FHQ: 751
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican.html
Green Papers: 752
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-HS.phtml
FiveThirtyEight: 752
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/
... and
NYT: 735
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
Electoral-vote.com: 736
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
USA Today: 736
http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-primaries-2016/#/
Fox News: 736
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-primary-caucus-results
Washington Post: 736
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-primaries/
Bloomberg: 736
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/
Wikipedia: 752
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
This is the problem. No matter what number you want it to be, you can find a delegate count that you like.
Well, first of all I agree with you, I wouldn’t go with Wikipedia where anyone can put something in there. I avoid using Wiki for sources because it is so unreliable.
Secondly, I tend to think the source sites that I referenced are more reliable than the networks which will use the variances for their own purposes. The sites will probably do the same thing somewhat but at least you’re getting more raw data and a total picture to validate what they’re saying.
To me, it looks like Trump probably has 752 based on what two out of the four agree on.