegates" determined in Texas precinct conventions are not summed with the others and aren't part of the Estimated total delegates at the top of the table... or are they? in this case... ?? 79.22.230.158 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the earlier consensus discussion, and I defer to the wisdom of those editors who were. However, I do think it should be recognized that many random readers show up at this article looking for basic information. And some of them are confused about issues like this. They would probably be better guided through the process by the simplified tables at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 but it's a toss-up whether they find that article or this one first. And so it's a problem if anything is confusing to them here. I think it may be worth simplifying this page wherever possible and relegating the technical "nitty-gritty" details (such as exactly when estimated delegates will be awarded) to the state results articles.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who's missed the earlier consensus discussion can, of course, simply read it. I'll admit that task can get daunting when there's so much to read, so let me point out Paul's posting at the top of this page (Overview of results) as a good summary of the philosophy guiding many of the decisions that the editors of this article later made.

I do agree that there are several aspects of the table on this article that create unnecessary confusion or are overly complicated, but I don't think that deep cuts to the article (such as discarding its multi-event structure) are necessary in order to address these issues. I do think it's within our capability to come up with creative ways to display large amounts of information while still retaining a simple, intuitive layout. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing a new idea below that may help... Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with simplification (as my reverted edit):

• --Subver (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree:

• Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuing discussion of multiple-event caucuses

Because it has a bearing on whether or not we list multiple events, I did a little more digging to try and discern just when delegates get bound to presidential candidates in states that have muilt-step nominating processes. I have found it very difficult to find information about this, but I did find two articles that address the subject: one from the Associated Press and one from the New York Times. The AP story is the most enlightening, particularly starting with the 12th paragraph. According to that article, each state can bind delegates to candidates at different steps in the nomination process. For example, in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada delegates aren't pledged to candidates until their state conventions. At each event prior to the state conventions, the percentage of delegates supporting Obama or Clinton can change. In Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Washington some delegates are pledged to candidates in the first event and others are pledged in subsequent events. Kinda makes one's head spin, eh? --Bryan H Bell (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Which leads me to believe we should take a simpler approach... if you're having trouble finding sources, then that seems like a recipe for disaster. If we find sources on multiple events in state X and state Y, how do we know we're not missing information about multiple events in state Z? I think this level of detail belongs in the state articles, not the main results article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have made it clear that I was having trouble finding non-official sources of information about when delegates are bound to candidates. This information is readily available in each state party's official delegate selection plan (and also on The Green Papers site, but considering that site's questioned status on this page, I was trying to avoid citing it). I was just looking for something a little easier to digest than poring over individual plan documents. In the end, we may decide it is prudent to leave the event-level detail strictly to the state articles, but then we'll have to resolve related issues for this article such as whether each row should represent a summary of all events in a state and if so, whether we should then remove the date column since many states hold events on multiple dates. The re-introduction of this summary row vs. event-based row question has got me thinking about how we divide the numerical results between the various articles and I may soon open a fresh discussion on this page about that. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Idaho problem

Idaho is a problem, ALL sources report 15-3 already achieved. --Subver (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

From the official Idaho plan: http://www.idaho-democrats.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1125550 (page 32) all pledged delegates (at-district, pleo, at-large) will be decided in 14 June state convention, obviously on the strength of previous caucus results. So there is no difference with many other states. Yes, another TGP error. From the official source (pag.32):

"Idaho will use a proportional representation system based on the results of the County Caucuses for apportioning its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The “first determining step” of Idaho State’s delegate selection process will occur on Tuesday, February 5, 2008 with County Caucus."

There is no much more to say. I'm removing the "second step" by both general and Idaho page. PS: please avoid Green Papers and use directly official sources (www.democrats.org and single states sites).--Subver (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Green Papers is also showing 15-3. What's the problem? Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they indicated that only 12 delegates had be determinated by caucuses! :-) The state convention is done in almost all states, it only serve to the purpose of nominating (by name) the delegates, but numbers awarded by each presidential candidate is already determined by caucuses. --Subver (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The same for Wyoming. Here the delegate selection plan, page 31: http://www.wyomingdemocrats.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1024119 --Subver (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though many sources report 15-3, I'm not sure they are indicating final tallies. They may be merely indicating estimates. I'm not certain yet that your're correct about intermediate nominating events having no effect on how delegates are distributed among the candidates. I'll grant you that at first glance the Idaho delegate selection plan seems to support your argument for that state's delegate-to-candidate distribution being settled at the first event. However, I'm not sure if a more careful reading of the plan may reveal that delegate-to-candidate distribution can change at Idaho's state convention. I notice that the New York Times seems to indicate that delegate-to-candidate distribution is ultimately decided at the State Convention ("They are allocated to candidates proportionally based on the support from participants in the convention."). Of course, the New York Times could be wrong, too. Certainly, it's important for us to settle for ourselves what the truth of this point is, since it has a real effect on how we structure these articles. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

What is sure is that either all 18 delegates or 0 delegates (as NYT does). Not 12 delegates and 6 in the future. And I repeat, state conventions members are elected through the first step caucuses/primary, and they elect proportionally the real delegates. It's quite automatic. In fact among results also TGP reports 15-3 (it's very funny!). --Subver (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's a sure thing that it's either 18 or 0. It may be that the delegate-to-candidate distribution can't change for the 12 district delegates once they're selected in the first event, but the distribution can change for the 6 At-large/PLEO delegates at the state convention. I think that's the point that The Green Papers is describing. They may be wrong about that, but until I can determine otherwise, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Let's see if we can find some independent information that might help us settle when the delegate-to-candidate distribution is determined. By the way, the 15-3 that The Green Papers lists in the "soft pledged" column is an estimate, not a final tally (see their counting definitions). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One note about your quote from the ID delegate selection plan above: I'm not sure that "first determining step" means only determining step. I think all it may mean is that is it the first event in which any determinations are made. The state convention might be a "second determining step" though there is no explicit mention of that term in the plan and other statements in the plan may indicate a single determining step. Still trying to figure this out... --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, combing through Idaho's Delegate Selection plan, I think I've figured out how the delegate-to-candidate distribution is determined for pledged delegates. In Section III of the plan, Selection of Delegates and Alternates, there are three sub-sections that pertain to assigning pledged delegates to candidates:

Sub-section A, District-Level Delegates and Alternates (p. 12, #7a):

"...delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the [county] caucus vote won in that district by each preference..."

Sub-section C, Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) Delegates (p. 14, #4a):

"The pledged PLEO slots shall be allocated among presidential preferences on the same basis as the at-large delegates."

Sub-section D, At-Large Delegates And Alternates (p. 16, #4a):

"At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among presidential preferences according to...the division of preferences among [state] convention participants..."

I believe that this indicates that The Green Papers description is correct: 12 district-level delegates are pledged to candidates at the county caucuses and 6 At-large and PLEO delegates are pledged to candidates at the state convention. This process is likely similar in the other states mentioned (WY, WA). --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And how is "the division of preferences among convention participants" determined? Through the caucus (in fact caucus elects state convetion members)...there's no much difference. --Subver (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The county caucuses do not elect all the state convention members. Some of the members are party officials. In addition, some of the county caucus delegates are uncommitted, or supported Edwards. Those delegates are free to choose national delegates that are pledged to either Obama or Clinton at the state convention, so the delegate-to-candididate distribution can change in significant ways for the At-Large/PLEO delegates. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Structure

Maybe we could do more to guide readers to the other article for a basic introduction to the primary process? This article starts off with an intro that reads as if it is the top-level article in the series, when really under the encyclopedic structure this is a sub-article of Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. I propose deleting the language in the opening section that looks to have been copied from the other article. I propose deleting the "candidates" section. I propose moving the Republican results link to a see-also section at the bottom of the page. Finally, I propose to begin with something like this: "This article contains the results of the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 and related events. For an overview of the nomination process and a simplified explanation of results, see the main article. For detailed results of individual state contests, click the state names below." In other words, make it very clear that this article is a subsection of the main Democratic primary article, and make it very clear that the reader should start there if there is any confusion. This is our information warehouse. The other article is our showroom. Let's make sure our first-time customers walk in the front door. And if they accidentally walk in through the loading dock, let's make sure to send them up to the front of the store.Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Other ideas along this line include (a) deleting (transcluding) the table of contents and (b) moving the cartogram to the bottom of the page, perhaps in a new section (Graphical representations of results). Then we just start with the intro and the table, which would do even more to visually represent that the main purpose of this article is the warehousing of information. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I support all of changes proposed above. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I support, but (a)...i don't understand (what table of contest and where transclude). PS:do you wanna vote above? Is it clear what I propose? --Subver (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The table of contents that appears automatically at the top of the page can be made to disappear, and it may improve article layout in this case. (See WP:TOC). Transclusion is the wrong word; sorry for the confusion. I'm abstaining from the vote above, deferring to existing consensus. I see your points and agree with them to some extent, but I don't feel strongly enough about it support revamping the existing structure that was arrived at after considerable deliberation. Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So OK (for your proposal). I read the former discussion and I found nothing against my proposal (instead I found that there was consensus on removing state conventions). I simply think that indicating "Delegates:0 (of 78)" and then indicate 52-26 is simply a non-sense, do you agree?. So i propose to switch to Delegates:78[A]; note [A] indicate that it is only an estimate, and future convention will really and officially decide. Moreover for Iowa, Kansas and other, we already do as this. So Washington and Texas cases are not coherent with the other states. --Subver (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm staying out of this one.Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I implemented these changes.Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's confusing to have two links to the same main article; I removed the link from the second one, and changed it to "that main article" to refer to the first link. Wdfarmer (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dems Abroad Reference

Why is there a reference next to dems abroad? None of the other articles have references and we're just pulling the numbers from the state article anyhow. Andareed (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference is left over from a time when sources were listed directly in this article's delegate table. I've removed it. Thanks for catching that. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Contests Won or Tied

First point:

One of the many things confusing to the general reader who stumbles across this article looking for election results is the row, contests won or tied, which currently says 46 of 64. Most readers expect a count of "states + territories" here. So that means 50 states + DC, VI, GM, AS, PR, Dems Abroad = 56. Maybe 57 if you add the Texas caucus. Maybe minus two if you subtract Florida and Michigan. Where are the other contests coming from...?

This is one of many places where I feel the article does a disservice to readers by insisting on a count of "events" rather than a count of "meaningful events" -- by which I think there are 54 to 57, depending on your perspective. At the very least there should be a footnote at this row to indicate that other news sources may be counting the "contests" differently.

Second point:

Assuming you can somehow come up with 64 contests, I still don't undertand the math. The count is currently 18 Uncommitted + 15 Clinton + 31 Obama = 64. But surely you don't count tied contests as two contests? Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion that new row is useless and misleading (should we count Illinois and Guam as 1-1?). I propose to remove it. Moreover the counting of contests is strictly related to the "debating" between me and Bryan as above (we are trying to solve it). --Subver (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should go. It's confusing and doesn't really add much. The only thing I can see supporting is the media attention to winning "more states", but this takes it a bit too far I think. --Siradia (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with northwesterners call to footnote to avoid confusion on the count of listed contests, removing confusion about the list being longer than 50 of 54. States rights are a really big deal on my circles, and I see them, or something like them influencing the vote. (Yeah I'm ironically from one of the bigger states.) Constitution/Senate represents them equally and society still reflects this value in voting and voicing before voting. But even I must admit theres more here being counted than states, like Guam and Puerto Rico, and some are being counted more than once, like Texas primary and caucus. For whatever reason or motivating core value, each contest seems to change the election scape. Each is a unique contest, so I see some core value to that sort of accounting.

But the media seems to make more of this issue, along with its readership, in measuring not quite momentum but more like incumbency. Hillary has secured a sizable chunk of superdelegates, and that's been challenged by barack's what would you say ¿comeback? chunk of contests. As republican and states rights I see this playing out in the media but also democratic voters strongly--just consider some of those small states and how each contest, like the two in Texas, really shaped and continue to shape voters minds, the media, the sense of fairness that seems to shape superdelegates decisions (and the "decision" has yet to be made on what will be made on all factors like this founding concept of states equality), and thus justifiably the candidates changing definitions of victory. Each contest carries real value into the process and--good for republicans, sad for democrats--a brokered nomination. It is just worth recording, as a simple tally clearly less important than the total delegate count, yet highly influential whether or not we track its history in this convenient enough, proximate location.

Just what should the footnote read is what Id like to get resolved and quick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.165.118.229 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Subver and Siradia that the row should be removed. I think the information in the row doesn't fit well into the structure of the table. I don't think a footnote will adequately address the various issues this row introduces to the table. However, I do understand the desire to know "how many blue-colored cells did Obama get in this table vs. Clinton?" without having to manually count them up. I've made an attempt to remove the row while retaining the information it contains by adding some text at the beginning of the "Overview of results" section. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's better than the row but it's still confusing. The language "47 contests have taken place... X has won the most pledged delegates in Y contests" seems to imply that pledged delegates are being won in all these contests, which is not the case. Question: Do two candidates tie if they both get 0 in a contest that awards 0 delegates? Is the Washington primary even really a "contest"? Can it be said that the candidates "contested" that primary? Counting winners in meaningless events seems pretty bizarre to me. Counting winners in events such as state-level conventions whose outcomes are wholly predicted by early events is also confusing. The desire to know "how many blue-colored cells did Obama get in this table vs. Clinton?" is not really what readers want to know. They may want to know how many "states" have been won (by which they mean states+territories). But I really don't think they're coming to this article to find out how many types of contest within one state have been won, when winning the later contests is essentially automatic.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that my attempt is not the best solution. I was mostly trying to find a way to get the row out of the table without cutting off attempts at compromise. In the text I added, I was intentionally trying to sidestep the "meaningless events" issue by being vague, but I guess starting from the "contests won or tied" concept was handicapping me from the start. I'd be just as happy to remove the text entirely. I've just added a section below that I hope will address, among other things, the "meaningless events" issue more directly.

I disagree, however, with your statements "state-level conventions whose outcomes are wholly predicted by early events" and "winning the later contests is essentially automatic". This just isn't true in all cases, including Washington. The distribution of delegates to candidates can change (and has changed, in previous elections) as late as the state convention in some caucus states. Considering the closeness of the race between Obama and Clinton, I think we may begin to see this issue assert itself in the coming months. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, we really should work more on the underlying issue of what events should be reported in this article. I understand that issue may reopen some earlier consensus decisions, as well as the discussion initiated by subver above, which didn't really get resolved. I like your approach below to laying out the issues and asking for proposals. It is my understanding that historically those caucuses numbers have been pretty stable moving up from precinct to county to state conventions. Sometimes a candidate loses a delegate or two. But in cases where both candidates are still in the race, those numbers have been pretty stable. The candidates pick their most devoted supporters to be caucus delegates and barring some major change of events, I just don't think we're going to see much movement. The numbers DO change when one candidate drops out of the race (which often happens by the time the state conventions roll around). Just as the superdelegates end up changing their vote when one candidate drops out of the race. But that's a different story. There's just no precedent in modern political history for the washington county convention to, say, throw the race to Clinton after Obama won the precinct caucuses. If I'm wrong about that, let me know. But I think those numbers are pretty fixed. Probably not "wholly predicted"; not "essentially automatic"; I shouldn't have used such overreaching rhetoric. But I do think these events should be moved to the states articles OR left here in such a way that the winners aren't highlighted or given prominence in language like "47 out of 63 contests." Thanks for your work on this. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I edited this a bit to reflect language on "events" rather than "contests." I think this takes away any concern I had with it, other than the underlying question about whether to focus on multiple events at all (about which I'm conflicted). See Bryan H's proposals to resolve that question below. Northwesterner1 (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That seems to work for now. By the way, for a while I had been gradually adding events to this page's table (see Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 4#Adding missing events) – TX, WA, Dems Abroard, ID, and WY was as far as I'd gotten, though all but the first three have since been removed). I stopped doing so after opposition to these events arose. I'm waiting for resolution of this before I continue. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)