Talk:Carmen Ortiz

The number format of the amount of signatures
Should the number be in words, as it grows anyway, or in numbers (like 18,000 or 18,447 as of the current count)? -Mardus (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just word it as 'tens of thousands' instead of a specific number or rounded approximation. That way we don't fall into recentism. This is an encyclopedia, not twitter, so it's OK to keep it as such and then eventually add the correct number when this blows over. If it goes over 100,000 then we can say 'one hundred thousand' and so on. For now, it's just important that the wording convey the significance of the signature drive. No need to update the number every 30 minutes. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Tens of thousands' is too ambiguous. The number is significant, because only 25,000 signatures are required. Oh, this should be mentioned. -Mardus (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither do I believe recentism is an issue, because information about the amount of signatures should be up-to-date in order to reflect the near-correct amount of signatures. I'd worry about recentism if the count were updated every 100 signatures or less.
 * After the 25,000-signature threshold, there should be a note that it was reached and that the White House must respond, while still including the most recent number in XX,000's. After that, I wouldn't mind if someone updates the signature count every 1,000 signatures, but then I would only update it every 5,000 signatures (30,000; 35,000, etc). -Mardus (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it's changing fairly quickly, I suggest something like "more than XX thousand". Jonathunder (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone should find a source on what a farce those petitions are. I signed one twice from Canada where I have always been a citizen. See Talk:Piers Morgan section 'wikiproject - the rest of us'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * it's past 25000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.254.188 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's past 45k now, but the goalposts have been moved to 100k. Jonathunder (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The 100K requirement applies only to petitions created after Jan. 15 ("This new threshold applies only to petitions created from this point forward and is not retroactively applied to ones that already exist.") It does not affect the Ortiz petition, which was created on January 12. TJRC (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes on referencing the White House petitions website
It's impossible to use the White House petitions website as a reference, because Wikipedia's spam blocker has  in the blacklist of URL strings. It would be a primary source anyway. -Mardus (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the government runs its own URL shortener and someone found a way around the spam filter. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment in the section above.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but at the same time it's not exactly accurate to say they just get ignored - see for example this. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Should someone just make a proposal to remove its mention from this article then? I don't know if Yahoo news is RS but abusing the numbers from us.gov in wp seems like a farce even if there is no RS that backs it up. The easiest way may be the normal wp method: Delete, revert, edit war, get all involved blocked, then seek consensus after blocks expire. Don't forget to cross-post on at least 10 discussion fora first.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to get medieval here :) We can use this source for example, which mentions the petition and the fact that it needs 25K to garner an official response. There is no need to have the exact number of votes and update it every two hours - and in any case we can't, since the only viable source for that would be the petitions website, which is blocked. And speaking of that, I think it would be good to put a request in over at WT:WHITELIST to just remove that from the spam filter. I mean, this is the executive branch of the United States, after all. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit dispute
User:Canoe1967 removed several paragraphs, an action that I believe was unfounded. I've restored them (without removing Canoe1967's additions), but the article needs the attention of more eyes. -Mardus (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there is also this: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -Mardus (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Recentism, and it doesn't belong here. This is not how we treat BLP articles. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced recentism with current, but there needs to be a consensus over which is better. -Mardus (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I used the recentism tag to indicate inappropriate coverage of a current event. This biography is about Ortiz not Schwartz.  The discussion that needs to occur is over including any content not over the tag.  I can't imagine why you placed a current tag in this article. This article is not about Schwartz.  Please take a moment to actually read our policies and guidlines. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it needs mentioning, but that currently the content is undue. --Errant (chat!) 10:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly which parts are undue and which are inappropriate, as Viriditas put it, and then, how inappropriate? -Mardus (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article may be a bio about Ortiz, but the section is very much about the involvement of her office regarding Swartz, just as much there is an article and bio about James Eagan Holmes and a section about what he did and what happened to him after that.
 * The White House petition asking to relieve Ortiz of her duty is a current event. I'm going to restore the recentism tag, but I won't remove the current tag.
 * (To bring an example, I would not have minded using the Recentism tag regarding Jodie Foster's speech, because there was a lot of initial confusion about what it meant.) -Mardus (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found some appreciation for the recentism tag based on Recentism.
 * I'm going to concentrate on editing other things for a while, with the hope that material won't be removed from this article. -Mardus (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to say that many/most people (outside MA) would never have heard of Carmen Ortiz if not for Aaron Swartz, in which case for many her notability (or notoriety as the case may be) is largely derived from this event and it deserves nontrivial coverage here. -- samj in out 11:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your above statement is an argument for redirection to the parent topic, not for keeping this current biography, which for all intents and purposes, was created to attack the subject. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The content was not created to attack a subject, but to reflect her actions or inactions that very unjustly contributed to someone's suicide. -Mardus (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's always the wrong reason to create a biography. In any case, she's probably notable regardless of the Swartz episode by nature of her government service and the whole "first {minority} to {x}" thing. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, well, "first {minority} to {x}" and then this. -Mardus (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heard of Carmen Ortiz because of Aaron Swartz. Think her notability is more related to this than the first minority thing. Wish the page would reflect that. Zaurus (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment
The issue is whether to include in the bio Ortiz's involvement in prosecuting Aaron Swartz. Much of it is currently removed. 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Include - The Swartz prosecution is the most notable action in her career to date, and may well remain so. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion Wikipedia does not normally include "lists of those prosecuted" for employees of the Justice Department who are assigned cases - it is not like she was Javert. Collect (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the removed section, that shouldn't even be a question&mdash;a lengthy, undue section devoted to criticism of this person is against policy, is not remotely necessary, and is simply a terrible idea. That said, the criticism Ortiz has received is still noteworthy and can be included as long as it's presented in accordance with BLP policy (the previous attempt to include it was not).  Swarm   X 01:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that SwarmX is right about the previous section should not be readded to the article. In my opinion, I think that at least one or two sentences and a wikilink to the Prosecution of Aaron Swartz article should be enough for the article.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious include.  The anti-Ortiz petition is highly highly notable.   Google lists 800-some news sources referencing it,  the House Judiciary committee is starting an investigation.    Nothing in WP:BLP justifies a complete deletion of this highly notable event.  Be careful, to be sure, but outright deletion isn't how we can best cover this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This RFC poses a question, but the answer (yes or no) doesn't really advance us. Yes, this biography should refer to the Swartz case. But, No, the previous content was not acceptable. It was undue emphasis due to involvement in a recent event that got the internet all het up (which usually produces large amounts of coverage and creates "undue" situations). We need to figure a way to properly record this persons biography; there are a number of notable cases she has been involved in, some of which caused her to be awarded "Bostonian of the year" by the Boston Globe. We should step back, assess the content and figure out how to cover all of it. Most of the Swartz material should go in the prosecution article, with some coverage here of the most pertinent points involving Ortiz. I'd suggest we don't need extensive comments about her here (as we did have) and that it would be best to stick to covering the facts and summarising opinions, with the quotes being more relevant to the prosecution article. This ensures we have solid coverage here, without creating a BLP problem. --Errant (chat!) 10:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I've added a Notable cases section and created a summary of one of those prior prosecutions; I'd like to see more of the high-profile cases expanded, if they merit it, so the recentism is less prominent. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include As per one of our supposed pillars, this isn't WP's call, it depends on RS. When Lessig makes such an obvious and public criticism of a prosecutor, based so firmly on this case, then that's not only notable for inclusion here, it's getting to the level of supporting a separate and notable article on this case  (which is not something I'm advocating, but we have the policy basis for doing that). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note Lessig's post doesn't mention Ortiz, and the prosecutor of the title is given a male pronoun in Lessig's article text. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Errant. Spot-on. David in DC (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include It certainly merits mention, but some mention of prior cases should also be provided to avoid recentism. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the person who created the above list of sources for expanding the article. All of those contain plenty of material, including a number of other notable cases. If those are used, the article can include this case as well without giving it undue weight. Jonathunder (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include But without violating WP:UNDUE. The way the information is presented at the moment certainly does not help; it should be a single paragraph (if that), which a link to the main article. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include - For most readers of this article, it is the reason they have come here at all. There is a wealth of reasonably sourced material regarding the subject, and I am sure it can be presented in a NPOV manner. Calls to restrict length to one paragraph are unconvincing. Jus  da  fax   08:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include The information is out there and her involvement is notable and has RS reporting on it. I agree with some previous editors that the previous version has much undue weight and should be only a few sentences. Dreambeaver  (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include only what is currently in the article. Adding the removed text would be WP:UNDUE. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include. It's obviously a highly notable aspect of her career as U.S. Attorney.  However, there should be no more than is in its present form: a single paragraph that does no more than set out her prosecution of Swartz; her justification of the prosecution; Swartz's suicide; and the petition to have her removed.  Anything further would be WP:undue.  I would further suggest that we should trim the sources some; some statements have 3-4 sources, and seem to be included solely to pile on, a variation of WP:UNDUE. TJRC (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO the article should at least mention that of all the people who have ever heard of Ortiz /slash know anything about her, a large percentage of them, know about her primarily from the major amount of press coverage after Aaron Swartz's death. As long as there is at least ONE hyper-link to the article about Aaron Swartz, then readers who want to read more, can just click over to there -- if they are interested in that.  Just my 0.02, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (PS: no relation.  Even spelled differently...)
 * Include in minimal form for now. The original addition of three paragraphs is too much weight for a biography article, especially as we don't yet know the impact on the subject. A single paragraph is definitely warranted and ought to be sufficient for now. I do, however, think that the current paragraph needs to be expanded by a sentence or two to show further the relationship of the paragraph to the subject (i.e. her decision to continue to prosecute despite MIT and JSTOR dropping charges), as well as to expand the justification for the criticism (specifically: the "overreach" criticism is far too vague). An additional sentence/paragraph might be added in time as the impact/magnitude of that case on her career becomes known. 108.212.229.135 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include. It is a relevant fact supported by secondary sources, therefore it warrants at least a brief mention.  Andrew327 18:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Include - it was the highest-profile, politically make-or-break case for her career, which has ended her political career. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore, Ortiz has formed an exploratory committee, and, if she does run, likely will become a national issue in a United States Senate campaign. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy close this RfC and re-start it with a better question about what to include. As ErrantX points out, the answer "Include" is obvious but unhelpful - it doesn't say what or how much content to include. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like there is consensus to include at this point, so this course of action would make sense. Dreambeaver  (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation with Carmen Ortiz (The GTA character)
See http://gta.wikia.com/Carmen_Ortiz ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.157.222 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to add a hatnote, but she is only mentioned in the section about Niko Bellic as "Niko's other optional girlfriends". I don't believe that's enough to disambiguate them. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's enough to disambiguate them, unless you're concerned that the attorney is also a fictional character in GTA. :-) I've added the hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not the same person? David in DC (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Exploratory committee for senate?
A UMass student publication is reporting that "popular U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Carmen Ortiz has formed an exploratory committee." . Do we have confirmation of this from any other sources? --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like lots of blogs are rumoring this, but I couldn't find a reliable souce. If she does create a committee, that's a public filing, right? Jonathunder (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find it in any other newspaper, tho it's on a lot of social media. If there's been a filing with the FEC, I can't find it here.David in DC (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this practically guarantees that she's running. But I'm cynical that way. David in DC (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Slivergate analysis and reporting.
Slivergate's own article in Mass Lawyers Weekly alone is less encyclopedic than using his words, as quoted in C|Net's follow-up reporting. That's why, while I've retained both sources, I've leaned more heavily on the secondary source (C|NET). That having been said, his opinion is that of an expert, both in criminal defense and in the interplay between federal and state prosecutors and courts in the State of Massachusetts. WP:BLP does not require ignoring negative expert opinions reported in reliable sources. It does require strong sourcing for negative info. These pass that test. It does require deference to WP:WEIGHT. This passes that test, too. it's one paragrph of one section of an article that covers a whole career. Please do not revert negative information just because it's negative. If an editor disagrees about this, please seek consensus here. Obviously, clear violations of BLP permit summary reversion, without regard to WP:3RR. That is not the case here. There's a difference between 3RR and edit-warring. Please don't conflate the two. I'm done editing this article on this topic for the day. Please do not revert. Please discuss, here. David in DC (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The new edit seems less problematic than some earlier versions were. There is no doubt that having up to two years probation is not just a "stern warning" to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for working with me on this. David in DC (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
WP:COPYWITHIN"""Wikipedia’s licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page.... Copying content from another page ... requires supplementary attribution to indicate [where it came from]. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page...." "Where attribution is not needed""... Content rewritten in one’s own words does not need attribution.... Quotes from external sources do not need to be attributed ... although any text surrounding them would be...." "Repairing insufficient attribution""Attribution can be belatedly supplied by ... using dummy edits to record new edit summaries and via talk page attribution using the copied template." --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited, per implicit critique of unnamed section. And if one thought the temptation offered by the phrase "dummy edits" to a smart-ass like yours truly is easily resisted, one would be sorely mistaken. David in DC (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz prosecution & suicide, graf 2
“The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced.” — MOS:QUOTE.

“Be wary of sources … that attribute material to anonymous sources.” — WP:BLPGOSSIP.

“Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute.” — WP:IMPARTIAL (in WP:NPOV). Implying that graf 2 in section 3.3 (Aaron Swartz prosecution and suicide) may not be up to spec:"... After Swartz's suicide ... Harvey Silverglate wrote an article, published in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, reporting that the Middlesex County District Attorney had planned to resolve Swartz's case in state court with a 'stern warning' and a 'continuance without a finding.'"


 * Silverglate didn’t say “stern” or “warning”.


 * Silverglate didn’t write an article reporting what the DA had planned. (Here’s what he wrote:  “Lawyers familiar with the case have told me that it was anticipated” that the DA had planned (to continue the charge, etc.).)


 * Given that some lawyers familiar with the case told Silverglate what “was [reasonably] anticipated”, which law firms were they most likely working at?


 * 1. Good & Cormier and Martin G. Weinberg each had had a significant financial interest in the case and lost. 2. Silverglate was once affiliated with Good & Cormier.  Silverglate, CV (“Of counsel to Good & Cormier”).

Cf. 14:10, 5 February 2013&lrm; Collect. . (→&lrm;Aaron Swartz prosecution and suicide: rm sentence which is pure opinion and not a clear fact from a BLP), mentioned by David in DC, two sections up; and Compilations from Talk:Aaron Swartz archives.

See also Talk:Aaron Swartz. Arrest and state charges, proposed revision, going on now. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Silverglate didn’t say “stern” or “warning”." You are correct. I was mistaken.  Thank you.
 * I've answered the rest of the criticism at Talk:Aaron Swartz. Arrest and state charges, proposed revision, indicating another logical source for Silverlate's info. The sources were likely both in Swartz's lawyer's camp AND from peeved Middlesex DAs. And a good opinion column includes reportage AND opinion based on that reporting.  Please see the remainder of my refutation at the Swartz talk page David in DC (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing at Talk:Aaron Swartz: Arrest and state charges, proposed revision appears to mention another source. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Found it at Talk:Aaron Swartz: Silverglate, sec. II. (See below for rebuttal, in parentheses.)  --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Verifiability and sources tag (“third-party source needed”). The statement of interest relies wholly on Silverglate’s op-ed and his remarks to CNET. And he’s too closely associated with the case. He’s a former affiliate of Good & Cormier, Swartz’s first law firm (it lost and got dropped).

Silverglate’s sources include Good & Cormier’s associates — but not the Middlesex D.A.’s. (The D.A.’s office knew from the beginning that Ortiz had taken over.)

Let’s put some more editors to work on this section. How to fix? You could add citations to independent third-party sources that don’t rely solely on this particular lawyer or law firm. If you don’t find any, I could try to fix. --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You may know who Silverglate's sources were through your own Original Research, but we do not. You may know what the DA's office knew -- I increasingly suspect that you know quite well what the DA's office knew -- but that is neither here nor there. If you think Mass Lawyers Weekly was wrong to publish Silverglate, ask them to publish a rebuttal. Until then, Mass Lawyers Weekly considers the information reliable. There has not been a credible assertion there, or elsewhere, to the contrary. This is three months old and a dead horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reporting really doesn't exactly stand for the proposition that this was inevitably headed to federal court. It seems to say:
 * The feds controlled the investigation.
 * The arrest led to state charges.
 * The D.A. had plans to prosecute one way.
 * Things changed when Norton mentioned the Manifesto to Heymann.
 * The feds took over the prosecution and chose a different end goal than the D.A.'s goal had been. David in DC (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

According to The Verge, federal prosecutors had been “calling the shots” on the prosecution of the case since Swartz’s arrest on January 6. The reporter cited a letter from Swartz’s law firm contradicting the assertion that local law enforcement had control of the investigation at the time. See Aaron Swartz. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Administrators’ noticeboard/Edit warring, reported by Dervorguilla (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC) --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Marathon prosecutors
The article currently claims without citation, "Ortiz is listed as the lead prosecuting attorney in the Boston Marathon bombings." But this seems unsubstantiated, false, and just plain implausible.

The United States Attorney herself ~never prosecutes cases. She runs the office, but she doesn't handle the day to day. She may give press conferences or sit in the gallery in the courtroom during big cases.

In USA v. Tsarnaev, docket 1:13-cr-10200-GAO-1 in the District of Massachusetts before Judge O'Toole, 3 Assistant United States Attorneys are listed as LEAD ATTORNEY (and no others are listed as at all): Aloke Chakravarty, Nadine Pellegrini, and William D. Weinreb. cf. PACER. jhawkinson (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Carmen Ortiz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117062502/http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/justice/massachusetts-bulger-girlfriend-sentencing/index.html?hpt=ju_c2 to http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/justice/massachusetts-bulger-girlfriend-sentencing/index.html?hpt=ju_c2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526080523/http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html to http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we cover controversial Boston College case?
See e.g. the section "Jeopardizing Free Speech — And Irish Peace" (and the links therein) of this HuffPo piece. Crust (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The final sentence of that paragraph is not NPV and is inconsistent with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Children%27s_Hospital#Since_2000 which is well cited including dismissal of the case against the Hospital of any medical negligence.