![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Regarding this edit, [1] the editor is mistaken that this is not in the source which is PolitiFact. [2] I'm not sure if they didn't read the source or they were looking at the wrong one. In any case, the reason provided in the edit-summary is clearly mistaken so I restored the content. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Founding a publishing house sounds like a major accomplishment! Founding Brook Avenue Press is mentioned in her bios. The Wiki article in turn duly mentions this publishing house among Ocasio's accomplishments.
However, does the mere fact that it is mentioned somewhere make it NOTEWORTHY? To be included in Wiki we should have a citation that shows WHY it is noteworthy, don't you think? The most noteworthy thing about the publishing house I can find is that it was mentioned in a newspaper article as an example of Brooklyn entrepreneurship.
Amazon shows no books under this publisher, neither available nor unavailable. The publishing house web site is blank.
If there's any evidence anywhere that this publishing house took her more than 4 minutes and $9.95 to reserve a website address, then let's cite THAT instead of a puff-piece bio.
If there's no such evidence, then why not remove this?
In addition to grounds of noteworthiness, I'd mention:
-- neutral POV: lauding her for something that is not remarkable is not neutral. Again, show it's noteworthy and thus that mentioning it is neutral.
-- fairly represents all significant viewpoints: Since this carries an explicit or implicit laudatory tone unjustified by the current cited reference, it should be appropriate to also have a comment or phrase (such as "that has no books or website") that conveys an alternate viewpoint that a publishing house with no publications isn't necessarily much to anyone's credit.
I've had my had my edit here reverted twice: once because checking to see if the publishing house had published anything was deemed "original research," once simply because there was a citation and I should build "consensus" before deleting something with a reference whether or not it was notable. I don't see any record that there was consensus before adding it, but fair enough: how does one get consensus to delete something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
...Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, who recently launched Brook Avenue Press, a publishing firm for books that portray the Bronx in a positive light.
Note: #1 is the source cited in the article, and our language tracks it very closely, but see also:
...established a publishing firm, Brook Avenue Press, that specializes in children's literature that portrays the Bronx in a positive light...
...in 2011 launched a publishing venture through a local startup network...
It seems incomplete to mention this 2011 accomplishment in content we are writing in 2019 without informing the reader what happened to Brook Avenue Press after 2011. Here are three sources for info about the fate of Brook Avenue Press:
I can summarize the information from these articles to inform the reader that Brooks Press failed. Is the consensus as add this, or suppress the fact than Brook Avenue Press was a failed venture? patsw ( talk) 00:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
For people interested in the primary source (and remember, we don't use primary sources in article space):
We may want the dust to settle on this update on Brook Avenue Press for a few days: The company she founded owes the state $1,870.36 in corporate taxes, public records show and reported in The New York Post. I expect that the usual bias and double standard applies here and this is will not be mentioned in the NY Times/ WaPo/ CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ NPR/ CNN/ MSNBC/ Politco because the subject is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. patsw ( talk) 00:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The dust has settled, and I have predicted correctly that there would be no coverage of this in NY Times/ WaPo/ CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ NPR/ CNN/ MSNBC/ Politco, so the usual double standard applicable to AOC has been applied again. Also, this means this is something that we don't even have to discuss here any further, definitely below the threshold of Wikipedia perception. patsw ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please correct 2018 campaign expenditures to match the FEC filing of $1,774,499.33 ( https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H8NY15148/?cycle=2018)-- Struharj ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have been accused of engaging in edit warring. I guess that is because every time I have included any statement in the Ocasio-Cortez article that is critical of her, it is reverted, typically within seconds - before the reverting editor could possibly have had time to read the entire statement and certainly before the reverting editor could have check the accuracy of my cites. It seems that Wikipedia editors are more interested in protecting politicians they agree with than with presenting the neutral point of view that Wikipedia has espoused since its inception, and which is the very foundation on which it rests. I have been repeatedly told that, even if statements in my edits are factual and supported by reliable cites approved by Wikipedia, they will be reverted if there is not "consensus" that the edits should be included. That is simply ridiculous. There will never be consensus among editors for inclusion of anything critical of any politician, in particular a liberal politician given the political leanings of a majority of the editors. But consensus should not be required, or indeed even encouraged. The only way to achieve a neutral point of view is to include more than one side of an issue or position. Otherwise, all you have with any article about a politician is a one-sided political ad for the person, rather than an informative article. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 03:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View: I have had a number of my edits, to include statements critical of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's policies, reverted for no reason other than the reverting editor taking a stance that the statements should not be included as there is no consensus. (All the edits were properly cited to sources approved by Wikipedia.) In order to achieve a neutral point of view, especially with articles about politicians, it is important to include statements critical to the person in addition to all the laudatory comments. Of course, the criticism, like all statements, must be properly cited. But if properly cited, it should be allowed in. However, many editors seem to have an issue with criticism of some politicians - no matter how well cited. Regarding consensus, it is simply ridiculous that there must be a consensus for a statement to be included. There are two important things wrong with requiring consensus: 1) There will likely never be a consensus about including any statement critical of Ms. Ocasio Cortez, so no criticism is ever allowed in the article. 2) Requiring consensus severely undercuts the fundamental principle of "neutral point of view", which is only achieved when various positions on an issue are included. While Nblund states that "Generally we try to avoid having criticism sections in BLPs all together, because they're often non-neutral", that is certainly not the case, in particular with conservative politicians. Frankly, I am glad to see critical statements are allowed in the articles about people like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, President Trump, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Justice Cavanaugh, Orrin Hatch, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Justice Thomas, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. But if criticism is allowed in these articles, why is it not allowed in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article? Why are the Wikipedia editors so adverse to including any criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez? JohnTopShelf ( talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
OK - let's start with this one: The following is criticism of her Green New Deal. The statements are from a Fox News article at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/greenpeace-co-founder-tears-into-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-pompous-little-twit. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace, criticized Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, arguing that Ocasio-Cortez has no plan "to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities", and that "if fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating."
I chose not to include his statement that she is "a pompous little twit", as it was a rude personal attack and not worthy of inclusion in this article. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Another suggested edit: The statements are from Fox Business news at https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/powell-calls-ocasio-cortez-floated-theory-on-government-debt-just-wrong Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell is among the growing list of business leaders questioning some of the policies pushed by Ocasio-Cortez. During testimony before Congress, Powell sharply criticized Modern Monetary Theory, which Ocasio-Cortez has espoused as a means to pay the trillions of dollars that the massive social programs proposed as part of her Green New Deal would cost. "The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong," Powell said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And another: This is from http://www.fortune.com/2019/02/12/bill-gates-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-plan/ Bill Gates was equally critical of Modern Monetary Theory, an economic theory popular with some politicians theorizing that governments don’t need to worry about deficits, since they can always print more money. “That is some crazy talk,” he said. “It will come and bite you. The people you owe the money to, you will have a problem.”
One more: This is from https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/05/larry-summers-modern-monetary-theory-is-a-recipe-for-a-disaster.html, but it was also in Washington Post and other papers. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who served under Bill Clinton and later headed the Obama administration’s National Economic Council also slammed Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) for suggesting that government debt should not be interpreted as a constraining factor to fiscal policy, calling the theory “voodoo economics.” “It takes ideas that have a little bit of validity and extends them to a grotesque point where they defy the laws of arithmetic,” Summers stated. “So I believe MMT is very much misguided, the premise that somehow you can always print enough money to cover all of your debts.” Summers added that MMT was to blame for hyperinflation in Latin American countries that tried variants of the economic theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest adding Capitalism section because she did comment on it quite a bit. Lot of RS covered it especially her comments at SXSW2019 at Austin. Sourcerery ( talk) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Chakrabarti is not independently notable from Ocasio-Cortez—as an individual, he lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) His single Politico profile, while useful, is the only source that covers him as distinct from the Ocasio-Cortez campaign. There may be more such sources in the future, but for now, he is primarily known for his role in the Ocasio-Cortez team and can be covered here in context of that coverage.
Additionally, the separate Chakrabarti functions as a coat rack for a "Campaign finance controversy" section. (1) We avoid "controversy" sections for neutrality reasons. (2) If the subject of the coverage is the Ocasio-Cortez campaign, we already an article section for this purpose: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#2018 campaign. (3) That content would be best covered in the campaign section/article anyway, so I've already merged it there.
The question is whether the coverage of Chakrabarti as an individual warrants its own article. Until he is individually profiled in greater depth, his role in Ocasio-Cortez is already noted in this article, as the content has already been merged. If you agree, we can redirect Saikat Chakrabarti here. czar 18:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Saikat Chakrabarti, who had been her campaign co-chair, became chief of staff for her congressional office. Co-creator of two progressive political action committees, he has been called a significant political presence.is fine (though I think the second sentence is puffery and could probably be dropped), but I strenuously object to any mention of the campaign finance allegations against Chakrabarti until / unless we have longer-term sources relating them to AOC directly; and clearly a merge discussion would be an inappropriate way to add them (as Czar realized when they noticed the discussions already in progress.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
nom is out of process, 2) (quoting myself)
Nom apparently doesn't google too welland 3) While I hate the AfD process because it makes valuable content vulnerable, I does result in improvements to an article. I had never heard of this guy until this was brought up, first as this merge proposal and then as an AfD, now I know he is an important player in our current political situation; recent past, present and future. After those improvements to that article, we are now in a situation where; in the last 7 days we have 12 Oppose, to zero Support for Merge. I think our work is done here. WP:SNOW
You say
[MMT is] a heterodox macroeconomic theory widely rejected by economists,
citing as evidence a poll of top economist. However, according to Bloomberg Business Week, this poll was a straw man attack:
Another misconception is that MMT says deficits never matter. On March 13 the University of Chicago Booth School of Business published a survey of prominent economists that misrepresented MMT that way, leaving out its understanding that too-big deficits can cause excessive inflation. The surveyed professors roundly disagreed with MMT as described. MMTers cried foul.
Source: Bloomberg Business Week
-- Slieredna ( talk) 09:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
But the idea has also faced intense pushback from economists and pundits across the political spectrum, and none of the mainstream economists interviewed in a new survey were ready to sign on to the idea just yet.) This isn't enough to include it. At best we could say "in one 2019 poll, no mainstream economists interviewed were ready to endorse the theory" or words to that effect, but phrased like that (which is a more accurate paraphrase of the source) it's clear it's not worth including. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Capitalism section <! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-capitalism-irredeemable-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-south-southwest-sxsw-a8816956.html --> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-10/ocasio-cortez-blasts-capitalism-as-an-irredeemable-system Sourcerery ( talk) 18:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Something like this: 'Capitalism is an ideology of capital –- the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit,” Ocasio-Cortez said.“ And that comes at any cost to people and to the environment, so to me capitalism is irredeemable.” Though she said she doesn’t think all parts of capitalism should be abandoned, “we’re reckoning with the consequences of putting profit above everything else in society. And what that means is people can’t afford to live. For me, it’s a question of priorities and right now I don’t think our model is sustainable.” “It’s just as much a transformation about bringing democracy to the workplace so that we have a say and that we don’t check all of our rights at the door every time we cross the threshold into our workplace,” she said. “Because at the end of the day, as workers and as people in society, we’re the ones creating wealth.” While America is wealthier than ever, wealth is enjoyed “by fewer than ever,” she said. “It doesn’t feel good to live in an unequal society”, citing an increase in homelessness in New York City among veterans and the elderly while penthouses sit empty. “It doesn’t feel good to live in a society like that.” I went for sections with most quotes of Alexandria, I think that's most appropriate. Thank you ich. Sourcerery ( talk) 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN That's arbitrary demand, she spoke extensively on issue and article should reflect that. Sourcerery ( talk) 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I posted Less than a month into her first term, filmmaker
Michael Moore declared Ocasio-Cortez the leader of the Democratic Party, based on the massive popularity of her positions.
[19]
which was immediately reverted. I was going to follow this with other commentators concurring by expressing similar opinions.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Right, left or center, each side addresses her by name in dealing with the mass popularity of her and her positions.
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Wikieditor19920:
removed this sourced statement: Ocasio-Cortez is noted for her
social media presence and
Time magazine has called her the "second most talked about politician in America".
Above I wanted to expand on this. Her social media presence, driven by the immense popularity of the things she says, the things she challenges, is what sets her apart from the 100 other freshman representatives and drives the news media to follow her statements as if she were a leader. I sourced that. More sources come framing her as a leader. That short statement explains why. Your opinion does not allow you to unilaterally remove sourced content. The lede should explain to the uninformed reader who this person is and why they are important.
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
immense popularity of the things she says, shows a) that you're misrepresented the sources, which do not refer to everything she says as "immensely popular," and b) show that perhaps you're not able to edit this article neutrally. Readers can figure out by reading the article that she has attracted a lot of attention - positive and negative - the way to convey that is not to just present her as an "immensely popular... leader." That might be appropriate for campaign material, or for North Korean propaganda, but not for a Wikipedia lead. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Running out of colons, can we find consensus on how to say AOC is "one of America's most talked about politicians." @ Tsumikiria: removed "attracting criticism as well as praise" calling it "meaningless filler." But doesn't the lead sound like puffery if we fail to mention that she has detractors as well as supporters. If so, how should we phrase this? HouseOfChange ( talk) 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, there are divisions in public support. It's not about "positive" or "negative," it's about describing her public profile in a way that is accurate and does not cherry-pick sources that represent certain opinions over others. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
the AOC effect.[29] [30] That a freshman congresswoman can wag other house; the senate into voting on her Green New Deal proposal less than three months into her term shows leadership. The fact that others are trying to come up with similarly named fake counter proposals [31] shows leadership.
"she offers an entirely different model of dissent from a party’s ideological mainstream, and strong conservatives could do a lot worse than watch and emulate her. She has already shown quite a bit of skill at using her seat in the House to advocate for substantive change."[32]
"AOC wields an innate ability to convulse the political system. To rattle traditionalists on both sides of the aisle. To even scare some . . . Ocasio-Cortez is one of the biggest things in politics.[33]
Ocasio-Cortez "is the thought leader of the Democratic Party right now," insisted Fox News host Laura Ingraham[34] and back where I started this
"She is the leader. Everybody knows it." - Michael Moore[35] Both sides agree she is a leader and a target for both her coattails or ridicule, depending on which side of the partisan divide you come from. I am trying to advocate for us, wikipedia, in a neutral voice to inform the public in the lede, why she is important, why she is a leader. Like I said, there are lots of sources. Trackinfo ( talk) 07:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Her fluctuating poll numbers are not even the real issue. They are a symptom. The radical ideas she proposes are despised by Republicans and praised by Progressives who wish they were what the Democratic Party stood for. They aren't, so she is hated by a lot of elected Democrats, though they won't admit to it publicly because of her popularity. Instead, her own party is trying to undermine her at every step. If she wasn't a leader, they wouldn't care, they wouldn't have to, she could just be ignored. She can't be ignored by either side. The fact is, the popularity of her ideas reflects the polling for the ideas, not her name.This is blatant WP:SYNTH, and none of this reasoning can have any bearing on what enters the article. The Daily Mail, "pollingreport.com," and "moneymarkets.com" are not even close to reliable sources. A large number of the other sources Trackinfo cited to support his argument are opinion pieces, like Bloomberg and Fox, which are considered WP:PRIMARY, and the rest are just quotes from various commentators, which are also essentially primary for their own opinion. WP:BLPs may only rely on WP:SECONDARY coverage:
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.Gandydancer's or Levivich's agreement or non-agreement with this subjective analysis is irrelevant, because this is WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted, and depends on inadequate sources. The secondary sources present a mixed picture, and whether or not she is a "leader" of the Democratic party has yet to be determined under WP:10YT.
They are reporting on the way she is perceived by, her colleagues, opponents and the public, which is what I am saying we should congeal into sentences we use in our article describing her.Interesting use of words, but I'm not buying it—what you're describing is just your own synthesis of what you think the sources say, and that's not going into the article. I'm happy to be the "odd man out" in a small group of editors who will happily agree with any positive statements without reviewing the sources or referring to policy, so if you think that using that argument will gain consensus, you're sorely mistaken. Trying to shove statements about her "leadership" and "influence" based on the comments of a few pundits is WP:UNDUE and simply WP:WIKIPUFFERY.I'll repeat it again: readers can determine for themselves that she is high-profile, it's not editors job to shove it in their face. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 13:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
HouseofChange also expressed concern over the line calling her "the most talked about politician," so I'm hardly the only one. No one's objecting to the notability of the subject—the lead can be appropriately used to provide the basis for the subject's notability, but it should not be a running inventory of news appearances or include quotes from recent stories, and it should especially not state opinions or sweeping, subjective assessments as fact. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 19:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
User NorthBySouthBaranof reverted an edit made by user Athaenara concerning a recently filed complaint with the FEC that alleges AOC "converted official funds raised through contributions to her candidate committee to personal use by transferring a total of $6,191.32 from her campgain committtee to Brand New Congress PAC . . . , which contemporaneously had its affiliated LLC pay $6,000 to her boyfriend, Riley" in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(1). [1]
I think this should be in the article. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." User NorthBySouthBaranof removed Athaenara edit, stating, "We should wait until something more than the rather-highly-partisan FOX News covers this." While I understand the point, the FOX News article contains a copy of the official complaint. And Athaenara's original edit conforms with the substance of the official complaint and not any statement made by FOX news.
Because of the frequency of problem edits with this article, I wanted to bring this issue up here first.
HoldingAces ( talk) 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It is our job to make sure that negative information about a living person is supported by multiple independent reliable sources. That's policy. We don't yet have that coverage. Just now I searched Google for Alexandria FEC complaint. I did the same search at Google News with the same results. Here’s what I found:
So what we have at this point is a total of two independent reliable sources, with one story each, and the rest of the sources either partisan or not reliable, or both. Bottom line, if this story gets better coverage we can include it. If it doesn't, we shouldn't, per WP:42 and WP:BLP. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.I interpret multiple as meaning "more than two". Per my analysis above, there are only two independent reliable sources reporting on this. The others are either not independent (i.e. not neutral) or not reliable, or both. I just repeated my search and found no newer sources, so the reporting on this is now two to three days old, with no additional publications having chosen to report on it. Some people said above to wait and see if the story gets more coverage or "has legs" as reporters say. So far, it looks more like a 24-hour blip in the news cycle.
Any person may file a complaint with the Commission if he or she believes a violation of the federal election campaign laws or FEC regulations has occurred or is about to occur. The Commission reviews every complaint filed. If the Commission finds that a violation occurred, possible outcomes can range from a letter reiterating compliance obligations to a conciliation agreement, which may include a monetary civil penalty. All FEC enforcement matters are kept confidential until they are resolved.In other words: if they find a violation, they will take public action and we will put it in the article. If they find no violation, they will not say so, they will just not do anything. At this point all we have is the fact that somebody filed a complaint and issued a press release about it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is a minimum number of sources, do we need to start removing all facts that cannot be confirmed by the minimum number of sources?, this requirement for multiple sources applies to negative information about a living person. Not to everything in the encyclopedia. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Athaenara just added this material to the article again. I reverted. The current discussion here is 5-to-3 against inclusion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
My feelings about this new FEC complaint are exactly the same as my feelings about the last FEC complaint. The next FEC complaint that's filed, my feelings will be the same for that one, too. It's all WP:RECENTISM. Newspapers will always report on the complaints being filed. The issue isn't whether the complaints were filed or not filed. The issue is whether it's significant enough to deserve inclusion in her biography article. We won't know that on the day that the news breaks or the next day. WP is WP:NOTNEWS. I hate to blueblink but those two links really, really explain this very exact point. Leviv ich 16:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, wait a minute, this one might be different - because it is reported by the Washington Post in its own voice and sourced to federal campaign finance documents. "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show."
[36] With that kind of reporting we may want to put something in the article. It has to do with transparency of reporting, and if there was any wrongdoing it may fall on her campaign chairman, but still this allegation seems to have a little more weight than just another FEC filing. (I apologize for my previous post; I was looking at the sources cited by Athaenara and missed the sources cited by Levivich HoldingAces. (Sorry, I looked at the signature below the "sources" box, which was the wrong place to look.) --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The only reason WaPo (and the Hill) are reporting on this story is because it's widely circulating in among conservative attack rags. As for the initial sources, Fox News is not reliable (though some disagree) and Newsweek has gone to the dogs in the past few years. The lawsuit was filed a group which is known for going after non-conservatives. Right now, this is nothing. It may be something in the future. But we're not in the future yet. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A political operation tied to New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff is facing scrutiny over payments made to a company he owned. ... Chakrabarti, a former tech executive, went on to serve as Ocasio-Cortez's co-campaign manager the following year and now runs her congressional office. Again, every bit of "some blogs are saying something wrong" coverage doesn't really belong in the article. It's important to emphasize that the bit with her campaign manager is *before* he worked with her (ie. it has no relation to her at all aside from the fact that he's now associated with her), something that a lot of the discussion above seems to have missed. Something only tangentially related like that requires a higher standard than just one news cycle mentioning it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The only reason WaPo (and the Hill) are reporting on this story is because it's widely circulating in among conservative attack rags.VM, please try to at least pretend to be neutral at this page. The reason those mainstream sources are reporting on it is because they were able to independently confirm the material. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show."WaPo confirmed it with public records. So did NBC. So did everybody. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Now Fox is reporting that a third complaint has been filed against AOC by the same group that filed the first complaint, this time with the Office of Congressional Ethics instead of the FEC, about congressional email accounts. Funny how these drip-drip-drip complaints are coming after the Cohen hearing; must be a coincidence. So far, I'm not seeing any new media coverage today of these complaints beyond the links that were posted above. Leviv ich 16:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint in early March 2019 with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign along with Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats—political-action committees co-founded by Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti—collectively paid over $800,000 to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) owned by Chakrabarti without clearly identifying what the LLC was hired and paid for, contrary to FEC regulations.
In March 2018 a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) saying that Ocassio-Cortez’s campaign paid $18,880 to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, without clearly specifying what the payments were for as required by FED regulations.The $18,880 from the campaign is the only part of the complaint that actually involves her. Mentioning the $800,000 from the two PACs is guilt by association, to make it sound like a much bigger deal involving her than it really is. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Because it's controversial negative information in a BLP, I feel like we should go with more than one source, in order to establish what's "commonly-agreed" as opposed to what just this source or that source says. If we go with one source, someone will come along with a second source that contradicts it. Maybe I'm being overly-defensive about it. I think NBC and WaPo are the two to go with because they're the most widely-discussed among other sources. (For example, Newsweek today mentions both NBC and WaPo's reporting.) So I looked at the beginning of the NBC and WaPo pieces (the beginning being where they'd put what they thought was most important) and bolded what they had in common:
NBC | WaPo |
---|---|
A conservative group alleges Ocasio-Cortez and her allies ran a PAC scam. But there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's congressional campaign has come under scrutiny in recent days for what a conservative group has alleged is a massive violation of campaign finance law. The National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission on Tuesday, alleging that the New York Democrat and her allies used a corporation to skirt campaign finance reporting laws. The complaint comes after a number of conservative-leaning outlets said Ocasio-Cortez broke campaign finance laws when she hired her boyfriend for marketing work. David Mitrani, an attorney representing Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and the related organizations named in the FEC complaint, pushed back strongly on the reports in a statement Wednesday, saying that the entities "have at all times been conducted fully in compliance with federal campaign finance laws." Ocasio-Cortez herself denied the allegation on Tuesday to Fox News: "There is no violation." Campaign finance experts, meanwhile, told NBC News that while the structure of her campaign and its vendors might be confusing, there's no evidence of some kind of million-dollar scam as has been alleged in news reports. |
Payments to company owned by Ocasio-Cortez aide come under scrutiny
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a company he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show. Brand New Congress LLC, the company owned by Saikat Chakrabarti, was also paid $18,880 for strategic consulting by Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign in 2017, records show. The following year, he worked as a volunteer to manage her campaign, according to his LinkedIn profile. The arrangement, first reported by conservative outlets, left hidden who ultimately profited from the payments — a sharp juxtaposition with Ocasio-Cortez’s calls for transparency in politics. She has called dark money “the enemy to democracy.” The money that flowed to her chief of staff’s company have subjected the first-term congresswoman to critics’ charges of hypocrisy. On Monday, a conservative group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the PACs failed to properly disclose their spending. David Mitrani, attorney for the PACs, the LLC and Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, said in a statement Tuesday that all four entities “fully complied with the law and the highest ethical standards.” He said that Chakrabarti never received any salary or profit from the company, the PACs or the campaign. “There is no violation” of campaign finance law, Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News on Tuesday. It is unclear whether she had knowledge of the payments to Chakrabarti’s company. (Ed: This WaPo story is available without a paywall via Seattle Times.) |
What I take out of it is: (1) A "conservative group" (2) filed a complaint with the FEC alleging (3) PACs and (4) AOC's campaign paid (5) a company and (6) didn't report it as required. (7) The complaint was filed after reports by conservative outlets. (8) The lawyer for the organization said they fully complied with the law. (9) AOC said "There is no violation." (10) Either AOC's congressional campaign (NBC) or the payments (WaPo) have come "under scrutiny". I don't think all of that needs to be in the sentence, though. But I think that's the basic information the sentence should convey, cited to these two sources. The denials are probably not necessary (8 and 9). I'm not sure about #7. "Scrutiny" may be a useful word per #10. These ten elements are very similar to but slightly different from the language that HoldingAces and MelanieN proposed above. What do we think about a sentence built around this? Leviv ich 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
In March 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by a conservative groupLeviv ich 23:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)sayingalleging that two political action committees and Ocasio-Cortez’s campaignpaid $18,880made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti,withoutclearly specifying whatdescribing the paymentswere for aswith the specificity required by FEC regulations.
Thanks for waiting on me, MelanieN and Levivich! And sorry for the late response. I agree with Melanie on leaving the PAC references out; I think discussing their peripheral involvement in this acts only to obfuscate the key information we are trying to convey.
Two things I am not hellbent on changing but think would add to the article: Keeping Chakrabarti's name and the dollar figure in the text. The article already identifies Chakrabarti as her chief of staff here. So I think keeping his name in, if anything, would just save the reader from scrolling back up to see who her chief of staff is. As for $18k figure, my rationale for keeping it is that it gives perspective, as opposed to leaving it to the imagination of the reader as to just how large, or how small, those "payments" were. That being said, the reader could simply follow the links to find that information. Again, I am pretty indifferent about these two substantive suggestions and would be perfectly content if they were left out.
A couple alterations I would make. I would change without describing the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations
to read without describing the nature of the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
Maybe I am wrong, but I feel that we've spent so much time on this that we know exactly what Levivch meant by "describing the payments," but I am not sure a first-time reader would. I think adding the nature of
clarifies for the reader that the problem was that she did not describe what those payments were for with sufficient specificity as opposed to, for example, not describing the exact dollar figure of those the payments. (Though this concern would likely be allayed by keeping in the $18k figure).
Last, a style edit (because I really like active voice). I would have it read:
With my substantive suggestions:A conservative group filed a complaint with the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign paid $18,880 to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Chakrabarti, without describing the nature of the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
Without my substantive suggestions:A conservative group filed a complaint with the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff without describing the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
HoldingAces (
talk)
21:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
the nature of. 3. Agree about the active voice. 4. Disagree about identifying $18k, because the sources talk about $1 million mostly from a PAC that she was on the board of at the time. I think putting in "$1 million" is undue in one direction, and "$18k" is undue in the other direction, so I prefer the neutral "payments" without a $ amount. That said, it's not a strong objection, so if most folks want to include the $18k then I say let's go with it. Leviv ich 21:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion on whether or not this should be included, I would remark that if the articles cited for this are not used to support anything else in the article, they could be bundled into a single <ref> tag, if the desire is to cite more than one or two but also to avoid an overkill of little superscript numbers. This way, you could cite NBC and WaPo and not have to pick just one. -sche ( talk) 00:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it fair to say that we have reached a consensus on the following? A conservative group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Chakrabarti, without describing the nature of those payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
HoldingAces (
talk)
14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Brendan Fischer, a director at the Campaign Legal Center, said "scam PACs" typically pay their staff huge salaries without doing much campaigning work other than fundraising, which doesn't appear to be the case here. He said he hasn't seen evidence of wrongdoing that would suggest any laws were broken.Fischer (unlike the people filing the complaint) is an expert. While I feel that the entire topic is clearly WP:UNDUE given that aspect, it would clearly be a WP:BLP issue to report unsubstantiated accusations while omitting coverage from experts that WP:RSes have found relevant. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
the FEC would likely treat this violation as very minor. These are all key pieces of non-partisan context to the partisan claims made about her campaign finance. We cannot possibly fairly write about this issue without including that context. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the issues. You did not include AOC's response. You added the statements of "experts" from an opinion piece to a sentence that intended to relay only facts regarding the allegation. Including AOC's denial is probably a good idea (hence, why I wished you had partaken in nearly two-week long conversation). HoldingAces ( talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Two editors have tried to change the agreed upon language above. I reverted one of them and referred them to this discussion, but then I was reverted. I cannot undo the latest revert because of the
WP:1RR. They want to add the following sentence. Campaign finance experts found no evidence of wrongdoing.
HoldingAces (
talk)
15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO adding the sentence about "no evidence of wrongdoing" was an acceptable use of BOLD. Since it has been challenged it should now be discussed at this page before being readded. My own opinion (not as an admin but as just another editor) is that the sentence now in the article - Campaign finance experts said that while the structure of Ocasio-Cortez's campaign might be unusual, there's no evidence of any scam or serious violation.
- is a good addition, reflects the source accurately, and should be retained. What do others think? Let's see if we can get a consensus about it while the article is locked. (BTW
NorthBySouthBaranof, there is no need for an RfC. The preferred approach is to hold informal discussion at the talk page, and to formalize it as an RFC only if consensus cannot be reached. See
WP:RFCBEFORE.) --
MelanieN (
talk)
16:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Quotes from campaign finance experts via RSes
|
---|
|
The sources from both sides quote the same experts to say different things. We shouldn't cherrypick one source or one quote. We may want to attribute a statement, e.g., "According to campaign finance experts at Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause..." and then summarize what they said as conveyed in multiple RSes. (PS: Thank you Mel for your post above and below.) Leviv ich 17:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ocasio-Cortez denies any wrongdoing.That should be the only addition.
no evidence of wrongdoingor
Campaign finance experts said that while the structure of Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign might be unusual, there’s no evidence of any scam or serious violation—should not be added.
A conservative group alleges Ocasio-Cortez and her allies ran a PAC scam. But there's no evidence of wrongdoingis far below the sort of coverage that I would feel belongs in a bio without far more sustained coverage than we're seeing here. If we covered every dubious allegation like that that had coverage, most bios for high-profile politicians would be unreadable messes of dueling accusations. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there or is there not consensus? It depends on what you are talking about. Here’s how it went.
For clarity, this is what we are discussing: A conservative group filed a complaint with the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff,
Saikat Chakrabarti, without describing the nature of those payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations. Campaign finance experts said that while the structure of Ocasio-Cortez's campaign might be unusual, there's no evidence of any scam or serious violation.
[1]
[2]
Sources
|
---|
|
IMO we have three options which I will list below, and I will try to add to the list those who have already clearly expressed their opinion. Please move or remove your name if I have mischaracterized your opinion, and add your name if I left it out because I wasn't sure where you stand. Note that this is not a formal RFC; this is just an attempt to clarify opinions at this page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
OPTION A: Don’t include anything about this allegation.
OPTION B: Include a single sentence about the allegation, without the “campaign finance experts” sentence.
OPTION C: Include two sentences, one about the allegation, one with the “campaign finance experts” sentence.
... Ocasio-Cortez denied the allegations and campaign finance experts said that while the structure of her campaign might be confusing, they had not seen evidence of any scam or serious violation.Leviv ich 22:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Regarding this edit, [1] the editor is mistaken that this is not in the source which is PolitiFact. [2] I'm not sure if they didn't read the source or they were looking at the wrong one. In any case, the reason provided in the edit-summary is clearly mistaken so I restored the content. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Founding a publishing house sounds like a major accomplishment! Founding Brook Avenue Press is mentioned in her bios. The Wiki article in turn duly mentions this publishing house among Ocasio's accomplishments.
However, does the mere fact that it is mentioned somewhere make it NOTEWORTHY? To be included in Wiki we should have a citation that shows WHY it is noteworthy, don't you think? The most noteworthy thing about the publishing house I can find is that it was mentioned in a newspaper article as an example of Brooklyn entrepreneurship.
Amazon shows no books under this publisher, neither available nor unavailable. The publishing house web site is blank.
If there's any evidence anywhere that this publishing house took her more than 4 minutes and $9.95 to reserve a website address, then let's cite THAT instead of a puff-piece bio.
If there's no such evidence, then why not remove this?
In addition to grounds of noteworthiness, I'd mention:
-- neutral POV: lauding her for something that is not remarkable is not neutral. Again, show it's noteworthy and thus that mentioning it is neutral.
-- fairly represents all significant viewpoints: Since this carries an explicit or implicit laudatory tone unjustified by the current cited reference, it should be appropriate to also have a comment or phrase (such as "that has no books or website") that conveys an alternate viewpoint that a publishing house with no publications isn't necessarily much to anyone's credit.
I've had my had my edit here reverted twice: once because checking to see if the publishing house had published anything was deemed "original research," once simply because there was a citation and I should build "consensus" before deleting something with a reference whether or not it was notable. I don't see any record that there was consensus before adding it, but fair enough: how does one get consensus to delete something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
...Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, who recently launched Brook Avenue Press, a publishing firm for books that portray the Bronx in a positive light.
Note: #1 is the source cited in the article, and our language tracks it very closely, but see also:
...established a publishing firm, Brook Avenue Press, that specializes in children's literature that portrays the Bronx in a positive light...
...in 2011 launched a publishing venture through a local startup network...
It seems incomplete to mention this 2011 accomplishment in content we are writing in 2019 without informing the reader what happened to Brook Avenue Press after 2011. Here are three sources for info about the fate of Brook Avenue Press:
I can summarize the information from these articles to inform the reader that Brooks Press failed. Is the consensus as add this, or suppress the fact than Brook Avenue Press was a failed venture? patsw ( talk) 00:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
For people interested in the primary source (and remember, we don't use primary sources in article space):
We may want the dust to settle on this update on Brook Avenue Press for a few days: The company she founded owes the state $1,870.36 in corporate taxes, public records show and reported in The New York Post. I expect that the usual bias and double standard applies here and this is will not be mentioned in the NY Times/ WaPo/ CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ NPR/ CNN/ MSNBC/ Politco because the subject is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. patsw ( talk) 00:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
The dust has settled, and I have predicted correctly that there would be no coverage of this in NY Times/ WaPo/ CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ NPR/ CNN/ MSNBC/ Politco, so the usual double standard applicable to AOC has been applied again. Also, this means this is something that we don't even have to discuss here any further, definitely below the threshold of Wikipedia perception. patsw ( talk) 21:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Please correct 2018 campaign expenditures to match the FEC filing of $1,774,499.33 ( https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H8NY15148/?cycle=2018)-- Struharj ( talk) 15:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have been accused of engaging in edit warring. I guess that is because every time I have included any statement in the Ocasio-Cortez article that is critical of her, it is reverted, typically within seconds - before the reverting editor could possibly have had time to read the entire statement and certainly before the reverting editor could have check the accuracy of my cites. It seems that Wikipedia editors are more interested in protecting politicians they agree with than with presenting the neutral point of view that Wikipedia has espoused since its inception, and which is the very foundation on which it rests. I have been repeatedly told that, even if statements in my edits are factual and supported by reliable cites approved by Wikipedia, they will be reverted if there is not "consensus" that the edits should be included. That is simply ridiculous. There will never be consensus among editors for inclusion of anything critical of any politician, in particular a liberal politician given the political leanings of a majority of the editors. But consensus should not be required, or indeed even encouraged. The only way to achieve a neutral point of view is to include more than one side of an issue or position. Otherwise, all you have with any article about a politician is a one-sided political ad for the person, rather than an informative article. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 03:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View: I have had a number of my edits, to include statements critical of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's policies, reverted for no reason other than the reverting editor taking a stance that the statements should not be included as there is no consensus. (All the edits were properly cited to sources approved by Wikipedia.) In order to achieve a neutral point of view, especially with articles about politicians, it is important to include statements critical to the person in addition to all the laudatory comments. Of course, the criticism, like all statements, must be properly cited. But if properly cited, it should be allowed in. However, many editors seem to have an issue with criticism of some politicians - no matter how well cited. Regarding consensus, it is simply ridiculous that there must be a consensus for a statement to be included. There are two important things wrong with requiring consensus: 1) There will likely never be a consensus about including any statement critical of Ms. Ocasio Cortez, so no criticism is ever allowed in the article. 2) Requiring consensus severely undercuts the fundamental principle of "neutral point of view", which is only achieved when various positions on an issue are included. While Nblund states that "Generally we try to avoid having criticism sections in BLPs all together, because they're often non-neutral", that is certainly not the case, in particular with conservative politicians. Frankly, I am glad to see critical statements are allowed in the articles about people like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, President Trump, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Justice Cavanaugh, Orrin Hatch, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Justice Thomas, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. But if criticism is allowed in these articles, why is it not allowed in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article? Why are the Wikipedia editors so adverse to including any criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez? JohnTopShelf ( talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
OK - let's start with this one: The following is criticism of her Green New Deal. The statements are from a Fox News article at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/greenpeace-co-founder-tears-into-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-pompous-little-twit. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace, criticized Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, arguing that Ocasio-Cortez has no plan "to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities", and that "if fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating."
I chose not to include his statement that she is "a pompous little twit", as it was a rude personal attack and not worthy of inclusion in this article. JohnTopShelf ( talk) 12:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Another suggested edit: The statements are from Fox Business news at https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/powell-calls-ocasio-cortez-floated-theory-on-government-debt-just-wrong Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell is among the growing list of business leaders questioning some of the policies pushed by Ocasio-Cortez. During testimony before Congress, Powell sharply criticized Modern Monetary Theory, which Ocasio-Cortez has espoused as a means to pay the trillions of dollars that the massive social programs proposed as part of her Green New Deal would cost. "The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong," Powell said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And another: This is from http://www.fortune.com/2019/02/12/bill-gates-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-plan/ Bill Gates was equally critical of Modern Monetary Theory, an economic theory popular with some politicians theorizing that governments don’t need to worry about deficits, since they can always print more money. “That is some crazy talk,” he said. “It will come and bite you. The people you owe the money to, you will have a problem.”
One more: This is from https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/05/larry-summers-modern-monetary-theory-is-a-recipe-for-a-disaster.html, but it was also in Washington Post and other papers. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who served under Bill Clinton and later headed the Obama administration’s National Economic Council also slammed Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) for suggesting that government debt should not be interpreted as a constraining factor to fiscal policy, calling the theory “voodoo economics.” “It takes ideas that have a little bit of validity and extends them to a grotesque point where they defy the laws of arithmetic,” Summers stated. “So I believe MMT is very much misguided, the premise that somehow you can always print enough money to cover all of your debts.” Summers added that MMT was to blame for hyperinflation in Latin American countries that tried variants of the economic theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest adding Capitalism section because she did comment on it quite a bit. Lot of RS covered it especially her comments at SXSW2019 at Austin. Sourcerery ( talk) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Chakrabarti is not independently notable from Ocasio-Cortez—as an individual, he lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. ( ?) His single Politico profile, while useful, is the only source that covers him as distinct from the Ocasio-Cortez campaign. There may be more such sources in the future, but for now, he is primarily known for his role in the Ocasio-Cortez team and can be covered here in context of that coverage.
Additionally, the separate Chakrabarti functions as a coat rack for a "Campaign finance controversy" section. (1) We avoid "controversy" sections for neutrality reasons. (2) If the subject of the coverage is the Ocasio-Cortez campaign, we already an article section for this purpose: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#2018 campaign. (3) That content would be best covered in the campaign section/article anyway, so I've already merged it there.
The question is whether the coverage of Chakrabarti as an individual warrants its own article. Until he is individually profiled in greater depth, his role in Ocasio-Cortez is already noted in this article, as the content has already been merged. If you agree, we can redirect Saikat Chakrabarti here. czar 18:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Saikat Chakrabarti, who had been her campaign co-chair, became chief of staff for her congressional office. Co-creator of two progressive political action committees, he has been called a significant political presence.is fine (though I think the second sentence is puffery and could probably be dropped), but I strenuously object to any mention of the campaign finance allegations against Chakrabarti until / unless we have longer-term sources relating them to AOC directly; and clearly a merge discussion would be an inappropriate way to add them (as Czar realized when they noticed the discussions already in progress.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
nom is out of process, 2) (quoting myself)
Nom apparently doesn't google too welland 3) While I hate the AfD process because it makes valuable content vulnerable, I does result in improvements to an article. I had never heard of this guy until this was brought up, first as this merge proposal and then as an AfD, now I know he is an important player in our current political situation; recent past, present and future. After those improvements to that article, we are now in a situation where; in the last 7 days we have 12 Oppose, to zero Support for Merge. I think our work is done here. WP:SNOW
You say
[MMT is] a heterodox macroeconomic theory widely rejected by economists,
citing as evidence a poll of top economist. However, according to Bloomberg Business Week, this poll was a straw man attack:
Another misconception is that MMT says deficits never matter. On March 13 the University of Chicago Booth School of Business published a survey of prominent economists that misrepresented MMT that way, leaving out its understanding that too-big deficits can cause excessive inflation. The surveyed professors roundly disagreed with MMT as described. MMTers cried foul.
Source: Bloomberg Business Week
-- Slieredna ( talk) 09:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
But the idea has also faced intense pushback from economists and pundits across the political spectrum, and none of the mainstream economists interviewed in a new survey were ready to sign on to the idea just yet.) This isn't enough to include it. At best we could say "in one 2019 poll, no mainstream economists interviewed were ready to endorse the theory" or words to that effect, but phrased like that (which is a more accurate paraphrase of the source) it's clear it's not worth including. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Capitalism section <! https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-capitalism-irredeemable-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-south-southwest-sxsw-a8816956.html --> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-10/ocasio-cortez-blasts-capitalism-as-an-irredeemable-system Sourcerery ( talk) 18:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Something like this: 'Capitalism is an ideology of capital –- the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit,” Ocasio-Cortez said.“ And that comes at any cost to people and to the environment, so to me capitalism is irredeemable.” Though she said she doesn’t think all parts of capitalism should be abandoned, “we’re reckoning with the consequences of putting profit above everything else in society. And what that means is people can’t afford to live. For me, it’s a question of priorities and right now I don’t think our model is sustainable.” “It’s just as much a transformation about bringing democracy to the workplace so that we have a say and that we don’t check all of our rights at the door every time we cross the threshold into our workplace,” she said. “Because at the end of the day, as workers and as people in society, we’re the ones creating wealth.” While America is wealthier than ever, wealth is enjoyed “by fewer than ever,” she said. “It doesn’t feel good to live in an unequal society”, citing an increase in homelessness in New York City among veterans and the elderly while penthouses sit empty. “It doesn’t feel good to live in a society like that.” I went for sections with most quotes of Alexandria, I think that's most appropriate. Thank you ich. Sourcerery ( talk) 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN That's arbitrary demand, she spoke extensively on issue and article should reflect that. Sourcerery ( talk) 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I posted Less than a month into her first term, filmmaker
Michael Moore declared Ocasio-Cortez the leader of the Democratic Party, based on the massive popularity of her positions.
[19]
which was immediately reverted. I was going to follow this with other commentators concurring by expressing similar opinions.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Right, left or center, each side addresses her by name in dealing with the mass popularity of her and her positions.
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@
Wikieditor19920:
removed this sourced statement: Ocasio-Cortez is noted for her
social media presence and
Time magazine has called her the "second most talked about politician in America".
Above I wanted to expand on this. Her social media presence, driven by the immense popularity of the things she says, the things she challenges, is what sets her apart from the 100 other freshman representatives and drives the news media to follow her statements as if she were a leader. I sourced that. More sources come framing her as a leader. That short statement explains why. Your opinion does not allow you to unilaterally remove sourced content. The lede should explain to the uninformed reader who this person is and why they are important.
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
immense popularity of the things she says, shows a) that you're misrepresented the sources, which do not refer to everything she says as "immensely popular," and b) show that perhaps you're not able to edit this article neutrally. Readers can figure out by reading the article that she has attracted a lot of attention - positive and negative - the way to convey that is not to just present her as an "immensely popular... leader." That might be appropriate for campaign material, or for North Korean propaganda, but not for a Wikipedia lead. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Running out of colons, can we find consensus on how to say AOC is "one of America's most talked about politicians." @ Tsumikiria: removed "attracting criticism as well as praise" calling it "meaningless filler." But doesn't the lead sound like puffery if we fail to mention that she has detractors as well as supporters. If so, how should we phrase this? HouseOfChange ( talk) 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, there are divisions in public support. It's not about "positive" or "negative," it's about describing her public profile in a way that is accurate and does not cherry-pick sources that represent certain opinions over others. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 18:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
the AOC effect.[29] [30] That a freshman congresswoman can wag other house; the senate into voting on her Green New Deal proposal less than three months into her term shows leadership. The fact that others are trying to come up with similarly named fake counter proposals [31] shows leadership.
"she offers an entirely different model of dissent from a party’s ideological mainstream, and strong conservatives could do a lot worse than watch and emulate her. She has already shown quite a bit of skill at using her seat in the House to advocate for substantive change."[32]
"AOC wields an innate ability to convulse the political system. To rattle traditionalists on both sides of the aisle. To even scare some . . . Ocasio-Cortez is one of the biggest things in politics.[33]
Ocasio-Cortez "is the thought leader of the Democratic Party right now," insisted Fox News host Laura Ingraham[34] and back where I started this
"She is the leader. Everybody knows it." - Michael Moore[35] Both sides agree she is a leader and a target for both her coattails or ridicule, depending on which side of the partisan divide you come from. I am trying to advocate for us, wikipedia, in a neutral voice to inform the public in the lede, why she is important, why she is a leader. Like I said, there are lots of sources. Trackinfo ( talk) 07:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Her fluctuating poll numbers are not even the real issue. They are a symptom. The radical ideas she proposes are despised by Republicans and praised by Progressives who wish they were what the Democratic Party stood for. They aren't, so she is hated by a lot of elected Democrats, though they won't admit to it publicly because of her popularity. Instead, her own party is trying to undermine her at every step. If she wasn't a leader, they wouldn't care, they wouldn't have to, she could just be ignored. She can't be ignored by either side. The fact is, the popularity of her ideas reflects the polling for the ideas, not her name.This is blatant WP:SYNTH, and none of this reasoning can have any bearing on what enters the article. The Daily Mail, "pollingreport.com," and "moneymarkets.com" are not even close to reliable sources. A large number of the other sources Trackinfo cited to support his argument are opinion pieces, like Bloomberg and Fox, which are considered WP:PRIMARY, and the rest are just quotes from various commentators, which are also essentially primary for their own opinion. WP:BLPs may only rely on WP:SECONDARY coverage:
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.Gandydancer's or Levivich's agreement or non-agreement with this subjective analysis is irrelevant, because this is WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted, and depends on inadequate sources. The secondary sources present a mixed picture, and whether or not she is a "leader" of the Democratic party has yet to be determined under WP:10YT.
They are reporting on the way she is perceived by, her colleagues, opponents and the public, which is what I am saying we should congeal into sentences we use in our article describing her.Interesting use of words, but I'm not buying it—what you're describing is just your own synthesis of what you think the sources say, and that's not going into the article. I'm happy to be the "odd man out" in a small group of editors who will happily agree with any positive statements without reviewing the sources or referring to policy, so if you think that using that argument will gain consensus, you're sorely mistaken. Trying to shove statements about her "leadership" and "influence" based on the comments of a few pundits is WP:UNDUE and simply WP:WIKIPUFFERY.I'll repeat it again: readers can determine for themselves that she is high-profile, it's not editors job to shove it in their face. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 13:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
HouseofChange also expressed concern over the line calling her "the most talked about politician," so I'm hardly the only one. No one's objecting to the notability of the subject—the lead can be appropriately used to provide the basis for the subject's notability, but it should not be a running inventory of news appearances or include quotes from recent stories, and it should especially not state opinions or sweeping, subjective assessments as fact. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 19:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
User NorthBySouthBaranof reverted an edit made by user Athaenara concerning a recently filed complaint with the FEC that alleges AOC "converted official funds raised through contributions to her candidate committee to personal use by transferring a total of $6,191.32 from her campgain committtee to Brand New Congress PAC . . . , which contemporaneously had its affiliated LLC pay $6,000 to her boyfriend, Riley" in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(1). [1]
I think this should be in the article. "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." User NorthBySouthBaranof removed Athaenara edit, stating, "We should wait until something more than the rather-highly-partisan FOX News covers this." While I understand the point, the FOX News article contains a copy of the official complaint. And Athaenara's original edit conforms with the substance of the official complaint and not any statement made by FOX news.
Because of the frequency of problem edits with this article, I wanted to bring this issue up here first.
HoldingAces ( talk) 16:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It is our job to make sure that negative information about a living person is supported by multiple independent reliable sources. That's policy. We don't yet have that coverage. Just now I searched Google for Alexandria FEC complaint. I did the same search at Google News with the same results. Here’s what I found:
So what we have at this point is a total of two independent reliable sources, with one story each, and the rest of the sources either partisan or not reliable, or both. Bottom line, if this story gets better coverage we can include it. If it doesn't, we shouldn't, per WP:42 and WP:BLP. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.I interpret multiple as meaning "more than two". Per my analysis above, there are only two independent reliable sources reporting on this. The others are either not independent (i.e. not neutral) or not reliable, or both. I just repeated my search and found no newer sources, so the reporting on this is now two to three days old, with no additional publications having chosen to report on it. Some people said above to wait and see if the story gets more coverage or "has legs" as reporters say. So far, it looks more like a 24-hour blip in the news cycle.
Any person may file a complaint with the Commission if he or she believes a violation of the federal election campaign laws or FEC regulations has occurred or is about to occur. The Commission reviews every complaint filed. If the Commission finds that a violation occurred, possible outcomes can range from a letter reiterating compliance obligations to a conciliation agreement, which may include a monetary civil penalty. All FEC enforcement matters are kept confidential until they are resolved.In other words: if they find a violation, they will take public action and we will put it in the article. If they find no violation, they will not say so, they will just not do anything. At this point all we have is the fact that somebody filed a complaint and issued a press release about it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is a minimum number of sources, do we need to start removing all facts that cannot be confirmed by the minimum number of sources?, this requirement for multiple sources applies to negative information about a living person. Not to everything in the encyclopedia. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Athaenara just added this material to the article again. I reverted. The current discussion here is 5-to-3 against inclusion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
My feelings about this new FEC complaint are exactly the same as my feelings about the last FEC complaint. The next FEC complaint that's filed, my feelings will be the same for that one, too. It's all WP:RECENTISM. Newspapers will always report on the complaints being filed. The issue isn't whether the complaints were filed or not filed. The issue is whether it's significant enough to deserve inclusion in her biography article. We won't know that on the day that the news breaks or the next day. WP is WP:NOTNEWS. I hate to blueblink but those two links really, really explain this very exact point. Leviv ich 16:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, wait a minute, this one might be different - because it is reported by the Washington Post in its own voice and sourced to federal campaign finance documents. "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show."
[36] With that kind of reporting we may want to put something in the article. It has to do with transparency of reporting, and if there was any wrongdoing it may fall on her campaign chairman, but still this allegation seems to have a little more weight than just another FEC filing. (I apologize for my previous post; I was looking at the sources cited by Athaenara and missed the sources cited by Levivich HoldingAces. (Sorry, I looked at the signature below the "sources" box, which was the wrong place to look.) --
MelanieN (
talk)
17:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The only reason WaPo (and the Hill) are reporting on this story is because it's widely circulating in among conservative attack rags. As for the initial sources, Fox News is not reliable (though some disagree) and Newsweek has gone to the dogs in the past few years. The lawsuit was filed a group which is known for going after non-conservatives. Right now, this is nothing. It may be something in the future. But we're not in the future yet. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A political operation tied to New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff is facing scrutiny over payments made to a company he owned. ... Chakrabarti, a former tech executive, went on to serve as Ocasio-Cortez's co-campaign manager the following year and now runs her congressional office. Again, every bit of "some blogs are saying something wrong" coverage doesn't really belong in the article. It's important to emphasize that the bit with her campaign manager is *before* he worked with her (ie. it has no relation to her at all aside from the fact that he's now associated with her), something that a lot of the discussion above seems to have missed. Something only tangentially related like that requires a higher standard than just one news cycle mentioning it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 23:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The only reason WaPo (and the Hill) are reporting on this story is because it's widely circulating in among conservative attack rags.VM, please try to at least pretend to be neutral at this page. The reason those mainstream sources are reporting on it is because they were able to independently confirm the material. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
"Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show."WaPo confirmed it with public records. So did NBC. So did everybody. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Now Fox is reporting that a third complaint has been filed against AOC by the same group that filed the first complaint, this time with the Office of Congressional Ethics instead of the FEC, about congressional email accounts. Funny how these drip-drip-drip complaints are coming after the Cohen hearing; must be a coincidence. So far, I'm not seeing any new media coverage today of these complaints beyond the links that were posted above. Leviv ich 16:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint in early March 2019 with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign along with Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats—political-action committees co-founded by Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti—collectively paid over $800,000 to a Limited Liability Company (LLC) owned by Chakrabarti without clearly identifying what the LLC was hired and paid for, contrary to FEC regulations.
In March 2018 a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) saying that Ocassio-Cortez’s campaign paid $18,880 to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, without clearly specifying what the payments were for as required by FED regulations.The $18,880 from the campaign is the only part of the complaint that actually involves her. Mentioning the $800,000 from the two PACs is guilt by association, to make it sound like a much bigger deal involving her than it really is. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Because it's controversial negative information in a BLP, I feel like we should go with more than one source, in order to establish what's "commonly-agreed" as opposed to what just this source or that source says. If we go with one source, someone will come along with a second source that contradicts it. Maybe I'm being overly-defensive about it. I think NBC and WaPo are the two to go with because they're the most widely-discussed among other sources. (For example, Newsweek today mentions both NBC and WaPo's reporting.) So I looked at the beginning of the NBC and WaPo pieces (the beginning being where they'd put what they thought was most important) and bolded what they had in common:
NBC | WaPo |
---|---|
A conservative group alleges Ocasio-Cortez and her allies ran a PAC scam. But there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's congressional campaign has come under scrutiny in recent days for what a conservative group has alleged is a massive violation of campaign finance law. The National Legal and Policy Center filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission on Tuesday, alleging that the New York Democrat and her allies used a corporation to skirt campaign finance reporting laws. The complaint comes after a number of conservative-leaning outlets said Ocasio-Cortez broke campaign finance laws when she hired her boyfriend for marketing work. David Mitrani, an attorney representing Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and the related organizations named in the FEC complaint, pushed back strongly on the reports in a statement Wednesday, saying that the entities "have at all times been conducted fully in compliance with federal campaign finance laws." Ocasio-Cortez herself denied the allegation on Tuesday to Fox News: "There is no violation." Campaign finance experts, meanwhile, told NBC News that while the structure of her campaign and its vendors might be confusing, there's no evidence of some kind of million-dollar scam as has been alleged in news reports. |
Payments to company owned by Ocasio-Cortez aide come under scrutiny
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s chief of staff helped establish two political action committees that paid a company he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show. Brand New Congress LLC, the company owned by Saikat Chakrabarti, was also paid $18,880 for strategic consulting by Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign in 2017, records show. The following year, he worked as a volunteer to manage her campaign, according to his LinkedIn profile. The arrangement, first reported by conservative outlets, left hidden who ultimately profited from the payments — a sharp juxtaposition with Ocasio-Cortez’s calls for transparency in politics. She has called dark money “the enemy to democracy.” The money that flowed to her chief of staff’s company have subjected the first-term congresswoman to critics’ charges of hypocrisy. On Monday, a conservative group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the PACs failed to properly disclose their spending. David Mitrani, attorney for the PACs, the LLC and Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign, said in a statement Tuesday that all four entities “fully complied with the law and the highest ethical standards.” He said that Chakrabarti never received any salary or profit from the company, the PACs or the campaign. “There is no violation” of campaign finance law, Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News on Tuesday. It is unclear whether she had knowledge of the payments to Chakrabarti’s company. (Ed: This WaPo story is available without a paywall via Seattle Times.) |
What I take out of it is: (1) A "conservative group" (2) filed a complaint with the FEC alleging (3) PACs and (4) AOC's campaign paid (5) a company and (6) didn't report it as required. (7) The complaint was filed after reports by conservative outlets. (8) The lawyer for the organization said they fully complied with the law. (9) AOC said "There is no violation." (10) Either AOC's congressional campaign (NBC) or the payments (WaPo) have come "under scrutiny". I don't think all of that needs to be in the sentence, though. But I think that's the basic information the sentence should convey, cited to these two sources. The denials are probably not necessary (8 and 9). I'm not sure about #7. "Scrutiny" may be a useful word per #10. These ten elements are very similar to but slightly different from the language that HoldingAces and MelanieN proposed above. What do we think about a sentence built around this? Leviv ich 22:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
In March 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by a conservative groupLeviv ich 23:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)sayingalleging that two political action committees and Ocasio-Cortez’s campaignpaid $18,880made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti,withoutclearly specifying whatdescribing the paymentswere for aswith the specificity required by FEC regulations.
Thanks for waiting on me, MelanieN and Levivich! And sorry for the late response. I agree with Melanie on leaving the PAC references out; I think discussing their peripheral involvement in this acts only to obfuscate the key information we are trying to convey.
Two things I am not hellbent on changing but think would add to the article: Keeping Chakrabarti's name and the dollar figure in the text. The article already identifies Chakrabarti as her chief of staff here. So I think keeping his name in, if anything, would just save the reader from scrolling back up to see who her chief of staff is. As for $18k figure, my rationale for keeping it is that it gives perspective, as opposed to leaving it to the imagination of the reader as to just how large, or how small, those "payments" were. That being said, the reader could simply follow the links to find that information. Again, I am pretty indifferent about these two substantive suggestions and would be perfectly content if they were left out.
A couple alterations I would make. I would change without describing the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations
to read without describing the nature of the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
Maybe I am wrong, but I feel that we've spent so much time on this that we know exactly what Levivch meant by "describing the payments," but I am not sure a first-time reader would. I think adding the nature of
clarifies for the reader that the problem was that she did not describe what those payments were for with sufficient specificity as opposed to, for example, not describing the exact dollar figure of those the payments. (Though this concern would likely be allayed by keeping in the $18k figure).
Last, a style edit (because I really like active voice). I would have it read:
With my substantive suggestions:A conservative group filed a complaint with the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign paid $18,880 to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Chakrabarti, without describing the nature of the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
Without my substantive suggestions:A conservative group filed a complaint with the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff without describing the payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
HoldingAces (
talk)
21:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
the nature of. 3. Agree about the active voice. 4. Disagree about identifying $18k, because the sources talk about $1 million mostly from a PAC that she was on the board of at the time. I think putting in "$1 million" is undue in one direction, and "$18k" is undue in the other direction, so I prefer the neutral "payments" without a $ amount. That said, it's not a strong objection, so if most folks want to include the $18k then I say let's go with it. Leviv ich 21:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Without expressing an opinion on whether or not this should be included, I would remark that if the articles cited for this are not used to support anything else in the article, they could be bundled into a single <ref> tag, if the desire is to cite more than one or two but also to avoid an overkill of little superscript numbers. This way, you could cite NBC and WaPo and not have to pick just one. -sche ( talk) 00:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it fair to say that we have reached a consensus on the following? A conservative group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Chakrabarti, without describing the nature of those payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations.
HoldingAces (
talk)
14:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Brendan Fischer, a director at the Campaign Legal Center, said "scam PACs" typically pay their staff huge salaries without doing much campaigning work other than fundraising, which doesn't appear to be the case here. He said he hasn't seen evidence of wrongdoing that would suggest any laws were broken.Fischer (unlike the people filing the complaint) is an expert. While I feel that the entire topic is clearly WP:UNDUE given that aspect, it would clearly be a WP:BLP issue to report unsubstantiated accusations while omitting coverage from experts that WP:RSes have found relevant. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
the FEC would likely treat this violation as very minor. These are all key pieces of non-partisan context to the partisan claims made about her campaign finance. We cannot possibly fairly write about this issue without including that context. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's not confuse the issues. You did not include AOC's response. You added the statements of "experts" from an opinion piece to a sentence that intended to relay only facts regarding the allegation. Including AOC's denial is probably a good idea (hence, why I wished you had partaken in nearly two-week long conversation). HoldingAces ( talk) 16:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Two editors have tried to change the agreed upon language above. I reverted one of them and referred them to this discussion, but then I was reverted. I cannot undo the latest revert because of the
WP:1RR. They want to add the following sentence. Campaign finance experts found no evidence of wrongdoing.
HoldingAces (
talk)
15:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
IMO adding the sentence about "no evidence of wrongdoing" was an acceptable use of BOLD. Since it has been challenged it should now be discussed at this page before being readded. My own opinion (not as an admin but as just another editor) is that the sentence now in the article - Campaign finance experts said that while the structure of Ocasio-Cortez's campaign might be unusual, there's no evidence of any scam or serious violation.
- is a good addition, reflects the source accurately, and should be retained. What do others think? Let's see if we can get a consensus about it while the article is locked. (BTW
NorthBySouthBaranof, there is no need for an RfC. The preferred approach is to hold informal discussion at the talk page, and to formalize it as an RFC only if consensus cannot be reached. See
WP:RFCBEFORE.) --
MelanieN (
talk)
16:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Quotes from campaign finance experts via RSes
|
---|
|
The sources from both sides quote the same experts to say different things. We shouldn't cherrypick one source or one quote. We may want to attribute a statement, e.g., "According to campaign finance experts at Campaign Legal Center and Common Cause..." and then summarize what they said as conveyed in multiple RSes. (PS: Thank you Mel for your post above and below.) Leviv ich 17:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ocasio-Cortez denies any wrongdoing.That should be the only addition.
no evidence of wrongdoingor
Campaign finance experts said that while the structure of Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign might be unusual, there’s no evidence of any scam or serious violation—should not be added.
A conservative group alleges Ocasio-Cortez and her allies ran a PAC scam. But there's no evidence of wrongdoingis far below the sort of coverage that I would feel belongs in a bio without far more sustained coverage than we're seeing here. If we covered every dubious allegation like that that had coverage, most bios for high-profile politicians would be unreadable messes of dueling accusations. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there or is there not consensus? It depends on what you are talking about. Here’s how it went.
For clarity, this is what we are discussing: A conservative group filed a complaint with the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) in March 2019, alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff,
Saikat Chakrabarti, without describing the nature of those payments with the specificity required by FEC regulations. Campaign finance experts said that while the structure of Ocasio-Cortez's campaign might be unusual, there's no evidence of any scam or serious violation.
[1]
[2]
Sources
|
---|
|
IMO we have three options which I will list below, and I will try to add to the list those who have already clearly expressed their opinion. Please move or remove your name if I have mischaracterized your opinion, and add your name if I left it out because I wasn't sure where you stand. Note that this is not a formal RFC; this is just an attempt to clarify opinions at this page. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
OPTION A: Don’t include anything about this allegation.
OPTION B: Include a single sentence about the allegation, without the “campaign finance experts” sentence.
OPTION C: Include two sentences, one about the allegation, one with the “campaign finance experts” sentence.
... Ocasio-Cortez denied the allegations and campaign finance experts said that while the structure of her campaign might be confusing, they had not seen evidence of any scam or serious violation.Leviv ich 22:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)