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)

@Wikieditor19920: removed this sourced statement: Ocasio-Cortez is noted for her social media presence and Time magazine has called her the "second most talked about politician in America". Above I wanted to expand on this. Her social media presence, driven by the immense popularity of the things she says, the things she challenges, is what sets her apart from the 100 other freshman representatives and drives the news media to follow her statements as if she were a leader. I sourced that. More sources come framing her as a leader. That short statement explains why. Your opinion does not allow you to unilaterally remove sourced content. The lede should explain to the uninformed reader who this person is and why they are important. Trackinfo (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, another doting editor making a hollow argument as to why unqualified praise belongs in the lead. This is pure boosterism, and in no article should we ever permit content that calls the subject "popular" or note their social media following in the lead. If there are sources that support those statements, it can be covered in the body. Even the way you've made your argument here, immense popularity of the things she says, shows a) that you're misrepresented the sources, which do not refer to everything she says as "immensely popular," and b) show that perhaps you're not able to edit this article neutrally. Readers can figure out by reading the article that she has attracted a lot of attention - positive and negative - the way to convey that is not to just present her as an "immensely popular... leader." That might be appropriate for campaign material, or for North Korean propaganda, but not for a Wikipedia lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: If you review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, you will want to refactor your comments to @Trackinfo:. I agree the article could use NPOV information about AOC's social media use as an aspect of her unusual public profile. As Time magazine notes, "The woman everyone calls AOC is as much a villain to the right as she is a hero to the left."HouseOfChange (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: Your one-sided intervention is noted. The article may mention her social media presence under the appropriate section, but not in the lead. By default, most well-known public figures have a substantial social media following. The cause-effect relationship here is quite clear, and the appropriate solution is to allow readers to discern that she has a high profile by reading the article; we don't need to shove it in their face. That's bad prose and presents a possible WP:NPOV issue, as her rise to prominence has hardly been without controversy (and we should not present it as if has not). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor you have been warned repeatedly about making nasty comments about other editors and I wish you'd stop. Apparently, according to you, I am another another doting editor ready to make a hollow one sided argument: There is no question that mention of her popularity belongs in the lead. There are hundreds of mentions of it in the press and if it is mentioned in Time mag that is extremely unusual. It is a hallmark of her position in Congress and one would be hard pressed to find an American who had not heard of her. I'm going to return it to the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree and was considering templating Wikieditor for the post here. We all need to stop making this such a battleground page. Just because any of us disagree with this text or that text doesn't mean we should instantly start accusing each other of praising or hating AOC or any other comments about editors intentions or motives. I support restoring the text but would still like to see that quote excised, per my comment below. Leviv ich 14:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Levivich. I try not to get too offended by partisan attacks, and you have seen with Saikat Chakrabarti and here, I can also be aggressive to try to advocate for proper presentation of information. If there were someone on the right with a massive social media presence, I would think that deserves mention as well, maybe even an article. Oh right, there is. Trackinfo (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of social media in the lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article and, as Trackinfo put well, to describe who this person is and why they are important. The reliable sources (including partisan sources on both sides) are unanimous in stating that her social media presence is one of the most significant things about her. Probably the #1 most significant thing about her career is how she's leveraged social media. To omit AOC's social media presence from the lead would be like omitting that she had an upset primary victory, is a member of the Democratic Socialists, or is the youngest woman in Congress. Really these four things are the top four things about AOC, per the RSes. The one thing I don't like is name-dropping and quoting Time magazine in the lead. Time isn't the arbiter of who is and is not important and we shouldn't treat it as such. That quote might have a place in the body, but everything in the lead should be in Wikipedia's voice. I agree with restoring the content removed here but would prefer to see it rewritten to exclude the Time quote (we can make the same point in our voice). Leviv ich 14:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree and I'd like to see Time removed as well. Any ideas on what to say instead? Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts are we can't say "second most talked about politician in America" because that has that phony suggestion that it's based on some kind of scientific measurement. I think "one of the most-talked-about politicians in America" (in WP's voice) is supported by RSes, but the construction "most-talked-about" seems clumsy and unencyclopedic to me. "Famous" is not the right word. "Popular" is definitely not the right word. "Well-known" sounds like a non-statement. Maybe "highest-profile"? Leviv ich 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I like "one of the most..." [6] Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not necessarily in favor of the Time namedrop, but I do like the statement that she is the "second most talked about politician in America." The attribution to a single source doesn't need to be in the article. I did start this conversation with four different sources calling her a leader. Trackinfo (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I don't like that because she may have been the second most talked about when that article appeared but she apparently no longer is in that place, nor can we predict that she will be in the near future. According to WaPo she is "one of" the most talked about (per the source I provided). I like the way Levivich worded it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I made some bold edits, adding it to the 116th Congress section and reworking the lead to "one of the most". It's bold so anyone feel free to edit/revert/call me names. :-) I am uncomfortable calling her "second most" based on one RS when another RS (arguable more reliable) has published an analysis that directly contradicts that she's second-most. We would have to do something stupid like "Time called her the 'second-most' but Washington Post said that wasn't actually true". "One of the most" seems to capture what both RSes are saying. Leviv ich 16:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I liked what you did @Levivich: but wanted to add a mention of the partisan tone in coverage. I think that is relevant. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

HouseOfChange, I agree your tweaks are improvements. Thanks! Leviv ich 17:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really want to articulate a number, that was the quote from the one source, Time, and this concept is not limited to one source. I think the second part of the phrase can be shorter "from both supporters and detractors." Trackinfo (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

NPOV way to include info in lead

Running out of colons, can we find consensus on how to say AOC is "one of America's most talked about politicians." @Tsumikiria: removed "attracting criticism as well as praise" calling it "meaningless filler." But doesn't the lead sound like puffery if we fail to mention that she has detractors as well as supporters. If so, how should we phrase this? HouseOfChange (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem, which you've correctly identified, is that this sentence is from a single piece, is stated as a fact when it is an opinion, and reeks of puffery. Those first two already place this quote on very shaky ground. The broader issue with the lead is that it glosses over controversial aspects of her public profile that have been addressed in reliable sources. The result is a sanitized opening that uses vague language ("most talked about") quoted from puff-pieces without accurately representing the full range of coverage and opinions that have been expressed in secondary sources. I'm curious to hear how Levivich and Gandydancer would respond to this argument instead of trying to shift the focus to me personally. This highly unbalanced lead is the response of inadequately discerning, non-neutral editing, and, IMHO, it's out of compliance with two central policies: WP:DUE (equal representation of all viewpoints in reliable sources) and WP:NPOV (neutrally written, both in prose and selection of viewpoints). This diversity of views is addressed in:

• The New York Times
• CNN
• The Hill
• Many others

Clearly, there are divisions in public support. It's not about "positive" or "negative," it's about describing her public profile in a way that is accurate and does not cherry-pick sources that represent certain opinions over others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to AGF about @Levivich: and @Gandydancer: -- my impression from their edits so far is that we all want this article to be a good, informative, NPOV introduction to AOC, with its lead a helpful introduction to the article itself. Building good articles benefits from a wide range of ideas. I think the Hill article Wikieditor19920 links to would be a better, more unbalanced source, e.g. "Support for the 29-year-old falls sharply along partisan lines. About 73 percent of Republican respondents viewed her unfavorably, with only 5 percent having a favorable view of her. Meanwhile, only 15 percent of the Democrats polled have a negative view of Ocasio-Cortez, while 56 percent view her in a positive light." Let's do our best for our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

No editors are attempting to switch the blame for anything to you and once again please stop making disparaging remarks about other editors. OK, how would this work: Substitute the CNN source you have suggested for the CNN source we are using and add a Polling section and include The Hill source. Gandydancer (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn't the sources themselves — they are all high quality. The problem is that the viewpoints covered by the sources are not all properly reflected. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well then I don't know how to satisfy you and perhaps someone else can. This is the lead we're talking about, not the body of the article and to say "talked about" includes both negative and positive remarks in a concise manner. Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused because the lead doesn't state viewpoints about AOC, it states facts. I'm not sure what facts are not in the lead that should be included. Certainly not her latest poll numbers? Leviv ich 21:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I certainly was not suggesting including a polling section (note I said polling with a capitol P) in the lead and I thought that it was obvious that was not what I meant. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed "attracting criticism as well as praise" on the sole ground that this can be applied to virtually any politician to the point of making it meaningless. Yes, we have source support for AOC generating unusual amounts public discourse and opinion for her are split along party lines, but the way "attracting criticism as well as praise" is phrased does nothing for the sake of lead succinctness. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Her fluctuating poll numbers are not even the real issue. They are a symptom. The radical ideas she proposes are despised by Republicans and praised by Progressives who wish they were what the Democratic Party stood for. They aren't, so she is hated by a lot of elected Democrats, though they won't admit to it publicly because of her popularity. Instead, her own party is trying to undermine her at every step. If she wasn't a leader, they wouldn't care, they wouldn't have to, she could just be ignored. She can't be ignored by either side. The fact is, the popularity of her ideas reflects the polling for the ideas, not her name. Green New Deal ideas, 72% [blacklisted moneyandmarkets.com/ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-poll/] Gun background checks 93%, Gun control 60% [7] 70% tax rate over 10 million, 59% [8] Free college 59% [9] Medicare for all 71% to 56% [10] Elected Democrats don't like that, people like that. Note even the conservatives call it the AOC effect. [11] [12] That a freshman congresswoman can wag other house; the senate into voting on her Green New Deal proposal less than three months into her term shows leadership. The fact that others are trying to come up with similarly named fake counter proposals [13] shows leadership. "she offers an entirely different model of dissent from a party’s ideological mainstream, and strong conservatives could do a lot worse than watch and emulate her. She has already shown quite a bit of skill at using her seat in the House to advocate for substantive change." [14] "AOC wields an innate ability to convulse the political system. To rattle traditionalists on both sides of the aisle. To even scare some . . . Ocasio-Cortez is one of the biggest things in politics. [15] Ocasio-Cortez "is the thought leader of the Democratic Party right now," insisted Fox News host Laura Ingraham [16] and back where I started this "She is the leader. Everybody knows it." - Michael Moore [17] Both sides agree she is a leader and a target for both her coattails or ridicule, depending on which side of the partisan divide you come from. I am trying to advocate for us, wikipedia, in a neutral voice to inform the public in the lede, why she is important, why she is a leader. Like I said, there are lots of sources. Trackinfo (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well put and I'm in total agreement. Trackinfo, perhaps the place to start is in the body and I think we could include a section about the points that you bring up here. What do you and others think? Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree also. Maybe we should take the "Media coverage" section and promote it to its own level 2 header and call it something broader like "Reactions", "Response", "Impact" or something like that, to include this content. I also think something along the lines of "face of the Democratic party" or "thought leader of the Democratic party" is appropriate for the lead assuming we include the details in the body to back it up (in WP's voice, not as an attributed quote, because there is broad agreement in RSes on this point). Leviv ich 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That seems a good idea though I'm not too crazy about "Reactions", "Response", "Impact" for a heading. Though I can't come up with something better... Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Her fluctuating poll numbers are not even the real issue. They are a symptom. The radical ideas she proposes are despised by Republicans and praised by Progressives who wish they were what the Democratic Party stood for. They aren't, so she is hated by a lot of elected Democrats, though they won't admit to it publicly because of her popularity. Instead, her own party is trying to undermine her at every step. If she wasn't a leader, they wouldn't care, they wouldn't have to, she could just be ignored. She can't be ignored by either side. The fact is, the popularity of her ideas reflects the polling for the ideas, not her name. This is blatant WP:SYNTH, and none of this reasoning can have any bearing on what enters the article. The Daily Mail, "pollingreport.com," and "moneymarkets.com" are not even close to reliable sources. A large number of the other sources Trackinfo cited to support his argument are opinion pieces, like Bloomberg and Fox, which are considered WP:PRIMARY, and the rest are just quotes from various commentators, which are also essentially primary for their own opinion. WP:BLPs may only rely on WP:SECONDARY coverage: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Gandydancer's or Template:Levivich agreement or non-agreement with this subjective analysis is irrelevant, because this is WP:SYNTH, which is not permitted, and depends on inadequate sources. The secondary sources present a mixed picture, and whether or not she is a "leader" of the Democratic party has yet to be determined under WP:10YT.

And Levivich, if you're going to demand others assume good faith, which I'm perfectly willing to do, you should try acting in good faith. In a series of edits including this one, you declared that you were "boldy" making changes and restoring challenged material that you had also made nearly the exact same changes the day before without gaining consensus, while this page is under BRD. If praising your own edits as "bold" is not something you usually do, I'll take that as a sign that you were aware of the enforced BRD on this page, which your edits contravened. Quantity does not equal quality when it comes to WP:CONSENSUS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I think you need to learn what WP:PRIMARY sources are before you hurl the terms around in a WP:wikilawyering argument. A primary source is considered a less reliable source because the subject is essentially reporting on itself. "Trump inauguration is the greatest of all time," says Donald Trump would be a primary source. A newspaper reporting he said it would be a WP:SECONDARY source. AOC, the beneficiary and subject of the article, has no control over those sources. The sources are not deriving their information from her. Pundits expressing opinions are exactly that. Calling someone a "leader" could be attained by being in an elective position i.e. Pelosi. That is NOT being claimed here. AOC is achieving her leadership by the things she does and the large public presence of those actions, aided by social media. And its not just what she says, the primary social media step, it is the viral secondary reaction of retweets and shares and comments; support. The mass of opinion pieces recognize that. They are reporting on the way she is perceived by, her colleagues, opponents and the public, which is what I am saying we should congeal into sentences we use in our article describing her. The only reason you could use the term WP:SYNTH is because we have a lot of sources saying similar things. We must avoid WP:COPYVIO, by either using exact, attributed quotes or by rewriting prose. I tried it in my own words and they were removed. Next step, go to talk. We are here to achieve a consensus. Right now, you are the odd man out and misrepresenting Wiki policy points in the process. Trackinfo (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, yes some of the sources I googled are weak. They were just reports of polling by other outside entities. You have the name of the entity, you could google and find similar reports of the same polls from WP:RS if we were going to use those in the article. I included ten sources, another five earlier and several into the article. Anything with that many sources will get pared down. Trackinfo (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

If a statement from a pundit is included in the body of the article, there must be an in-text attribution to the person who made the comment, not just a citation to the news story that may have quoted them. As to your other point: They are reporting on the way she is perceived by, her colleagues, opponents and the public, which is what I am saying we should congeal into sentences we use in our article describing her. Interesting use of words, but I'm not buying it—what you're describing is just your own synthesis of what you think the sources say, and that's not going into the article. I'm happy to be the "odd man out" in a small group of editors who will happily agree with any positive statements without reviewing the sources or referring to policy, so if you think that using that argument will gain consensus, you're sorely mistaken. Trying to shove statements about her "leadership" and "influence" based on the comments of a few pundits is WP:UNDUE and simply WP:WIKIPUFFERY.I'll repeat it again: readers can determine for themselves that she is high-profile, it's not editors job to shove it in their face. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You may be happy to be the odd man out but when it comes to WP decision making you will not be the odd one to dictate what we do or do not include in the article. If for in fact editors are suggesting using a few pundits to back up a WP statement re her notability you would be correct. However that is far from the case. To appear on the cover of Time mag for a first year congressional rep is...is, well has this ever happened before? I doubt it. I've worked on may political (and other) articles and what we try to do in a case like this when we don't want to include say ten different sources is to find one or two that state the importance of the person (or other fact). To call this "puffery" (or for example in a science-related article to call it hype) is not proper and some editors, myself included, may think you are causing a disruption with your refusal to accept group consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

HouseofChange also expressed concern over the line calling her "the most talked about politician," so I'm hardly the only one. No one's objecting to the notability of the subject—the lead can be appropriately used to provide the basis for the subject's notability, but it should not be a running inventory of news appearances or include quotes from recent stories, and it should especially not state opinions or sweeping, subjective assessments as fact. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Finally we agree on something. I certainly do not want to spend a paragraph in the lede showing all the appearances, quoting all the comments she has attracted. As I said earlier, we are here to consolidate those facts, that mass of sources, into a couple of NPOV digestible sentences in the lede. That by being the spokesperson for what polls show are publicly very popular but otherwise under-represented ideas in congress, she is both a leader and a lightning rod for those subjects. Trackinfo (talk) 23:36, 31 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."[18] 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. [19] 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 [20] 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. [21] 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, 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: 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 is an 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)

I agree with HoldingAces. This is the most neutral way to put all the relevant information in the article. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also switch to C but would like to see the second sentence modified slightly per the above. How about (changes in bold): ... Ocasio-Cortez denied the allegations and campaign finance experts said that while the structure of her campaign might be confusing, they had not seen evidence of any scam or serious violation. Leviv ich 22:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

C with Levivich's recommended sentence. HoldingAces (talk) 13:47, 14 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)
• A Because as of now, all we have are some allegations that may be politically motivated and with little or no evidence based on sources. If there are any findings of wrong doing, then of course it should be included.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• A Because I've been reading this forever and that's what I think. Gandydancer (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• A per my comments above regarding WP:DUE weight for something that most coverage has just treated as relatively insignificant and poorly-grounded allegation, especially given how rapidly the coverage seems to have dried up. This is not the sort of thing we normally include on a WP:BLP at all. Although... is this supposed to be an RFC? I don't think it was intended to be an RFC. And I'm already listed up top. Well, either way, since people are weighing in I might as well weigh in here. --Aquillion (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Unless I am mistaken, I believe we forgot to mention earlier in our discussion that AP covered this. Since then, coverage has not dried up. 1, 2, 3, 4. Another thing: By no means am I making a we-did-it-there-so-we-must-do-it-here argument (i.e., WP:OSE ), but the same day NYT ran a story about its suspicions that Ted Cruz may have violated FEC regulations with his campaign-finance disclosures, we instantly included it into his article without a single hiccup.

I would like to better understand the argument that this is UNDUE. Please correct me if I am wrong, but does the argument go like this: The FEC complaint and its substance are a "viewpoint" that has not achieved the level of prominent coverage necessary to be included into this article, and therefore even the mere mentioning of this complaint would be "giv[ing it] disproportionate space." HoldingAces (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Behold the power of the New York Times over Wikipedia: 1 NYT article > all other RSes combined. Leviv ich 17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

Capitalism section <!https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-capitalism-irredeemable-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-south-southwest-sxsw-a8816956.html --> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-10/ocasio-cortez-blasts-capitalism-as-an-irredeemable-system Sourcerery (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sourcerery, thanks for finding those sources. Feel free to draft some proposed language and post it here. Leviv ich 19:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Something like this: 'Capitalism is an ideology of capital –- the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit,” Ocasio-Cortez said.“ And that comes at any cost to people and to the environment, so to me capitalism is irredeemable.” Though she said she doesn’t think all parts of capitalism should be abandoned, “we’re reckoning with the consequences of putting profit above everything else in society. And what that means is people can’t afford to live. For me, it’s a question of priorities and right now I don’t think our model is sustainable.” “It’s just as much a transformation about bringing democracy to the workplace so that we have a say and that we don’t check all of our rights at the door every time we cross the threshold into our workplace,” she said. “Because at the end of the day, as workers and as people in society, we’re the ones creating wealth.” While America is wealthier than ever, wealth is enjoyed “by fewer than ever,” she said. “It doesn’t feel good to live in an unequal society”, citing an increase in homelessness in New York City among veterans and the elderly while penthouses sit empty. “It doesn’t feel good to live in a society like that.” I went for sections with most quotes of Alexandria, I think that's most appropriate. Thank you ich.Sourcerery (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

You're not seriously proposing to put all that in the article, are you? Trim it to two sentences and then we'll discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN That's arbitrary demand, she spoke extensively on issue and article should reflect that.Sourcerery (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the edit by Sourcerery and I agree. When a subject, any subject, makes a remark that is considered controversial, I prefer an exact quote from the subject rather than a dozen sources explaining what they interpret the subject is saying. In the case of dog whistles, additional perspective might be necessary, but here I think Ocasio-Cortez stated her position clearly and for brevity Sourcerery chose the correct phrases. The one thing I would encourage is to emphasize it as a quote, in quote format, perhaps with an introductory or trailing sentence as to the situation of her speech. Trackinfo (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

erroneous or false statements

Does wiki do a list of statements that are false by the subject of the article ? I think this is relevant because AOC is heldup as a leader of the Dem anti Trump resistance, and many Dems cite Trumps penchant for false or misleading statements as a reason why they dislike him hence, if AOC makes false or misleading statements, that would seem to be relevant Also, as very young person who has beome a leader of the dem party, she should be held to a high std in her public statemets for instance, I havn't tracked this down, but this appears to show an ignorance of basic American history; if Trump said this liberals would roast him https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1112146790860668928

Thank you all in advance for your polite comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just to be clear that AOC does make false statements, here is a reputable source https://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/statements/by/

2601:192:4701:BE80:F0F4:DF4E:97EC:D20C (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, that tweet appears to show an ignorance of basic American history by Tom S. Elliott. Before tweeting, Mr. Elliott should have checked Wikipedia's article on the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and he would have learned that the 22nd Amendment was, indeed, a direct reaction to the election of FDR to a fourth term in 1944, resulting in the 22nd Amendment being a campaign issue in the next Congressional election in 1946 (even though FDR died in 1945), and its approval by Congress in 1947, followed by ratification in 1951. Leviv ich 16:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

AOC did not say the amendment was because of FDR, AOC said the amendment was to prevent FDR from getting re-elected a fourth time. That is a false statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected

Ocasio-Cortez did not say "to make sure someone like Roosevelt did not get reelected" (which would have been a true statement), she said "to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected." (The video linked above contains the statement.) Even if we parse Governor Thomas E. Dewey's words most favorably, he could not been referring to 1944's presidential election which was well under way. If we can agree on this, what is at dispute? There's a "thumb on the scale" here (my phrase), or as Jonah Goldberg puts it "riding into her rescue". I can understand her media people and her advocates are trying to spin something incorrect into something plausible when paraphrased, but is that the role of neutral point of view Wikipedia editors? "Clean Up on Aisle One" not only includes Newsweek but Wikipedia as well. patsw (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Strange but true...

Just when you think you've seen it all something like this comes up...add "bartender" to previous work history and link it to Bartender (T-Pain song). Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920:, mind explaining this? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think my edit is self-explanatory, no? (The blue link was an error. I don't think that's too hard to figure out.) This is a noteworthy piece of her background before entering Congress. Here are a few sources:

The arc of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s ascent is well known: A former bartender and organizer for Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign, she shocked the political world by ousting Representative Joseph Crowley, who had been in line to someday succeed Ms. Pelosi as the Democratic leader. It was the biggest primary defeat for a Democrat in the nation in 2018.

The New York Times, January 2019

The daughter of a Puerto Rican mother and a Bronx-born father, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez earned a degree in economics and international relations from Boston University but worked as a waitress and bartender after graduating in 2011 to supplement her mother’s income as a house cleaner and bus driver, according to The Intercept.

The New York Times, June 2018

Most recently, Eckblad worked for Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), focusing on foreign policy. She first heard of Ocasio-Cortez after the former bartender defeated then-incumbent Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), and Eckblad was excited by what she heard.

The Washington Post, February 2019

This piece of her bio has also been acknowledged as significant previously here on the article talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor, that is understandable using Visual Editor. But @Levivich: do you care to explain this? Are you intentionally violating several policies including BLP?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To Levivich's credit, I believe he made the same error that I did. Geez, folks. Let's all calm down here. Everyone knows what a bartender is, anyway, so the blue link is not even necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I was specifically wondering why you added a link to a T-Pain song. How does one erroneously add that link? Her being a bartender is noteworthy to her bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It can happen pretty easily using Visual Editor, and can also be fixed easily. I think WP:AGF is called for here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We live in very nervous times. Any time anyone makes an honest mistake, immediately, the worst case scenario has to be considered. The only cure for that is AGF, especially for demonstrably good-faith editors. Dr. K. 19:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I am AGF. Was just curious as to how that could happen. I don't use Visual Editor much. That's all I wanted to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Visual editor gives you a hyperlink button, which you use after selecting text. It enters the highlighted text into a search bar, and you complete the link by choosing an option from a list that drops down. I must have misclicked and chose the wrong one. Honestly, I didn't even remember that there was a song of the same name. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, thank you for the explanation. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I am willing to assume good faith on your initial edit but can't excuse this edit that reads to me as clearly an insertion of a joke in article space. I want to hear from Levivich directly.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my mistake. I use VE too and what Wikieditor19920 describes has happened to me plenty of times. Delinking "bartender" is what I "disagreed with Wikieditor19920" about, but I see now that wasn't intentional and they have already delinked it so I think everyone is in agreement about that now. I'm good with the inclusion of "briefly as a waitress and bartender" in the lead, I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other about it, but it's certainly reliably sourced and seems to be a significant part of her bio. Like Wikieditor said, you can't really argue with NYT and WaPo as sources. Leviv ich 20:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019

remove briefly from worked briefly as a waitress and bartender. She was doing it since she was 19. 76.90.172.131 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see the above discussion as this is being discussed to reach a consensus. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does the 'media coverage' section not cover right-wing TV coverage of her?

She's a non-stop feature in right-wing media[22]. It's extremely notable and should be mentioned. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The reason the article doesn't reflect a balance of supportive and critical statements about the subjects is that is not an explicit goal here. What editing a controversial subject is about is consensus on the edit's neutrality, and the editors of this article are generally supportive of her policy positions. They don't believe that summarizing right-wing criticism of AOC into the article helps improve the article. Rather than making a blanket "where's the crticism?" claim, if you actually find something critical of AOC, that improves the article, and meets the usual inclusion criteria, just add it. patsw (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Snooganssnoogans, there can't be a media coverage subsection under every section. I agree that this is noteworthy stuff, though. How about a "Public profile" or "Public image" section, with sub-sections "Awards and recognition", "Media coverage", etc.? I know this article isn't about the Green New Deal, but surely it can at least mention Cortez's international influence, which obviously doesn't belong to the Congress tenure section about the Green New Deal. wumbolo ^^^ 09:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Briefly waitressing and bartending-uncited

But she was long time employed as the 2017 director.......... This is weasel worded POV pushing with no citation- and it directly flies in the face of any search of how long she was employed as a bartender/waitress- which returns one hit after another citing her claims that any working person can be elected to congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It's cited in the article (things in the lead don't need citations if they're cited in the article itself.) And a quick search finds many, many other sources, not just ones quoting her. It was indeed brief, as the article says, but it has clearly attracted a lot of coverage, enough to justify a passing mention in the article and the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's just cite it in the lede. I have done it. When you cite some stuff in the lede and not cite others, it makes the uncited questionable. I know cites are not required in lede, but we should be consistent. My view is cite everything or nothing in the lede. Since other cites are already there, I'm adding a cite to this, since people clearly, are reacting to it not having a a cite. starship.paint ~ KO 01:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Disrespectful First Sentence?

From the First Sentence we learn: "(/oʊˌkɑːsioʊ kɔːrˈtɛz/; Spanish: [oˈkasjo koɾˈtes];", her DOB, her nickname and she "is an American politician and member of the Democratic Party." That's a period. So she's a (Spanish) Dem Politician with a nickname. Not a U.S. Representative, and no mention of congress?

A quick look from List_of_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives it seems that first sentence is not typical (yet it may be more typical of women and Democrats?). Here are some samples:

Michael Dennis Rogers (born July 16, 1958) is the U.S. Representative for Alabama's 3rd congressional district, serving since 2003. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Robert Brown Aderholt[1] (born July 22, 1965) is the U.S. Representative for Alabama's 4th congressional district, serving since 1997. He is a member of the Republican Party.

Terrycina Andrea "Terri" Sewell (/ˈsjuːəl/; born January 1, 1965)[1][2] is an American lawyer and politician. A member of the Democratic Party, she

Donald Edwin Young (born June 9, 1933) is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Alaska's at-large congressional district,

Ann Leila Kirkpatrick (born March 24, 1950)[1][2] is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Arizona's 2nd congressional district.

Raúl Manuel Grijalva (/rɑːˈuːl ɡrɪˈhælvə/; born February 19, 1948) is an American politician who currently serves as the U.S. Representative for Arizona's 3rd congressional district, serving since 2003.

I believe their most important characteristic is U.S. Congressional Representative, not Party nor (questionable) Media nickname. Somebody may want to reword the first sentence, and wonder how this happened. See also MOS:LEAD.