2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primaries

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)