Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 5

"Healthcare: not in source provided"
Regarding this edit, the editor is mistaken that this is not in the source which is PolitiFact. I'm not sure if they didn't read the source or they were looking at the wrong one. In any case, the reason provided in the edit-summary is clearly mistaken so I restored the content. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I just read through it again and I still don't see it. Can you quote the relevant bit? Bradv 🍁  18:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think A Quest For Knowledge meant to cite to this Politifact page. A quick google search shows that RSs have covered it. The coverage, however, was minimal, lasting barely more than a few days. I don't really think this worth putting in--it seems too insignificant. See WP:10YT. HoldingAces (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for finding that., can you please self-revert? Clearly my edit was correct, and this needs to be discussed here before it can be added back, per the DS restrictions on this page. Bradv 🍁  19:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I reverted yet another edit for the same content by . Not that this isn't unacceptable info, but I agree that this might be undue and repeatedly putting it back without consensus is disruptive. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad. I apologize.  I accidentally cited the wrong article.  HoldingAces is correct; this is the source I meant to cite.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Brook Avenue Press
Founding a publishing house sounds like a major accomplishment! Founding Brook Avenue Press is mentioned in her bios. The Wiki article in turn duly mentions this publishing house among Ocasio's accomplishments.

However, does the mere fact that it is mentioned somewhere make it NOTEWORTHY? To be included in Wiki we should have a citation that shows WHY it is noteworthy, don't you think? The most noteworthy thing about the publishing house I can find is that it was mentioned in a newspaper article as an example of Brooklyn entrepreneurship.

Amazon shows no books under this publisher, neither available nor unavailable. The publishing house web site is blank.

If there's any evidence anywhere that this publishing house took her more than 4 minutes and $9.95 to reserve a website address, then let's cite THAT instead of a puff-piece bio.

If there's no such evidence, then why not remove this?

In addition to grounds of noteworthiness, I'd mention:

-- neutral POV: lauding her for something that is not remarkable is not neutral. Again, show it's noteworthy and thus that mentioning it is neutral.

-- fairly represents all significant viewpoints: Since this carries an explicit or implicit laudatory tone unjustified by the current cited reference, it should be appropriate to also have a comment or phrase (such as "that has no books or website") that conveys an alternate viewpoint that a publishing house with no publications isn't necessarily much to anyone's credit.

I've had my had my edit here reverted twice: once because checking to see if the publishing house had published anything was deemed "original research," once simply because there was a citation and I should build "consensus" before deleting something with a reference whether or not it was notable. I don't see any record that there was consensus before adding it, but fair enough: how does one get consensus to delete something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiss Frank (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * OK, then alternate question: what about adding a description of the publish house, even parenthetically: (that ultimately didn't publish any books )?Swiss Frank (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Major accomplishment" and "minor" accomplishment have nothing to do with it. We don't decide what's important enough and what's not important enough to talk about. The RSes decide. If enough of them mention that she started a publishing house, but don't go into the details of how much it published or didn't, then we follow suit; we also mention the publishing house but don't go into details of how much it published. Library of Congress is also a primary source, and using any primary source to make the case that the company didn't publish is original research. So the first question is: is there consensus among the secondary sources that this publishing house didn't publish anything (and whether that's important)? Levivich  01:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really refreshing to see and  deferring to WP:RS, and I agree. If it's been covered by WP:SECONDARY, it can be included. The important thing to avoid here is editorializing to make it sound "successful" or "not successful" if the sources don't say either way. We can draw our own conclusions, but those don't belong in the article—Wikipedia readers can make up their own mind. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


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


 * The article says "launched" a "publishing firm" because that's what the RSes say:
 * 1) 2012 NY Daily News: ...Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, who recently launched Brook Avenue Press, a publishing firm for books that portray the Bronx in a positive light. Note: #1 is the source cited in the article, and our language tracks it very closely, but see also:
 * 2) 2018 CNS via NBC LA: ...established a publishing firm, Brook Avenue Press, that specializes in children's literature that portrays the Bronx in a positive light...
 * 3) 2018 Inc.: ...in 2011 launched a publishing venture through a local startup network...
 * There is little point to discussing whether we think it did or didn't publish books, or whether we think she launched it or just researched launching it. We must follow the RSes. Levivich  22:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If her "launch" consisted of no more than what is described in the RSs (i.e., renting space and researching) then it isn't biographically significant and has no proper place in the article. "Launch," without more, is not enlightening, and is rather misleading. If nothing else, the rent-and-research reference should be added from the other RSs, to clarify what that "launch" consisted of. John2510 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , of the three reliable sources I just quoted, two out of three use "launched" and the third uses "established", and two out of three use "publishing firm" and the third uses "publishing venture". So "launched a publishing firm" is the consensus of the reliable sources. If you have other reliable sources that say something different, please post quotes and links here for discussion. If you personally disagree with the use of terminology by reliable sources, whether you're right or wrong, it's irrelevant, per WP:OR. It doesn't matter what we think about Brook Avenue Press, it matters what reliable sources have written about it. That's all we take into account. Levivich 19:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This source states, "And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, has shelled out $1,000 since April simply to rent space while she researches her business idea — a children’s book publishing company devoted to telling positive stories set in The Bronx." Renting space and researching doesn't make a "launch" meaningful for a biographical article. I suspect there was some bootstrapping involved in the use of the term - which we shouldn't perpetuate here. None of the sources define what they mean by the use of the term. Not everything for which there is a RS is appropriate for a bio. Are you aware of anything about her "launch" being meaningful? John2510 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Continuing discussion in the next thread. Levivich 21:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Failure of Brook Avenue Press
It seems incomplete to mention this 2011 accomplishment in content we are writing in 2019 without informing the reader what happened to Brook Avenue Press after 2011. Here are three sources for info about the fate of Brook Avenue Press: I can summarize the information from these articles to inform the reader that Brooks Press failed. Is the consensus as add this, or suppress the fact than Brook Avenue Press was a failed venture? patsw (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would vote not to add this because Daily Caller is not a reliable source and may soon be deprecated. American Thinker, not reliable for facts IMO, is based almost entirely on the Daily Caller and doesn't say Brooks Avenue Press "failed". Inc is reliable but doesn't say Brooks Avenue Press "failed". Levivich 00:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that BAP is a on-going business, or it's incorrect to state it was a failed venture? I'm looking for more sources that reflect the facts, as I assume all interested editors are.  There is no surprise that the media in 2018/2019 generally supportive of Ocasio-Cortez in mentioning the start of BAP do not also mention its failure.  It seems natural that media generally critical of Ocasio-Cortez would mention its failure.  We could be in the position of siting on our hands waiting for another reliable secondary source to report that Brook Avenue Press failed.  The Inc. article has  "...We seek to develop and identify literature in urban areas," the then-22-year old said of her now-defunct startup, Brook Avenue Press, in a video interview...  Is it possible that the defunct startup was a success and not a failure? patsw (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, it's possible that a defunct startup was a success and not a failure. You are assuming a false dichotomy, not supported by RSes: that either a business is operating or it has failed. A business can stop operating for many reasons, only some of which can be described as "failure". For all we know, she sold BAP for millions of dollars to a larger publishing firm which then shut it down. You'll find very little about BAP I expect, except that it's a publishing firm launched by AOC. Levivich 01:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I set forth above, there is no evidence that it was ever a success or a failure, as it never had any meaningful existence. This source states, "And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, has shelled out $1,000 since April simply to rent space while she researches her business idea — a children’s book publishing company devoted to telling positive stories set in The Bronx." John2510 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That source was written in August 2012, so it covers April 2012 – August 2012. What is the significance that she paid $1,000 per month in rent for the first four months? Levivich 21:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not going to argue that her involvement with BAP was in any way significant. However, if BAP is going to be mentioned, referencing that RS may enlighten readers as to what involvement was. As you note, the RS is from August, 2012 (after the referenced "launch" from the other articles) - so it clarifies that the "launch" was indeed just rent and research. In other words, the other articles weren't describing some actual venture that BAP later grew into. Good point. John2510 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Two questions, one of them relevant and one just out of curiosity. 1. Doesn't it violate WP:SYNTH to use a 2012 source to "clarify" that when the 2018 sources say "launch", they're not being accurate? 2. Can you give me an example of a publishing firm that published a book within 4 months of incorporation? Levivich 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The information from the other RS adds clarity to what occurred, regardless of the other sources. The reader can draw his own conclusion as to the accuracy of the description "launch" in that context. To answer your second question, I'm sure there are many publishing companies that published books within 4 months of incorporation but I'm not going to research it. I published several books, one of which went into a third printing, without ever incorporating. However, I'm not aware of Ocasio-Cortez doing anything most would consider to be a meaningful step towards publishing a book during that time (or ever). A RS says she researched it as a business idea. Okay. That's what she did. If the article is going to mention her "launch" of a publishing company it should, in all fairness, let the facts speak for themselves. John2510 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

For people interested in the primary source (and remember,we don't use primary sources in article space):
 * patsw (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the best way to resolve this matter is to add a clause stating that the publishing venture is "defunct", which is the word used by Inc. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "now-defunct Brook Avenue Press", "defunct as of 2018", or "no longer in business as of 2018"? Inc.'s readers understand what "now-defunct" means; I'm not sure about WP's broader, international readership. Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Now-defunct" seems perfectly understandable to me, though I do not like the hyphen. How about a simple brief sentence cited to Inc., "The business is now defunct."? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 01:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Cullen328, I assume this hyphen hatred is just another example of your California-inflected anarchist streak. But you put that shit in front of a noun, you better put a hyphen in there, dude. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, . All this time I thought "defunct" was an adjective but I ain't no English perfessor. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really about function, my dear Cullen, rather than category. (Yes, "defunct" is an adjective, but sticking a temporal marker like "now" or "then" in front of it, when in "adjective function" (by which people mean "adjective position", which we in the business like to call "internal pre-head modifier"), seems to require hyphenation...) It is, and if you stick an adverb in front We're talking about that tomorrow, second period--when you're probably still snoozing in your California-size bed in your California timezone. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We may want the dust to settle on this update on Brook Avenue Press for a few days: The company she founded owes the state $1,870.36 in corporate taxes, public records show and reported in The New York Post. I expect that the usual bias and double standard applies here and this is will not be mentioned in the NY Times/ WaPo/ CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ NPR/ CNN/ MSNBC/ Politco because the subject is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. patsw (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw that here as well. "Brook Avenue Press, a company she founded in 2012 to publish children’s books in The Bronx, owes the state $1,870.36 in corporate taxes, public records show." "Public records show the state dissolved the company in October 2016, which can happen when a business fails to pay corporate taxes or file a return." "The state slapped the company with a warrant on July 6, 2017..." I'm fine with waiting to hear what her response and any contradictory reports may consist of, but it's relevant RS information and should be added (as should the fact that all she did was rent space and study the concept). Maybe she'll take this opportunity to explain what her "early career" resume items truly involved. Nah... John2510 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The dust has settled, and I have predicted correctly that there would be no coverage of this in NY Times/ WaPo/ CBS/ NBC/ ABC/ NPR/ CNN/ MSNBC/ Politco, so the usual double standard applicable to AOC has been applied again. Also, this means this is something that we don't even have to discuss here any further, definitely below the threshold of Wikipedia perception. patsw (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Campaign Expenditures
Please correct 2018 campaign expenditures to match the FEC filing of $1,774,499.33 (https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H8NY15148/?cycle=2018)--Struharj (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging this. I removed the previous numbers, which were out of date (from June 2018), and no longer per the source cited (Open Secrets). Also, Open Secrets data, and FEC filings, are WP:PRIMARY sources, so I don't think we should be putting dollar amounts in the article, citing only to those primary sources. For example, there's the issue of campaign expenditures v. PAC expenditures v. "outside spending", plus primary v. general spending, which was complicated for NY14 in 2018, where the primary was more important than the general (AOC spend less than her primary opponent, but far more than her general election opponent). There's too much interpretation that's required. So, I don't think we should add any campaign spending figures, or comparisons, unless they're cited to reliable, secondary sources. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section
I have been accused of engaging in edit warring. I guess that is because every time I have included any statement in the Ocasio-Cortez article that is critical of her, it is reverted, typically within seconds - before the reverting editor could possibly have had time to read the entire statement and certainly before the reverting editor could have check the accuracy of my cites. It seems that Wikipedia editors are more interested in protecting politicians they agree with than with presenting the neutral point of view that Wikipedia has espoused since its inception, and which is the very foundation on which it rests. I have been repeatedly told that, even if statements in my edits are factual and supported by reliable cites approved by Wikipedia, they will be reverted if there is not "consensus" that the edits should be included. That is simply ridiculous. There will never be consensus among editors for inclusion of anything critical of any politician, in particular a liberal politician given the political leanings of a majority of the editors. But consensus should not be required, or indeed even encouraged. The only way to achieve a neutral point of view is to include more than one side of an issue or position. Otherwise, all you have with any article about a politician is a one-sided political ad for the person, rather than an informative article.JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you've clearly edit warred over this issue, and you should stop. Generally we try to avoid having criticism sections in BLPs all together, because they're often non-neutral. Your edit appears to include a lot of poorly sourced claims (including a citation from the Daily Mail), some barely relevant stuff (Jerome Powell, unsurprisingly, doesn't believe in MMT), and other stuff that is currently under discussion on this talk page (the claim about her apartment, and the FEC filing). Lots of Wikipedia pages include criticism, including criticisms of liberals, but WP:DUE doesn't mean we just cobble together every thinly-sourced attack we can find and put it on the page.  Nblund talk 03:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: JohnTopShelf is blocked 72 hrs for edit warring. I have filed a separate ANI thread for their repeated incivility and IDHT. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Clearly the edit war is bad. However the removal of the criticism section he added, from the get-go, was without cause. With sources, I see no purpose for eliminating such a section. Every public figure should have a criticism section, even Mother Theresa. I was mistaken on edit war policy for non-participants. I do think, however, criticism over her choice of housing did not belong. Wanting nice place to sleep is not an issue (unless you are a Jesuit in a palace, maybe).  Spartan7W   &sect;   04:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CSECTION makes clear that we shouldn't have one "criticism" section. Criticism should be weaved throughout the article in the appropriate sections. It's appropriate to put criticism of the Green New Deal in a section about the Green New Deal. Not in a "Criticism" section that becomes a catch all for legitimate criticism down to right wing fringe theory that got covered in Fox News. Speaking of which, were all of the sources being used Fox News? We're considering them "fair and balanced"? This is a BLP on 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not a indiscriminate repository for all criticism or attack articles one can find on an individual, otherwise the "war crimes" section for George H. W. Bush would compel us to buy up the Tianhe 2 just dedicated for it. Criticism for BLP must be from fair, neutral sources written in a distant way. Also. proxy warring on behalf of a blocked editor and "Criticism" sections on BLP are never acceptable. You also inserted a WP:COPYVIO sentence directly from Daily Mail, a WP:DEPRECATED source. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 04:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked some more and the copyvios are far more extensive than a single sentence. The whole edit may have to be revdeled. As I suspected it's much worse. Please see the following strings from this edit: Google search 1, G-search 2, G search 3, G search 4. Also please see this copyvio report on Fox news and other sources from Earwig.  Dr.   K.  05:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much . Take care. Dr.   K.  21:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No "criticism" sections please. All notable criticism should be included into other sections. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View: I have had a number of my edits, to include statements critical of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's policies, reverted for no reason other than the reverting editor taking a stance that the statements should not be included as there is no consensus. (All the edits were properly cited to sources approved by Wikipedia.) In order to achieve a neutral point of view, especially with articles about politicians, it is important to include statements critical to the person in addition to all the laudatory comments. Of course, the criticism, like all statements, must be properly cited. But if properly cited, it should be allowed in. However, many editors seem to have an issue with criticism of some politicians - no matter how well cited. Regarding consensus, it is simply ridiculous that there must be a consensus for a statement to be included. There are two important things wrong with requiring consensus: 1) There will likely never be a consensus about including any statement critical of Ms. Ocasio Cortez, so no criticism is ever allowed in the article.  2) Requiring consensus severely undercuts the fundamental principle of "neutral point of view", which is only achieved when various positions on an issue are included. While Nblund states that "Generally we try to avoid having criticism sections in BLPs all together, because they're often non-neutral", that is certainly not the case, in particular with conservative politicians. Frankly, I am glad to see critical statements are allowed in the articles about people like Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, President Trump, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Justice Cavanaugh, Orrin Hatch, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Justice Thomas, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. But if criticism is allowed in these articles, why is it not allowed in the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez article? Why are the Wikipedia editors so adverse to including any criticism of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?JohnTopShelf (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , actually, every single edit you have made to the article so far has been a copyright violation. Since they've all been hidden from view, perhaps you could spell out here precisely what you would like to add and what sources you propose to use. Bradv 🍁  22:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK - let's start with this one: The following is criticism of her Green New Deal. The statements are from a Fox News article at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/greenpeace-co-founder-tears-into-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-pompous-little-twit. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace, criticized Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal, arguing that Ocasio-Cortez has no plan "to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get food into the cities", and that "if fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating."

I chose not to include his statement that she is "a pompous little twit", as it was a rude personal attack and not worthy of inclusion in this article.JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Another suggested edit: The statements are from Fox Business news at https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/powell-calls-ocasio-cortez-floated-theory-on-government-debt-just-wrong Chairman of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell is among the growing list of business leaders questioning some of the policies pushed by Ocasio-Cortez. During testimony before Congress, Powell sharply criticized Modern Monetary Theory, which Ocasio-Cortez has espoused as a means to pay the trillions of dollars that the massive social programs proposed as part of her Green New Deal would cost. "The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I think is just wrong," Powell said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

And another: This is from http://www.fortune.com/2019/02/12/bill-gates-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-tax-plan/ Bill Gates was equally critical of Modern Monetary Theory, an economic theory popular with some politicians theorizing that governments don’t need to worry about deficits, since they can always print more money. “That is some crazy talk,” he said. “It will come and bite you. The people you owe the money to, you will have a problem.”

One more: This is from https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/03/05/larry-summers-modern-monetary-theory-is-a-recipe-for-a-disaster.html, but it was also in Washington Post and other papers. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who served under Bill Clinton and later headed the Obama administration’s National Economic Council also slammed Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) for suggesting that government debt should not be interpreted as a constraining factor to fiscal policy, calling the theory “voodoo economics.” “It takes ideas that have a little bit of validity and extends them to a grotesque point where they defy the laws of arithmetic,” Summers stated. “So I believe MMT is very much misguided, the premise that somehow you can always print enough money to cover all of your debts.” Summers added that MMT was to blame for hyperinflation in Latin American countries that tried variants of the economic theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTopShelf (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be reasonable to note that modern monetary theory is a minority viewpoint among economists, but Summers, Gates, and Powell don't appear to mention Ocasio-Cortez specifically, so it wouldn't be appropriate to present them as specifically criticizing her. Like I said: criticism is fine, but we don't need to just randomly cite people. Is Moore the most prominent critic of the Green New Deal?  Nblund talk 15:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The rest of Moore's statement isn't worth including either; Moore is not a co-founder of Greenpeace, although a number of news agencies have repeated this falsehood that has been pushed by Moore. Greenpeace was founded by the Cotes, the Stowes, Hunter, Metcalfe and Bohlen in 1970, though Moore was an early activist on the first ship, from 1971. These days, he's a nuclear power industry shill and even on the verges of climate change denial. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Capitalism
I suggest adding Capitalism section because she did comment on it quite a bit. Lot of RS covered it especially her comments at SXSW2019 at Austin.Sourcerery (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Saikat Chakrabarti
Chakrabarti is not independently notable from Ocasio-Cortez—as an individual, he lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) His single Politico profile, while useful, is the only source that covers him as distinct from the Ocasio-Cortez campaign. There may be more such sources in the future, but for now, he is primarily known for his role in the Ocasio-Cortez team and can be covered here in context of that coverage.

Additionally, the separate Chakrabarti functions as a coat rack for a "Campaign finance controversy" section. (1) We avoid "controversy" sections for neutrality reasons. (2) If the subject of the coverage is the Ocasio-Cortez campaign, we already an article section for this purpose: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (3) That content would be best covered in the campaign section/article anyway, so I've already merged it there.

The question is whether the coverage of Chakrabarti as an individual warrants its own article. Until he is individually profiled in greater depth, his role in Ocasio-Cortez is already noted in this article, as the content has already been merged. If you agree, we can redirect Saikat Chakrabarti here. czar 18:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the FEC complaint discussion above but that's obviously relevant here. I removed one paragraph of merged/rephrased Chakrabarti text (collapsed below, if you want to salvage/restore, but note that I didn't verify the text against the sources for veracity).

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


 * czar 19:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging. Chakrabarti is Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff but is also his own individual. What he says is expected to reflect her opinion, but that doesn't mean he cannot independently express his opinion when it vibes with her opinion anyway. This is an objectively edited, well-sourced article that meets all standalone Wikipedia criteria. It also describes in detail Chakrabarti's own personal life and career and appropriately cites and sources his pedigree and accomplishments. I don't believe it is correct to merge all of this content into AOC's campaign article or AOC' personal article. Castncoot (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support or just Delete and redirect. Chakrabarti doesn't appear to have independent notability at this point and it appears to be just another place to gratuitously mention unproven partisan allegations which have been largely dismissed by outside experts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nom apparently doesn't google too well. I'll point out, I never heard of this guy until I saw this thread.  First he was the technology director for Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign.  It was the technological support that caused that campaign to start to take off, but he didn't get well publicized about it.  Second he was founder of Brand New Congress.  That is significant and much more of a notable achievement.  Prior to working for Ocasio-Cortez. after graduating Harvard, as a software developer, he worked at Apple, was a founding engineer that developed Stripe, and created Mockingbird (gomockingbird.com).,   You can see in the Washington Post article, this is coming from background around campaign finance issues   pushed by the right, where his name comes up.  A developing story, I'll avoid characterizing the campaign finance stuff until I read up on it.  It sure looks like the dealings of Chakrabarti will be coming up more often.  His independent actions are being discussed, as are those of Manafort and Cohen, independent of the political figure who is the front person for the controversy.  Additionally, he is treated as the "brains behind Ocasio-Cortez.", he is getting interviewed as such.,   We have articles on powerful aides; Huma Abedin for example.  It would be wise of wikipedia to provide background on this name in the news.  Yes, it is a WP:BLP so then we have to watch that article to make sure it doesn't become a coatrack for garbage about him or other subjects. Trackinfo (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Abedin has sources that cover her in specific. Only some of the sources you mention are reliable and even then, which go into depth on Chakrabarti in specific, beyond passing mentions? (The New Yorker.) The FEC stuff is under discussion above. czar  23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support I agree that he only qualifies for a redirect at this point. Redirecting will have the added advantage of saving the current history, should he qualify for an article later. I have made some changes to the merged sentence, as it failed to mention that he had been her campaign co-chair before becoming her chief of staff or the two PACs he co-created. The PACs are the main reason he has been called a political presence - not because he is a congressmember's chief of staff. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused, MelanieN: You acknowledge that Chakrabarti's political presence is based upon his co-founding of the PACs; and also, he has worked for he campaign of Bernie Sanders and has separately created or co-created the web design tool Mockingbird. How can all of these independently cited and sourced issues be reconciled with AOC's articles? I believe that they cannot, and I feel it is apparent that Chakrabarti's article is decidedly already a standalone article that is also likely to become only more independent with time. Castncoot (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, for whatever it's worth, an increasing number of people are viewing Saikat Chakrabarti, over 900 in the past 24 hours. Personally, I've never seen an article with this magnitude of viewership be merged or redirected- perhaps others have, but I have not. Castncoot (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, it's been put on AfD and linked on this higher-traffic article as part of a discussion and debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – For the same reasons I posted at Articles for deletion/Saikat Chakrabarti which I won't repeat here. Since merger is a possible outcome of an AfD, I wonder if these two conversations should be merged (pun intended), with either the AfD being closed on procedural grounds or withdrawn, or a pointer here to the AfD (since redirect/merger is a possible outcome of an AfD). Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 04:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no usable content to merge beyond what has been added already. Given the tiny amount of reporting on him, everything WP:DUE has already been merged, while the other issues don't have enough sustained coverage relating it to AOC to be worth on her article.  Also, procedural objection in that whether to add this content to AOC's article is already being discussed above and clearly lacks consensus to include at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a "support" not an "oppose"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My objection is that I'm concerned people will take a "merge" outcome as an excuse to insert the disputed content above regarding accusations against Chakrabarti; those have nothing to do with AOC at the moment. Something like the current Saikat Chakrabarti, who had been her campaign co-chair, became chief of staff for her congressional office. Co-creator of two progressive political action committees, he has been called a significant political presence. is fine (though I think the second sentence is puffery and could probably be dropped), but I strenuously object to any mention of the campaign finance allegations against Chakrabarti until / unless we have longer-term sources relating them to AOC directly; and clearly a merge discussion would be an inappropriate way to add them (as Czar realized when they noticed the discussions already in progress.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support or Delete (the other article) per WP:COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am copy-pasting this thread to Talk:Saikat Chakrabarti, where this discussion really belongs. Castncoot (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted. (1) Merge discussions happen at the destination's talk page per WP:MERGE. (2) It explicitly says, "If a discussion exists already, do not move it" czar  10:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The subject meets WP:GNG per sufficient independent coverage. The WP:COATRACK arguments are misguided - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is likely a WP:RELART, but there's no indication that this article's sole purpose is to include material that would otherwise be on that page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that my prediction is that by 24 hours from this time now, the day's page viewership will have increased to well over 1,000. The idea of merging or redirecting this page into any other seems preposterous at this point. Castncoot (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding that argument. AOC got 2 million page views in the last 30 days; 50k yesterday. What does page views have to do with notability? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 05:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not trying to put words into Castncoot's mouth, but he is pointing to the fact that this page is getting viewed, meaning a lot of the public is coming here for information about this subject. You do remember what we do here at wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, we inform the public.  For the few of us who have discovered this backroom discussion, spread in three places that I am aware of, to decide to delete content (and merging is another method to delete content) is doing a major disservice to the public.  We have information on this guy, not on Ocasio-Cortez, this guy.  It belongs there, on the Saikat Chakrabarti page, separate from Ocasio-Cortez. Trackinfo (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In my view, 1,000 ≠ "a lot" Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is whether the subject satisfies the notability criteria required to have their own article. The level of coverage for Saikat Chakrabarti does, and the vast majority of content on that page would not be at home in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A merger makes no sense at this point for these reasons. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose First, this is a separate person with their own acheivements who works for the Congress person, and not a family member or intimate partner. Merging would take away from AOC's page, as this person's story is not a part of her's as much my story is not a part of my boss'. No one would reasonably suggest that Martha Chase page be merged into Alfred Hershey page, and as such, I don't think that this page should be merged into AOC's page.Am0210 (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Chakrabarti has his own notability which is not based upon that of his current employer.  (I oppose deletion as well.)  – Athaenara  ✉  09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (diff) – Athaenara  ✉  10:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC) 
 * Comment I would be OK with leaving out the sentence about the PACs and the "political presence"; I only suggested them because "merge" usually means merging the significant content, but I would go along with merging only what relates to AOC. As for the page views, which several of you keep mentioning as if that meant something: that page is linked from both this article (right at the top of the page, which gets tens of thousands of views a day) and an AfD discussion. Of course it is getting viewed, for reasons that have nothing to do with his "notability". As already pointed out by NorthBySouthBaranof. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Trackinfo's excellent summary. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose this person is notable in his own right. His involvement with Justice Democrats and getting other candidates elected is an example. --rogerd (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge or Deletion as per my comments at AFD.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose but. There is plenty of coverage of the guy that's not about Ocasio-Cortez, so I oppose the merge. However I can see why the merge was proposed. More than half of his article as currently written is really about Ocasio-Cortez and is just repeating stuff Chakrabarti said as her spokesperson. It's not biographically noteworthy. That material should either be deleted or re-written to demonstrate its noteworthiness with respect to Chakrabarti. R2 (bleep) 15:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not merge with the other page. They are different people. 100.38.63.199 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC) 100.38.63.199 (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose he is separately notable, and his past positions (as " Justice Democrats executive director and former director of organizing technology for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign" and "Brand New Congress co-founder") are informative to our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose He's a notable individual even apart from his work for Ocasio-Cortez and he has been named in more than enough legitimate outlets to warrant his own page. Period.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caveman Caveman Caveman (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. He is notable 'only' as her chief of staff. Not an independently notable person who would deserve a separate page. Moreover, I do not think this should be included at all. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge - Subject is notable and there are many reliable sources. The article is useful. Content mainly about Ocasio-Cortez can be moved to the article about her and vice versa. -- econterms (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge per the work of Trackinfo. Subject is covered by RS and does not fall under 1E. Davey2116 (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per . THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 12:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: This discussion has been running for ~8 days now, isn't it about time to wrap the thing up?  The consensus is clearly not to merge.  – Athaenara  ✉  04:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Repeating (mostly) what I said on the Saikat Chakrabarti AfD page for a broader audience: I registered my Oppose and Keep votes early on, because I did my research, while the NOM failed to do an efficient WP:BEFORE, meaning for most, a Google search.  I used those sources, along with help from other editors, to improve the Saikat Chakrabarti article and clearly refute the arguments of all but the most stubborn of dissenters.  So lets review;  We have been through this needless exercise in two places because it was 1) nom is out of process, 2) (quoting myself) Nom apparently doesn't google too well and 3) While I hate the AfD process because it makes valuable content vulnerable, I does result in improvements to an article.  I had never heard of this guy until this was brought up, first as this merge proposal and then as an AfD, now I know he is an important player in our current political situation; recent past, present and future.  After those improvements to that article, we are now in a situation where; in the last 7 days we have 12 Oppose, to zero Support for Merge.  I think our work is done here.  WP:SNOW


 * The further moral to this story is whenever you see a merge discussion or an AfD where a NOM says there is nothing to be found about this subject,
 * DO NOT TRUST THAT STATEMENT. Google it for yourself.  While I think it should be obvious and it should be a requirement that all NOMs do a legitimate BEFORE, there is no enforcement.  I think they should be penalized for making frivolous NOMs without one.  Somehow, I seem to have a gift for finding sources those other people miss.  I added 21 sources to the article (some were removed).  Is it just me?  I wish it isn't.  We need more WP:Inclusionists to help save Wikipedia's valuable content, or articles like this could be disappeared by ill founded NOMs or worse, by people with bad intent.  We all need to be vigilant.  Help here.  I will be willing to teach deep Google technique.  Maybe I need to formulate an essay.  I believe in collegiality.  Please contact me through my talk page to learn, discuss or help.Trackinfo (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good points, Athaenara and Trackinfo, this discussion needs to be closed with a clear consensus of "no merge". Castncoot (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Castncoot, please stop lobbying for this to be closed the way you want. This discussion should be held in abeyance until the AfD is closed; IMO that discussion takes precedence because it is more a more formal process. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Why inject straw man attack against MMT into AOC article?
You say "[MMT is] a heterodox macroeconomic theory widely rejected by economists," citing as evidence a poll of top economist. However, according to Bloomberg Business Week, this poll was a straw man attack: "Another misconception is that MMT says deficits never matter. On March 13 the University of Chicago Booth School of Business published a survey of prominent economists that misrepresented MMT that way, leaving out its understanding that too-big deficits can cause excessive inflation. The surveyed professors roundly disagreed with MMT as described. MMTers cried foul."

Source: Bloomberg Business Week

--Slieredna (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Who's to say that prominent economists in a cited poll polled are wrong and unnamed "MMTers" are right? Just refer to MMT and let the editors for that article slog it out. patsw (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Our source says that AOC felt MMT should be considered, or part of the "conversation"--hardly justification for this article to COATRACK commentary on MMT. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that one poll is sufficient to go off on a tangent about it, especially given that one of the sources doesn't even mention AOC, while the one that does mention her is much more cautiously worded (But the idea has also faced intense pushback from economists and pundits across the political spectrum, and none of the mainstream economists interviewed in a new survey were ready to sign on to the idea just yet.) This isn't enough to include it.   At best we could say "in one 2019 poll, no mainstream economists interviewed were ready to endorse the theory" or words to that effect, but phrased like that (which is a more accurate paraphrase of the source) it's clear it's not worth including.  --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with HouseOfChange and Aquillion, and with this removal, and generally not including commentary about MMT. Generally, and as HouseOfChange points out, where the article reports that AOC favors/opposes X, that shouldn't be a jumping off point to COATRACK content about why X is good/bad. Examination of particular policies or political issues should be included in the articles about those policies/issues, not in the biographies of the people who support or oppose them. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to insult MMT's supporters but a short, neutral description could be a useful explanation for this heterodox theory. I oppose listing opinions of economists or fellow members of Congress, as that is WP:Coatrack. w umbolo   ^^^  22:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel we should absolutely include it. An important part of remaining neutral is representing all views. We've shown that AOC supports MMT, and we should show that it is not universally accepted. This, by no means, is to say that MMT doesn't work, just that different viewpoints exist. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The connection of AOC to MMT, being pushed by rightwing sources, is extremely slight, based on her comment that that MMT should be "a larger part of our conversation." If we are going to add detractors' opinions about each of AOC's ideas, does that make the article NPOV if we fail also to include supporters' opinions about each idea as well? The article includes a wikilink to MMT, where people can find more info than we are likely to wedge into this article. MMT says that deficits can be used to fund large social programs. AOC has instead proposed that higher marginal tax rates should be invoked, an idea also being slammed by the very same outlets accusing her of embracing deficit funding from MMT. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with HoC that this was an unnecessary bit of coatracking, especially given how tenuous the connection between AOC and MMT is. (I am having fun imagining all the other asides that one could coatrack into the article, though. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (/oʊˌkɑːsioʊ kɔːrˈtɛz/ in IPA, a notation often used by language-learners but not necessarily widely known by native English speakers; or in Spanish, a romance language spoken in Spain and by people descended from its colonizers and colonizees: [oˈkasjo koɾˈtes]; born October 13, 1989, making her a Millennial, a sometimes maligned generation), also known by her initials..." ;) -sche (talk) 04:02, 26 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, thanks for finding those sources. Feel free to draft some proposed language and post it here. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)

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. which was immediately reverted. I was going to follow this with other commentators concurring by expressing similar opinions.    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)
 * , 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<sub style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);">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)
 * 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)
 * , what if their social media following is one of the most significant aspects of the subject? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not. This is WP:WIKIPUFFERY. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * If you review WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, you will want to refactor your comments to . 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)
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">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 but would prefer to see it rewritten to exclude the Time quote (we can make the same point in our voice). Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like "one of the most..."  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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I liked what you did 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)
 * , I agree your tweaks are improvements. Thanks! Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">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." 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 and  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 and  -- 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  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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">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. <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:Crimson;text-shadow:2px 2px 12px HotPink;">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%  70% tax rate over 10 million, 59%   Free college 59%  Medicare for all 71% to 56%   Elected Democrats don't like that, people like that.  Note even the conservatives call it the AOC effect.    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  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."   "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.   Ocasio-Cortez "is the thought leader of the Democratic Party right now," insisted Fox News host Laura Ingraham  and back where I started this "She is the leader. Everybody knows it." - Michael Moore   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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">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  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.  or  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, 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)
 * 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)

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.


 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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 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)
 * 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)

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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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." 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. 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., 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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? FallingGravity 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  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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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: 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 and  proposed above. What do we think about a sentence built around this? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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 &lt;ref&gt; 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, it does. Bradv  🍁  15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)
 * , 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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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)

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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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.

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
 * JohnTopShelf

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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">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?) <span style="font-family:'Lato',sans-serif;color:#DC143C">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&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Behold the power of a critical statement about a Republican vs. a critical statement about a Democrat. Wikipedia pages on conservatives and Republicans contain far more critical statements and language than pages about liberals and Democrats.  Don't get me wrong - I am not suggesting that the criticism should be removed from pages on conservatives - if it is properly cited and relevant it is certainly appropriate.  I am just suggesting that pages about liberals be treated in a similar manner.  JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * B: JohnTopShelf (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)