Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Turkish flag appears on the top of the candidate names - please correct.

The following discussion 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.

---

Appears fixed now.

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.

Re: Muboshgu's reversion of my edit

I argue that Muboshgu's complete reversion of my edit was too drastic a measure. He cited two reasons for the reversion:

- "Lead is too long"

The article previously had a section for controversies, which was removed. Thus, the lead remained as the only section where they were discussed, and in its previous condition, had been written in such a way as to omit crucial details and to dismiss controversy.

- "Undue weight on one report"

Partial as it may be, the report essentially sums up much of the voter disenfranchisement that happened during the 2016 primary. But more importantly in this scenario, my edit had plenty of links, each of whom was to a different news site, discussing the subject. I also corrected a mistaken overreach / straw-man in another section (Donna Brazile never alleged that the primary was 'rigged', and as such can't have 'walked back' that which she did not say), which Muboshgu's act also reverted back to its misleading state.

Given the above, I'm going to re-instate my contribution, with changes so as to conform to the above two criticisms. Selvydra (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Selvydra: Do not reinstate your edit without talk page consensus. That is against the process of WP:BRD. Edit summaries are limited in the amount one can say. I'm also concerned, beyond the WP:UNDUE weight you're giving that one report, that you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. I did not look through all the links to determine that for certain, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I wasn't intending on re-instating the previous version as-is, but one with changes according to the concerns you presented. In my current changes, I have moved a bulk of the additions to another section ("July 2016: National convention and leaks"), and clarified that it doesn't hinge on EJUSA's report so much as the report simply acting as a summary of incidents reported widely in news. I'm also unsure why the concerns warranted you reverting my edit in its entirety – including the clarifications I made to the "July 2016:" section in the page (which you didn't address yet). Is there a WP policy that states a large contribution can be reverted entirely if independent parts of it contain individual problems?

Regarding WP:SYNTH – where there was a conclusion ('research') presented, it was from the report, not yours truly (the editor). The news articles cited were to provide examples of the "irregularities that occurred during the 2016 Democratic primary." That doesn't seem like 'research' to me, as no claim was made besides that irregularities existed in several places (which seems uncontroversial enough and is backed up by the citations). In fact, to me it has looked like the current write-up of this page (especially the part under July 2016: [...]) is more guilty of Synth, given that it is written so as to rebut all claims of controversy, and (unlike pages of other elections) not to include anything about election irregularities.

TL;DR: I ask you to (i) explain to me the need for a complete reversion of my changes, (ii) go through my edit and use the ample space here to list all other concerns you may have, so I can account for them too, and (iii) clarify what your definition of Talk-page consensus is – do I have to wait for weeks for people to come here and add their opinions, or (if no-one does in a reasonable amount of time,) could we reach one together? Selvydra (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I've made a userspace draft of the intended changes, edited to accommodate your concerns of WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and of having too long a lead. So that I wouldn't be stonewalled for weeks/months from contributing until someone comes by to the talk page of this old article, I ask you (or another admin) to review the prospective changes and submit any additional concerns. I understand you are busy, but I kindly ask that you get back to me after taking the time to challenge my edit, so that the WP:BRD cycle can continue. Thank you. Selvydra (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Since you haven't replied in a week, despite me trying to reach you here and on your own page, I have gone ahead and started a new cycle of WP:BRD by adding the above draft into this article. Prior to this, I contacted the WP volunteer e-mail for assistance on this situation, and inferred from their response that a week of waiting for a prospective consensus is more than long enough.

If this act of mine will finally alert you to this page, and you find new points of contention in my edit, I wish you wouldn't remove my entire edit (including sections of it that fully conform to WP rules) again and instead just changed/removed the parts that you pointed out as being against the rules. Thank you!

Now then, for the main change log from my previous edit a week ago:

- Moved most of my contribution from lead to the July 2016... section to address the lead being too long.

- Moved the EJUSA report mention to the end of that paragraph to show that the election irregularities mentioned earlier do not hinge on it, to address the concern of WP:UNDUE.

- Tweaked the language on the mentions of irregularity so the links provided (to different states' issues) can't be misunderstood at coining any other joint conclusion other than that stuff happened in multiple states, and that's all. There shouldn't be WP:SYNTH as there is no 'research' performed by the editor beyond 'multiple articles exist of it' (i.e. no comment on 'what it means that there are multiple articles of it'.) Selvydra (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This alerted me. I forgot to respond earlier. I had hoped others might respond, but I see that didn't happen. I'll look through it in more detail later today. You still haven't explained to me who "Election Justice USA" is and why we should include them on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I see. Good that you're here now, though. It seems the H:title code, which I used to make a hover-over info-box, broke while I stored the edit as an userspace draft (I thought it can't be previewed). I had written on it a quote from the news article that covered EJUSA, that describes who they are. I will attend to fixing that now.

But, to repeat it here: "EJUSA is a non-partisan team of attorneys, statisticians, journalists, and activists. The group came together after the March 22 Arizona presidential primary."

I wanted to stress, again, that EJUSA isn't the only party reporting the issues. They were independently covered by a multitude of (to my knowledge) reputable news sites. Their report simply acts as a summary of, and research on, what happened. Selvydra (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Muboshgu: and @Selvydra: - I went ahead and re-reverted Selvydra's edits, which may seem a bit drastic, but I think it's best to go through them point-by-point on here, because while some of them may be useful to keep, I have a lot of significant concerns. I can go back through in more detail when I get a chance, but here are my initial thoughts. (I also hope some other editors could weigh in too.)

For one thing, I'm not sure about the appropriateness of some sources, such as Heavy.com and Counterpunch, for this page. Also, it still isn't clear to me that "Election Justice USA" is a good source; I can't find much about them aside from what they've put out themselves (at least one website did describe them as a pro-Sanders advocacy group, though). Here's one problem with the lack of other sources discussing EJUSA-- At a glance, it looks like their report tries to force the evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion: for instance, they look at the correlation between Clinton's NYC-precinct vote share and the number of purged voters, and assume that the "purge" hurt Sanders, when it could actually be that Clinton-supporting precincts were hit harder; also, they make claims about precinct sizes and alleged rigging of vote counts, a method that has been soundly rebutted in academic publications (I can dig up some links if you're interested). But we obviously can't write our on WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, and without any other reliable sources, we'd be forced to take their own claims at face value. So the lack of familiar, credible sources (like academic ones, or 538, or the NYT's Upshot) discussing the EJUSA report suggests that it hasn't been taken very seriously, and we probably shouldn't use it.

As for the larger issue of WP:SYNTH, I think the problem is that you're putting together various articles that don't strictly support your central point. For instance, your HuffPo article doesn't actually discuss bias toward any candidate; you have articles about various election irregularities and complaints (whether or not noteworthy/unusual) alongside more questionable claims about intentional rigging, in order to further the idea that the nomination could have been stolen. There's also some synth and a POV-slant in the way these additions are connected to the discussion of the DNC's emails and fundraising, a connection that I don't see any reliable source supporting. Also in the additions pertaining to Donna Brazile's claims, and putting together the November 2017 article about DNC fundraising with the Politico article from April 2016. The previous lead and body had a reasonably balanced and adequate discussion of Brazile; I really don't think it's WP:DUE or necessary to have anything more her various statements and walk-backs than what was already there.

And lastly, I think the lede needs to retain the links to credible media commentators who argue that the primary wasn't really rigged. That seems to be the broadly-held attitude of many reliable authorities (which is important to keep in mind when we're dealing with lesser-known reports whose claims apparently haven't been supported or rebutted). That said, I think it could be reasonable to use neutral, reliable news sources to add a couple of lines somewhere in the body regarding the complaints that were made about the voting process in certain states' primaries, since that seems notable enough and was previously lacking from the article. I hope some more editors can weigh in too. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, @Avial Cloffprunker:. It's good to have you here as well. You see, your edits to this page in the past year were one of the main motivations behind my contribution. (I invite @Muboshgu: to have a look at them, too.) I got the impression that most of them changed the way the page reads in the direction of, "Not only was there no rigging, but claims of all unfairness and unethicality have been soundly rebutted." There's nothing wrong with balance, but when every such passage ends up written: "X. However, it's been disputed by Y and Z," the reader gets the impression that Y and Z had the final say on the matter, and it has been all but disproven.

I do assume good faith, of course, which is why I'm telling you this. It's clear that you've been concerned primarily by any incidences of a pro-Sanders bent existing on this page. It just doesn't seem like WP:NPOV rests at "the primary was fair and uncontroversial," as that's going beyond neutral territory in what each campaign said and solidly into the Clinton camp's turf. The news articles you added to dispute 'rigging' largely don't make such a claim, and just assert that there wasn't 'rigging', while not disputing irregularities or unethicality per se.

To address some of your points: EJUSA probably isn't a wholly impartial source, but neither are most other sources (cable news CEOs donated to Clinton), and they are one of few such ones investigating irregularities during the primary. National media mostly didn't pick it up as they were busy covering WikiLeaks, Russia's alleged meddling, and the convention itself instead – although "Election Justice USA" garners over 20,000 Google hits and there are these articles on Politico and AlJazeera. I included their report as only a "this exists" addition, as I don't know of a comparable research effort into the topic. As far as I'm aware, in such circumstances, it is better to have it mentioned (while stressing this is their research and their claims) than omit any mentions of it entirely. (I'm aware this applies to the creation of new articles, though.) If you're wary about it being taken uncritically, we could always add a mention of them being called a 'pro-Sanders advocacy group' (I'm guessing you were referring to this article). Re: NYC-purge: the report had this to say: "In a statistical model which controlled for neighborhood/location and precinct size, the percentage of purged voters was a significant predictor of Clinton’s vote share, demonstrating that Senator Sanders was disproportionately affected by the purges."

Heavy.com has actually been up since 1998, and it has a media bias fact-check page here, which describes it as left-center site with a factual reporting ranking of 'High'. I looked though WP:RS and didn't see a section that would invalidate it as a source, although I may have missed it.

CounterPunch seems to be a little more controversial, given an opinion piece on LATimes and some conservative sites calling it radical or extreme. I'm generally open to replacing that with something less controversial. However, in that situation, it seems they were the ones to interview the Chicago election officials in question, so I'm not sure that another source would have the same information. Do you think that even interviews are unreliable if conducted by them?

As for my 'central point', I tried to stress that "the primary was rigged" and "there was no rigging" both seem to miss the mark, which is somewhere in the middle (that there was some amount of controversy ). I think you alluded to this as well with regards to keeping some parts of the edit. If there are any claims on those articles that the process was 'rigged' or the nomination was 'stolen' (I didn't notice any), then I didn't bring them up, nor do I think my edit was written in a way to suggest such. If you think there's WP:SYNTH in the edit that does suggest such, I ask you to point it out so I can re-write that part.

Similarly, Brazile (to my knowledge) never said there was rigging either, and you cannot walk back that which you haven't said in the first place. Claiming that Brazile said it was rigged and then 'walked it back' is, to my mind, a case of WP:SYNTH – a conclusion not stated by the source. Also, the 2016 article was directly mentioned and linked to by Brazile in her 2017 article, which is why I put them together.

Since you both have said you'll go through the edit when you have more time, I'm going to wait for a few days for you to do so. I will then make changes according to your concerns (both thus far and any further ones), and post the draft here. That, of course, includes those of any other editor who might find their way here. Selvydra (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'll try to give a more in-depth reply in a couple of days, but I've got a few brief ideas for now:

I just found a book published recently (2018) by a reputable source (the Brookings Institution) that includes some discussion of the 2016 primary: [1]. I haven't had a chance to go through most of it yet, but it could potentially be a good source.

We're also at a point where increasing amounts of peer-reviewed political science papers about the 2016 primary are being published; this one seems especially relevant: [2]. In general, when it comes to the presentation and due coverage of various topics, I think it will be a good idea to take some cues from sources such as these.

Here's an article from the Atlantic about some of the specific controversies we're discussing. It seems pretty fair and could be useful: [3]

During the general election in 2004, and to a much lesser extent, in 2008 and 2012, there was some controversy over various voter irregularities. I think that the current Wikipedia articles have a balanced and proportionate treatment of these issues, and thus can also serve as potential models for this page. –Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I had a look at the book and the research paper, and while they felt sound, they seemed to be more about the process and the support for insurgents than about primary controversy. The Atlantic article looked quite good, though, even if it kind of glanced over some things (like the use of state parties for money-funneling). But overall, these finds might still prove useful somewhere, so thank you for finding them.

Well, it would make sense to have a separate section for controversy (like in the 2004 and 2008 general election articles) which more faithfully (to the cited sources) elaborates on the events in each state, so that there's less chance of it appearing as broad-stroked OR or SYNTH. However, it seems such a section was previously removed by some editors because they considered it too biased. (And the sources cited for it may well have been; I'll have to check later.) I'm all for using those articles as a model.

That's okay; I'll reply with a modified draft (trying to integrate as much of what was discussed here as possible to what flaws in balance and coverage the page currently has) in a couple days as well, and we can continue the process and hone things from there. Selvydra (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Avial Cloffprunker: Given the large amount of questions you raised from my previous edit, I deemed it best to just start over, while taking passages of the previous one that you didn't contest (or which I clarified – with good reason to believe they're valid – and you didn't contest again).

As I mentioned earlier, the main issue with how this page currently stands is it focuses on a "rigged or not rigged" bifurcation. I think we both agree that there is no hard-enough evidence of the primary being rigged in the true sense of the word. However, that shouldn't be construed as nothing unethical or controversial happening whatsoever. But, by employing the 'rigging' claim as a straw-man and brushing aside more nuanced allegations, it is effectively possible to write this page to read, "the primary was wholly uncontroversial" – which we clearly agreed it wasn't.

To this extent, I have mostly gone through edits that commit the above fallacy, and adjusted them to better conform to what is known, in keeping with WP guidelines.

When it comes to Brazile, I contend that it's WP:UNDUE to include in the page's lead her leaking a debate question (which likely had very little effect on the primary by that late point), but to deem her book and allegations of an unethical primary process unworthy of that position. To my mind, it is the leaked debate questions that would be better placed in the 'email leaks' section instead. However, Brazile appearing in the emails serves as important context for her later allegations, which is why it seems sensible to include both.

Now, let's look at your earlier addition of:

• "Other media commentators have disputed the claim that Sanders' campaign was sabotaged, and assert that DNC members' internal preference for Clinton did not lead to any actions that changed the outcome of the race."

Of the three sources, the middle one is a strongly worded entry from a [[The_New_Republic|Third-Way-liberal magazine] that is clearly tilted in favor of the Clinton campaign's "dismiss the contents, focus on the leaker" plea. As its closing statement, it even implores that "Democrats need to stop quibbling about whether the DNC rigged the nomination" and focus on the "brazen eagerness of the Russians to exploit vulnerabilities to undermine our democratic process." It's hardly more reliable than, say, Fox News' coverage of Republicans' wrongdoings. But, to be fair, it is a pundit's opinion, even if partial.

The other two did indeed disagree on rigging, but had also this to say (one example of several in each article):

The Nation article: "The e-mails do confirm that the DNC violated party rules requiring officials to remain neutral until a candidate is officially nominated."

WaPo article: "Given Clinton’s standing as the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, and her longtime role in the party, it is not surprising that her preferences were incorporated in the DNC’s decision-making processes. What is surprising is that the DNC formally agreed to provide the campaign with veto power over some of its hiring decisions."

Finally, the (seemingly slanted) New Republic article made the point that it was the state parties, not the DNC, that were in control of the primaries – and that DNC operatives were only seen sending emails about 'southern peeps', not actually acting upon it. However, also didn't touch upon the debate schedule, which the WaPo article did comment with: "Other complaints may be more valid," and, "If the DNC made these calls with the intention of shortening the primary campaign process, it might have limited the Sanders’ campaign’s ability to reach new voters." You could still argue that, overall, they "disputed the claim that the DNC sabotaged Sanders' campaign," (depending on what 'sabotaged' is taken to mean,) but it's not really a WP:NPOV representation of the big picture.

Given the above concessions (and more) made by the articles you cited, a more balanced representation of them would be:

• "Other media commentators have argued that, while the DNC's actions could have affected the race, those actions and their internal preference for Clinton were unlikely to have swayed the outcome."

Finally, about EJUSA again; as I stated before, the group has been reported on by several reputable news outlets (CNN [4], Politico [5] and Vice [6][7]). Establishing a criterion of "content shouldn't be mentioned if even part of it (say, the precinct sizes and vote counts) is questionable" would also apply to all three sources you had added to the edit I brought up above. Each article has several hypothetical assertions (I can bring them up if needed) without credible sources or data to back it up. (And just as they've been published in known newspapers, so was EJUSA's report covered in them.) However, given the above, I do think that the report should be brought up in a way that doesn't uncritically approve its content. Also, I removed the bit about how many delegates irregularities supposedly flipped, since it was partly based on the controversial data.

As before, here is the userspace draft. In addition to the above changes and accommodating your concerns, I took this opportunity to add some more sources to places where there weren't any, or where you had questioned the reliability of one. (Feel free to suggest removal of some of them, if there's too many.) I will wait for a couple days for (I hope) ample opportunity for feedback before I start a new WP:BRD cycle. @Muboshgu: feel free to have a look too. Selvydra (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Reversal of Feb 21st, 2019 edits

As the Edit summary has limited space for text, allow me to better clarify the reversal of edits made by 2 editors on February 21st.

As seen in the (long) discussion above this header, no comments have been made since November 2018 on how to improve the page, despite multiple requests by myself here (as well as on admin Muboshgu's talk page). 3 months later, the delicate consensus (between the two extremes, 1. "the primary was entirely rigged by the DNC / Clinton campaign" and 2. "the primary was clean and only interfered in by Russia," the arrived-at consensus was 3. "the primary was not rigged, but nonetheless slanted by the DNC and the Clinton campaign, and Russia likely partook in revealing it") was cast out the window by expansive edits, and re-written (even if in WP:GF) to the benefit of side 2. of the argument.

The manual reversion was done by copy-pasting the relevant paragraphs from the most recent edit (883557374) before edits by 65.112.8.7. To the paste-reverted Leaks section, Avial_Cloffprunker's edit 884489699 (second-to-last on Feb 21st) was copied in.

I think that, after painstakingly reaching the consensus earlier, we should refrain from unilateral PoV-altering changes like these – especially such expansive ones and at this moment, right after Sanders has announced his candidacy (Feb 19th). Instead, if there are related grievances, we should discuss it with both sides involved and get the information in there based on an agreement, as per WP:BRD and WP:ACDS. Selvydra (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Selvydra: Thanks for spelling out your concerns. (Also tagging @Muboshgu: in case they want to dive back into this or get more editors involved.) My biggest problem, as I mentioned, was simply that the introduction was too long, with a really excessive level of detail. So, instead of getting bogged down in these details (which are more appropriate for the body) about debate scheduling, leaked questions, or various commentators trying to judge and infer about what extent things were tangibly slanted/rigged/swayed ... I simply want to boil it down to just the barest, most undisputed facts. Aside from the Russian involvement, I relied on what I saw as the key line the cited Washington Post article ("Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically all of these examples came late in the primary -- after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory -- but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage"), and I also consulted the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign page's intro, which I thought was written very fairly and concisely.

I wasn't trying to slant it to any particular side of the argument beyond that. I also think I was being very fair in the body as well. I'll have to take another look at 65.112.8.7's edits (there may be some OR/synth in there), but I didn't make any drastic changes to the body myself, just moved stuff down from the intro, tweaked the some of the wording to more precisely reflect already-cited articles' main points, and I actually added a couple more articles that I thought give a good explanation of what Sanders supporters were broadly upset about.

Additionally, we can look at major political science books published since the election, to see how much space they give to the topic and how they describe it:

• Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America by John Sides, Michael Tesler, Lynn Vavreck [8]: concisely states that the DNC emails "were hacked by Russian operatives and publicly released by WikiLeaks. [...] They showed that DNC staffers had derided Bernie Sanders's campaign, and the ensuing controversy cost DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz her position. [...] The hacked DNC emails stoked the ire of Sanders supporters" (p.144-145)

• The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election, by Rachel Bitecofer [9]: "In what would later be revealed to be a planned attack by Russia, a cache of stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee was released to the public via WikiLeaks on the eve of the convention. Some emails showed DNC staff members deriding Bernie Sanders' and his supporters, giving more fuel to claims that the DNC had “interfered” in the primary process to advantage Hillary Clinton's candidacy. In the hours before, the convention officially commenced, then DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign from the DNC." (p.83); p.134 briefly mentions "discontent among Bernie Sanders supporters" due to "the release of the DNC emails"

• Trumped: The 2016 Election That Broke All the Rules, edited by Larry Sabato, Kyle Kondik, Geoffrey Skelley [10]: "The CIA had concluded that [...] Russia [...] may have been behind the hacking into the emails of DNC and Clinton campaign officials, which produced months of vaguely sinister-sounding headlines about Clinton" (p.108), and "Debbie Wasserman Schultz [resigned as DNC chair] right before the Democratic National convention because of leaked emails that showed the party favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the primary" (p.75)

The third book sounds kind of dismissive, but overall, I think the above is mostly in line with what I've been saying. I'm certainly open to suggestions about the exact wording if I may seem biased, but at the end of the day there's really no need for that intro paragraph to be so long. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Avial Cloffprunker: Hi, Avial, and thank you too for the measured response.

In short – the main issues behind the changes I've made have been not content but **tone**. If a section is begun with a line that amounts in the reader's eyes to, "The following is a confirmed Russian propaganda effort," then it (subconsciously or otherwise) discredits the following content. Another issue (at least in the past) was using straw-men (such as Brazile "saying the primary was rigged," which she didn't) and then stating that they "walked back their statements" to make it appear as though they now agree the primary was wholly fair.

The work you did in shortening the other paragraphs of the lead looked good, and as a whole, it is now shorter. If you still wish to shorten the paragraph that begins with Wikileaks, I ask that we should do so carefully so the **tone** is kept according to the content: The primary wasn't rigged, but still somewhat slanted.

It would be good if you could respond with proposed changes to the current paragraph (taking the above into consideration), and we can work things from there.

(Feel free to do so with the body as well, although I found 65.112.8.7's edits to be more problematic in making the section mostly about Russia and exclusively using the Clinton campaign's PoV.) Selvydra (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Selvydra: Ok, so, it looks like your biggest concern is that the paragraph shouldn't begin with saying "as part of a Russian operation..." That sounds fair; we can keep the wording as it stands now.

As for these sentences: "The debate schedule had already been criticized as far back as 2015, including by aspiring candidate Martin O'Malley, as biased in Clinton's favor.[20] Democratic Party Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who succeeded Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair after the first batch of leaks,[21] was shown in the emails leaking primary debate questions to the Clinton campaign before the debates were held.[22] Brazile later went on to write a book about the primary and what she called 'unethical' behavior by the Clinton campaign and the DNC during it.[23], as I said, there's really no need for such detail in the intro. I still think this simply belongs in the body.

And for the lines "according to Sanders operatives and multiple media commentators, portrayed an organization invested in promoting the Clinton candidacy and sabotaging that of Bernie Sanders." and "Other media commentators have argued that, while the DNC's actions could have affected the race, those actions and their internal preference for Clinton were unlikely to have swayed the outcome", they could stay in the intro, but I don't think we really need them up there. My proposed wording (in line with the longstanding intros for the Bernie Sanders campaign page and the DNC leaks page) gives just the most basic context and factual information (as I mentioned above) and lets that speak for itself, while keeping interpretations and commentary to a minimum.

My revised proposal would be something like this: On July 22, WikiLeaks published the Democratic National Committee email leak, in which DNC operatives seemed to deride Bernie Sanders' campaign and discuss ways to advance Clinton's nomination. The emails, though dating from late in the primary, when Clinton was already close to securing the nomination, revealed the DNC leadership's bias against Sanders' campaign in contradiction with their publicly stated neutrality, leading to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other implicated officials. While the leak was part of an alleged operation by the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton, the DNC issued a formal apology to Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email" that did not reflect a "steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process." with the relevant links and refs. I think that's fair and concise. The rest would be moved into the body. Let me know if you have more suggestions or concerns. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Avial Cloffprunker: Yes, that was indeed the single greatest concern. As for the detail, it's necessary because (even more-so with the [...] though dating from late in the primary, when Clinton was already close to securing the nomination, [...] and other parts you edited here and onto the DNC leaks article) otherwise it creates the impression that the leaks were a discussion on hypothetical action between some people in the DNC leadership and nothing more. It doesn't reflect the main issue that the Sanders camp and their supporters voiced: that the leaks were evidence of the long-held belief that the organization wanted one candidate to win from the beginning.

The mention of the 75%-cut primary schedule is key for this context: having fewer debates would likely benefit the frontrunner. Other things not mentioned in the lead are 1. the agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign that gave the latter control over positions and press releases, and 2. the money funneled from big donors, through the DNC and/or state parties, into the Clinton campaign. The big picture is that the leaks pointed at things that happened way before the dates of the emails in question.

Similarly, mentions of Brazile and her background are important for the context of whether the DNC was seen as operating fairly. Her coming out with the allegations of unethical conduct were a rare case of someone on the inside speaking their mind. As such, I don't think it's a good idea to omit her from the intro.

Relating to your references to the Sanders campaign page and the DNC leaks page – I can only really see the similarities between this and the latter, and that's since you added the same content to both. Other than that, the only similarity I see is that the sections are slightly more concise. Fill me in if I've missed something.

For these reasons, if it's really important to you that this paragraph be more succinct, I'd edit the current one rather than replacing it with a new paragraph and moving important context into the body. My suggestion is: On July 22, WikiLeaks published the Democratic National Committee email leak, in which DNC operatives seemed to deride Bernie Sanders' campaign and discuss ways to advance Clinton's nomination. While the leak was part of an alleged operation by the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton and was dated late in the primary, the emails lent credence to arguments that the DNC had favored Clinton from early on, evidenced by cutting the debate schedule, giving her campaign control over hirings and press releases, and helping it circumvent campaign finance regulation. The leaks led to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other implicated officials. They additionally showed the succeeding chair, Donna Brazile, leaking a primary debate question to the Clinton campaign. Brazile later went on to write a book about the primary and the 'unethical' behavior by the Clinton campaign and the DNC during it.

This is almost as short as your suggestion, and should cover most bases. But, we could still add a spiritual successor to an earlier line of yours: Some media commentators have argued that the DNC’s actions didn’t constitute rigging, while agreeing that they likely had some effect on the race. Selvydra (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Selvydra: Busy month... anyway, my problem with the paragraph as it stands is that I still think that it has a distinct pov-slant and would need more context and balance added, yet it already has a disproportionate level of detail and significance (in hindsight and looking at what reliable sources say) for a broad overview in the lead. I had actually searched Google Books for books on the 2016 election to see if there were any succinct summaries of the controversy that could be used as a model, but I was struck by just how little space any of them devoted to it, as I previously mentioned above... But since you think all these points merit inclusion, I'll take your proposed version as a starting point and try to make a few adjustments and small additions that I think are appropriate. For instance, I'm going to copy a couple of relevant lines from the DNC debates page. Depending on how readable it turns out, I'm also going to try and see if putting some of these in "nb" footnotes could be useful here. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've added some material that I think is relevant and important to keep, while retaining your material in the intro. I'm going finish off by making one attempt at improving the readability and logical flow by putting the lengthier details into two footnotes (still in the intro) to a more concise summary of the issue, along the lines of ...arguments that the DNC had favored Clinton from early on, as evidenced by alleged bias in the scheduling and conduct of the debates, as well as controversial DNC–Clinton agreements regarding finance and control over hiring decisions." -- but if you disagree with this idea, don't hesitate at all to revert the edit. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Avial Cloffprunker: Alright, I've gone ahead and edited your new edits. Explanations for the edits are as follows:

Main body

- Russia's operation itself is all but confirmed; what was alleged was that the leak was part of the operation

- Many of the emails were dated from before the primary, and those that were dated late cast the DNC as biased from the beginning, not only from a late date when Clinton had all-but-cinched the nomination. (I saw you had added this bit to the DNC leaks article too back in February, but I haven't bothered editing it.)

- Removed double conditional/perspective: "lent credence to arguments" -> "showed" (these arguments were made by Sanders camp + media commentators anyway; that conditionality/perspective needn't be stressed twice). Alternatively: "The emails cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality and lent credence to arguments that the DNC had favored Clinton from early on." (Without the 'according to...' bit.)

- Split a sentence for ease of reading

- Tweaked sentence (mostly for tone) to add caveat of DNC's internal preference affecting the primary, even in the opinion of those commentators who assert it didn't sway the outcome

Footnote [c]

- Sanders and O'Malley -> rivals (the Guardian article wasn't specific on who all, but it referred to multiple rivals other than Sanders).

- Split a sentence

- Removed the "although a senior advisor to Sanders..." bit: This guidance wasn't related to the leaks (Brazile didn't offer to leak them anything – the guidance comment is off-context.)

Footnote [d]

- Edited to reflect your WaPo source; this is a quote from the article:

"As several Democratic Party leaders — including former DNC chair Howard Dean — have noted, this is relatively standard. Indeed, the Sanders campaign was offered a similar joint fundraising agreement.

However, the second document shows that the DNC and Clinton campaign had an additional agreement which provided the campaign with influence over the DNC well before Clinton won the nomination."

I'll alert you again if I tweak it further, but this should be it for now. If we run into a wall with this editing process, I would probably want to revert back to the way it was earlier again. Your observation of the lack of review-like assembled documentation on the slanted primary is something I've come across too, and it is a big reason why I worry that it's getting erased from Wikipedia, too. People should have easy access to information that exists so that they can make up their own mind – even if the media has opted to cover the (likely) leaker and omit covering the content and implications of those leaks. Selvydra (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Selvydra: It's good to see that we seem to be close to a consensus. I think most of your edits are fine. Two points I still disagree with:

The "although a senior advisor to Sanders..." bit was from the same cited article about the debate leak, and the statement was specifically made in response to that issue. (From the article: Devine "is coming to the defense of [Brazile]" and "said this week it was not unusual for Brazile, who is currently the interim chairwoman of the DNC, to contact their campaign and give guidance. [...] 'She would get in touch all the time for guidance.'") So I think it's relevant context, even though the exact nature of the communication isn't specified. I would propose keeping something along the lines of: "...One senior Sanders aide came to Brazile's defense by stating that Brazile also regularly provided guidance to the Sanders campaign (but did not specify anything about being provided debate questions)."

Also, this is a direct, high-up quote from one of the main Washington Post articles used here (the one by Aaron Blake; I think I must have separated the citation from the sentence it should have been attached to): "Basically all of these examples came late in the primary -- after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory -- but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage." Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think we have to distinguish between: (1) the total body of emails from the DNC leak, which span a long period of time and cover lots of unrelated topics; (2) the specific emails deriding Sanders that came from late April and May (I tried to make this distinction in the DNC leaks page, too) and were initially the main focus of the July 22 coverage; (3) the Brazile debate leak emails from March; (4) and older evidence from as early as 2015 that was pointed to as evidence of bias, like the debate schedule and the special agreement. So I think it's important context to specify the timeline: that the emails that were the direct/immediate focus of the July 22 controversy were relatively late, but along with a few earlier emails and some other evidence, they were alleged to fit into a larger picture of bias since early on.

Let me know what you think. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Avial Cloffprunker: (1) Senior advisor (Tad Devine) part: I was a bit hasty with my explanation here. In the NBC News article LAT is quoting for their story, what Devine specifically does is confirm Brazile's statement on guidance:

Brazile said the question in the email was for a normal upcoming appearance on CNN and said she would regularly contact both campaigns for guidance.

"Yes that is absolutely true,” Devine said of Brazile’s account of the matter in an email to NBC News. "She would get in touch all the time for guidance, so I can verify her recollection on this issue."

(Words bolded for emphasis.) Moreover, Devine bases his 'defense' (as it is interpreted by NBC and then LAT) of Brazile on "I don't think she gave anybody the questions," which we know she did – assuming the Podesta emails weren't fabricated.

As such, IMO, for the part previously written here to accurately reflect the source without misleading, it'd have to say something more akin to, "A senior adviser to Sanders tried to downplay the issue, saying he didn't think she leaked the questions to anybody." And again, this raises eyebrows, because it's contrary to what the leaks said, and the Sanders campaign hasn't challenged the leaks as untrue. If you feel that footnote [c] needs to be ended on a note that defends Brazile's actions, I think it should be something more relevant to the topic of the leaked debate question that it follows, and not what else she had done on the side of it (guidance, etc.)

(1.1) I would also tweak a part of the same footnote [c] I didn't previously notice. In the following sentence:

The DNC denied bias, claiming to be cutting back on the proliferation of non-sanctioned debates in recent cycles while leaving the number of officially sanctioned debates the same as in 2004 and 2008.

They got rid of the non-sanctioned debates entirely (by threatening to penalize candidates who partook in them), so I would want to change it to:

The DNC denied bias, claiming to be cracking down on the non-sanctioned debates that proliferated in recent cycles, while leaving the number of officially sanctioned debates the same as in 2004 and 2008.

(2) For the timeline part, if you wanted to specify the timeline, then I think the other emails (particularly number 4 on your list) should also be brough up, as without that context the passage comes off as: "The contents of the leaks were from late in the primary, so what is discussed in them probably didn't affect it." The way this omits number 4 (the fact that these emails lend credence to DNC leadership being biased from the beginning – which would have affected the primary) is part of what makes it misleading. So, if you wanted to include the timeline, we should do it in a way that avoids this pitfall. And then amend the DNC leaks page with this change, too. Selvydra (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Selvydra: Regarding point (1), maybe it's best just to leave it at: Devine "came to Brazile's defense and tried to downplay the issue." Point (1.1) makes sense; I'll fix that. For (2), I think the best way to address your concerns would be to word the additional context more precisely, like: "Although the ensuing controversy initially focused on emails that dated..." (Again, this is a point brought up in cited sources.) Beyond that, I don't see any issue, because my point(4) is already addressed by mentioning the claim "that the DNC had favored Clinton from early on" which "was evidenced by alleged bias..." I'll go ahead and make these edits; tweak whatever you feel the need to. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@Avial Cloffprunker: Added a missing citation to this article, and updated the part of the DNC leak article lead that reflected this one, to look more like the way this one is now. Let me know if you want to tweak that change. Selvydra (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Selvydra: Both edits look good to me. Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Remove world map in bottom right corner of the election map

What purpose does this serve? Shouldn't it be removed?

@Vigdos: It represents the results of the Democrats Abroad primary. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Darth Vader cosplayer (13962210033) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bernie Sanders Official Portrait (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)