Talk:Michelle Caruso-Cabrera

Comptroller Election
User 2603:7000:2143:8500:FC78:C66B:CEEE:C0FE seems to have an active interest in the Comptroller Election based on their edit history and is publishing false information, which is readily observable in the sources sited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.162.70 (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Residence
The article had her living in Manhattan. She lives in Queens. https://twitter.com/MCaruso_Cabrera/status/1247938383193747458  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:837F:87A0:71D8:1501:6C09:6F9A (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * She recently lived in Trump Tower before moving to Queens.Dogru144 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I am editing "longtime Queens resident" and "lives in Queens" out of the article. None of the citations mention this.

--Drdc4432 (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true. She has never lived at Trump Tower. Trump Tower is on Fifth Avenue and the building where her husband had an apartment she moved into is in Central Park West by Columbus Circle.


 * That's the wrong Trump building. The RS refs say she lived for several years in Trump International Hotel and Tower at Columbus Circle in Manhattan, and in 2019 she moved with her husband to Sunnyside, Queens. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Party ?
She is in the category of "Cuban-American Republicans" but is now standing as a Democrat. Is the category wrong ? Or did she change ? -- Beardo (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * She very recently changed parties. End of 2019 she moved to Queens, and February registered as a Democrat and filed paperwork to run against AOC. - Hellmark (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Untrue. She has been a registered Democrat since 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCpublicdata (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It appears in her life she was a registered R through 2015. And a registered D from 2016 to present. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Time at cnbc
And editor changed the time she was at cnbc to almost three decades. And attached as support a youtube video. But that did not support the claim. The video says two decades. I added more rs sources. They all say either two decades, or over two decades. But that misrepresentation of the source was unfortunate. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And the editor also deleted an RS and RS supported text, which is not cricket. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

She spent over 25 years at CNBC, and has been a reporter and investigator specializing in finance for about 30. Her investigative reports on international finance started with Univision. She then moved to CNBC. That is why "close to 3 decades" is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCpublicdata (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We work off of what the RS sources say. You posted a video, from when she left, where it was clearly stated that she worked at CNBC for "20 years." Why would you know more than CNBC? Anyway, their comments, and more importantly (because they are not an arms length source) the statements by the RSs that are not her employer, are what trump any editor's view. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth
She has had two conflicting years of birth in the article. Two years apart. Some other editor astutely tagged the issue. I propose that if we cannot come up with RS support for one or the other, we delete them both. Thoughts? --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the dates until a reliable source can be found.  Grey joy talk 05:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks. BTW - User:Greyjoy can you keep an eye on this page? An editor keeps on deleting RSs and the text the RSs support. Sometimes claiming personal knowledge that differs. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed by her campaign manager as 1969. Previous edits were just mistaken — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCpublicdata (talk • contribs) 06:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Where is there evidence of that confirmation? BTW, it may perhaps be ok as a source for that ... but I would have to check, as it is not an RS probably. Greyjoy may know. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

First husband
Do we know days of marriage and divorce (or term of marriage), and his occupation? --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Section tag
We may be able to get rid of the Journalism section tag, since the problematic non-cited sentences are tagged. Thoughts? --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Election Results
The addition of "last place in the general election" is misleading. Any primary candidate remains on the ballot as per Board of Elections regulations for New York State. After coming in second in the primary, the campaign was suspended. What's the real intention behind re-writing the uncited falsehood that this candidate "reorganized for the general election?" NYCpublicdata (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Where can we find an RS saying these things in regard to this candidate? As to that quote - I have no idea who put it in the article, so I could not answer - but if it is not RS supported, it is subject to deletion.--2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Book
The contents of the book are being misquoted, intentionally.

As per the publisher, "Caruso-Cabrera outlines forward-thinking free-market solutions for health care, education, and immigration, with ideas to stop the U.S. growing deficit, boost the nation's competitive capital, and strengthen the dollar." https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/You-Know-Im-Right/Michelle-Caruso-Cabrera/9781439193235

The reader/critics also chimed in: https://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Right-Prosperity-Government-ebook/dp/B003UYUSB4#customerReviews https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7841663-you-know-i-m-right#other_reviews

And an article from May 2020 explains: "She said “ending” Social Security and creating personal savings accounts would lead people to work longer. Caruso-Cabrera talked up converting Medicare into a corporate-type 401(k) plan. Public-sector unions come under withering criticism in the Caruso-Cabrera book for “choking our state and local governments” with “overly generous benefits that those in the private sector can only dream about” because unions have “overwhelming influence on our political process.” As referenced in the citation: https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/aoc-rival-caruso-cabreras-book-pushed-gop-friendly-policies/

Also, Larry Kudlow was just an economist when the book was published ten years ago. To say "The book has a foreword by Larry Kudlow, former President Donald Trump's National Economic Council director" is falsely linking this Democratic candidate to the Trump administration. Nothing farther from the truth. We need to be fair here, don't we? NYCpublicdata (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. Please don't accuse editors of intention - when you do not know their intention. 2. The edits re the book are sourced accurately to RSs. I cannot see any truth in your assertion that they are misquotes. 3. The publisher is not an RS, as to the book. It has a slight COI. 4. The readers are not RSs. 5. Nothing in the last article conflicts with what was written about the book. I will try to expand what is written - but what is now there is all quite appropriate and accurate. 6. Thanks for not edit warring by deleting RS supported text, and RSs. That's really now allowed, and can ultimately lead to blocks and the like. 7. Good point as to Kudlow - better to add "later" in there. But since the RS mentions his later gig in relation to talking about her and her book, it is appropriate to mention. We just follow the RSs. Best. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo
The article is I think probably long enough to use a second photo, perhaps one that appears less staged. There are a few more real looking photos to pick from here. --2603:7000:2143:8500:9966:FAFA:7B10:5321 (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Position
She is named variously as a co-presenter, co-host, and co-anchor of Power Lunch. Are those three different positions? Also, that whole section needs RS refs.--2603:7000:2143:8500:C980:E555:B7DF:C64 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo - can someone crop?
This photo is more recent than others, and more real (less air-brushed) - but would be even better if someone could add a cropped version of it.2603:7000:2143:8500:3127:A7C0:7F79:26F7 (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of 2020 general election performance
My stance is that her meager showing in the NY-14 general election does not need to be mentioned in the introductory section, as it is rightly taken for granted by almost all politically-interested readers that a candidate who loses a primary (particularly to an incumbent) will lose the general race regardless of what they attempt next, given the first-past-the-post system we have in the United States and the dominance of the two major parties.

Regarding JesseRafe’s latest edit summary: I don’t think it matters that Caruso-Cabrera made the choice to run on a minor-party ballot line after a landslide loss in the primary, and not every public fact needs to be included in a Wikipedia article — particularly in the lede. Its appropriate place, I think, is in the Electoral history and 2020 House campaign sections. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Clearly relevant. Clearly appropriate. Covered by RSs. The "taken for granted" argument is not consistent with WP policy. And if it were - I wonder why anyone would argue so about it being reflected. Anyway, while at times I definitely have disagreed with JesseRafe, I agree with him on this. 2603:7000:2143:8500:7D69:47C7:C222:22D1 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like I’m going crazy, since I could have sworn I checked this section again when I edited the page five :days ago. But there your reply is, four weeks old as of that date.
 * I don’t think the case for “relevant” and “appropriate” are that clear-cut, but plain reality is that I’m outnumbered here, so I’ll drop the edit dispute here. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Politician
A politician is someone professionally involved in politics, including but not limited to one holding office. --2603:7000:2143:8500:79FB:AF92:D0B9:16CF (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

NY Post
There's a number of references here from the NY Post. Was probably before the Post was considered a not ok source. Going to give the page a once over and see what I can do to find alternate sources and also clean it up. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * think im done. tightened up the page and updated some of the things that needed updating. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)