Talk:Alexa O'Brien

Oklahoma Death Penalty Review

Should O'Brien's work on The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission (2017) be included? Her name appears only once in the report, on page 249, footnote 34, which reads (in tiny print): "This and other statements about the practice in Oklahoma, if not otherwise indicated, are based on interviews with stakeholders conducted by Professor Boruchowitz and Alexa O'Brien from The Constitution Project." I believe that does not substantiate a contribution by O'Brien significant enough to merit inclusion among her body of work. I request that it not be added without consensus. NedFausa (talk) 07:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This is Alexa O'Brien. My work absolutely should be included. My name is on the title page of the academic publication (the first cost study on Oklahoma's death penalty that was commissioned for that report on p. 223 "The report was authored by Peter A. Collins, Matthew J. Hickman, and Robert C. Boruchowitz, with research support by Alexa D. O’Brien"). See, specifically Appendix IB1 "An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Capital Punishment in Oklahoma." That my name is on the title page as research support, means I was given titling credit by Dr. Peter Collins and his co-authors. That study was published in the 200 page report by the Oklahoma Death Penalty Commission, and cited in other academic literature. See for example: https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/osjcl17&div=7&id=&page=

In addition to the cost study, the footnote you are referring to, refers to this sentence in the 200 page report: "Trial counsel in Oklahoma state court death penalty cases are hampered by heavy caseloads, insufficient support staff, severe limits on funds for training, and limits on expert witness funding provided by the courts. Defenders in Oklahoma County average about four months’ work on a capital case." The footnote is intended to avoid giving the impression that research I conducted for the commission as a staff researcher and writer on the report is not presented in the voice of the commission, vis. defense counsel perspective in dealing with death penalty cases.

See also "The Constitution Project staff conducted legal research and writing, extensive investigative research in Oklahoma and with Oklahomans on behalf of the Commission, and provided other project support: Larry Akey, Lisa Banks, Matilde Carbia, Madhuri S. Grewal, Katherine Hawkins, David Janovsky, Ryan Kent, Jake Laperruque, Alexa D. O’Brien, Shoshana Riley, Scott Roehm, Virginia E. Sloan, Sarah Turberville, and Brian Yourish." That evidences that I was staff that conducted "legal research and writing, including extensive research in Oklahoma and with Oklahomans on behalf of the commission."

A full copy of the report and its Appendixes can be found here: https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/pdf/Report-of-the-OK-Death-Penalty-Review-April-2017-a1b.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no dispute that you provided research support in furtherance of The Report of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission (2017). The issue is whether or not that contribution is significant enough to merit inclusion among this BLP's subsection 2.2 Recent work. Being credited in footnotes is typically not considered noteworthy enough for encyclopedic mention. That is why I requested, nearly one full year ago, that it not be added without consensus. Until today, there has been no discussion in response. Hopefully, other editors will now weigh in. NedFausa (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The report is available from CourtHouse News. It says that O'Brien worked on the report as part of her work with the Constitution Project which we haven't mentioned on her page. We could mention the report in the bio using the same terms as appear in the report. For example: "O'Brien provided research support for the The Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission while working for the Constitution Project". Burrobert (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

@Burrobert: I reiterate, there is no dispute that O'Brien worked on the report. The question is, was her role significant enough to deserve inclusion in this BLP? Please address that. NedFausa (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

My credit is not in a footnote. 1.) Footnotes are used for authorship in academic work, namely the cost study 2.) My credit as a staff person in addition and separate from the cost study is in the text of the report itself.

Here are some points in favour of including a one-line mention of this work:

• The Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission has been mentioned in several reliable secondary sources, including CNN, The Intercept, Time Magazine.
• The report says "The Constitution Project (TCP) was critical to the Commission’s work".
• The Constitution Project itself is significant enough to have its own Wikipedia entry.
• O'Brien is named in the report in her connection with the Constitution Project.

Burrobert (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Burrobert: This is frustrating because you have not focused on my objection. Have CNN, The Intercept, or Time magazine singled out O'Brien's contribution to this report? Does either the report itself or the Constitution Project say O'Brien's contribution was critical to the Commission's work? NedFausa (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

“Alexa O’Brien ... worked hard to make the Commission’s work a success”. That’s all I have.Burrobert (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to fill in your ellipsis. TCP stafers [sic] Alexa O'Brian [sic], Matilde Carbia and Ryan Kent also worked hard to make the Commission's work a success. So the report does not even single out O'Brien for her work, instead grouping her with two other staffers and misspelling her surname. NedFausa (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Right-ho. I will leave it at that then. Burrobert (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And what about the Cost Study-- you guys aren't making sense to me. I am cited in an academic paper that is the first Cost Study on Oklahoma's Death Penalty that is cited in other scholarship. It would be awesome if you are going to be writing this, if you understood academic titling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Cost Study is described as independent of the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission. Responsibility for the Cost Study is listed as: "The report was authored by Peter A. Collins, Matthew J. Hickman, and Robert C. Boruchowitz, with research support by Alexa D. O’Brien". It is cited as a reference at [1]. Burrobert (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

AOBrien: I am not sure why the Oklahoma Death Penalty Commission report and, separately, the cost study by scholars that was commission and conducted by two prominent scholars on the economic impact of the death penalty, the first study of its kind on a state that executes more people per capital than any other, which I provided research support on was removed again from the page. But I want to clarify that these are two separate things. First I was a staff researcher and writer on the 294 page report, which led to Oklahoma took the recommendation of the commission and put a Moratorium on the death penalty in the state. (https://tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/keep-executions-on-hold-until-significant-reforms-are-accomplished-oklahoma-death-penalty-review-commission-says/article_c14fdf46-0f03-5cbb-9596-12bb8ecef6c5.html_)

See paged 8: "The Constitution Project (TCP) was critical to the Commission’s work. Without TCP, the Commission could not have fulfilled its mission. TCP is a Washington, D.C., bipartisan, nonprofit organization which fosters consensus based solutions to the most difficult constitutional challenges of our time. TCP supplied all staff and researchers to the Commission throughout its work. Virginia “Ginny” Sloan, the President and Founder of TCP, made certain the Commission had all the help and resources it needed. Madhuri “Madhu” Grewal, Senior Counsel for The Constitution Project, tirelessly worked for the Commission from start to finish. TCP staffers Alexa O’Brian, Matilde Carbia and Ryan Kent also worked hard to make the Commission’s work a success. They spent untold hours coordinating Commission efforts."

Second, I provided research support to the analysis by scholars on the cost of Oklahoma's death penalty and received a titling credit for my research support. (https://archive.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/OKDPRC_Final.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Horse Eye's Back, who removed the portion on the Oklahoma Death Penalty Commission report with the summary "neither of these are due, appears promotional". It seems the issue here is that there is not any reliable, secondary coverage of your involvement with this project and the report, which is what we typically require for facts to be added to articles. Personally I thought a single sentence on her work on this project, sourced to the report, was alright, since it is a non-promotional statement of fact of her involvement, and also helps explain what she's been doing since 2014. At the moment the article sort of ends in 2014/2015. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that we can still use it if theres local consensus that its helpful, I agree that it does help us paint a fuller picture by filling in that gap and if we can’t find any secondary sources that cover the same period I’m all for putting it back in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, consider this a support for inclusion from me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I just looked again and I’m not finding anything for the last few years in a google news search, although the fact that the subject themselves writes news articles complicates the matter immensely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

O'Brien has suggested using https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/review-commission-report-oklahoma-death-penalty-cases-cost-triple-that-of-non-capital-cases. It's not the best source, but it is something. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Alexa O'Brien

Note: these were interspersed into the talk page and not signed so it was somewhat confusing as to who wrote them. I've collected them here for review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Trade

AOBrien: I am an investigative researcher writer, and analyst. Even my early coverage of the Manning trial, which is the primary and sole focus of this page, I performed more as investigative researcher than a reporter. This is a specific discipline within journalism, but I have employed these skills in media, non-government, academic, and legal spheres. (See https://scs.georgetown.edu/programs/423/master-of-professional-studies-in-applied-intelligence/success-stories/7921/alexa-obrien) I cover national security and intelligence.

WikiLeaks Central

AOBrien: Heather Marsh was the only person with technical and editorial control of the site, as admin, when myself and the bloggers were at the site. She relayed to the bloggers, but only later, that the site was only 'endorsed' by WikiLeaks and she pointed out the WikiLeaks. dot org support page. (https://web.archive.org/web/20120826233021/http://www.wikileaks [dot]org/Supporters.html_) WL Central was listed alongside other blogs. I myself only came upon the blog from a Twitter search, and was aware that WikiLeaks tweet the site, but that is about all. At some point there was a falling out among staff at the blog, and everyone including myself left. My understanding is Marsh turned the site over to WikiLeaks at that point, but I do not know that to be the case beyond what she claims, and she is not a credible interlocutor to me. While I was at the site I primarily live blogged the Arab Spring in Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, and Bahrain, and conducted interviews with folks who worked on or were featured in the SOUTHCOMM GTMO DABS. I did cover a couple of the early defense filings and the Article 32 (grand jury portion of the multi-year Manning proceeding), but switched over to my personal website soon after. Most of the time that I was at Fort Meade I published on my blog, until the Article 13 when my coverage began to get notice from national media organizations and journalists.

Airwars News in Brief

AObrien: The report, News in Brief, one of the most comprehensive studies of war reporting, that I researched and drafted for Airwars about the non-existence of reporting on civilian casualties in the war against ISIS and was featured at New America in Washington, DC (See https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/events/reporting-civilian-casualties-war-against-isis/). This report uncovers how air power plays out in remote reporting of modern conflicts and show a progression in how journalists increasingly rely on intelligence and open source in those conflicts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Other Work

AObrien: There seems to be a preoccupation on the career section with giving the impression that I have done nothing but Manning or WikiLeaks, which was arguably a long time ago. Even the last sentence of that section "O'Brien focuses on intelligence and national security, but WikiLeaks..."

In addition to the works cited in the publication section, I have drafted an ethics series on intelligence for the media on the use of hacked/leaked material that is described on the Georgetown University website. (https://scs.georgetown.edu/programs/423/master-of-professional-studies-in-applied-intelligence/success-stories/7921/alexa-obrien).

At this point I have been doing this work for a decade, so to have this page reflect a period almost ten years ago is just not accurate, is my point.

Issues with Prior Editor

AObrien: My concern with Ned Fausa stems from his not acting in good faith. In addition to citing tweets, he also claimed that my ethics series could not be included on the page, because sections of it sourced to my personal blog (which is against Wikipedia policy, fine), but he had no problem citing it selectively elsewhere to suggest that I have not covered the topic of WikiLeaks and source related cases seriously in terms of ideas, research, and theory, which I have.

As has been reported, there is also a misogynistic downplaying of my academic and other credited work by his claims on this talk page and elsewhere that diminishes my other work-- for example, his claim that my titling credit on the economic analysis for the death penalty as research support was not worthy because the title existed in a footnote (as is usual in credits in scholarship) (see below). That work (the report and study) led to a moratorium on the death penalty in Oklahoma (a state that executes more people than any other in the US)-- that work constituted as much effort as the Manning trial. Moreover, even my research and body of work on Manning's espionage trial helped other journalists that trial. That is what a investigative researcher does-- See https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-indie-journalists-at-the-center-of-the-bradley-manning-trial/

The page was also tweeted out by pro-Assange accounts when Fausa began. His attempt to weaponize this process by getting me booted from the site was also not done in good faith.

I take my work seriously. Since Wikipedia is the first index item, what this page says, doesn't say, impacts my reputation as a professional. Since I am a working person, I rely on my reputation to work in that capacity. At this point, I do not accept Fausa's apology, because I do not believe he has been operating on good faith. I have attempted to contribute to this discussion and stayed in my lane. I am not required to like someone patronizing or untruthfully demoting my work and lying about it. That said, I am engaging in this process and that other Wikipedia editors and admins and the platform as a whole (which has its own autonomy to construct an entry) So my forthrightness is merely my attempt to be intellectually honest, and I trust the result will reflect a consortium of construction (which is what I understand this community is built on).

I am also not quite sure why the biography is as long as it is. Given that I am not a public figure, really, and there isn't a tremendous amount of secondary sources, I personally feel like less is fairer. To solely focus on Manning to the detriment of my other work (even on that subject, including ethics series) is somewhat slanted (to me). Given it is a controversial topic, the more reason to be conservative, given I am a living breathing working person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi UserAdobrien, and first of all thank you for your engagement on this talk page. I am sorry that you've had such a negative experience with Wikipedia thus far, and I do really appreciate your willingness to continue to work with us to improve this article despite it.

Secondly, I hope you don't mind that I moved your comments here—it was a little bit difficult to see that they were all from you with the way they were located before.

I will reply to your comments in order. Just wanted to leave this intermediate message as I do so, so you know they've been seen. I will re-ping once I finish replying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

AObrien: I appreciate you taking the time to edit this page and also provide oversight, including organizing my comments. I am still learning how to use the interface, so please pardon my unsigned comments above, and also my typos (which I have tried to correct, once I see them after hitting page publish. Here is a secondary source for the Oklahoma Death Penalty Cost Study: "he report—prepared by Seattle University criminal justice professors Peter A. Collins and Matthew J. Hickman and law professor Robert C. Boruchowitz, with research support by Alexa D. O’Brien—found that, on average, Oklahoma capital cases cost 3.2 times more than non-capital cases" (https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/review-commission-report-oklahoma-death-penalty-cases-cost-triple-that-of-non-capital-cases). That website is a primary site for aggregating scholarship, research, and studies on capital punishment. The commission (who separately commissioned that report) published that work in the appendix, but as the commission states it was independent scholarship I traveled back and forth to Oklahoma, and served dual hats conducting research for both the Commission; and also for the scholars of that study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is a fact sheet that sites that study, (https://documents.deathpenaltyinfo.org/pdf/FactSheet.pdf). In fact, there is scholarship in Google Scholar that cites that economic analysis, the first of its kind in Oklahoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adobrien (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adobrien: Replying in order:

Trade: Can you clarify what change you're hoping to be made? Is this in reference to the introductory sentence, which currently describes you as an "an American journalist, researcher, analyst, and activist"? If so, I don't see any reason "investigative" couldn't be added to "researcher"; it's supported by The Intercept. Just let me know if that's what you mean and I'll make the change, which I imagine will be uncontroversial.

I think investigative researcher is the best description (because it would fall under journalism, but also other context legal, ngo, and academic is what I mean).

WikiLeaks Central: Do you know if there's any published documentation of how WikiLeaks Central evolved from being a somewhat unaffiliated project "endorsed" by WikiLeaks, to one owned by the group? That would be useful in describing your involvement with it. I understand that often the history of organizations is somewhat opaque, though.

Your comment about opaqueness is the problem with WikiLeaks, in that they are ot transparent. My concern is that the sentence as written gives the impression that I was working for WikiLeaks in some capacity at WL Central or that I was aware of the organization being run by WikiLeaks. That was not what Marsh represented to me or other bloggers. She presented herself as the owner, admin with technological control over the site. Her representations are after the fact, and contradict statements on WikiLeaks website at the time. She is not an honest broker in my experience, and I don't think her own statement should constitute what is in fact true. That web archive from 2012 that I left a link to is what was presented to bloggers at the site namely it was a website endorsed or created by supporters or those with an interest in the releases, but in no way was it in control of the site (is what I mean). The problem with the public understanding of the organization is that it uses fronts or deception. That is their MO. And so this whole issue of WL Central is an interesting predicament

AirWars: This report is currently listed in the "publications" section. Unfortunately I don't think we can add more information about the importance of this report unless it has been written about in reliable secondary sources, which I was having trouble finding. Do you know of any?

Here is one https://qz.com/1666891/limited-coverage-means-americans-cant-grasp-the-true-cost-of-war/. The report is also cited in scholarship, for whatever it is worth: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=13975547997326361614&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en I am not sure if this counts as a secondary source: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/07/wheres-coverage-civilian-casualties-war-isis/158585/

Other work: This preoccupation I think stems from the fact that Wikipedia must represent what is mentioned in reliable, secondary sources, and a lot of the coverage that's out there describes your work with the Manning case. Per our neutral point of view policy, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This means that if outside sources focus significantly on one portion of your work, this article naturally will also. That said, it's entirely possible that we're missing some sources that could be used—if you know of secondary sources that describe your post-Manning work we'd love to see them and potentially incorporate them into the article. While we might be able to add a very brief, factual statement of your involvement in other projects using the projects themselves as a source (as is currently being discussed at #Oklahoma Death Penalty Review), we can't go into detail about them without independent coverage in reliable sources because of that policy section I quoted.

All I ask is if the coverage is slanted towards this early period and you cannot put my later work that you focus on less than more. For example instead of having a section that proposes to be my career biography that only contains Manning/WikiLeaks and nothing else, than that section be collapsed and simply write a paragraph bio or a few sentences to describe me for the entry. Otherwise, the page is presumed to represent the corpus of my work, and it doesn't. That can harm me-- first, because it is focused on an early part of my career when I moved from amatuer to professional. Given the controversy associated with this subject, gives the impression that my expertise, even on this subject hasn't evolved (when it has) in a formal context. I mean I wrote my capstone on the ethical use of intelligence by the media. When dealing with WikiLeaks or mass leaking one has to give credence to the fact that the subject has only come to light over the course of time, and that intelligence operations by state or non-state actors rely on truncated or abbreviate sourcing and ambiguity. For example, my release of that FOIA related to Hillary Clinton had really nothing to do with activism, it was research. And Leopold asked me if he could cover the release. I had FOIA'ed for WikiLeaks stuff long before that, and happened to get the first email of hers that was released. It had nothing to do with the State Department broad releases of her emails. Furthermore, secondary sourcing should include scholarship and not just news media. Arguably, scholarship has a higher standard (it often is peer reviewed). But, I don't completely understand the platform rules yet.

Issues with Prior Editor: I'm not sure if you've been made aware of this already, but there is a discussion about NedFausa's actions with this page and with respect to you open at one of our conduct noticeboards. He has already been topic banned from what we call the "AP2 topic area" ("all edits about, and all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people"), and he is also currently indefinitely blocked, with a discussion about an indefinite ban from the project (which is slightly different) so far unanimously supported. In my opinion (which I've already expressed there), his behavior was absolutely unacceptable, and I am pleased to see the rest of the community is agreeing it was beyond the pale. I wanted to make sure you were aware that as a community we are taking what he did here quite seriously.

Thank you for letting me know.

NedFausa was somewhat correct in that we can't cite your personal blog, with some very limited exceptions: WP:ABOUTSELF. However he was not correct to selectively cite it in the way you're mentioning. I have already removed much of the poorly-sourced content, and still probably ought to do some more trimming. Regarding the dispute over your authorship being mentioned in a footnote, I will save the substantive discussion of that for the above section but I agree that your being credited in a footnote (versus elsewhere) is really not relevant to whether you ought to be included, and it was a bizarre thing for him to focus upon. It appears it was only him who was objecting on that basis, so I don't know if further rebuttal is needed (since he has been removed as an editor of this page), but if other editors take issue with it I will respond as needed. Thank you for linking that PBS source, once I finish replying here I will take a look at it to see about incorporating some of the information there.

"His attempt to weaponize this process by getting me booted from the site was also not done in good faith." We agree entirely on that, and it does not appear anyone took his complaint about you at ANI seriously. You have not done anything wrong here, and we welcome you as an editor, both in providing input on this article's talk page or if you become interested in contributing elsewhere.

Regarding your points about the length of this article, those are quite legitimate. I have already trimmed the article considerably, but if there is anything else you think specifically ought to be removed, please do note it here and we can take a look. As I've mentioned, I will be taking another pass at this article when I get a moment.

I wrote about this particular issue above.

Thank you also for providing that deathpenaltyinfo.org source, which I shall take a look at. As for learning to use this interface (not the most user-friendly, I'm afraid) and sign your posts, I will leave a note on your user talk page with a little more information that may be useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Udnerstood and thanks.

One other thing. Here is where Arkin and my study from 2015 & 2016 has been cited by secondary sources. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22alexa+o%27brien%22&btnG=