Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): QuinnCraig2075 (article contribs).

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 5 as Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 4 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Leader

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.[1] which was immediately reverted. I was going to follow this with other commentators concurring by expressing similar opinions.[2] [3] [4] [5] 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)

Trackinfo, sorry, I didn't realize I had reverted you at the beginning of a series of edits. But why add this to the lead and not the body? To be clear, my objection isn't to describing her as popular or a leader of the DP in the lead, nor to including those sources in the body; my objection is that the name of a pundit (Michael Moore or whomever) should not be in the lead of an article about AOC (or anyone else). In my view, nobody's bio should have "so-and-so said such-and-such about them" in the lead, except in the rare circumstance where that statement is a major part of the subject's notability. ^Leviv_ich 06:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The perception of her as a leader, despite lacking the official credentials of a leader, positions her importance, significant to the entire article.Trackinfo (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This might be appropriate for a new section in the article ("Influence" maybe?), but the lede should remain a summary of the contents of the article, per WP:LEDE. Bradv🍁 06:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

An "influence" section seems premature and inappropriate. A few glowing quotes about her, while meaningful, is not equal to the kind of significant secondary analysis that would justify such a section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria:For some reason, you always revert me on what seems to be (IMHO) the most common sense changes. Why do you believe it is worthwhile to boast about the candidate's Twitter following in the lead? What am I missing here? The lead should cover the most significant aspects of a subject in a BLP, not give a running count for their social media following. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, what if their social media following is one of the most significant aspects of the subject? Leviv ich 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not. This is WP:WIKIPUFFERY. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Brook Avenue Press

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)

• This is not lauding, by merely mentioning a fact. This has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Does it deserve inclusion? Yes, certainly, because the page provides a fairly detailed description of her life - as it should. My very best wishes (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "because the page provides a fairly detailed description of her life"--OK, but does it say what she had for breakfast on her 23rd birthday? I ask because she potentially spent more time having breakfast that day than she did on this Press. Can we find anything to cite that she spent more time on this than it takes to make pop tarts? If so let's reference that! If not, help me understand why it is noteworthy in even a fairly detailed description of her life. Swiss Frank (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• We reflect what reliable secondary sources says, not your personal conclusions. It is a now-defunct publishing startup from 2012 reportedly focusing on "literature in urban areas"[6] and "methods on parent-child literacy education"[7]. Empty results on Amazon for a minor, defunct startup from 2012 is quite reasonable. I see no problem with a brief one-liner summary of a part of the subject's past career trajectory. It also serves to explain the subject's Bronx origins. There is a number of sources support the mention, adding to that, if you count this intentionally misleading piece from the Daily Caller.[8] Oppose removal. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "We reflect what reliable secondary sources says, not your personal conclusions." The Inc. article doesn't seem to find the Press noteworthy, however. There's not a single sentence or even word about what accomplished, or how much effort she put in. In turn Ocasio didn't seem to find the Inc. article important enough to return a call. Even so, what is the rule? We should put every word about her that's in at least two articles in Wiki? And repeat that for every article in Wiki? Honest questions. Swiss Frank (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• I also oppose removal. I don't agree that "founding a publishing house sounds like a major accomplishment". For example, many self-published authors publish through a publishing house they founded. It's not impressive to start a company; it's impressive to start a successful company, but the article doesn't say this publishing house was successful. Also, using Amazon.com in this way is original research using a primary source. ^Leviv_ich 20:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So it's not a major accomplishment? And it's not impressive? Do we have any evidence that it is even a MINOR accomplishment? Any mention of the Press itself going into any more detail that the company did anything at all? If not, why are we citing something that's not a major accomplishment?Swiss Frank (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK, then alternate question: what about adding a description of the publish house, even parenthetically: (that ultimately didn't publish any books [9])?Swiss Frank (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  "Major accomplishment" and "minor" accomplishment have nothing to do with it. We don't decide what's important enough and what's not important enough to talk about. The RSes decide. If enough of them mention that she started a publishing house, but don't go into the details of how much it published or didn't, then we follow suit; we also mention the publishing house but don't go into details of how much it published. Library of Congress is also a primary source, and using any primary source to make the case that the company didn't publish is original research. So the first question is: is there consensus among the secondary sources that this publishing house didn't publish anything (and whether that's important)? ^Leviv_ich 01:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

It's really refreshing to see @Levivich: and @Tsumikiria: deferring to WP:RS, and I agree. If it's been covered by WP:SECONDARY, it can be included. The important thing to avoid here is editorializing to make it sound "successful" or "not successful" if the sources don't say either way. We can draw our own conclusions, but those don't belong in the article—Wikipedia readers can make up their own mind. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would vote for removal, though I would prefer clarification. From everything I've found, it wasn't a "failed" publishing venture. It was never a publishing venture at all. She merely rented some space in which she explored the concept (at best), without ever doing anything with it. The term "launched," used in one source, seems an exaggeration, in addition to being hopelessly vague. The source linked in Inc.com states "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, has shelled out $1,000 since April simply to rent space while she researches her business idea — a children’s book publishing company devoted to telling positive stories set in The Bronx." Simply researching the idea seems to be as far as it ever got. No indication that any content was ever generated, much less published. No evidence of writing or writers, editing or editors. An accurate statement, based on RS, would be, "Under the name Brook Avenue Press, she researched starting a publishing firm for books that portray the Bronx in a positive light." John2510 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The article says "launched" a "publishing firm" because that's what the RSes say:

1. 2012 NY Daily News: ...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:

2. 2018 CNS via NBC LA: ...established a publishing firm, Brook Avenue Press, that specializes in children's literature that portrays the Bronx in a positive light...
3. 2018 Inc.: ...in 2011 launched a publishing venture through a local startup network...

There is little point to discussing whether we think it did or didn't publish books, or whether we think she launched it or just researched launching it. We must follow the RSes. ^Leviv_ich 22:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If her "launch" consisted of no more than what is described in the RSs (i.e., renting space and researching) then it isn't biographically significant and has no proper place in the article. "Launch," without more, is not enlightening, and is rather misleading. If nothing else, the rent-and-research reference should be added from the other RSs, to clarify what that "launch" consisted of. John2510 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

John2510, of the three reliable sources I just quoted, two out of three use "launched" and the third uses "established", and two out of three use "publishing firm" and the third uses "publishing venture". So "launched a publishing firm" is the consensus of the reliable sources. If you have other reliable sources that say something different, please post quotes and links here for discussion. If you personally disagree with the use of terminology by reliable sources, whether you're right or wrong, it's irrelevant, per WP:OR. It doesn't matter what we think about Brook Avenue Press, it matters what reliable sources have written about it. That's all we take into account. Levivich 19:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This source states, "And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, has shelled out $1,000 since April simply to rent space while she researches her business idea — a children’s book publishing company devoted to telling positive stories set in The Bronx." Renting space and researching doesn't make a "launch" meaningful for a biographical article. I suspect there was some bootstrapping involved in the use of the term - which we shouldn't perpetuate here. None of the sources define what they mean by the use of the term. Not everything for which there is a RS is appropriate for a bio. Are you aware of anything about her "launch" being meaningful? John2510 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing discussion in the next thread. Levivich 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Failure of Brook Avenue Press

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:

• Kerr, Andrew (July 5, 2018). "Socialist Darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex called for tax cuts when she was running a business, now wants to raise taxes to fund her radical agenda". The Daily Caller. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
• Showalter, Monica (July 7, 2018). "Did Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's socialist fanaticism come from bitter failure in business?". American Thinker. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
• Henry, Zoe (July 20, 2018). "The Surprising Entrepreneurial Roots of the Democrats' Rising Star, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez". Inc. Retrieved February 9, 2019.

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)

I would vote not to add this because Daily Caller is not a reliable source and may soon be deprecated. American Thinker, not reliable for facts IMO, is based almost entirely on the Daily Caller and doesn't say Brooks Avenue Press "failed". Inc is reliable but doesn't say Brooks Avenue Press "failed". Levivich 00:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you claiming that BAP is a on-going business, or it's incorrect to state it was a failed venture? I'm looking for more sources that reflect the facts, as I assume all interested editors are. There is no surprise that the media in 2018/2019 generally supportive of Ocasio-Cortez in mentioning the start of BAP do not also mention its failure. It seems natural that media generally critical of Ocasio-Cortez would mention its failure. We could be in the position of siting on our hands waiting for another reliable secondary source to report that Brook Avenue Press failed. The Inc. article has "...We seek to develop and identify literature in urban areas," the then-22-year old said of her now-defunct startup, Brook Avenue Press, in a video interview... Is it possible that the defunct startup was a success and not a failure? patsw (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Patsw, yes, it's possible that a defunct startup was a success and not a failure. You are assuming a false dichotomy, not supported by RSes: that either a business is operating or it has failed. A business can stop operating for many reasons, only some of which can be described as "failure". For all we know, she sold BAP for millions of dollars to a larger publishing firm which then shut it down. You'll find very little about BAP I expect, except that it's a publishing firm launched by AOC. Levivich 01:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As I set forth above, there is no evidence that it was ever a success or a failure, as it never had any meaningful existence. This source states, "And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, has shelled out $1,000 since April simply to rent space while she researches her business idea — a children’s book publishing company devoted to telling positive stories set in The Bronx." John2510 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That source was written in August 2012, so it covers April 2012 – August 2012. What is the significance that she paid $1,000 per month in rent for the first four months? Levivich 21:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to argue that her involvement with BAP was in any way significant. However, if BAP is going to be mentioned, referencing that RS may enlighten readers as to what involvement was. As you note, the RS is from August, 2012 (after the referenced "launch" from the other articles) - so it clarifies that the "launch" was indeed just rent and research. In other words, the other articles weren't describing some actual venture that BAP later grew into. Good point. John2510 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Two questions, one of them relevant and one just out of curiosity. 1. Doesn't it violate WP:SYNTH to use a 2012 source to "clarify" that when the 2018 sources say "launch", they're not being accurate? 2. Can you give me an example of a publishing firm that published a book within 4 months of incorporation? Levivich 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The information from the other RS adds clarity to what occurred, regardless of the other sources. The reader can draw his own conclusion as to the accuracy of the description "launch" in that context. To answer your second question, I'm sure there are many publishing companies that published books within 4 months of incorporation but I'm not going to research it. I published several books, one of which went into a third printing, without ever incorporating. However, I'm not aware of Ocasio-Cortez doing anything most would consider to be a meaningful step towards publishing a book during that time (or ever). A RS says she researched it as a business idea. Okay. That's what she did. If the article is going to mention her "launch" of a publishing company it should, in all fairness, let the facts speak for themselves. John2510 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

For people interested in the primary source (and remember,we don't use primary sources in article space):

• "New York State / Department of State / Dissolution by Proclamation / Annulment of Authority (Oct 26, 2016)". patsw (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that the best way to resolve this matter is to add a clause stating that the publishing venture is "defunct", which is the word used by Inc. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: "now-defunct Brook Avenue Press", "defunct as of 2018", or "no longer in business as of 2018"? Inc.'s readers understand what "now-defunct" means; I'm not sure about WP's broader, international readership. Levivich 01:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Now-defunct" seems perfectly understandable to me, though I do not like the hyphen. How about a simple brief sentence cited to Inc., "The business is now defunct."? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. Leviv ich 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, I assume this hyphen hatred is just another example of your California-inflected anarchist streak. But you put that shit in front of a noun, you better put a hyphen in there, dude. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL, Drmies. All this time I thought "defunct" was an adjective but I ain't no English perfessor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It's really about function, my dear Cullen, rather than category. (Yes, "defunct" is an adjective, but sticking a temporal marker like "now" or "then" in front of it, when in "adjective function" (by which people mean "adjective position", which we in the business like to call "internal pre-head modifier"), seems to require hyphenation...) It is, and if you stick an adverb in front We're talking about that tomorrow, second period--when you're probably still snoozing in your California-size bed in your California timezone. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

I saw that here as well. "Brook Avenue Press, a company she founded in 2012 to publish children’s books in The Bronx, owes the state $1,870.36 in corporate taxes, public records show." "Public records show the state dissolved the company in October 2016, which can happen when a business fails to pay corporate taxes or file a return." "The state slapped the company with a warrant on July 6, 2017..." I'm fine with waiting to hear what her response and any contradictory reports may consist of, but it's relevant RS information and should be added (as should the fact that all she did was rent space and study the concept). Maybe she'll take this opportunity to explain what her "early career" resume items truly involved. Nah... John2510 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

Change the sentence about being the youngest person elected to Congress to reflect that William C. C. Claiborne was elected to Congress at age 23, in 1797, although sources differ on his birth date, with some citing his being 22 when he began Congressional service and others stating 24. However all sources put him in the House at a much younger age than Ocasio-Cortez. 70.59.13.28 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Already done (The article says "youngest woman".) ^Leviv_ich 21:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Media coverage

A lot of text was deleted in this edit[10]. I don't particularly mind removing most of the content but I want to keep:

• Text noting that her primary win was a surprise and that we should mention the lack of print media coverage prior to the win (despite her being a NY politician).
• Text noting that she has become a boogeyman in rightwing media, and her response to the extraordinarily extensive and negative coverage of her. We HAVE to include this. It's one of her claims to notoriety. She, as a House Rep with a six-week tenure, has more name recognition than most Democratic presidential candidates in large part due to this coverage.

What do you think? Pinging My very best wishes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I simply think that if media said something really important about the person, that something should be in other, substantial parts of the page, not in the generic "press coverage" section. If you want to restore something, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised to see such a massive amount of long standing information removed without introducing the matter on the talk page first. I think the information should be restored. Interestingly, I've always thought that it is not surprising that she didn't receive much media considering that there was no question that her run would not be a success. But concerning the publicity following her win, it was absolutely stunning. Within a few days she was invited to every major outlet to speak and all of the talk shows as well. Furthermore, her place in the media continues to be extremely unusual. Again, I'd like to see this long standing copy returned. Gandydancer (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

If the entire point is that she was widely covered in press, why not say it in a couple of phrases? If this is something else, that should be in another section. I am not going to revert though. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As the person who did revert this removal, I will just expand on what I said in my edit summary: the breadth of national media coverage on her is well beyond what most newly-elected representatives get. Most are basically unknown outside of their own states. The fact that she has been made the face of the Democratic 2018 candidates (or at least of the progressive wing) is notable in itself. In fact, the only reason her policy positions are notable is because her media exposure has given her a platform. Given that she has no political experience thus far, and that she hasn't yet really made any moves in Congress, her media stature is probably her most notable quality. Not only does it merit mention, but it certainly merits mention well beyond a couple of phrases. As years pass, other aspects of her career may well overshadow this part, but right now, the amount of text here is clearly due weight. Grandpallama (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• This subsection definitely belongs in some way per sources, but it is too excessive. AOC is no Trump yet this article has much more information about her press coverage than Donald Trump. There are WP:SYNTH/WP:Recentism problems in the text. Also don't forget that negative coverage ≠ incorrect coverage. The free media coverage is already appropriately mentioned in the lead, which I wouldn't touch. I must say though that material should not be removed without considering moving it somewhere. wumbolo ^^^ 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I would remove a lot. With all due respect, I do not think every interview, a comment on twitter or a comment about her in media belongs to the page. This is WP:Recentism at worst. Most of that is simply non-informative, especially on a BLP page of a politician who is already famous like her. One should emphasize facts and actions, such as her involvement to the Green New Deal, not political squabble. Why? Simply because the squabble is uninformative. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I believe that Grandpallama summed up my position very well. As time goes on we most certainly will adjust the information about her media coverage but for now it is the most remarkable issue in her bio. I don't see that WP:Recentism applies since we generally cover even day by day accounts of the political activities of all of our other political figures. I would however like to see perhaps a few small cuts, for instance the names of the television programs she appeared on. Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the section above titled Leader, I attempted to address how her media exposure has been recognized by people on all sides of the spectrum as putting her in a position of leadership of the party. It is not through a position of authority or seniority, but by being the voice of political direction facilitated by her media coverage. We should reflect that in explaining to novice readers looking up her name on wikipedia, why she is important, when titles and hierarchy does not explain it. Trackinfo (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, she is not the leader of the party by any reasonable account (she is too much to the left and has too little experience). She just received a lot of publicity, which can be summarized in just a couple of phrases. My very best wishes (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, the idea that this fresh politician has become the face of a new generation of the party, and certainly of the progressive wing, merits significantly more attention and text than just a few phrases. New House reps do not get this sort of national exposure. She is a more household name than some of the current declared presidential candidates. Again, as of now, the most notable feature of AOC is her national media exposure. Not only is the section due, but reducing it would not accurately reflect her notability, or the reasons for it. I also reject the idea that this is a recentism issue; it might be that a great deal of detail on each individual appearance as they occur isn't needed, but her massive media exposure will always be a major facet of her first election.

It's also pretty clear that she has become an internal leader of the party, in the sense that she's got a voice and has been given influence that is generally not accorded to freshman representatives. Grandpallama (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Spanish naming customs

Is the surname "Ocasio-Cortez" really using Spanish naming customs? From the looks of it to me, her surname is just a combination of each of her parents' surnames, which is not actually Spanish naming customs. In Spanish naming customs, children have their paternal then maternal surnames, but only use their paternal surname in everyday life. Like in the case of Enrique Iglesias being born "Enrique Miguel Iglesias Preysler" — if his name was Enrique Iglesias-Preysler and he used the surname "Iglesias-Preysler" in everyday life, that would not be truly Spanish naming customs. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing today: that we should remove that tag because it isn't accurate. If she were using Spanish naming customs, she would be Alexandria Ocasio Cortez for formal occasions and Alexandria Ocasio most of the time. Instead she is using the American/British custom of hyphenating the surnames of her parents. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, I will remove the note. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Boyfriend

Isn’t his name Riley Roberts? Barb100763 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Barb100763, yes, thank you for pointing out that error. I corrected it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Media section

I object to the characterization of the sources and the framing, which doesn't correspond to what the cited reliable sources discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote the section you objected you. I think it works now. Please have a look and let me know what you think.

Vcuttolo (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• objected to Vcuttolo (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone want to chime in? I believe the "neutrality" concern has been fully straightened out.

Vcuttolo (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Fake news" promoted by CRTV belong to page about CRTV, not to this page. Moved to page about CRTV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Statements of opinion from notable public figures should be given in-text attribution rather than just attributed to unnamed others (WP:WEASEL) . Generalizations (like saying she made a bunch of verbal gaffes) need to be directly supported by the sources rather than cobbled together from a bunch of disparate news stories. Nblund ^talk 17:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• There are sources discussing responses by the media and fact-checkers to the fair amount of falsehoods she's defended. [11] [12] [13] [14] I oppose including what her political opponents think about it because this article is not about them, I can't find sources discussing it, we don't have anything similar at Donald Trump or Veracity of Donald Trump, and virtue signalling/grandstanding by her political opponents is in fact inconsequential to her biography. I also object to the recent moving of her false statements to the Healthcare section. The sources cited actually discuss multiple falsehoods that she has said or defended, and making false statements isn't a "political position". Putting false statements into the political positions section only discredits the actual political positions without informing the reader of anything s/he is looking for. wumbolo ^^^ 19:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

All of that sounds reasonable. Yes, perhaps this should not be in Healthcare section. But this is also not just a "media coverage", but criticism of her comments. Was it something really important? I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

So I tried to move the deleted comments from the "Media" section into a new "Criticism" section, and was reverted before I could get going. Is there a proper place where the criticism for her many gaffes gets a mention in the article? Where would that be? Or is all criticism of AOC disallowed?

Vcuttolo (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Vcuttolo, "criticism" sections are a bad idea. See WP:CSECTION. What do you want to add? It should all be case by case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've seen people objecting your content and tagging your addition with Template:POV section and yet you added virtually the same content again. Aside from a obvious 1RR violation, a dedicated criticism section is strongly discouraged especially on BLP articles where it may be a magnet for trolls and POV editing. This isn't about disallowing criticism of the subject if your attempt is apparently disingenuous considering your previous effort back in November where you tried to make the subject appear to endorse "terrorist" "invaders". This is not a battlefield to fight a war for your POV and then accuse everybody of revering the subject more than god. Please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I had included a mention of her numerous gaffes in the "Media" section, saying that she had been called out by the media for having made a significant number of errors. I did not specify the gaffes, but the statement was followed by seven sources. Someone reverted me, saying that the gaffes should be listed, lest I violate WP:WEASEL. The same editor seemed to want the gaffes in a different section as well. In an attempt to comply, I began specifying some of the gaffes in a "Criticism" section, which is what I thought I was being instructed to do. There have certainly been a number of verbal gaffes made by AOC, and she has been called out on such by the mainstream media on a number of occasions. Where does this earn a mention?

While we are here, Muboshgu, may I ask you to please intervene concerning the harassment I have been receiving from Tsumikiria? His claim above of trying to do "edit conflict" is obviously false. The guy has been a thorn in my side for months. He just gave me an official warning (the third or fourth time he has done so) on my Talk Page over my most recent AOC edits, something I might have taken seriously if it came from you, not him. Tsumikiria has been warned before because of his tone and edit-warring nature. He once reverted me because I used an Israeli newspaper as a source, and, wrote Tsumikiria, "everyone knows israeli (sic) media lies". Can you please get this guy off my tail?

Thank you on both counts.

Vcuttolo (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What I said in my edit summary was "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel". I was unfamiliar with Haaretz at the time and that was the only mistake I did. It's concerning that you took this matter personally when numerous editors in the past months have explained to you on how your edits were unacceptable. It's even more concerning that you're willing to misquote people to advance your perceived ideological battle. This is, reasonably speaking, disruptive editing. Please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there's sufficient coverage to briefly mention that AOC has had some back and forth with fact-checkers. For my part, I think we need to avoid subjective language about the number of gaffes, attribute opinions as opinions, and cite AOC's critics and defenders. Vcuttolo: you are obviously going to get reverted if all you do is move more or less the same content around without really engaging the discussion. Pitch some changes here instead of edit warring. Nblund ^talk 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with briefly mentioning well-documented factual errors she made from neutral sources with attribution, but there's definitely no need of documenting them indiscriminately as most of these are barely mentionable. Writing subjective summaries like numbers of gaffes, etc. should definitely be avoided. There also seems to be conflicts among reliable sources on fact-checking her statements. For example Jacobin magazine explicitly criticised Washington Post writer Glenn Kessler's methodology and factual accuracy in the latter's piece that awarded AOC with three Pinocchios. If we are including these, we must properly reflect and attribute these conflicts. Although presently I don't think these are encyclopedic at all. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not encyclopedic and WP:UNDUE, but man, that Jacobin piece is ridiculous. The guy seriously thinks that 32.40$ is the minimum "living wage".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Vegan or plant-based?

I'm not exactly sure, but more investigation is needed, bc I think she is vegan or vegetarian and supports plant-based. I added this to her page, but was reverted, so again im not sure but worth looking into bc she says she publicly supports plant based and reducing meat and dairy. Ideas - please share? Steven02511 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Steven02511: The article you used to cite this did not say that she was vegan, just that she drank vegan milk. It was unclear on reading whether she always drank vegan milk, or just sometimes. If she does advocate for eating less meat and having a more plant based diet, this would be good to include in the article (probably under 'Environment' in 'Political positions'). We would need a better source than a blog, though - newspapers and news sites are typically good sources. We have a pretty good guide on what makes a reliable source here at WP:RS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I may have read this, but cannot find the exact source. She also is the creator of the Green New Deal, and part of this bill would possibly end animal agriculture, as this is a significant negative factor in climate change. More investigation is needed. Steven02511 (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary "squad" mention

There is a sentence at the end of the "116th Congress" section saying that she and three other freshman U.S. reps have formed a group called "the squad." The only reference is an article that mentions how AOC captioned an Instagram photo of those three with the word "Squad." The sentence in the page makes it seem like these four have formed some type of formal coalition, when in reality, "Squad" is just popular Instagram slang for a group of friends, and AOC didn't mean anything official by it. I think we should remove that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benn257 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Benn257: Good catch. I've removed that sentence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Education

In reviewing the sources, there is something confusing in the text. The current text says that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated from Boston University with a major in International Relations and Economics, but there is no such major at the university.

They have a BA in International Relations, and a BA in Economics. Did she get two degrees? Otherwise, this appears like the product of sloppy journalism in the source articles. Is there a way to clarify / fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.202.70.188 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely a double major. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When did the abbreviation "AOC" first appear?

When a person is referred to by initials, it is a sign of being widely known across society. For example, FDR, JFK, MLK are all standard ways to refer to well known people. The fact that she is now widely referred to as "AOC" indicates that she has become well known by many people, not just her fans. It would be interesting to know when she was first referred to by the media as "AOC", and see how fast it spread. Pete unseth (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible earliest mention here during the primary campaign.

"6/17: 1 Bronx Pride Parade with DSA + Ocasio 2018 Team!". Action New York. June 17, 2018. Retrieved February 26, 2019.

In some other places "AOC" appears even earlier referring to her Twitter handle, or as abbreviation in a transcript indicating that she and not the interviewer is being quoted. I will add that while I was curious enough about the question to attempt to answer it, I don't think the the "earliest mention" is particularly significant. patsw (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think the initials "AOC" are as notably recognized as "FDR", "JFK", "MLK", etc? I believe almost everyone is "also known by" their initials, and the citations given are (1) a link to a speculative statement by a third party, and (2) a twitter handle, by no means an authoritative source on what a person is typically called [does the page for Donald Trump state that he is also known as "realDonaldTrump"?]. This statement [the "also known by her initials AOC" clause] is jarring and may be alienating to readers, and I don't think it warrants inclusion on the page.73.154.104.67 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Primary election: Crowley not calling AOC

There is a sentence under the Primary election heading that reads, "In a sign of her outsider status, by 11 p.m. on election day Crowley had not phoned Ocasio-Cortez; she believed he did not have her phone number and stated that she did not have his." I recommend that the sentence be removed.

I cannot find a source that states "she believed he did not have her phone number and stated that she did not have his." Also the "In a sign of her outsider status" clause does not have a clear meaning and seems a little like editorializing. What's more, Crowley not calling AOC to concede seems to be part of bigger scenario than is reflected by this sentence. Put plainly, it seems to me the whole Crowly-not-calling thing is quite trivial and not really worthy of mention. See number 4 and WP:TOOMUCH.

That being said, I know this article has had an increase in problem edits, so I figured I would bring it up here before just removing the sentence.

My recommendation would be to remove the sentence and change the sentence that follows to read:

Crowley, an amateur guitarist, played a cover of Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" at his election night watch party by way of conceding defeat, having dedicated it to Ocasio-Cortez.

HoldingAces (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I regret that User talk:HoldingAces was unable to find a source indicating that the routine concession call by the loser, Joseph Crowley, did not happen as soon as the primary election results were conclusive. And it didn't happen between June 26, 2018 (primary day) and had not happened for 16 days when these articles began to appear. This mutual and incredible claim of being unable to find each others' phone number was widely covered at the time.

1. Gstalter, Morgan (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez accuses defeated Dem of mounting third-party challenge". The Hill. "[Crowley] stated on live TV that he would absolutely support my candidacy," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on Thursday. "Instead, he's stood me up for all 3 scheduled concession calls... Numerous phone calls have been set up but Ocasio-Cortez's aides have failed to follow through with providing a phone number, the aide [to Crowley] said.
2. Honan, Katie (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez Clashes With Congressman Over Concession Calls". Wall Street Journal.
3. Campanile, Carl (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez: Crowley refuses to take himself off ballot". New York Post. The two have not spoken since Election Night on June 26, even though it's customary for the losing candidate to make a concession call... But amid the chaos of Ocasio-Cortez's upset victory and phone tag between the two campaigns over the past two weeks, they have not connected. A Crowley campaign official said the rival campaign never provided her personal phone number ... Alexandria, the race is over and Democrats need to come together," he wrote. "I've made my support for you clear and the fact that I'm not running. We've scheduled phone calls and your team has not followed through." ...
4. Kreig, Gregory (July 12, 2018). "The primary is over, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Joe Crowley are still clashing". CNN. Asked then if they had spoken, Ocasio-Cortez laughed. "We're looking for [his phone number] and we've been reaching out," she said. "I greatly look forward to having that conversation."
5. Nahmias, Laura (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez vs. Crowley feud erupts on Twitter". Politico. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the winner of a Democratic Congressional primary in ... And Crowley's camp pushed back hard, accusing Ocasio-Cortez of ... Instead, he's stood me up for all 3 scheduled concession calls. ... asking for Ocasio Cortez's phone number, and that her team waited hours to respond.

That's five sources, and this was well-covered by dozens of news sources because it was a Twitter war between the two, with reporters following up with the candidates and staff. Ultimately, there was no report of actual completed phone call between the two in the weeks following. patsw (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks patsw for the response. I've been waiting for someone to take an interest in this section for a while. But I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I had no trouble finding a source that discussed Crowley's failure to call (hence, my NBC citation). I was trying to point out—as you expanded upon with your comment—that "Crowley not calling AOC to concede seems to be part of bigger scenario" that is not discussed in the WP article.

Of the five sources you cited, four of them do not contain a statement that AOC said "she believed he did not have her phone number." The WSJ article may contain that statement, but I cannot access it to tell.

Anyways, to reword the main point of my original comment: I think the whole Crowley not calling AOC is a little trivial and does not add much to the article. Also, what does "In a sign of her outsider status" mean? HoldingAces (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Now entirely moot, and not too interesting, but on July 12, 2018, when the Twitter war broke out, it wasn't merely about a failure to follow political etiquette, but the possibility that Crowley would actively run on the WFP ballot line. He didn't, and the tactical lie about phone numbers was a just a indication of the on-going friction between the two. Crowley is now a lobbyist at Squire Patton Boggs. patsw (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I see. Then do you agree with my suggested edit? (i.e., removing the Crowley not calling sentence and changing the next sentence to reflect the change.) HoldingAces (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC

I have edited out a lot of the superfluous stuff, and made it clear the dispute ran from primary night to (at least) July 11. I added a quote from The Hill which summarizes the position the two sides took, in case anyone gets curious. patsw (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the change. Nice job, patsw. Thanks. HoldingAces (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

FEC complaint

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).

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)

This absolutely has to wait to see what comes of it. While there is no doubt that a complaint has been filed, it will take awhile to see the coverage it gets and if it is found to have merit. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We rightly don't list in Donald Trump's biography every single lawsuit which might have been filed against him, because literally anyone can file a lawsuit saying anything; similarly, that an "official complaint" has been filed by a right-wing group is evidence of nothing. We aren't a newspaper, and can afford to wait and see what comes of it. If something comes of it, we can add it then. If nothing comes of it, then we'll have rightly omitted a partisan smear campaign. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. I am aware of no policy or guideline that says a well-covered allegation regarding a public figure should not be placed in her article. The "we aren’t a newspaper policy" does not apply here. This is not original reporting, this is not “routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities,” the edit did not “emphasize[] or otherwise treat[ the allegation] differently from other information” (the edit was buried at the bottom of a page and was two sentences long); this is not discussing individuals “beyond the context of a single event”; and surely an allegation that a freshman congressperson violated campaign-finance laws is not trivial, especially when that congressperson voices strong support of campaign-finance reform. For the same reasons, this cannot be said to be Fart (which is a hilarious quasi-policy/guideline title, btw).

Further, the "we aren’t a newspaper policy" specifically cross-references WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which provides a telling example:

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. (Emphasis in original.)

This FEC complaint has seen significant coverage by reliable sources (and by reliable, I mean reliable as the term is used in WP:RS, meaning sources that “directly support the information . . . presented in the Wikipedia article.” (Emphasis in original)) This includes both left leaning and right leaning sources (compare Newsweek, with FOX News). These articles are being cited for the facts (i.e., that a complaint was filed) and not the opinion of the author. There is no serious contention that the FEC complaint is not real. And The original edit made by Athaenara was clear that “the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation[‘s] . . . complaint [was] . . . alleging that Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign may have illegally paid $6,000 to her boyfriend . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the edit conformed to the we aren’t a newspaper, WP:RS, and facts policies. Further, this is not breaking news; the complaint was filed on Wednesday and, as demonstrated by the cites above, has been covered by a number of sources.

In sum, I believe the original edit complied with Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies, and—for the reasons I just discussed—I believe the revert of that edit did not comply with those policies.

Sources

HoldingAces (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

At-least see WP:DAILYMAIL. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that. I have removed the dailymail citation. HoldingAces (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof is correct that we cannot include unsubstantiated allegations especially those that appear to be a partisan smear campaign.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that is true. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. HoldingAces (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Leave it out. Anybody can file a complaint with the FEC; you or I could, if we wanted to. Such complaints are very often filed for purely partisan reasons - make an allegation, issue a press release, and hope it has some political effect. This is clearly such a complaint: filed by a conservative organization and reported only in conservative publications (with one exception, Newsweek). If the FEC comments on the issue, or if more mainstream publications talk about it, we could add it then. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• That's fine. But I wish someone would have addressed my argument or presented an argument for its exclusion that was based on the WP:PG and not on an ostensible association fallacy. HoldingAces (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  It's too soon to tell if this FEC filing is trivia (and thus our inclusion would violate WP:NOTTRIVIA) or if it's considered significant. To maintain WP:NPOV, we have to be mindful that a politician's political opponents will do things like file formal complaints for the purpose of generating publicity; we don't want WP to be part of that propaganda machine. This isn't a partisan issue; there were people filing complaints, lawsuits, etc., against both Obama and Trump during their presidencies; it would be WP:UNDUE for us to include each and every one. Right now, we've got one neutral source (Newsweek), which is basically one step up from a tabloid magazine, and two right-leaning sources (Fox and WashEx), reporting on a complaint filed by a Republican group against a Democratic politician. It's also too soon to know if this particular complaint will mean anything (the 10 year test), so we our including it at this point may violate WP:NOTNEWS. I would feel differently if the FEC made a finding against AOC or if many RSes were reporting on this. In the coming days and weeks, it's possible this will become a big enough deal that my NOTTRIVIA and NOTNEWS concerns would be allayed. Leviv ich 21:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If you read WP:NOTTRIVIA, it states, "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." I addressed those "content policies" above.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that "we don't want WP to be part of . . . [a] propaganda machine." But suggesting that the addition of Athaenara's original edit would make WP a part of a propaganda machine starts with the assumption, as MelanieN does, that the FEC complaint was in fact filed "for purely partisan reasons" and not, as some may believe, out of a concern for holding U.S. elected officials accountable. Speculations as to the motives for filing the FEC complaint should be left to the reader, not us. Allowing the reader to make that determination would ensure that "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" are presented. In recognition that the FEC complaint is merely an allegation, I believe Athaenara appropriately placed the fact near the bottom of the page, using only two sentences. This seems to comply with WP:UNDUE ("Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery."). And I feel my argument above adequately addresses the WP:NOTNEWS issue.

All that being said, I truly appreciate discussions like these. I think it helps other editors gain a better understanding of the policies and guidelines and how they apply in practice. HoldingAces (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

My actual comment was that such reports are often filed for purely partisan reasons. That is an undeniable fact of life. It's obvious that there is a partisan angle to this filing, because of who filed it and to some extent who is reporting on it. The partisan origin of the complaint does not mean it is without merit. Such complaints can blow up into full blown, highly notable scandals. But we're not there yet. That will happen when either a) the FEC comments or takes action or otherwise lends its own weight to the matter, or b) additional mainstream Reliable Sources report on it. So let's wait and see if this story turns out to have legs - or is just another 24-hour blip in the news cycle. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I did not mean to misquote you, and I apologize if I did. I was referring to this line in your first comment: "Such complaints are very often filed for purely partisan reasons - make an allegation, issue a press release, and hope it has some political effect. This is clearly such a complaint". (Emphasis added.)

And I agree that this is not a "highly notable scandal[]"; that's why I think the two sentences concerning the complaint were properly located at the bottom of the page. See WP:UNDUE. It's not a 24-hour blip; the complaint was filed Wednesday, and there has been a new news article concerning the complaint everyday since.

I hope you do not read my comments as a reflection of a belief that the complaint was not filed for partisan reasons; to me, that is the most probable conclusion. But like I said, I don't believe it is our job, as editors of this objective encyclopedia to make that conclusion for the readers. Based on this discussion, I think—if it were to be included—a good compromise would read: "On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation, a conservative-activist group, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that Ocasio-Cortez's campaign may have illegally paid $6,000 to her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, by funneling it through the Brand New Congress political action committee. The Congresswoman disputed the complaint on Twitter." (Bolded language is my suggested addition). I think this way the readers are presented with the facts that a complaint was filed by a conservative group and from those facts they can draw their own conclusions. I think excluding the fact based on our conclusions is a disservice. HoldingAces (talk) 23:15, 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:

• a Feb 28 report in Newsweek, a mainstream Reliable Source.
• a Feb. 27 report in Fox News, which leans right but is a Reliable Source.
• Blaze Media, avowedly conservative
• The Daily Wire, avowedly conservative
• The New York Post - “there is no consensus regarding the reliabilty of the New York Post and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available” (per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources)
• the New York Daily News - “there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Daily News, a tabloid newspaper that publishes tabloid journalism" (per the same page)
• the Daily Mail - considered “generally unreliable” (per the same page).

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)

@MelanieN:What is the requirement for number of independent reliable sources? 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?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the claim. WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims and ones that directly concern the reputation of a WP:BLP have a much higher standard than uncontroversial ones or ones with little risk of doing harm. In this case there are obvious WP:BLP concerns to focusing on something that has received little mainstream coverage, so we would need good sourcing both to include it and to illustrate WP:DUE - obviously, we don't put everything that partisan blogs complain about regarding politicians they dislike into WP:BLP articles. My feeling is that we should wait, per WP:RECENTISM, and see if it attracts more mainstream coverage going forwards. --Aquillion (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that I read a New York Post piece about it as well; the relative merit of the Fox News article was its inclusion of a copy of the actual FEC complaint, which helps prevent confusion about or misinterpretation of what's actually in it. – Athaenara ✉ 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• This should be included for the fact that it has been reported by multiple reliable sources and has been further verified by the existence of the actual FEC complaint. Could the complaint be wrong? Sure, it can. However, because the complaint has actually been filed, it goes beyond someone just making a claim and falls within the guidelines of WP:BLPPUBLIC--Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10 The requirement for including negative information in a BLP is found at WP:BLPPUBLIC: 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.

As for "the existence of an actual filed complaint," that means virtually nothing Such complaints get filed all the time, especially by partisan or watchdog groups. Until the FEC investigates the complaint and determines whether it has sufficient merit to warrant action, it has no more evidentiary value than a Wikipedia user's complaint against another user at ANI.

According to the FEC website: 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)

P.S. And to answer your rhetorical question 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)

MelanieN, although I still disagree with your ultimate conclusion—particularly as it regards the reliability of the sources (WP's want of the "reliable" sources is borne out of a desire to ensure the veracity of claims, meaning "[t]he appropriateness of any sources depends on the context" and not entirely on the the list)—you do have support for the idea that "multiple" means "more than two": "As a loose guideline, a minimum of 3 sources with comprehensive coverage should be provided." HoldingAces (talk) 22:59, 4 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)

User:Athaenara's latest edit concerned a different FEC complaint filed against AOC's chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti. Nevertheless, I think the whole of this discussion applies equally to this new complaint. My position remains the same. HoldingAces (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This one is clearly WP:UNDUE at the moment. The only sources seem to be Fox and the Washington Examiner; the Examiner is a "use with caution" source and therefore absolutely doesn't pass WP:RS for negative WP:BLP material - it cannot be used to cite negative material in this article under any circumstances. (Do not confuse it with the Washington Post.) While Fox does sometimes pass WP:RS for WP:BLPs, it's still a partisan source and therefore not useful for establishing WP:DUE weight for things like this, at least under the high standard WP:BLP requires. Given that the main complaint discussed in this section doesn't pass WP:DUE, it seems silly to try and argue that one with even skimpier sourcing could be included. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

At the time you wrote your comment, Aquillion, I would have agreed only with your conclusion. But now I disagree with your conclusion. I think it is time for the second FEC complaint (as was discussed in User:Athaenara's latest edit) to make into the article. I think we can all agree we have sufficient sourcing: See as well as a number of other sources. HoldingAces (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

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)

Sorry, I misread this new report to think it was the same as the old one, but I agree with Levivich: none of these FEC complaints are worth reporting on, unless they get significant mainstream news coverage, which rarely happens because FEC reports are a dime a dozen. This new one was just like the last one: filed by a right-leaning watchdog organization, and reported only in a couple of right-leaning sources. The left-leaning watchdog organizations file this kind of report all the time too, and we don't report them either. As I pointed out above, anybody can file an FEC complaint for any reason. They don't become worth reporting here unless and until the FEC issues a finding that there was a violation. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you see why I and others may feel that goal post keeps shifting? I began this discussion by arguing for inclusion of the FEC complaint, noting that "[i]f 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." The first argument against inclusion was that because (paraphrase) “we need to wait and see what comes of it,” citing WP:NOTNEWS. I then pointed out how not one of the four bulleted points in the WP:NOTNEWS policy did not apply here. I also emphasized that WP:NOTNEWS specifically cross references WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which provides an example of why and how an “allega[tion]” should be included in an article (the politician-having-an-affair example).

The argument then shifted to contentions that the complaint was part of a partisan-smear campaign and should therefore be excluded. I responded by noting that the contention was premised on an assumption that, because the complaint was filed by a conservative-activist group, it must have been an effort to smear AOC and not an effort to hold U.S. representatives accountable--an association fallacy that conflicted with WP’s desire to ensure that “all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic” are presented in an article. Although I conceded that the partisan-smear-campaign theory was probable, I contended that it is not our job, as editors, to speculate as to the motives of the FEC complaint; instead, I maintained that the job of drawing inferences from facts belongs to the readers, not us. Hence, “[the content of an article] is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.”.

The argument shifted again. This time editors maintained that inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. Accepting, for the sake of argument, that it is likely that the complaint was a smear, I maintained that Athaenara’s original edit nevertheless was properly placed near the bottom of page, taking up only two sentences and therefore complied with WP:UNDUE (“Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery”).

The argument against the complaint’s inclusion shifted again: Negative information about a living person must be supported by multiple, independent reliable sources, which some contended did not exist here. MelanieN created a non-exclusive list of sources reporting on the complaint. She pointed out that only two reliable sources were reporting on the topic. She rightly contended that “multiple” means more than two. See WP:V&N ("As a loose guideline, a minimum of 3 sources with comprehensive coverage should be provided.") I accepted that, by the popular opinion of the editors, the complaint was not going to make it into the article just yet but pointed out that “reliability” depends on the context and not entirely on the the list, which is a very well-established point. See WP:RSP (“Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation.”), WP:SOURCE (expressing desire for factual accuracy), WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (“The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighted to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article . . . .”) (emphasis added).

Then a more substantial FEC complaint was filed (as mentioned in Athaenara’s latest edit. Except this time, it was discussed by three well-established reliable sources, as I pointed out above.

The latest shift in the argument now maintains that inclusion would violate WP:RECENTISM. (Btw Levivch, I don’t think you need to apologize for bluelinking (if that was a reference to your links to WP policies). I think it is good you support your arguments with policy instead of predilections). I just re-read the entire WP:RECENTISM page and find its relevance minimal, at best. That policy is concerned with articles that have “inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events.” This is not one of those articles and the addition of this FEC complaint would not make it one of those articles. It is single, one sentence reference to an allegation that AOC’s campaign may have violated campaign finance laws. And this is surely relevant as, like I pointed out in a previous comment, this representative has repeatedly attacked corruption in campaign finance and so-called “dark money.” Further, WP:RECENTISM’s “What to do about it” section clarifies that when dealing recentism should focus on due and undue weight, which have addressed both in my previous comments and here. All this being said, unless something changes, I will not comment on this again. I just wanted to voice my concern over the fact that the goal post seems to keep shifting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldingAces (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking another look - this may be more than just an FEC complaint

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."[15] 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)

I agree with Melanie and Levivich. BTW, anyone remember when Colbert entered the race and his attorney set him up with a similar account? Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If we add something about this, where would we add it? "Campaign" section with a new subsection? Possibly a whole new section "investigations" parallel to similar sections at other pages? (The trouble with that is we don't know of any actual investigation, it's more like allegations.) Controversies? We are generally discouraged from "controversy" sections in BLPs, instead putting the controversial material into a section it relates to. Probably "campaign" with a new subsection. I am just thinking out loud here, what do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oops. This new subsection must have been created while I was editing my latest response above. IMO, I think Athaenara's latest edit placed the discussion properly at the bottom of the page in one sentence. While this complaint is getting more coverage, I think everyone had good points that this is simply an allegation (though I disagreed with the effect of the fact). As you point out, this is a transparency issue that may turn out to be something much more scandalous or it may just turn out to be an innocent mistake made by a rookie representative and/or her staff. Because we do not know what will come of it, I think creating a whole new section might be a little much at this stage.

Hey! Those were my sources, not Levivch's. Just kidding, I don't care, but I kinda do ;) HoldingAces (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts from most important to least important: 1. ABC News ran this story in the past hour. [16] Looks like the floodgates are open on this one. I think ABC, WaPo, Fox, and The Hill is enough to say the second complaint story has received significant treatment by the media and deserves to be included (in a due-weight, neutral, accurate way). I'm still on the fence about the first complaint, as not all the RSes mention it. That might change as new coverage comes; not sure if other media will link the two or just discuss the second. 2. I wouldn't call it "goalposts moving" so much as "layers upon layers"–recentism, not news, due weight, they're all connected and intertwined; they all apply at once, even if we only discuss one or two of them instead of all the policies that apply. 3. HoldingAces, I think you forgot to sign a post above my post above, which is why I'm getting "credit" for "your" sources :-) and I appreciate your offer above to step back but I don't think you need to step back in this conversation at all and welcome your continued input. By the way, I've found it helpful to skim the complaints when reading these news stories to keep straight what's what. 1st complaint, 2nd complaint. Leviv ich 20:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

1. I totally agree with respect to second complaint. 2. I think that is a fair assessment. 3. You're exactly right. I forgot to sign my comment for the hundredth time. I will remain in the fray! HoldingAces (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's completely inappropriate for all those subsections. The "Campaign" section refers to her campaign; this happened before it and is unrelated save that it involves someone who later worked for her. "Investigations" would imply that she is being investigated, which is untrue. But the fact that it wouldn't fit in any such subsection underlines the core point, which is that this is tangential to her and therefore isn't WP:DUE yet based on relatively brief coverage. Right now this might warrant mention on Saikat Chakrabarti's page, if he had one, but not here. (Obviously, if it has sustained coverage connecting it to her going forward, that could change. But "aid accused of unrelated campaign finance issues from before she hired him" is something that, to me, obviously has a very high bar to meet WP:DUE.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:29, 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)

To the four RSes above, we can now add NBC and CNN. Seattle Times and Politico have run the WaPo story. Leviv ich 23:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Still not seeing WP:DUE, though obviously those are better sources. The NPC source is flatly dismissive, and the others only tangentally connect it to her (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)

Aquillion, per sources, Chakrabarti started the Justice Democrats PAC (JD), the Brand New Congress PAC (BNC PAC), and BNC LLC. JD gets "credit" for electing AOC (per NBC, the Doubting Thomas source here). JD also paid a million dollars to BNC LLC in 2016 and 2017 (while working on behalf of the AOC campaign). The AOC campaign paid $18k directly to BNC LLC. All four entities–JD, BNC PAC, BNC LLC, and AOC campaign–are currently represented by the same attorney. Chakrabarti left BNC LLC to join the AOC campaign as volunteer campaign manager, and is now AOC's chief of staff. Another one of the three principals who worked at BNC LLC for the AOC campaign is now AOC's spokesperson. The fact that AOC and BNC LLC share an attorney, 2/3 principals, two PACs and a million dollars strikes me as more than a tangential connection. I think "Campaign" is the right section for this. With all of that said, if consensus is that it's too tangential to merit inclusion here at this point, I'll point out that while we don't have an article on Chakrabarti, we do have articles on Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, and this seems like an appropriate inclusion in BNC's article, as long as sufficient care is taken to differentiate between the PAC and the LLC. Leviv ich 01:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering that this is a BLP let's wait till we have something more substantial to report on. A few days will add to our ability to enter it into the article in a more professional manner, I think. Gandydancer (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate everybody's comments here. I am inclined to agree with Gandydancer about waiting a day or two. And I disagree with Volunteer Marek's contention that 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)

From the NBC source: "A conservative group alleges Ocasio-Cortez and her allies ran a PAC scam. But there's no evidence of wrongdoing. That's not "independently confirm(ing) the material". (Your link to WaPo doesn't work).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: I have fixed the WaPo link. But I did conveniently quote the first sentence of the WaPo article for you: "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)

One thing to add to Levivich's summary. The problem, according to the sources, is not so much that JD, BNC PAC, and the AOC campaign collectively paid BNC roughly a million dollars; it is that those payments are supposed to be accompanied by a description that explains "what the vendors are hired and paid for," which was not done. NBC. Here's the WaPo link again. HoldingAces (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too tenacious a connection to include on this page just based on that. Again, if it's actually a big deal like you say, there should be sustained coverage that ties it directly to her, not just one news cycle reporting on him. --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean "way too tenuous"? HoldingAces (talk) 22:17, 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)

So what? Still UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly how many sources do you need to see before a mention becomes DUE? ^Falling_Gravity 18:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it is now DUE. (the issue about the LLC, that is.) It’s hard to untangle all of these similar-sounding groups, but I agree with HoldingAces that the NBC article [17] is the most helpful. Basically here’s what happened: In 2016 some people including Chakrabarti formed two PACs (political fundraising organizations) and an LLC (a business). PACs have to report their income and expenditures, LLCs don’t. The idea was that the LLC would be paid by PACs and campaign organizations to do the actual work of campaigning such as fundraising and field work. That is a fairly common arrangement. Later (February 2018), AOC formed a campaign committee and ran for congress. Chakrabarti became her campaign co-chairman. During the 2018 campaign, her campaign paid a grand total of $18,880 to the LLC. The two PACs paid “nearly a million dollars”. So her campaign is only peripherally involved in this; if there are any shenanigans they are Chakrabarti’s. Her only legal problem is that AOC’s campaign did not detail what work the LLC was doing for them in their required FEC reports; they only listed “strategic consulting”. This may have been a reporting violation, punishable by at most a fine. I do think we should give this issue a sentence or two in the campaign section, since it is so widely reported, but it is nowhere near the big deal (“possible jail time!”) that the right-wing sources are claiming. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This reminds me of the pure hell we all went through (for years) at Elizabeth Warren's article with the Native American stuff. I learned that one must either stick to very brief, one or two sentences, as you say, or add an entire lengthy explanation. There's no in-between. And it's too early for anything lengthy. Can you suggest a good way to word a sentence or two? Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How about something like this: 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.

This is the best I could come up with. I tried a number of ways to break down the payments (i.e., indicating JD PAC's payments constituted the majority of that $800,000+ and that only $18,880 came from AOC's campaign), but the sentence would always become unwieldy and nearly incomprehensible. Also, I avoided giving the specific name of the LLC (Brand New Congress LLC) because, like MelanieN pointed out, all the player names gets out of hand real quick. I supposed you may be able to convey all this information in two sentences, but I feel that this sentence conveys the essential information in a compact form. Thoughts? HoldingAces (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Snopes has an interesting write-up, noting that the language used in the reports to the FEC is word-for-word "approved" language under the relevant FEC rules. Also, MarketWatch ("'weird' but probably not illegal") and BusinessInsider ("experts say the charges are overblown"). Leviv ich 23:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That the expert in the BusinessInsider article stated that "the allegations are 'speculative' and that there's no evidence that the PACs improperly subsidized work for the campaign" is not too surprising. The relatively lax nature of the FEC’s disclosure requirements means the complainant did not have much to work with except for what the expert in the MarketWatch article noted: "[T]aking political contributions into the PAC, and then reporting that you spent them by transferring them to your affiliated company, that is going to raise concerns every time." If the complaint is not dismissed outright, I assume discovery will reveal more specific information on how those funds were spent, which will either allow the complainant to re-tailor its original allegations to match the new information, or the info will reveal no wrongdoing and conclude the matter. Hence, the Snopes article appropriately concluded, “Whether the activities of the PACs or the company violated campaign finance law, or whether the complaint has any merit, will be matters for the FEC to decide.”

Nevertheless, that reputable news orgs are still talking about it, I think is a pretty strong sign that we should put something in the article. HoldingAces (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing wording, but still too much detail IMO. How about this: 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)

P.S. The Snopes article says that the campaign got guidance from the FEC saying that "strategy consulting" would be adequately detailed, so maybe "as required by FEC regulations" is a little more positive a statement than it should be. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Melanie and Holding Aces, thank you for proposing language. I'm not crazy about the idea of our article reporting on what the complaint alleged (which was a scheme of diverting funds in which AOC directly participated, i.e., an outlandish, unsourced allegation), as opposed to our article summarizing how reliable sources describe this event. The sources we've discussed vary widely in how they describe this event, from nothingburger to jail time. Maybe we should figure out what sources we are going to cite for this, and then essentially shop language that re-states what those sources agree upon. My vote would be WaPo, NBC, and, for balance, Fox. CNN and ABC don't seem to add much to those other three IMO. Snopes, MarketWatch, and BusinessInsider seem to me to be a touch below the "best available" sources and thus unnecessary. Thoughts? Leviv ich 19:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO one or two sources will suffice for a single-sentence report. More than two would be unnecessary overkill. I thought NBC was the clearest and easiest to follow, and maybe WaPo for backup; I would be OK with NBC alone. I agree with you that we do not quote the complaint, and I deliberately left out its implications that she had something to do with the overall operation or was responsible for what the PACs did. I pretty much based my proposed sentence on NBC and limited it to what her campaign did. We can't leave out the fact that a complaint was filed, because virtually all sources mention that - even though the reliable sources base their reporting on their own research (sourced to publicly available documents) rather than on what the complaint said. I don't think any neutral reliable source has said "jail time", in fact I think only one right-wing source suggested that. I don't think we should mention any potential offense or penalty at all, and no speculation or interpretation - just the facts ma'am. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I like Mel's proposal and I'd say maybe just two refs. Gandydancer (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Comparing NBC and WaPo

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)

I really like Melanie's proposed language. I think the sentence hits the essential elements in your list. The short sentence appropriately references the complaint (2), gets the exact dollar figure attributable to AOC (4), plainly states that the problem was not "clearly specifying what the payments were for as required by FE[C] regulations" (6), explains Chakrabarti's involvement (10ish?), and—on top of all that—avoids the inflammatory language (a "scheme of diverting funds") that you rightfully want excluded. Bravo, Melanie. HoldingAces (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're good with it, I'm good with using Melanie's proposal but would suggest the following changes (additions underlined, deletions struck through) per the above: In March 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by a conservative group saying alleging that two political action committees and Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign paid $18,880 made payments to a company owned by her campaign co-manager and later chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, without clearly specifying what describing the payments were for as with the specificity required by FEC regulations. Leviv ich 23:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not good with it. Why are you mentioning the PACs in AOC's biography? She had nothing to do with the payments made by the PACs. She is only responsible for what her own campaign did. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Because all sources treat the four entities as a group. One complaint was filed against everyone; all RSes discuss them at once (there aren't separate articles for AOC campaign payments vs. PAC payments); all four entities are represented by the same lawyer, who gave one denial statement on behalf of all four (NBC: "Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and the related organizations named in the FEC complaint"; WaPo: "all four entities"); nobody seems to be treating it as if the $18k from AOC's campaign was separate from the $1 million from the PACs. I think it's OR for us to cleave out one of the four, and not NPOV to focus just on the $18k and not even mention the $1 million. Due to the complexity of this, I think it's better to say "payments" rather than give a dollar figure, and the reader can read the details in the sources cited. I think the PACs should be mentioned so the reader understands it wasn't just AOC's campaign that was the subject of the complaint. Leviv ich 23:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

But if that's the sticking point I'm OK with striking "two political action committees and" from the above. Is it otherwise agreeable? Leviv ich 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be much more accurate and fairer for her biography. I think it was dishonest for the complaint to lump her in with the PACs. It would be like filing a complaint saying that Joe Blow and Paul Manafort cheated on their taxes - Blow in the amount of $10,000 and Manafort in the tens of millions - and adding them together so as to say tens of millions in Joe Blow's article. I would prefer to name Chakrabarti - both articles do - but I am OK with leaving out his name if we are leaving out the PACs. His main significance here that he is the link; he was involved in all of those organizations, while she was only involved with her own campaign. So yes, if we leave out the PACs and talk only about the complaint against her, I am good. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Before taking any action we should wait to see what HoldingAces has to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Chak's name, I only thought leave it out because we're not naming the PACs or the LLC, essentially as unnecessary detail, and also because it's an unproven allegation against a BLP (albeit a high profile one). I'm OK with putting it back in of others feel it should be in. Agree on waiting to hear from Aces and anyone else who might have input. Leviv ich 00:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

1. Agree about including Saikat Chakrabarti's name now that the article has been turned from a redirect into an article, and since he's named in the AOC article anyway. 2. Agree about 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)

You make a good point about the $1mil-$18k dilemma. I am swapping to your point of view and think it should be excluded. HoldingAces (talk) 01:23, 10 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)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think we should use NBC and WaPo, only, and the two superscripts will not be excessive. If others think we need more sources then combining them like this would be a good idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 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)

Yes, I am OK with this version, sourced to NBC and WaPo. I see we have one other person commenting in the section above this one; User:Gandydancer, are you OK with this version? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am OK except I'd add the full name Saikat Chakrabarti. I'd link it even though I'm aware that it's up for deletion. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Where should we put this sentence; in the campaign section? HoldingAces (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So, are we just ignoring the second half of that headline? Campaign finance experts found no evidence of wrongdoing. Bradv🍁 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Headlines are written by editors, not by journalists. You can't cite a headline for fact. Leviv ich 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It's also in the article: 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)

It's a clear BLP issue to use a source that says "experts found no evidence of wrongdoing" and selectively omit that part of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

NBC doesn't say "Campaign finance experts found no evidence of wrongdoing." (And yes I'm OK with what HoldingAces added, and I reverted NBSB.) Leviv ich 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, yeah, it does. [18] Bradv🍁 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: Please quote the portion where it says that experts (1) "found" (as opposed to hypothesized or speculated) (2) "no evidence of wrongdoing" (as opposed to "no evidence of some kind of million-dollar scam" or "no evidence of self-dealing or any kind of elaborate scam"). Nowhere in the article does it say "experts found no evidence of wrongdoing". Also, on a side note, I think it should be in the Congress section, not the Campaign section, because the story (the complaint being filed) occurred during her tenure, even though it relates back to the campaign. I also don't think it should have its own subheading, as it's only a sentence. Leviv ich 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, the headline is somewhat not supported by the article text. Of course, the source also does not use "hypothesized" or "speculated" so for you to insert those words into this discussion also isn't supported. The article also cites an expert as saying that if there was any violation, 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)

Including partisan claims without including the response to those claims from Cortez and independent experts is a clear BLP violation. You can't just uncritically repeat one-sided allegations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, which is exactly why we can't say, in WP's voice, that "experts found no evidence of wrongdoing", based on one article. Anyway, how in the flying fuck could experts find no wrongdoing on the day the complaint was filed? That's some amazingly fast work by those experts! What did they base their findings on? All NBC is saying is that they had their experts review it and they don't think there's evidence of a massive scam, but they also think she has some potential exposure (that's right there in the NBC article, at the bottom). It's horse-shit to say in WP's voice that AOC was exonerated of all wrongdoing by campaign finance experts. Just the height of POV. Also, where were you during this past week's very long conversation about this, above? Please, let's have this discussion on the talk page and not in edit summaries. Leviv ich 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Listen to yourself. You're arguing to include one-sided partisan allegations of wrongdoing by a right-wing interest group, but arguing to exclude sourced discussion and analysis of the issue by independent, non-partisan experts. That makes literally no sense. You literally cannot include accusations of wrongdoing against a person without including that person's response to those accusations — it's a flagrant violation of policy requiring fair treatment of biographical subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What he hell is one-sided partisan about WaPo and NBC? Did you read this discussion above? It's really long and involves a fucking table comparing the damn things to find out what they have in common so we can base the passage on neutral, widely-agreed..ugh I don't even want to type anymore. Do what you want with this article. Just try not to get the whitewash on yourself. Leviv ich 15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What is "one-sided partisan" is including allegations without including sourced responses to those allegations from the subject and independent experts. It would be like if we just said "The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the Family Research Council as a hate group" without including the Family Research Council's response to that allegation. Instead, in our article, we discuss the SPLC's designation, the FRC's response, and cite experts both agreeing and disagreeing with it. That's how to fairly discuss disputed claims of wrongdoing. Not "Hey, look, these people said AOC was bad," period, end of sentence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you didn't get involved in this discussion, NorthBySouthBaranof. This whole conversation, lest your forget, began after you reverted an edit by Athaenara. Now it looks like you just ducked the whole conversation so you could unilaterally interpret WP:PG and write what you think is best. The word "alleging" already insinuates doubt. MOS:ALLEGED. Further, including that it was "a conservative group" who filed the complaint implies (as was discussed above) ulterior motives. The merits or lack thereof of the FEC complaint is a determination left to the discretion and reasoned judgment of the FEC, not "experts" or WP editors. HoldingAces (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

If you thought that it was ever proper to include allegations of wrongdoing against a person without noting, at the very least, that person's sourced responses to those allegations, you need a refresher course on fundamental policy regarding living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 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)

Yes, and we should also include the sourced opinions of campaign finance experts, as the cited reliable source does. That you personally disagree(?) with their opinions is irrelevant. The cited reliable source is not an "opinion piece," it is a reported news article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What is an "opinion" piece is highly subjective. But that's not the point of my comment. Whether I, or you, agree with the experts is irrelevant. WP:RP (Articles do not reflect "the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."). I am aware of no policy that says if a source is cited, the entirety of the source's content must be reflected in the article. Whether to include something depends "always depends on context". We can only assume that these "experts" are drawing their opinions from the publicly available information, which consists of the complaint's substance and AOC's financial disclosures. The amount of discovery that takes place following an FEC complaint, or any legal complaint in the US for that matter, consists of a massive injection of material facts. Any expert's opinion on a matter with which they are unaware of the material facts is meaningless, if not unreliable. Such opinions act only to unduly prejudice objective onlookers. To suggest otherwise reflects either ignorance or an intentional effort to subvert the independent thought of others. HoldingAces (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Then we should wait until that discovery has occurred, and avoid adding this subject to the article until then. Coverage was brief and skeptical and clearly doesn't support WP:DUE at the moment; if and when that additional discovery occurs, we can come back to the subject, but it seems silly to insert it when it is, at the moment, just a mere accusation, with most sources treating it as dubious. But if we were going to add anything at all (and I think it's far too premature for that), we should primarily focus on what experts have said, not on unsubstantiated accusations; and as far as I'm aware, every expert that has weighed in has said they see no wrongdoing or words to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Some editors changing proposed language

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)

Never mind, I think Levivich handled it, for which I am grateful. HoldingAces (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I like this version, which probably explains it better than I did. It's certainly better than the version that reported the allegation without the expert analysis. Bradv🍁 15:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

You should talk about that here first instead of just making the edit. HoldingAces (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I followed BRD. You didn't. Bradv🍁 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't a BOLD edit by Aces. That was an edit with consensus. Leviv ich 15:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see any consensus anywhere for that edit. Try an RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

There clearly is no consensus anywhere. I am One of Many (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Any disagreement with the above language was added after those involved with the discussion asked for other editors to weigh-in on the nearly two-week long discussion. We waited a day. No one responded. There were no more objections. So I added the language. Editors then tried to change that language. I reverted them, I got reverted, then admin locked the page. After that, editors like NorthBySouthBaranof posted their disagreement here. To claim that editor's post-discussion disagreement with the talk page is proof that there is no consensus is dishonest at best. WP:CONACHIEVE (The ideal consensus "arrives with the absence of objections"); WP:RFC("Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoldingAces (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. There is a clear and unequivocal lack of consensus to include, and your refusal to recognize that borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Numerous people have told you they don't think that this material should yet be included in any form, and you ignored this. Seek an WP:RFC if you disagree and think you can establish consensus, but you have completely failed to do so so far. You don't get to make minor wording tweaks to material that multiple editors have said is WP:UNDUE in any form, then insert it (knowing it is disputed) simply because none of them have yet objected to your rewording. The fact that you would then edit-war to try and push through your WP:BOLD addition is particularly shocking, since after an established editor reverted you you should have realized your additions did not enjoy consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, in no way did HoldingAces make an edit "knowing it is disputed". Read the thread above. Nobody objected until after the edit was made. Nor did he edit war or try to re-insert any addition after it was reverted. Your post here is an overreaction and does not accurately summarize the events. I think you should check the article history and this talk page and reconsider what you've written. Leviv ich 02:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my position. It is unambiguous from the talk page history that there is a substantial opinion that the topic is WP:UNDUE, and nothing in the discussion suggests that that dispute was resolved. One WP:BOLD edit to insert it might have been defensible, but it was still clear from the discussions that there were numerous objections that had not been answered or withdrawn; and edit-warring to keep it in after it that absolutely was not. Workshopping a proposal to try and convince people or for an eventual WP:RFC is a good way to approach a dispute like this; inserting it into the article after a single day, when most of the people who initially objected had not yet weighed in, was clearly a mistake, and edit-warring to keep it in after that was a serious error. I accept that it was an innocent mistake on HoldingAces' part, but it was still a clear mistake, and they need to be more cautious in the future - throwing together a rewording and waiting one day is not the way to resolve a dispute like this and does not represent any sort of consensus, let alone the sort of consensus that justifies repeatedly reverting to insert plainly-disputed text into the article. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, maybe look at the history closer. It was only one edit. This one. He didn't get reverted. It's still in the article! He did not edit war this language at all. Leviv ich 02:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

He immediately reverted a change to it, which clearly shows that the language didn't enjoy any sort of stable consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, that's not correct. He removed a BOLD addition. That's how BRD works. Also, he was under the impression that the language had consensus (I thought so, too), and this bold addition was an end-run around it. Another editor edit-warred that BOLD addition back into the article, but you've said nothing about that, I noticed. Leviv ich 02:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the length of this discussion and the extremely brief window he waited before adding his preferred version, I stand by my opinion that it was a WP:BOLD edit. There's nothing wrong with that! That's how disputes get resolved. But now that it's clear that it does not enjoy a stable consensus, it needs to be removed so we can work out how to proceed. And, yes, the other editor was wrong to edit-war a WP:BOLD addition - they ought to have removed the section entirely, reverting to the last stable version until a more clear consensus emerges. --Aquillion (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion, it wasn't "his" preferred version. I agreed to it. Mel agreed to it. Gandy agreed to it. 24 hours passed and nobody objected. Sorry, but I am honestly questioning whether you read the discussion before wagging your finger here. Leviv ich 03:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a list of, essentially, the editors who mostly didn't object to inclusion in the first place (or were quickly convinced to support inclusion.) Obviously, in an extended dispute, you should make at least some effort to get the opinions of the people you're actually in dispute with, rather than rushing to add something after 24 hours when you know that many people who have strenuously objected to including it at all have not yet had a chance to indicate whether it addresses their concerns. --Aquillion (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

HoldingAces has gone to painstaking lengths to work within the bounds of consensus in my opinion. Sorry, but I think comments accusing him of IDHT and edit warring and such are very unfounded. Leviv ich 02:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree. He made an extremely WP:BOLD edit after a comparatively brief discussion - one any reasonable editor would have known was controversial given the extensive discussions here and the wide range of opinions. Then, when someone objected to the precise wording, he edit-warred towards his preferred version. I accept that he believed he had consensus initially, but given the intensity of the dispute over the topic, the right thing to do when someone edited it would have been to go back to talk and workshop further, not to insist that waiting one day was sufficient to establish consensus when so many of the people on the other side of the dispute had yet to weigh in. In any case, his edits aren't really the issue (I agree he worked in good faith); the important thing is that the addition clearly does not enjoy consensus right now, as can be seen from the rapidity with which the page collapsed into instability when it was added. --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A 12-day discussion is not "comparatively brief" in my book. Leviv ich 03:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Over the course of that 12-day discussion, many people objected to including it at all; many others emphasized the fact that no wrongdoing had been found. None of those people ever indicated that their objections had been answered, so it seems silly to say that there was a consensus. Now, I can understand sometimes being WP:BOLD sometimes if you think the people you're in a dispute with have walked off (it happens, and is a valid way for disputes to end), but obviously, if we consider the entire discussion, there was no consensus to include; one version was workshopped briefly, and a few people involved in the dispute were favorable about it (though they were mostly people who supported inclusion in some form already) but as soon as disputes were raised over it it needed to go back to talk. I totally understand making that mistake, especially when someone is eager to resolve something and move on; but it was a pretty clear mistake. It would have taken just a moment to ping other users involved in the dispute to see what they said and to try to establish an actual consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A good-faith mistake a long way away from IDHT, is my point. Yes, I also would have waited longer than 24 hours before making an edit, but that's just an eager newbie mistake, hardly something that is a violation of any policy. I disagree that "one version was workshopped briefly" or that me and the others were fence-sitters. It was like four or five versions at least. There was the original that was reverted prompting the discussion on March 1. Six days later on March 6, Mel started a whole new subsection called "Taking another look - this may be more than just an FEC complaint". Two days after that (and already several version had been put forward at this point), I posted the subsection "Comparing NBC and WaPo". The language was workshopped again for another three days, during which nobody made any objections. Mel and Gandy explicitly agreed and Aces waited 24 hours without objection... it's perfectly reasonable to interpret that as consensus having been reached. Frankly, other than waiting 48 hours instead of 24, I would have done the same exact thing. There is just no violation of any policy here by Aces. Leviv ich 03:33, 13 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)

It is possible, but my feeling is that the underlying dispute of whether or not to include it has reached an impasse - it feels like the people who want to include it have started talking past and ignoring the people arguing it's WP:UNDUE (hence HoldingAces' clear error in thinking that the version you were workshopping enjoyed consensus simply because nobody had objected to it specifically.) Nobody seems to be presenting any further arguments for why this topic is WP:DUE, and further coverage seems to have dried up - if anything, I feel more secure in my position that this subject is WP:UNDUE than I was when discussions began. Now that the people who think it's worth covering have workshopped their preferred version, I think it's an excellent time to go for an WP:RFC over whether it should be included at all. EDIT: Also, I want your opinion on whether this edit currently enjoys consensus (or whether it should be removed immediately.) I'm not seeing it, and since it's a WP:BLP issue, trying to assert that that edit currently enjoys consensus would call for an immediate WP:RFC simply because it has to be resolved immediately to ensure article stability. We can workshop possible solutions, but we can't move forward until that basic question is resolved (especially given that edit-warring based on that confusion seems to have gotten the page locked.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from campaign finance experts via RSes

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. Here are the facts behind the complaint — and the one thing experts say might merit a real investigation. * * * There's no evidence of self-dealing or any kind of elaborate scam, two experts told NBC News, which is often the major concern with LLCs and PACs run by the same people. 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. According to Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance expert who works at the nonprofit government watchdog Common Cause, FEC laws don't require transparency from vendors and sub-vendors hired by campaigns or PACs. But the PACs and campaigns are supposed to note what the vendors are hired and paid for, and that's where Ocasio-Cortez and her allies may have run afoul of the law. The FEC complaint highlighted the large payments made from Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and the PACs to the LLC for "strategic consulting," and questioned whether all that work was actually strategic consulting or if other types of campaign activities were involved and should have been specified. "In fact, Saikat Chakrabarti stated on national television on May 19th 2016 that Brand New Congress LLLC created the campaign infrastructure and ran all of the fundraising and volunteering operations for the campaigns," the complaint reads. Ryan said that particular issue could merit an FEC investigation. "Describing a disbursement for strategy consulting is permissible, but only if that's what the disbursement was actually for. There may be a violation here," Ryan said. "However, the FEC would likely treat this violation as very minor, particularly if the rest of the information provided for that transaction was accurate." Ryan said a small fine could result from such a violation, not jail time. — NBC News Campaign finance experts said the relationship between Chakrabarti’s PACs and the limited-liability corporation obfuscated who received the payments – and raised questions about who benefited. "In a normal situation, if all you saw was a PAC that disbursed hundreds of thousands of dollars to an affiliated entity to pay the salaries of people who were really working for the PAC, that looks like . . . a PAC that takes in money to engage in political activity but is actually enriching its owners," said Adav Noti, former Federal Election Commission lawyer who is now chief of staff of the Campaign Legal Center, a group that advocates for greater transparency in campaign finance. — Washington Post available without paywall via Seattle Times Former Federal Election Commission lawyer Adav Noti said such an arrangement does mirror a practice used by "scam PACs" and raises a "warning flag," but he said there’s no evidence to support a kickback allegation in this case. "When they disclosed a large chunk of the PACs spending through one LLC just as strategic consulting, that is a legitimate warning flag," said Noti, who is now with the Washington-based nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. "It’s uncommon, but so far there’s nothing necessarily unlawful. This is a completely overheated speculation." — ABC News Other legal experts also sounded the alarm on Monday, saying Chakrabarti's unusual arrangement raised serious unanswered questions. Former FEC Associate General Counsel for Policy Adav Noti, who currently directs the Campaign Legal Center, told Fox News that it was a "total mystery" to him why Chakrabarti had established an LLC seemingly to take money from the PAC, rather than simply create a "normal venture," like a consulting business, to provide services for candidates on the books. "Certainly, it's not permissible to use an LLC or any other kind of intermediary to conceal the recipient or purpose of a PAC's spending," Noti said. "The law requires the PAC to report who it disburses money to. You can't try to evade that by routing it through an LLC or corporation or anyone else." Noti added: "What's so weird about this situation is that the PAC that disbursed so much of its money to one entity that was so clearly affiliated with the PAC. Usually, that's a sign that it's what's come to be known as a 'scam PAC' -- one that's operated for the financial benefit of its operators, rather than one designed to engage in political activity." At the same time, Noti said, Chakrabarti had provided "long descriptions of why they structured it the way they did -- which is not something a scam PAC would do," because it only draws attention to the unusual set-up. And Noti cautioned that there is a tendency for some groups to try to gain attention by invoking Ocasio-Cortez. "But on the other hand," Noti added, Brand New Congress' "explanations don't make a lot of sense on their face. I read their explanation multiple times, and I still don't understand. If you want to start a business to provide services to campaigns -- many of those are organized as LLC's, and you sell your services." — Fox News Paul Ryan, a top lawyer for Common Cause and an advocate for greater transparency in politics, said the dispute over whether the committees needed to disclose information about who ultimately received payments from Chakrabarti's company "is rooted in weak disclosure requirements" at the FEC. Under the agency's rules, for instance, a political committee must provide memos listing all the vendors paid through a campaign credit card, but the agency has not required campaign vendors to detail their payments to other vendors in a similar fashion, he said. However, Ryan said the Federal Election Commission could balk at another aspect of the committees' reports: the broad category of "strategic consulting" that committees used to describe Brand New Congress LLC's work on their behalf. If the corporation undertook polling, fundraising and other campaign activities on behalf of candidates and committees, commissioners could conclude that they did not accurately describe those activities in their filings, he said. * * * Even so, Adav Noti, senior director of trial litigation at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said the committees could be exposed to potential violations over how they reported the spending to the Federal Election Commission. "They took in a pretty serious amount of money, and on their FEC reports, all they disclosed in terms of how they spent it was that they made a bunch of big payments to an affiliated LLC," said Noti, a former lawyer with the Federal Election Commission. — CNN

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)

Although I reject the contention that the original-agreed-upon sentence disproportionally represents one view over the other, I do believe something to the effect of the following should be added: Ocasio-Cortez denies any wrongdoing. That should be the only addition.

The “experts’” opinions—represented as either no evidence of wrongdoing or 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.

The reason why news agencies, academics, litigants, and WP editors like to throw around the word "experts" is because the word carries an undue assumption of credibility. Most people who hear that an opinion belongs to "expert" presuppose the opinion’s veracity. This is not because of the analysis, research, or logic underlying that opinion, but simply because it belongs to an "expert." See Argument from authority. To be sure, there are plenty of expert opinions that are backed by well-researched and well-thought-out analysis. Nevertheless, it is the underpinnings of any expert’s opinion that must be analyzed to test its relevance, truth, or verifiability.

Looking at these experts, the only thing supporting their opinions is their superimposed title of "expert." This is evidenced by the fact that the experts do not disclose what they are basing their opinion on; they simply announce their opinion. Accordingly, we can assume only that their opinions are based on publicly available information, which includes the FEC complaint and the basis for that complaint—AOC’s public disclosures. As I pointed out in a comment above, the amount of discovery that takes place following an FEC complaint, or any legal complaint in the US for that matter, consists of a massive injection of material facts. And, according to FEC regulations, those facts are confidential only to be released later if certain conditions are met. Any expert's opinion on a matter with which they are unaware of the material facts is meaningless, if not unreliable. Thus, by inserting the expert’s opinion that is based on something other than a familiarity with the substance of the subject is simply an attempt to make readers believe that the complaint is a sham because an "expert" said it was and not because the evidence underlying the allegation is lacking. Such opinions act only to unduly prejudice objective onlookers. To suggest otherwise reflects either ignorance or an intentional effort to subvert the independent thought of others: It is dishonest and the very definition of propaganda.

Further, in the above discussion, Levivch rightfully pointed out that including language from the complaint, which stated that payments represented a “scheme of diverging funds in which AOC directly participated,” would be UNDUE. Accordingly, we developed language that was neutral, yet still reflected that these were only claimed violations by inserting the word "alleged" (which inherently encourages skepticism, see WP:NPOV – Words to watch and MOS:ALLEGED) and the fact that a “conservative group” filed the complaint (which suggests the reasonable possibility that the complaint is political attack). With the latest edition, the kind of language that Levivich pointed out as UNDUE is indirectly conveyed to the reader through expert’s opinion: "no evidence of any scam." (Emphasis added.)

What’s more, the "experts'" opinion concerns both AOC’s campaign contribution and the contributions by BNC PAC and JD PAC, two entities we collectively decided should not be referred to in the WP article. But now, some want to use the expert’s blanket claim regarding AOC, BNC PAC, and JD PAC to rebut only AOC’s alleged wrongdoing without mentioning the other principals.

Last, pretending or representing that the opinion of these expert are the only ones that matter is disingenuous. There is a reason news agencies select which expert opinion’s or which portions of "expert" opinions they will voice. Just as FOX News’ "experts" will draw conclusions that align with FOX’s narrative, so too will NBC’s, The Daily Caller’s, CNN’s, The Washington Examiner’s, etc. Aside from the addition of AOC denying the allegations, we should stick to what we agreed upon earlier: sticking to the known facts and leaving out baseless conjecture meant only to prejudice or inflame the independent thoughts of objective onlookers. HoldingAces (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

By your reasoning, we should omit any mention of this topic at all, because the FEC complaint is, at this point, nothing more than an opinion expressed by the partisan advocacy group which has filed it. It is entirely possible that the complaint is nothing more than "baseless conjecture" - no adjudicating authority has ruled on any of it. If, as you argue, it is WP:DUE to include the uncorroborated derogatory opinion of a right-wing interest group, you cannot possibly argue that it is not also WP:DUE to include other opinions which conflict, in varying degrees, with the complaint. Once again, we are obligated by policy to include all significant points of view expressed in reliable sources, and as the point of view that this, at worst, represents a minor technical violation is commonly expressed in reliable sources, it also must be represented here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I expected someone would make this argument. Let's assume, as you posit that the FEC complaint is "an opinion." The key difference between the expert opinion and the FEC-complaint opinion is that the FEC complaint has independent significance unrelated to its opinion. Namely, the FEC complaint initiates a legal process and compels a governmental agency to act. The expert's opinion, on the other hand, has no value outside of its contents (aside from prejudicing thought). If either expert mentioned in the NBC article were involved with AOC's campaign or one of the PACs, the analysis would change: their statements would be those of principals directly involved, which would have independent significance (another reason why AOC's statement should be included). But those experts are not principals in the campaign or the PACS. They are simply two individuals who gave opinions that NBC liked (in part, BTW, because as Levivich pointed out, these "experts" said much more than just "no evidence of any scam"). HoldingAces (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

An FEC complaint doesn't really mean anything on its own, though; anyone can make one, and the reporting on this one is fairly spotty and doesn't really support the idea that it's worth including. I stand by my position, above, that this entire topic is still clearly WP:UNDUE for inclusion, at least right now. Since you have claimed (falsely) that your inclusions have consensus, I'd like an unambiguous acknowledgement that they do not and did not and that the subject needs to stay out of the article per WP:BLP until an actual consensus can be demonstrated. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear you say the reporting is spotty. WaPo, NBC, ABC, CNN, The Hill, Politico, Newsweek, Snopes, Knoxville News, MarketWatch, BusinessInsider... how many reliable sources need to report/investigate this before you would feel it's DUE? (And that's not to mention Fox, National Review, TPM, IBT, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, and all those other guys...) Leviv ich 02:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Like I said above, I don't feel that everything that crops up for one news cycle deserves a section to itself in a politican's biography. Most of those sources cover it in a 'dubious' manner - treating it as something silly or insignificant. That, to me, is spotty coverage; we can wait to see if it gets better or more sustained coverage going forwards, but something like A conservative group alleges Ocasio-Cortez and her allies ran a PAC scam. But there's no evidence of wrongdoing is 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)

As I explained, an FEC complaint does have meaning on its own: "[a] complaint initiates a legal process and compels a governmental agency to act." Although you are right to say that anyone can file a complaint with the FEC, one of WP's criteria for insertion is WP:N, and not every complaint will satisfy that policy. This complaint—as pointed out by Levivich—has seen a lot of coverage. It has clearly met the general notability guidelines. If you or I filed a complaint with the FEC, that fact alone would not make it worthy of mention in this article; I have never argued that. If, however, the complaint you are I filed was picked up by multiple RS sources and written about for over a week—like this FEC complaint has had done to it—then it is likely worth a mention. I have addressed your contention that I falsely claimed consensus below. HoldingAces (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus

Is there or is there not consensus? It depends on what you are talking about. Here’s how it went.

• Discussion regarding the first complaint (about her boyfriend). Include: HoldingAces, Athaenara, and Rusf10. Don’t include: NorthBySouthBaranof, I am One of Many, MelanieN, Levivich, Aquillion. Consensus not to include, and we didn’t.

• Discussion regarding the second complaint (about the PACs and Chakrabarti): Include: Athaenara, HoldingAces, MelanieN, Levivich, Gandydancer. Don’t include: Aquillion, Volunteer Marek. Consensus to include in my opinion; Aquillion disagrees.

• Discussed wording to use (the discussion lasted four days, from 7 March to 11 March): HoldingAces, MelanieN, Levivich, Gandydancer. On March 12 the agreed-upon version was added to the article.

• Whether to add a sentence about no evidence of wrongdoing: Bradv added it, HoldingAces removed it, NorthBySouthBaranof readded, Levivich removed, NorthBySouthBaranof added the revised sentence about campaign expert opinions. MyVeryBestWishes then removed the whole paragraph saying they don’t think there is consensus on the talk page for including it. (However they never participated in the discussion and there is no evidence they even looked at the page.) Right now nothing is in the article about the complaint. Since there were objections that it violated BLP not to include a denial, I think we should resolve that issue before readding.

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.

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.

• MyVeryBestWishes
• Aquillion
• Volunteer Marek

OPTION B: Include a single sentence about the allegation, without the “campaign finance experts” sentence.

• HoldingAces
• Levivich

OPTION C: Include two sentences, one about the allegation, one with the “campaign finance experts” sentence.

• NorthBySouthBaranof
• MelanieN
• GrammarDamner

• A or C. I'm not sure this has any long-term significance, but if we do include it we need to include the analysis. Bradv🍁 18:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to mess up the list, but just to clarify, I stand for excluding the expert's opinion but including the single sentence about the allegation and a sentence that explains that AOC denied any wrongdoing when asked about the complaint.

This is not a final vote, is it? HoldingAces (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should make that Option D. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I would be open to switching to C (not because I think there is strong basis for inserting the expert's opinion but because of a pragmatic realization). Would people be open to rewording the expert sentence to better match what the expert's said? For example, in the NBC article, "[The expert] said he hasn't seen evidence of wrongdoing," which is different from a claim that "there is no evidence of a scam or serious violation." The former acknowledgement from the the expert that he is not aware of any evidence, the latter is conclusion that no evidence exists. Also, the NBC article summarized the experts statement describing "the structure [of AOC's campaign as] confusing," not "unusual." Further, that statement has always seemed a little weird to me. Why is the expert talking about the "structure" of her campaign in the first place? The FEC complaint concerns payments her campaign made, not the structure of her campaign. HoldingAces (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• A or C - Since this accusation happened quite recently and we don't see much follow-ups or sustaining coverage other than the circlejerking among conservative sources, A would be the standard response. If we see any development or FEC statements, etc. C would be the approach to go to. (D?) Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Opps...

I just added a paragraph to her committee assignment section and now reading through the entire article I see similar info in the preceding section. I'll try to fix it as best I can or perhaps others have ideas on what to do?... Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave my new section up for awhile and others may do what they want with it for now. The important thing for me is that it is noted that she did stand out for her ability to get things done because to now it has been suggested that she lacks competence. That David Brooks, a Conservative, would single her out and applaud her is quite remarkable. Perhaps his comments should be moved into the previously written section, delete the rest of what I wrote, and leave it at that? Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think I did a good fix. I deleted the block quote by a lesser known personality and added the ones I had used in my version of the events... Hopefully all's well that ends well? Gandydancer (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted photo and info re Cohen hearing

I have returned the sticky note photo. I believe that it is significant in that it shows a comparison between AOC and many of the other congressmen/women. I also returned the info re the Cohen hearing. It was deleted saying it was primary sourced. The source and the way the information is being used is perfectly OK and similar to info in many other BIO articles. Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A photo of her office with notes of encouragement may be nice, but it's not significant or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the subject. And the material on the Cohen hearing is all based on primary sources, which is generally not appropriate for BLPs per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Opinion pieces criticizing her should be avoided, as should opinion pieces with praise. Opinion pieces and interviews are both primary sources. And if we're going to include material from a primary source, it has to also have been covered by a written WP:SECONDARY source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the sticky-note photo; let's discuss. IMO this adds nothing to her biography or our understanding of her, except that she apparently has supporters. (We AGF that she did not tell her staff to create all these stickies and take the picture.) This does not "show a comparison" with other congressmembers because we have no basis for comparison; for all we know they might have all gotten support stickers too, it may even be a common practice or tradition in congress. IMO this is puffery, not biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I support keeping the Cohen hearing material, which is cited to secondary sources (the "primary source" rule does not prevent us from quoting comments by others about her; a primary source would be her own words). However, I trimmed the material by about a third because of opinion and excess quoting of reactions. We need to be careful not to use her biography as a way promote her - or to sneak in implications of wrongdoing by Trump or others. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am very dissatisfied but it appears that my position has no support and I will not further discuss. IMO the article should have reflected the fact that her line of questioning Cohen was very widely seen as heads and shoulders above the rest, especially notable because she's been called a dope so often. All the networks and many individuals remarked on it. As for the post-notes, when I first saw that info added I wanted to remove it and it was only when the photo was added that I felt it to be improved. You believe it added nothing, I felt that it added a visual picture of one of the many ways that she is a departure of what we've come to think of as our congressional reps. Now my grandchildren finally have their own representative - she has the beauty of youth, she dances, and... she gets post-a-notes. IMO now that the photo is gone it is silly to have the mention of the notes remaining. You say, "for all we know they might have all gotten support stickers too, it may even be a common practice or tradition in congress." Coming from you, that really surprised me. Gandydancer (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but this is the kind of reasoning that should be avoided. We have to treat all subjects fairly and according to WP:NPOV. Not every factoid needs to be illustrated with a photo. And the fact that some commentators described her performance in glowing terms does not mean that WP editors should also do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I originally added it because it seemed extraordinary for Post-It Notes to be left on a Congressperson's door and I hadn't heard of such a phenomenon happening before. It seemed to be an incredible gesture by her supporters.The lorax (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN on keeping in the Cohen hearing material, and I agree with Wikieditor19920 about aligning the rationale for an article's content with WP:NPOV. I support inclusion of the Cohen hearing material on a WP:RS, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:UNDUE basis. As for WP:RS, her questioning at the Cohen hearing has received a ton of traction in the news (both left and right); as for WP:PUBLICFIGURE, depending on the outcome of the congressional probes into Trump's affairs, AOC's questioning will likely be cited as the genesis of its findings and is therefore relevant; and as for WP:UNDUE—in the article's current form—her questioning is not overly emphasized by any means and MelanieN did a good job at trimming the puffery. HoldingAces (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of putting the post-it notes back in. Granted it doesn't have the best RS coverage. What I can find is that The Hill ran two pieces on it (one on the notes being put up, one on AOC being told to take them down) [19] [20], Roll Call ran one [21], and Mashable surprised me with these two pieces [22] [23]. Journalist Matt Laslo said it's the first time he's seen it in 12 hears [24] but that's hardly authoritative. Still, a biography is supposed to be about a person, and I think this picture (and accompanying explanatory text) gives the reader an understand of "who this person is". (She's the Congressperson with post-its on her door.) As for Cohen, I'm definitely in favor of it being included, but that can be done in a number of ways. Leviv ich 22:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I lean towards excluding the post-it picture, though my concern over this issue is minimal. I think to some extent, Wikieditor19920 may be on to something with WP:SOAPBOX. To a larger extent, however, WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE seems to support excluding it, its status as a quasi policy/guideline notwithstanding.

I am not so sure I follow your "She's the Congressperson with post-its on her door" rationale. If anything, it would seem best if the reader left with an understanding of AOC's early life and political activities; something encouraging something less than that understanding, IMO, should be excluded. That being said, I would be interested in hearing a fuller explanation of what you meant in case your point just went over my head. HoldingAces (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bill Clinton is known for playing saxophone and our article includes a photo of him playing saxophone. Barack Obama is known for playing basketball, and our article includes a picture of him playing basketball. I put AOC's post-it notes, dancing, and social media in the same category–they're the well-known aspects of or reflections of her personality. The picture of the post-it notes, like a picture of Clinton playing the sax or Obama shooting hoops, gives the reader an instant snapshot into who they are as a person and how they're viewed as a politician (young, informal, with a very direct connection to her supporters). Leviv ich 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are featured articles of substantial length and editors have a bit more leeway to choose which photos make it in. And secondly, those photos are of the subject. No one looking at that photo would even know what it is without reading a caption or finding the reference to it in the article. That's not an illustrative aid as defined by MOS:IMAGES. Stop this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, photos of the subject, like photos of Bill Clinton's family coat of arms or childhood home, Jimmy Carter's family store or Jimmy Carter's family, Queen Elizabeth's palace private residence, or George W. Bush's protestors? As for your concern that "No one looking at that photo would even know what it is without reading a caption", I would suggest maybe we could put words like in a smaller font below the picture to explain what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And now, here comes OSE... Leviv ich 04:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I initiated this subject. I think several key points have been deleted inappropriately from the whitewashed version that appears currently. 1) Almost all of the committee had already taken their turns at Cohen, almost all had wasted time bloviating, which I included in a source. 2) Unlike her predecessors, Ocasio-Cortez's line of questioning was efficient and direct to the necessary points. I sourced that too. 3) Had she not done this, the necessary precursor needed for the committee to ask for Trump's tax returns and financial records had not yet been achieved. There was no prior accusation of Trump's financial wrongdoing established by all the previous representatives, so there would be no cause. Only Ocasio-Cortez got the accusation on record.

It is an often repeated series of accusations against Ocasio-Cortez of her being too young, too inexperienced, not knowing "how things work" in Washington. Numerous press accounts singled out her performance in this hearing in the opposite direction. She alone did what the others had failed to do. To remove this sourced reporting from her article is in effect allowing wikipedia to omit information to the contrary of the talking points, turning wikipedia into a vehicle of mis-reporting or in the least, omitting countering information. And this is not in an external comment like Twitter, this is from her actual work in a live committee hearing. By the way, Wikieditor19920, this is not the first time you have made an improper accusation of WP:PRIMARY. The sources I added and many I didn't add because I didn't want to pile on, are secondary sources. Unless you want to prove that Ocasio-Cortez has ownership or editorial control of The New York Times, The Boston Globe and CBS News, your actions to remove content on that basis are disingenuous. Trackinfo (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, I found the suggestion that we need to be careful about promoting her so as to not "sneak in implications of wrongdoing by Trump or others" to be troubling. Putting anyone, including Trump, down was not my intention in the least and I fail to get the connection. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Trackinfo, if you can drop the links to the NYT, Globe and CBS praising her Cohen questioning, I think that would help editors understand the merit of the removed passage. Leviv ich 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

[25] [26] [27] [28] More for your reading enjoyment [29] [30] [31] "It's very rare in a House committee hearing for people to pay much attention to the least senior members on the panel. Usually, all the questions have already been asked and all the revelations have already been made by the time it gets to the 20th Democrat (or Republican) to ask questions.

But because AOC is, well, AOC, everyone was waiting to see how she handled her first major moment as a member of Congress. And man, did she nail it."--Chris Cillizza, CNN [32] [33] Shall I go on? Trackinfo (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The article currently reads: When President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen appeared before the Oversight Committee, Ocasio-Cortez asked him whether Trump had ever inflated property values for bank or insurance purposes and inquired where to get more information on the subject. Cohen's reply implied that Trump may have committed potential tax and bank fraud in his personal and business tax returns, financial statements and real-estate filings. David Brooks, a commentator for The New York Times, praised her for "laying down specific questions for specific predicates". (Citations omitted.)

Trackinfo, would you mind proposing your suggested changes so I can better understand what you're advocating for? HoldingAces (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Of those sources, it seems to me CBS, Boston Globe and SFGate report but do not laud. Washington Examiner and Mitu not reliable. That leaves CNN, GQ, MSNBC, a NYTimes columnist (David Brooks, in a PBS interview), and an op-ed published in the NYTimes by Caroline Fredrickson of the American Constitution Society. Those strike me as all left-of-center sources (yes, I include Brooks; yes, you probably disagree). I don't like that the current prose name-drops Brooks and I think that should be removed and replaced by some language in WP's voice about the media response to her questioning of Cohen. I'm not sure about specific words (I don't think "widely praised" is warranted, but it's clearly a significant amount, even if it's from one "side"), and I'm looking forward to reviewing suggestions if anyone has any. Leviv ich 18:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "name drop" and I see no reason to not include Brooks' name. However his words were not very illuminating and I'd agree that WP language would be better. As for the ACS, I'd like to see that info returned. Hopefully someone can come up with some better wording than I did. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, "name drop" means writing things like "David Brooks said she did great at the Cohen hearing" or "Michael Moore says she's the new leader of the Democrats" or "Paul Krugman says her economic plan makes sense". It gives way too much weight to the opinion of an individual pundit, suggesting that Brooks is the proper judge of congressional questioning, Moore the kingmaker of the Dems, or Krugman the arbiter between sound economics and fuzzy math. If an opinion is widely held, it's better for us to say that in WP's voice than to pluck a pundit to quote. Leviv ich 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, since you called Brooks name dropping I thought that we may not be on the same page. I see no reason to not include his name as it is being used in the article at this time. IMO it's proper and it adds to the section. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Some expected grandstanding, but instead, Ocasio-Cortez led Cohen through a series of questions that developed further investigative leads for congressional investigators to explore.--SF Gate, while I used bloviate, a wiki defined term, from the NY Times in my rendition, SF Gate gets to the point. Cillizza, Rocah and O'Donnell clearly analyze that 20 previous representatives (granted the Republicans deliberately did not try) failed to elicit the information her questions produced. And in what world can CNN be called a left-leaning source? They hired a right-wing Republican operative, Sarah Isgur Flores, former campaign manager for Carly Fiorina, former spokesman for Jeff Sessions as their Political Editor.[34] Yes, they finally revised that earlier today,[35] but that is still a clear indicator of a right-wing agenda at CNN. For your other accusations, look into the shift of the Overton window to determine where the center really is. Your version of a neutral source, the Globe said it softer "There wasn’t a major bombshell in the first five hours of testimony." Some of the best analysis is from the Washington Examiner, a notably Right leaning paper. Reading that article I was waiting for the giant "BUT she's a communist" or something equally, irrationally derogatory. They pointed to the Washington Post and used the word "lauded" as they quoted the Post reporter's tweets "she is asking better questions than 90% of members. Short, specific, factual, with no speechmaking." They also pointed to [36] Trackinfo (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

she is asking better questions than 90% of members. Short, specific, factual, with no speechmaking. That's what we want in the article if we want it to accurately reflect her questioning. And we want it to be known that she was widely applauded by numerous individuals and other organizations. What we've got in the article right now is very inadequate. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC) PS: I just googled her name to see if there's anything new re the recent lawsuit and instead I find: "It was refreshing to see that the rhetorical uniqueness of Ocasio-Cortez’s questioning was noted by the news media and political pundits." After all these days! [37] Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, that's a guest column in the Des Moines Register, reprinted by USA Today. [38] Doesn't seem like WP should say in its own voice what some random guest columnist in some newspaper says? Leviv ich 02:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Levivich you don't need to explain perfectly obvious things to me such as why to not use Moore or a "random guest columnist in some newspaper" in our article. I am the principle editor on several politician's articles and have been editing WP long enough to have learned the basics. Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Trackinfo, maybe it's semantics; the SF Gate quote you posted is what I'd call a neutral, factual description of what happened, not praising (for an example of praising, see Gandy's bolded text above). As for sources, I don't agree that Washington Examiner or Huffington Post are reliable–too right, too left–and as for CNN, I agree with Pew: [39]. Leviv ich 02:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make me seem like a dope - I did not suggest that we use that wording. This is getting pretty irritating. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Gandy, I thought you were suggesting that wording. I wasn't trying to make you seem like a dope (you're not a dope). Leviv ich 03:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

College major

It has been noted in multiple publications that AOC does not have a double major International Studies and economics degree. Instead she has an International Studies (IS) Major and an Economics Minor. To list that she has a degree in IS and Economic is patently false. This should be edited to be accurate. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-cepeda-column-st-0110-story.html https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-old-is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-where-did-she-grow-up.html/

NinelineOR (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Diff MarginalCost (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

MarginalCost, thanks, but I have undone it. This issue was discussed extensively here, and the wording currently in the article is the result of that discussion. Basically what we found is that there are conflicting reports of how "economics" fits into her degree - whether it was a separate major, or a minor, or an emphasis within the international studies department, or what - and so we came up with a wording that covers all the possibilities without endorsing any of them. Of course, we could discuss it again, but we should start from the discussion and sources provided at that earlier discussion. Of the two sources provided here, one says "minor" in passing toward the end of an article about something else, and the other is not a reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune link is to a columnist's opinion piece, not investigative journalism. Also not an RS in this situation, IMO. Leviv ich 16:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, especially MelanieN for your encyclopedic memory (pardon the pun) of this and many other complex discussions.

For my part, I'm not wild about the current wording, as it seems to state a major for which I don't see enough evidence to state definitively, and would prefer the slightly more ambiguous "degree in International Relations and Economics" or something like that. Nonetheless, I have absolutely zero desire to get much into the weeds on a hot-button US politics article, and am happy to respect the previously determined consensus. MarginalCost (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the School of Economics at BU just named AOC as a recipient of the annual "Distinguished Alumni Award," which is an award "established in 2014 to recognize and publicize the outstanding accomplishments of the graduates of the Department of Economics’ undergraduate, master’s, and PhD programs." (Emphasis added.) I know you have to synthesize the two sources to draw the conclusion that she graduated with at least BA in economics and is therefore not an appropriate citation for the article, but I figured I would just post the sources here to maybe satisfy your curiosity. HoldingAces (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Well, that is interesting. Most of their bio of her is just boilerplate copied from other sources, but they certainly should know if she is, or is not, a graduate of the Department of Economics! Let me give this some thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Saikat Chakrabarti

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)

I didn't see the FEC complaint discussion above but that's obviously relevant here. I removed one paragraph of merged/rephrased Chakrabarti text (collapsed below, if you want to salvage/restore, but note that I didn't verify the text against the sources for veracity).

Extended content

In February 2018, a conservative group filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Election Commission to investigate the 2018 Ocasio-Cortez campaign finances for large "strategic consulting" service payments to her chief of staff's corporation without precise accounting. The campaign's attorney refuted the complaint as baseless and stated that while the payment methods may have been unconventional, they complied with the law and high ethics standards. Legal and campaign finance experts have agreed with this assessment. References

czar 19:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merging. Chakrabarti is Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff but is also his own individual. What he says is expected to reflect her opinion, but that doesn't mean he cannot independently express his opinion when it vibes with her opinion anyway. This is an objectively edited, well-sourced article that meets all standalone Wikipedia criteria. It also describes in detail Chakrabarti's own personal life and career and appropriately cites and sources his pedigree and accomplishments. I don't believe it is correct to merge all of this content into AOC's campaign article or AOC' personal article. Castncoot (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support or just Delete and redirect. Chakrabarti doesn't appear to have independent notability at this point and it appears to be just another place to gratuitously mention unproven partisan allegations which have been largely dismissed by outside experts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Nom apparently doesn't google too well. I'll point out, I never heard of this guy until I saw this thread. First he was the technology director for Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign. It was the technological support that caused that campaign to start to take off, but he didn't get well publicized about it. Second he was founder of Brand New Congress.[40] That is significant and much more of a notable achievement. Prior to working for Ocasio-Cortez. after graduating Harvard, as a software developer, he worked at Apple, was a founding engineer that developed Stripe, and created Mockingbird (gomockingbird.com).[41], [42] You can see in the Washington Post article, this is coming from background around campaign finance issues [43] [44] pushed by the right, where his name comes up. A developing story, I'll avoid characterizing the campaign finance stuff until I read up on it. It sure looks like the dealings of Chakrabarti will be coming up more often. His independent actions are being discussed, as are those of Manafort and Cohen, independent of the political figure who is the front person for the controversy. Additionally, he is treated as the "brains behind Ocasio-Cortez."[45], he is getting interviewed as such.[46], [47] We have articles on powerful aides; Huma Abedin for example. It would be wise of wikipedia to provide background on this name in the news.[48] Yes, it is a WP:BLP so then we have to watch that article to make sure it doesn't become a coatrack for garbage about him or other subjects. Trackinfo (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Abedin has sources that cover her in specific. Only some of the sources you mention are reliable and even then, which go into depth on Chakrabarti in specific, beyond passing mentions? (The New Yorker.) The FEC stuff is under discussion above. czar 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Support I agree that he only qualifies for a redirect at this point. Redirecting will have the added advantage of saving the current history, should he qualify for an article later. I have made some changes to the merged sentence, as it failed to mention that he had been her campaign co-chair before becoming her chief of staff or the two PACs he co-created. The PACs are the main reason he has been called a political presence - not because he is a congressmember's chief of staff. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, MelanieN: You acknowledge that Chakrabarti's political presence is based upon his co-founding of the PACs; and also, he has worked for he campaign of Bernie Sanders and has separately created or co-created the web design tool Mockingbird. How can all of these independently cited and sourced issues be reconciled with AOC's articles? I believe that they cannot, and I feel it is apparent that Chakrabarti's article is decidedly already a standalone article that is also likely to become only more independent with time. Castncoot (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, for whatever it's worth, an increasing number of people are viewing Saikat Chakrabarti, over 900 in the past 24 hours. Personally, I've never seen an article with this magnitude of viewership be merged or redirected- perhaps others have, but I have not. Castncoot (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's been put on AfD and linked on this higher-traffic article as part of a discussion and debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support – For the same reasons I posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saikat Chakrabarti which I won't repeat here. Since merger is a possible outcome of an AfD, I wonder if these two conversations should be merged (pun intended), with either the AfD being closed on procedural grounds or withdrawn, or a pointer here to the AfD (since redirect/merger is a possible outcome of an AfD). Leviv ich 04:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect, no usable content to merge beyond what has been added already. Given the tiny amount of reporting on him, everything WP:DUE has already been merged, while the other issues don't have enough sustained coverage relating it to AOC to be worth on her article. Also, procedural objection in that whether to add this content to AOC's article is already being discussed above and clearly lacks consensus to include at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a "support" not an "oppose"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

My objection is that I'm concerned people will take a "merge" outcome as an excuse to insert the disputed content above regarding accusations against Chakrabarti; those have nothing to do with AOC at the moment. Something like the current 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)

• Support or Delete (the other article) per WP:COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• I am copy-pasting this thread to Talk:Saikat Chakrabarti, where this discussion really belongs. Castncoot (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  Reverted. (1) Merge discussions happen at the destination's talk page per WP:MERGE. (2) It explicitly says, "If a discussion exists already, do not move it" czar 10:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The subject meets WP:GNG per sufficient independent coverage. The WP:COATRACK arguments are misguided - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is likely a WP:RELART, but there's no indication that this article's sole purpose is to include material that would otherwise be on that page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that my prediction is that by 24 hours from this time now, the day's page viewership will have increased to well over 1,000. The idea of merging or redirecting this page into any other seems preposterous at this point. Castncoot (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not understanding that argument. AOC got 2 million page views in the last 30 days; 50k yesterday. What does page views have to do with notability? Leviv ich 05:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not trying to put words into Castncoot's mouth, but he is pointing to the fact that this page is getting viewed, meaning a lot of the public is coming here for information about this subject. You do remember what we do here at wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, we inform the public. For the few of us who have discovered this backroom discussion, spread in three places that I am aware of, to decide to delete content (and merging is another method to delete content) is doing a major disservice to the public. We have information on this guy, not on Ocasio-Cortez, this guy. It belongs there, on the Saikat Chakrabarti page, separate from Ocasio-Cortez. Trackinfo (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In my view, 1,000 ≠ "a lot" Leviv ich 16:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The question is whether the subject satisfies the notability criteria required to have their own article. The level of coverage for Saikat Chakrabarti does, and the vast majority of content on that page would not be at home in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A merger makes no sense at this point for these reasons. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose First, this is a separate person with their own acheivements who works for the Congress person, and not a family member or intimate partner. Merging would take away from AOC's page, as this person's story is not a part of her's as much my story is not a part of my boss'. No one would reasonably suggest that Martha Chase page be merged into Alfred Hershey page, and as such, I don't think that this page should be merged into AOC's page.Am0210 (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Chakrabarti has his own notability which is not based upon that of his current employer. (I oppose deletion as well.) – Athaenara ✉ 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (diff) – Athaenara ✉ 10:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I would be OK with leaving out the sentence about the PACs and the "political presence"; I only suggested them because "merge" usually means merging the significant content, but I would go along with merging only what relates to AOC. As for the page views, which several of you keep mentioning as if that meant something: that page is linked from both this article (right at the top of the page, which gets tens of thousands of views a day) and an AfD discussion. Of course it is getting viewed, for reasons that have nothing to do with his "notability". As already pointed out by NorthBySouthBaranof. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trackinfo's excellent summary. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this person is notable in his own right. His involvement with Justice Democrats and getting other candidates elected is an example. --rogerd (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge or Deletion as per my comments at AFD.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose but. There is plenty of coverage of the guy that's not about Ocasio-Cortez, so I oppose the merge. However I can see why the merge was proposed. More than half of his article as currently written is really about Ocasio-Cortez and is just repeating stuff Chakrabarti said as her spokesperson. It's not biographically noteworthy. That material should either be deleted or re-written to demonstrate its noteworthiness with respect to Chakrabarti. R2 (bleep) 15:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Do not merge with the other page. They are different people. 100.38.63.199 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 100.38.63.199 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose he is separately notable, and his past positions (as " Justice Democrats executive director and former director of organizing technology for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign"[49] and "Brand New Congress co-founder"[50]) are informative to our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. He is notable 'only' as her chief of staff. Not an independently notable person who would deserve a separate page. Moreover, I do not think this should be included at all. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Where subject lives

To editor Gamaliel: How is Washington Examiner not a reliable source? I see no consensus at RSN against it, though I imagine it's not to your liking politically. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what its politics are, but thanks for your usual assumption of bad faith. I assume it's a local version of Examiner.com, whose user-generated content makes it ineligible for use on Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't an assumption of bad faith. I noticed this edit of yours with the edit summary "Unreliable source, POV" which is why I asked. You are mistaken: Washington Examiner is its own entity. Per WP:BRD, I have reverted you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct about the alleged reliability of this source, that still doesn't address the POV tone of the edit. Also, that's not how BRD works. What you've done is BRRD. I encourage you to self-revert per BRD and BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree WashEx is not a reliable source, and certainly not for negative information about a BLP Democrat. Also, WP:RSP: Almost all editors consider it a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be properly attributed. Looking at the most recent RSN discussion, it seems to me there was consensus that it was not a reliable source in that instance. This might be a good one to post to RSN. Leviv ich 19:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• It's not the worst source, but it's clearly a partisan source and the article (and the edit) read like someone trying to insinuate some kind of hypocrisy related to Ocasio-Cortez's living arrangements. If editors want to include prominent criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez, they should cite criticisms attributed to notable figures instead of just cramming in some WP:COATRACK innuendo about her apartment complex in the "Personal life" section. Nblund ^talk 20:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not only is the Washington Examiner "known for its conservative political stance," but in the case of this story, the source of its information is the Free Beacon, which is avowedly political. The Free Beacon says it is "modeled after liberal counterparts in the media such as ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo"; just so we are clear, I wouldn't accept either of those sites as a source either. The Washington Examiner article, since it is repeating information from the Free Beacon (in large part in the same words), should not be accepted. Aside from the source, the sentence as added is argumentative and POV. (I thought I had reverted it, for those reasons, but I'm not in the history so I guess someone else must have beaten me to it.) Reminder to everyone: this article is under 1RR restriction. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. But what strikes me the most, aside from the weasely POV/innuendo of that edit and the questionable reliability of the source, is the underlying assumption that Cortez from now on must always reside in areas offering affordable housing since she campaigned on a platform supporting it. I find this premise ridiculously POV and sloppy, and an attempt to crudely typecast the congresswoman. Dr. K. 20:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I'm disappointed that editors feel it's ok to remove sourced content primarily because it doesn't praise the subject of the article. I wasn't aware sources had to be of the same political orientation to be included. Content in Wikipedia has to pass NPOV and we can negotiate re-writing the sentence, but sources don't have to be. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Come on, Chris. We have content in the article that "doesn't praise the subject" and will undoubtedly have more. And as I pointed out above, I wouldn't accept POV material from an avowedly liberal source either. If some notable person makes a comment along these lines and it gets reported, we could possibly use it, with attribution. Stating as fact, attributed to nobody, where she lives together with a clearly POV synthesis to imply hypocrisy? No. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A notable young woman got a new job in a new city that pays $174,000 a year, and she rented an apartment in a building that markets itself as "luxury". How can that possibly be encyclopedic content? Unless those simple facts are spun into POV pushing by insinuating hypocrisy where none exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Well she should have moved in to one of those low cost studio apartments in the neighborhoods around Capitol Hill. You know the ones that definitely exist. Nblund ^talk 00:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, who are you to say what she "should have" done in selecting an apartment? Talk pages are not a forum for our personal opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Cullen: Should have used my sarcasm tags there. My point is that those apartments don't exist because it's one of the most expensive cities in the country. Nblund ^talk 01:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) So what I'm not hearing is that Gamaliel was right to revert because the source isn't reliable or that the source is false asserting that the subject lives far from the proletariat she claims. Am I correct in hearing that a bunch of admins think it's not encyclopedic that the subject, according to one partisan outlet, lives this way but we're not going to mention that? That's what I'm hearing. I don't recall seeing a guideline or policy requiring that criticisms only get included if they're made by someone notable. Couldn't we state the source in the sentence and let the reader decide? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris troutman, please provide a source where Ocasio-Cortez talks about the "proletariat she claims". I am unaware that she uses that political term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prove a point about her campaigning. I saw an admin remove cited content with the claim that it violated NPOV or the source was unreliable. Both of those assertions seem false. Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The source is partisan and its source for this "story" is even more partisan (or even unreliable). So yes, NPOV is not being met particularly well here. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The policy says "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone". Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can identify the source of the claim. Unless you really think the source is making it up, you're just discounting perceived partisan reporting. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says you *must* attribute the source of the claim - but the edit in question didn't appear to even acknowledge that it contained an argument, much less an argument attributed to another source. And WP:DUE says that we should refrain from reporting viewpoints that are held by a tiny minority. Nblund ^talk 01:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: We can craft a better sentence that attributes POV and doesn't attempt a smear, just communicates the facts. The thing about DUE is that we're only writing one sentence and attributing it. If your point is that only one journalist is reporting about this, then how many other sources would we cut because only one of them is reporting it? This encyclopedia is usually very inclusive of content, until times like this when suddenly nobody wants to include stuff like this. You can imagine how this looks to more cynical editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris troutman, is the specific fact that you want to include the fact that a famous person with clear security concerns and a salary of $174K has rented an apartment in a building that uses the word "luxury" in its marketing campaigns? Please explain why that is encyclopedic. Why didn't you answer my question about the word "proletariat"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No. The source says that the subject moved into an apartment that doesn't offer low-cost housing. That's all that we need communicate. I don't have to prove a narrative of hypocrisy because I don't even seek to add a sentence saying that. I have half a dozen editors complaining that for some reason that source isn't allowable and others saying that whatever the source says, it's not encyclopedic. I can see the consensus is against adding the content but I'm not impressed with the vague or false reasons given why. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, saying that "Cortez lives in an apartment that doesn't offer low cost housing" is tantamount to implying that a. Cortez should live in an apartment that offers low cost housing b. Cortez is somehow connected to apartments that offer low cost housing c. There is a problem with Cortez not living in an apartment that offers low cost housing d. Cortez is the only congress member who is expected to live in an apartment that offers low cost housing. If a, b, c, or d are not valid, why would anyone want to add such a contrived and trivial detail to her BLP? This is obviously a badly thought out political hit piece trying to stereotype Cortez. We should not add to the article such transparently ill-thought out hit-pieces. That the sources are predictably not great is just the icing on the cake for the case of not adding this into the BLP. Dr. K. 11:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Does our article on Mitch McConnell say anything about where he lives? No? Then why would we do it for a freshman congresswoman? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. Thanks. Dr. K. 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected the article for 24h on the basis that at least two editors have violated the 1RR/BRD rules on this article and it's a better idea than throwing out numerous blocks. The D in BRD is quite important, let's do it please. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave it to Black Kite to point out the importance of the D. PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sheesh! I just reinstated the semi-protection (it may need to be permanent, we'll see) and immediately a bunch of auto-confirmed editors go crazy with inserting stuff and reverting each other! Several of you should thank Black Kite for their kindness in locking the article instead of blocking you for 1RR violations. OK, let’s get some things straight:

• This article is under 1RR. That means if you make an edit or series of edits that revert the work of other people, you should not make any other reverts for 24 hours. That applies whether you are reverting the same material or different material. The only allowed exceptions are reverting vandalism and serious BLP violations. In an article under 1RR restriction, if you violate it, you can be blocked immediately and without warning by any administrator. (Personally I find this restriction hard to follow, so whenever I revert at an article under 1RR, I write a note to myself that I made reverts to such-and-such article at such-and-such time. That reminds me not to revert again until 24 hours have passed. Yes, it IS that strict.) The reason 1RR is imposed at highly controversial articles is precisely to prevent the kind of edit warring we saw here.
• If you add something to the article, and someone else reverts it, that means it is challenged. It should not be re-added, by you or by others; it should be discussed at the talk page instead.
• If something is under active discussion at the talk page, people should not take it on themselves to ignore the discussion and insert their own preferred version into the article. After consensus is reached, the consensus version of the material should be put into the article, and it should not be changed or removed without further discussion leading to a different consensus.
• Wikipedia discourages “Controversy” sections. It is preferred to incorporate negative or controversial material into the relevant section of the article. See WP:CSECTION. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

True on the 1RR but this is not consensus required. If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Why bother editing this article? It's inevitable form is predetermined by the PC establishment from which the subject originates. Sadly, this appears the case more and more often. Personally, I gave up fighting the editorial powers that be. Snit333 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Since it was at the crux of the controversy, I would like an unambiguous acknowledgement from everyone involved that this edit does not currently enjoy consensus and is potentially-negative material about a WP:BLP; therefore, it must be removed from the article per WP:BLP until consensus can be demonstrated. It's possible that discussions might still get somewhere (although I'm dubious at this point given the weakness of the arguments to include and the fact that the subject seems to have already faded from the news), but simply pretending that there's a consensus is not the way to resolve a dispute that is this unambiguously contentious. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  "Hey, HoldingAces, I didn't get a chance to post earlier but actually I still object to the inclusion of the language, would you mind self-reverting?" is maybe a better way to phrase it. Leviv ich 05:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  I did, in fact, weigh in on the discussions earlier, repeatedly indicating that I thought the inclusion was WP:UNDUE; several other people did as well. Most of them gave no real indication that they'd changed their minds. I agree that this sort of meta-discussion is mostly pointless and that it was an honest mistake, but waiting one day before concluding that multiple people who have expressed the opinion that an extremely controversial addition is WP:UNDUE have all silently changed their minds seems to me like a bit much, and given the slightly overeager way people were throwing "consensus" around I want to be clear where we're starting from when continuing discussions (ie. still debating whether this should be included at all, without any clear consensus for inclusion.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I had preferred to leave it out but was agreeable to one sentence because I thought that a consensus had been reached. I'd still like to leave it out. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to extend my warmest thanks to Levivch for defending me. I truly appreciate that.

With this response, I intend to rebut the accusations against me that I manufactured a consensus, that I engaged in edit warring, or otherwise acted improperly. With that being said, I attempt in the following few paragraphs to summarize the talk-page discussion. If a detail is incorrect or I misquote something, please let me know. Reading through that huge conversation while taking notes is difficult. If you find a detail I left out that you think I should have mentioned, please know that I did not intentionally leave out to advance my case: I am human, I make mistakes.

This particular talk-page discussion began on March 1, 2019, after I recommended that Athaenara’s edit adding the first FEC Complaint (the one that claimed AOC paid $6,000 to her boyfriend) be reinstated.

Breakdown of user support for first FEC complaint inclusion

The users who disagreed and maintained that the this first FEC complaint not be included consisted of:

• NorthBySouthBaranof
• I am One of Many
• MelanieN
• Levivch
• Aquillion

Users who supported its inclusion:

• me
• Athaenara
• Rusf10

The discussion then shifted on March 5, 2019, to the second FEC Complaint (the AOC campaign paying $18k to Chakrabarti’s LLC).

Breakdown of user support for second FEC complaint inclusion

Users who immediately voiced their opinion that it should not be included within the article:

• Levivch
• MelanieN

Users who immediately supported its inclusion.

• me
• Athaenara

The next day, March 6, 2019, Melanie created the Taking another look – this may be more than just an FEC complaint section to this talk page. In that post Melanie explained that she realized that there was a difference between the first and second complaints. She did not say which way she was leaning (i.e., inclusion or exclusion) but noted, “this allegation seems to have a little more weight than just another FEC filing.” After this comment by Melanie, a long discussion ensued. By the end of the conversation, the following individuals agreed that this second complaint should be added:

• me
• Levivch
• MelanieN
• Athaenara
• FallingGravity

Users who thought it should not be included:

• Aquillion posted a dissenting comment March 6 that was responded to by Levivch; on March 7 Aquillion posted the final dissenting comment (expressing concern that link between AOC and the payments was too tenuous and a concern that there was not sustained coverage of the issue). I tried responding to this comment the same day but never received a response. After, this post Business Insider ran an article, Market Watch ran an article, and Snopes ran an article.
• Volunteer Marek posted a dissenting comment on March 6 that was responded to by Melanie and me.

Users who I am unsure about where they stood:

• Gandydancer I am unsure because Gandy does not appear to have disagreed with it’s the second FEC’s complaint’s inclusion following Melanie’s March 6, 2019 post. Gandy did, however, repeatedly express a concern over how the language would read. See, for example, Gandy’s March 6, 2019, post, March 7, 2019 post (asking for recommended language). Notably, however, Gandy did post today (March 13, 2019) the following: “Just for the record, I had preferred to leave it out but was agreeable to one sentence because I thought that a consensus had been reached. I’d still like to leave it out.”

Timeline continued

On March 7, 2019, I proposed language for addition. Melanie and Levivch were the only ones who responded, both wanted to make changes to my proposed language. Melanie made her own version and posted it. Both I and Gandy expressed our agreement with Melanie’s proposal on March 8, 2019. On March 9, 2019, Levivch created a chart that compared the substance of the sources reporting and identified the essential elements that should be included. On March 9, Melanie and Levivich agreed on language to add. Melanie then kindly stated, “Before taking any action we should see what HoldingAces has to say,” and Levivch “[a]gree[d] on waiting to hear from Aces and anyone else who might have input." I replied the next day, March 10, 2019, recommending some slight tweaks. Melanie, Levivich, Gandy, and I agreed that the language was good, with Gandy agreeing last on March 11, 2019. On March 12, 2019, I inserted the agreed language. Bradv added to the sentence the following: Campaign finance experts found no evidence of wrongdoing.” I reverted him with a note that read: “see the talk-page discussion first before changing, please.” Then NorthBySouthBaranof reverted me. I wanted to revert North, but I was aware of the 1RR rule so I didn’t. Instead I created the new section in the talk page, “Some editors changing proposed language.” Then Levivch reverted North. Then North reverted Levivch. Then Black Kite locked the article.

Whether there was a consensus

From March 7 (the last day an objection was made) to March 12 (the day I added the edit), no one else said anything. The last objections were received on March 6 and 7 by Volunteer Market and Aquillion. Both of their objections were addressed directly by either Melanie, Levivch, or me. Consensus occurs, in the ideal way, when there is an “absence of objections.” Like I said, after I, Melanie, or Levivch responded to the last objections made on March 6 and 7, we never heard another objection until I added the language on the 12th. I cannot see how, in the context of this 12-day long discussion, five days of silence from anyone who objects is not a sign that the added language took in "all of the proper concerns raised.” And I think the accusations that I manufactured a consensus are ill-founded and hurtful.

I want to recognize the very real possibility that someone new is reading this. That person may look at the above conversation and say, “What the hell is this person talking about? There are obviously a ton of people who disagree.” I would encourage that person to look at the dates of all those dissenting above. There are no dissenting comments between March 7 and March 12 at 14:46. Any dissenting comment after March 12 at 14:46 came after I added the language to the article.

I did not engage in an edit war

An edit war “”occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other’s contributions.” I reverted only one person, Bradv. Then I was reverted. So instead of reverting again, I started a new talk page section. The WP:1RR rules states that the correct procedure for when you are reverted and have already used your only 24-hour revert is to start a talk page discussion. That is exactly what I did. I did not revert more than once. I have been trying extremely hard to follow all of the rules here and find it incredibly rude that some are accusing me otherwise. HoldingAces (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

HoldingAces, while I appreciate that you've spent a lot of time to put this together, it really isn't necessary. No one has been blocked or otherwise sanctioned, and no one is trying to put together such a case. Let's focus on further improvements to the article. Bradv🍁 15:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand, Bradv. Two things, though. While no one is trying to block or sanction me, I am well aware that this whole scenario could later be cited as an example of my alleged malfeasance. Further, my post is indirectly related to the discussion because NorthBySouthBaranof now wants people to say that there is no consensus for the language I added on March 12th. I believe that is wrong for the reasons I lay out in my post. I think now North, and those aligned with his way of thinking need to change that consensus. Nevertheless, I do agree that there is no consensus on whether the statements made by the experts in the NBC article should be included and whether AOC's response to the FEC Complaint should be included. The former I am against, the latter I support. HoldingAces (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

HoldingAces, trying to analyze whether something might have had consensus in the past isn't a particularly fruitful exercise. As for the FEC paragraph in question - either we include the allegations with the expert analysis, or we leave the whole thing out. I'm fine with either. Bradv🍁 16:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, with all due respect, it is a very fruitful exercise. The difference is whether we start from scratch or build upon what we already have. If I am right, then we do not need to rehash the whole March 1 - March 12 conversation; we only have to decide whether to include the expert's opinion and/or AOC's response to the complaint. That, IMO, is worth fighting for. HoldingAces (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bradv, it's easy enough for an editor to dismiss another editor's efforts to set the record straight when it is not their feelings or WP reputation that have been hurt. HA has accurately shown the moves that led us up to where we are at. I certainly felt that consensus had been reached and when the agreed wording had been achieved I wondered why it was not added, even to the point that I was thinking I should make a note saying something like "don't let me hold things up by suggesting that we need to provide a link" or something to that effect. As for my holding back during discussion, I do that sometimes, and other times not. I'm always blown away by the wisdom of my fellow editors and they help me to form my opinions. In this case I'd have preferred it left out but was willing to bow to what I thought was consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, it was not my intent to dismiss HoldingAces efforts, but rather to express that they don't need to defend themself. I disagree with their position, but take no issue with their methods. Bradv🍁 16:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus cannot override fundamental policy, and policy plainly demands that if we include allegations of wrongdoing against someone, we must provide space for responses to those allegations weighted in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources, including at the very least, the subject's responses. There cannot be a consensus to include the claims but not the responses - such an inclusion would violate basic encyclopedia policy. So the question is not whether we include reliably sourced responses, but rather how to include them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Perfect response, NorthBySouthBaranof! You are absolutely right that consensus cannot override policy. I just wish you would have framed your argument that way from the start instead of suggesting that I falsely claimed consensus. To be clear, I totally agree with you that "at the very least, the subject's response[ needs to be included.]" I disagree, however, that policy requires the inclusion of the expert's opinion. To ensure that we are not having two sections on this talk page discussing this expert opinion issue, I think we should continue our talk about the expert opinion above (where we already have a dialogue going). HoldingAces (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly, there is no consensus for including this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Explain that please. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)