Talk:Audrey Strauss

This article is all wrong!
She is not the acting US Attorney. Berman has not stepped down. This is all wrong and needs to be revised ASAP. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There, I updated it. This is a fast-changing story and will have to be monitored closely. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This article will have to be closely monitored and updated with patience. I doubt we will have the full story for days, weeks, or event months. KidAd (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but actually the situation resolved itself today, when Barr realized that Strauss had to be the acting US Attorney by law (what kind of lawyer is he, that he thought he could appoint an outsider?), and Berman then agreed to resign. It was a wild ride for a few hours there, though, wasn't it? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. It would be nice if we could find her age somewhere. There may be more written about her in the next week or so, more of a profile article instead of just breaking news, and we might get an age or birthdate then. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this whole fiasco certainly happened fast. I agree with the birth date, and will do some more digging. I've also been looking for a birth place and government portrait. Her son's marriage announcement alluded to her residence in Brooklyn Heights, but a birthplace and/or hometown would be far more valuable. Additionally, I want to find more firm evidence on children. So far, the NYT marriage announcement has only confirmed one. An IP added a Scripps College staff listing that referenced a possible daughter. This source, which appears to be a Yale alumni periodical and features a brief blurb on her husband, references four children, including the son from the marriage announcement, the daughter associated with Scripps College, another son in Tacoma, Washington, and another daughter associated with Kent State University. I'd like to to more research to confirm that these are her children – or at least step-children – before drafting the language. KidAd (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case we won't go into a lot of detail about her children, not even their names unless they are notable, per privacy. We often just list something like "children: 4" in the infobox and "she is married to XXX and they have four children" in the personal section. But it would be great we could get more information about HER in those other sources you mention. And I think we will see more in-depth reporting about her in the coming weeks. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I’m more concerned with confirming the number of children than any actual biographical info about them. If there’s one consistent characteristic of this woman, it’s that she’s managed to maintain a low profile during her many decades of government service. KidAd (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per this source, Strauss was 71 in March of 2019. Is it safe to assume she was born around 1948? KidAd (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, well done! In that situation we list the birth year as "1947 or 1948" (1948 is more likely because the article was written in March). I'll add it. What else can we glean from that article? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Thanks for doing that. Unfortunately, the HeraldNet article is only focused on SDNY probes into Trump campaign finance violations. The article mentions her in passing and coincidentally drops her age. KidAd (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This magazine lists her hometown as Philadelphia. I've already added the information. KidAd (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Uncertainty regarding circumstances of Berman's departure
There is mention of the claim that Trump was involved in firing Berman in this article; all references to Trump's denial are being edited out due to lack of relevance. Due to the conflicting statements from President Trump and Attorney General Barr, if the President's statement is irrelevant to this article, then I believe all details surrounding Berman's departure (in a press release, he said "I will be leaving") should be omitted entirely until there is more information regarding the matter. Andrew11374265 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I now see that this change was made while I was typing this, so I consider this section resolved, but I will leave it up if anyone else has differing opinions. Andrew11374265 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Listing of the Political Party in info box or in Article
The only place that has her party listed, that I can find, is a New York Times. In the sentence it is listed, it says she acts apolitically. My point, is that she is a career attorney for the DOJ. She isn’t in politics or acting as a political actor, per WP:RS. WP:RS’s don’t put weight on her voter registration and neither should the article. It is WP:UNDUE to have it in the info box and also in the article.Casprings (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no point in removing RS information. The position of United States Attorney is partisan, as they are appointed by presidents and tend to align with the current administration's political values. Strauss serving in an acting/interim position doesn't mean that her party registration isn't relevant. KidAd (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She wasn't, as she was from the civil service. Putting that in the article puts to much weight on what, is essentially, a private decision for her. She was not appointed nor involved in democratic politics. The one source that mentions it, does so within the framing that it isn't important. Having it in her the info box and within the article provides too much WP:WEIGHT.Casprings (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, Casprings, she is not from the civil service. She was in private practice from 1983 until 2018, when she became Deputy US Attorney under Berman. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Was in justice before that. Brought there by Berman. Still the point being, not a political appointee nor any evidence she is acting politically.Casprings (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly know what you mean. U.S. Attorneys are not barred from maintaining a political affiliation. Additionally, there is no content related to her political affiliation in the article that violates WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. I obviously think this is a non-issue, but feel free to discuss this issue with other contributors to the page. If a consensus is established to remove a mention of her political party, then so be it. KidAd (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't barred. They ARE mostly political appointees. However, that is the point. This is a career person. She has NOT been appointed by a democratic administration. Putting it in the article, puts WP:UNDUE on what is essentially a personal decision about what primary she decides to vote in.Casprings (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not agree. Feel free to ping some other article contributors to generate discussion. KidAd (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging you per the discussion above and because you edited this page in the past. Basically, the dispute is over to include Strauss's party. I argue that Strauss is a non-partisan career attorney. Having it in the article and info box is WP:UNDUE because it creates a misperception that she is a political actor. I think that creates Bias. I would argue that we should remove her party from the article or, as a second choice, remove it from the info box and in the sentence that mentions the party, state she is a career official and that is her personal party registration. I just don't see making that perception when we are talking about a choice of what party primary she votes in.Casprings (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that her party-affiliation is not directly related to her position or identity, and should remain out of the infobox. - Zim Zala Bim talk 21:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't feel like this is undue or a bias issue: if she's a member of a political party and a politician (even if a more bureaucratic, legal politician than an electoral one), then it's relevant. Since this is sourced, I don't think it's an issue. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m fine with that. But should it remain in prose? KidAd (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No strong opinions either way, but a completely random sampling of Category:Assistant United States Attorneys suggests that it's less common practice to include party in the infobox. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that political affiliation is irrelevant for anyone but a politician running for (or holding an) office. US Attorneys may be politically appointees, but they are supposed to be apolitical. We don't list party affiliation for SCOTUS justices, and neither should we for US Attorneys. --bender235 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, and the difference here is that this isn't even that. She was a career person that happened to be second in command when Trump removed her boss.Casprings (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This was not an issue of whether or not to include her political party in the infobox until now. This edit removed any mention of her political affiliation as a WP:WEIGHT issue. While it may not be customary to list political party in the infobox of a United States Attorney, a neutral mention of Strauss's political affiliation is not a WP:WEIGHT issue. KidAd (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I would argue it is, as it provides a misperception of her role as a non-partisan career official. The one source that mentions her political party (New York Times), does so within that context. If it is mentioned at all, that should be the context.Casprings (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * One can be serve in a non-partisan capacity at work while registering with a political party. If Strauss's predecessor had been more partisan, he would probably still have his job. And while Strauss may serve in a traditionally non-partisan position, she is still a Democratic donor per this source. While I don't think that information is relevant to the article, it shows that Strauss is not apolitical. Removing the information from the article completely would be WP:UNDUE. KidAd (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think it really matters one way or the other, especially since she hasn't been nominated to said post and is only serving in an acting capacity. While most articles I looked at refer to her as a "registered Democrat", like here and here, there are others who call her "moderate Republican" such as this article. I mean you could cite the voter registration form, I suppose if it came to that but then you'd be delving into WP:BLPPRIVACY. Snickers2686 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. My first inclination was to say, leave it out, these are career people and not politicians. But I changed my mind after a little research. Looking at the predecessor U.S. Attorneys for the Southern District, I find political parties listed for all the recent ones: Geoffrey Berman, Preet Bharara, Michael J. Garcia, David N. Kelley - in other words it does seem that we usually list this affiliation in the infobox. Hers does not appear to be a secret or in doubt. So I think we should probably list it for her as well. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, those cases you've cited just underscore that this is a more widespread problem. Being registered as a Republican or Democratic voter isn't the same as running for office on a party platform. US Attorneys, whether appointed or not, aren't politicians. Neither are judges, no matter whether at the district level or the Supreme Court. You won't find political affiliation listed for any of the current or past Supreme Court Justices, for a reason. These people aren't politicians, and they aren't beholding to some party line like a member of Congress. --bender235 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For what is worth, I think we should or could list it if the US Attorney is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If that is the case, I think it makes alot of sense. Or in cases where the Attorney is acting politically.Casprings (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes body text, maybe infobox. As others have done above, I'd draw a distinction between an interim/acting U.S. Atty. (e.g. career officials who were in the number two spot when a vacancy occurred) and those appointed by a president (which is a political act). Her party affiliation is a matter of public record and mentioned in RSs, so I wouldn't exclude it from the body. Infobox might suggest partisanship as part of one's job, rather than as personal trivia. From skimming sources, I don't get the impression Strauss' career is strongly linked to her party affiliation. If there's news stories that make a big deal about it (e.g. if the New Yorker runs a profile headlined "Meet the Democrat Investigating Trump's Allies"), I'd suggest we revisit. I see either outcome as largely innocuous, though.-Ich (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Fairly torn on this. Similarly to MelanieN, I went back at past U.S. Attorney pages and found that with the exception of Lev Dassin, who was acting U.S. Attorney during the first few months of Obama's term, every person who has held this office since 1993 has their party listed. That said, NY has closed primaries and being registered is a requirement to vote in them, so merely being "a registered Democrat" doesn't suggest anything. (Also only somewhat related - the same NYT article said that she "is a longtime donor" to Democrats, but neglects to mention that she hasn't donated to anyone since leaving private practice to return to SDNY.) Ultimately, the fact that only one source mentions it makes me very hesitant about it, but based on SDNY precedent I'm leaning keep in the infobox and omit in the rest of the article. Andrew11374265 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to bring in a quick note of clarification: neither Dassin nor Joon Kim have a political party listed, which actually makes a fair amount of sense, since those two, in addition to Strauss, were acting U.S. Attorneys elevated by a sudden absence in the top job. Since in such cases they are not, strictly speaking, political appointees, I think it makes a fair amount of sense to leave party out of it unless and until they are appointed or it becomes somehow relevant per the RSes.  Here I don't think we're at that threshold.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be alot of disagreement. Should we formulate an RFC? I would assume that the two questions are basically: 1. Should it be in the the text box. 2. Should it be in the text? If I can to make a quick judgement, I would say take it out of the text box and keep it in article.Casprings (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on including Audrey Strauss's political party
Should the article include Strauss's political party in: 1. The infobox; 2. The article's text? Casprings (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose both Struss is an acting U.S. Attorney. She never received an appointment by a President. Her previous government work was in the civil service. The WP:RS source that mentions her political party, that I found citied, does not emphasize it, says it in the context that she is apolitical, and only does it in passing. The issue of putting this in the article and info box is that it presents an issue of WP:Bias and undue WP:WEIGHT. It gives the perception that she is a Democrat who happens to be running an office with investigations that touch on Donald Trump. We should not do this when it is an issue of which party primary she votes in. In short, WP:RS does not support she is a political actor, and this article is particularly dangerous to give off a misperception that she is. Casprings (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Second Choice. Registered to vote as a Democrat in info box, exclude in text. If we are going to include this, could we provide some context. Tell the reader that she is Registered to vote as a Democrat instead of simply just Democrat.Casprings (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never seen that in an infobox. A sentence like that would be better suited for the body text. KidAd (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support both My arguments can be found in the above discussions. KidAd (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both per my reasoning in the above section. I would change my mind were Strauss appointed or if the RSes seemed to think it more relevant.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support infobox, oppose text: Out of the past ten people to hold her position, we list the political parties of six of them in the infobox: Mary Jo White, James Comey, David N. Kelley, Michael J. Garcia, Preet Bharara, and Geoffrey Berman. Of these six, the only ones with their party listed in the text are the two where it's most notable: James Comey and Preet Bharara. The other four that don't have their party listed at all are Joon Kim, Otto G. Obermaier, Lev L. Dassin, and Benito Romano. Two of these articles are stubs that don't list much of anything about the subject, two were interim appointees only, and three served under a year; it's possible party info might just not be available for them. Overall, I think this means there's some pretty substantial precedent for including party for a US District Attorney in the infobox: I don't think the idea of not including it for apolitical appointees when it's known makes sense given this context. Loki (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here from the NPOV noticeboard and in all honesty I support infobox but not in the text support both . The earlier New York Times article mentioned states that she's a registered Democrat. That article nor the UPI one linked above  actually says she's apolitical; the articles quote Jed S. Rakoff (a longtime friend) as saying "She is totally nonpolitical in her decision-making process". Rakoff clearly has a conflict of interest (he officiated Strauss' son's wedding) and he's not going to tell the media "She's a bleeding heart liberal who's going to take down Trump". Casprings is misrepresenting the source as the New York Times nor UPI say themselves whether she's political but only attribute that statement to one of her friends. The New York Times article also states her husband's political affiliations (he's a Republican) and goes on to state that Strauss donated to Biden in 2006, Hillary Clinton in 2007, and Obama in 2012. See this Associated Press article  which also prominently mentioned she's a Democrat. We should be giving due weight to her political affiliations and while the sources don't dwell on the fact she's a Democrat many of them devote a chunk or sentence of the article to clarify her political affiliation. Due weight in this case would be including the affiliation but not to unduly emphasize it. Many reliable sources included her affiliation and we should too. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:The Gnome is right on the infobox content requirements and supporting infobox while not including information in the text would be overruling global consensus on this issue. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 05:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose infobox as it isn't central to her identity or job. weak support in text, only if a reliable source comments on that fact (we shouldn't be scouring voter files to start adding registration data to BLPs). -- Zim Zala Bim talk 21:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, because this is information that may be valuable to the reader. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in the text but not in the infobox.
 * It's clearly out of the question to consider having the information in the infobox but not in the text. That would contravene the infobox content requirements, i.e. infoboxes should primarily contain material that is expanded on elsewhere in the article. The question then becomes whether or not the information is worth mentioning at all in the article itself. As we learn from the article, Strauss was appointed to her position in June 2020 by Attorney General William Barr. It was not some step up the hierarchy taken while serving in a civil service through routine, civil service procedures, e.g. years of tenure, etc. It is a political appointment. Therefore, this makes the information of her political affiliation, if any, and of course if verifiable from reliable sources, clearly worthy of inclusion in the text. Yet, it does not seem to be of such prominent importance as to be part of an infobox; it's not such an "important fact", as the How-To on infoboxes puts it. -The Gnome (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, I don't believe Ms. Strauss has been appointed by anyone; rather, she became acting U.S. Attorney by dint of her position and the Vacancies Reform Act. Note that in Attorney General Barr's letter to former U.S. Attorney Berman, he said "By operation of law, the Deputy United States Attorney, Audrey Strauss, will become the Acting United States Attorney."   For a bit of a deeper dive, I would recommend this article:   There is certainly room for debate as to what exactly happened here and what role politics played, but this was a normal sort of "step up" as laid out in statute.  Thus, I think calling it promotion by civil service procedure is actually apt.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Dumuzid. The Attorney General actually did make a choice there. Barr could have appointed someone else at the vacant position as soon as it became vacant. He could have appointed someone by the same authority that he'd fired Berman. But he chose to allow the step up as provided by the agency's statutes. It's still a political appointment. -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, The Gnome! I honestly don't want to sidetrack this discussion in to minutiae.  The first thing to note here is that the law is far from settled.  But one really must start from the Vacancies Reform Act (you can find it here: ).  Under the Act, Barr has no authority to either fire Berman (as acknowledged in his letter to Berman ) or appoint anyone else.  That authority rests with the President alone.  But again, these are mere details!  I've explained my reasoning and you yours.  Have a nice day! Dumuzid (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support infobox per the excellent above precedent-based argument by Loki. In general, I think that when this sort of thing becomes controversial for a particular person, precedent is an excellent way to decide the question. Neutral on text as I don't see any argument, including Loki's, to be persuasive on that one way or the other. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on text since (1) although she's been called a "longtime donor" to Democratic candidates, she hasn't donated to a federal candidate since December 2017, which was before she returned to SDNY from private practice, and (2) as I mentioned above, party registration is necessary in order to vote in NY's closed primaries. Leaning yes on infobox, with the caveat that as Loki noted, acting U.S. Attorneys who have served for <1 year have typically not followed the otherwise-existing precedent of listing party, so I think that omitting it entirely wouldn't be completely out of the ordinary. Also I think that the infobox content requirements cited above by The Gnome can be interpreted to permit footnotes in infoboxes, and I think this article is one where that would make sense. Andrew11374265 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Andrew11374265. For footnotes in Wikipedia we have WP:FN and WP:CS. In WP:FN, Wikipedia specifies what are footnotes: This page [WP:FN] explains how to create the Footnotes section for Wikipedia articles. In this context, the word "Footnotes" refers to the Wikipedia-specific manner of documenting an article's sources and providing tangential information, and should not be confused with the general concept of footnotes. The infobox content requirements do not indicate anywhere that we can have information in the infobox but not in the main text. And the information about the subject's political affiliation is anything but "tangential." Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Party inclusion
Per closing here should Strauss's political party be included in the article?Casprings (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose  per WP:WEIGHT. While sources mention it, it is not a point of emphasis for WP:RS, especially high quality ones. Moreover, inclusion provides bias. Struss is an acting U.S. Attorney. She never received an appointment by a President. Her previous government work was in the civil service. Inclusion feeds theories of the "deep state" and conspiracy theories. It gives the perception that she is a Democrat who happens to be running an office with investigations that touch on Donald Trump. We should not do this when it is an issue of which party primary she votes in. In the United States, party  affiliation is far different than in the UK, for example. When there is an issue with WP:WEIGHT and an issue with bias, we should exclude.Casprings (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per precedence-based argument by Loki in previous RfC above. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per my own argument above. Loki (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per my vote above and reasoning throughout this talk page. KidAd   talk  18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose  per my prior reasoning. Long story short: RSes don't accord it much weight and political affiliation matters less for a career official elevated by operation of law.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)