Talk:Saikat Chakrabarti

Adding "R with possibilities" to the redirect
I believe Mr. Chakrabarti is a notable person. Therefore I am adding "R with possibilities" to the redirect.

I offer as evidence of his notability that he is on Politico’s “Power List” of people to watch in 2019.

Should this page develop in to an article, I also note that there are now many print and web publications that mention or discuss Mr. Chakrabarti's accomplishments.

Phersh (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My note on the original redirect was that there isn't much besides the Politico profile right now. If you have other sources, feel free to collect them here. czar  23:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Coat rack
re: the "Campaign finance controversy" section: czar 18:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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) This section becomes a coat rack for keeping an article dedicated to the individual, but his only significant coverage remains, as stated above, only the Politico article. There will inevitably be further profiles in the future, but they don't exist yet.


 * 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) 19:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The merge discussion is at Farm-Fresh eye.png Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not here. Also you might want to see the existing, very long discussion on due weight when addressing the FEC complaint. czar  19:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, but I don't see the connection between that very long discussion and the very existence of this article. Castncoot (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's entirely unclear from the existing sources what Chakrabarti's purported involvement in the purported "irregularities" is, and absent such clarity from sources, it's inappropriate to link Chakrabarti to any purported wrongdoing. Once again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we can afford to wait to see if and how he is involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, the point is that if there were paperwork irregularities, it is entirely unclear or uncertain who is responsible for those irregularities. Was it Chakrabarti? Was it another staffer's mistake? Was it a bureaucratic snafu? We don't know. Black-letter policy says that we should treat living people sensitively and avoid sensationalism. We are not a newspaper and we can afford to write biographies without breathless blow-by-blow recounting of partisan claims and counter-claims. If it turns out that Chakrabarti was responsible for something, it will become clear in reliable sources, and we can add it back at that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. This is neither routine nor original reporting. Multiple sources have reported on this, and they all say that the source of the controversy was his direction of some funds to another account/company he owns. It's clearly relevant to him, and that's not what WP:COATRACKING is. None of your speculation beyond what the sources have said is relevant - this is not the place for you to make arguments to minimize or defend a subject's conduct. BLP does not prohibit the inclusion of something controversial - the subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that the actual "merge" discussion is taking place at the AOC article's talk page, and that is the discussion that will be evaluated for whether the article is merged or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Very weird that that people have fought successfully (so far) to keep Saikat's Wiki free and clear from this direct complaint siting his name: https://www.scribd.com/document/401081150/AOC-FEC-Complaint-as-Filed

It was Saikat's actions that led to the above complaint being filed. This is a material thing that should somehow be reflected on this page, but it seems that he (and/or some of his associates) are maneuvering successfully here on Wikipedia to keep it off. It also should be cited that Saikat left his highlighted position with AOC during these investigations by the FEC (that is extremely important and material, as it is one possible explanation for his departure, which has not been ruled out). Without the above complaint (citing Saikat's name in particular, and several of his actions) I take it that Wikipedia in general is a biased source and would advise my ultra-high net worth individual clients to stop donations (and request refunds of donations) to the Wikimedia foundation immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:102:785B:8CF9:F5CE:9840:1715 (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The complaint itself is a primary source, which may not be used to support contentious claims about a living person, and that's all there is to it. We would need actual reliable sources which discuss the outcome of the complaint. When and if that happens, we can revisit the issue. And nobody gives a shit about your "ultra-high net worth individual clients." Implied threats get you nothing. Good day, sir. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez czar  10:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This article should focus on Saikat Chakrabarti
Rolling Stone 2018 is a source about his work on Sanders campaign, his cofounding of Brand New Congress (with Alexandra Rojas and Corbin Trent), and his work with Justice Democrats, a group that did lots of stuff aside from helping AOC. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree, and along those lines, I don't think the article should have quotes by Chakrabarti talking about other things, like Justice Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Democrats in Congress. It should be an article about him, not an article about what he thinks about other people and things. The sections on Justice Democrats, Green New Deal, and Amazon HQ don't seem to be about him, but about those other things. Leviv&thinsp;ich 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please link to a policy that supports your belief. Should we cut out comments by Clint Eastwood from his article, because he is talking about the work he did, in famous roles he had? Or should we note that his work played a big role in making those roles the success they were? HouseOfChange (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Clint Eastwood is a great example for comparison. That article has 17,000 words and four block quotes by Eastwood, one of which is his iconic Dirty Harry line, which isn't really a quote by him, so I'd call it three quotes by Eastwood (all the other quotes are about Eastwood). Saikat Chakrabarti, by comparison, has 2,000 words and three quotes–too many quotes for the length of the article. Looking at the quotes themselves, Eastwood has one quote about how he played a particular role, one reflecting on his acting in Westerns, and one reflecting on his career and legacy. None of Chakrabarti's quotes are actually about himself, his work, or his career or legacy. The first quote by Chakrabarti is about what one of his organizations did ("From day one, these volunteers started knocking doors ..."). The second quote is about a Democratic minority ("Don’t expect them to back down ..."). The third is about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ("She's able to do things ..."). In my view, none of these quotes belong. To my knowledge, we don't have a policy about quotes, but we have a guideline, WP:QUOTE, and its sections WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE support my belief that these quotes should go. Leviv&thinsp;ich 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Interview in Inquisitr
Inquisitr is primarily an aggregator of news. According to our Reliable Sources noticeboard, it is considered unreliable for two reasons. 1) WP articles should not cite an aggregator but rather find and cite the original article. and 2) Some of what they publish may be by "unvetted" contributors and not fact-checked. The January 2017 Inquisitr article is by a regular contributor Scott Hough and reports on an interview of Cenk Uygur with Saikat Chakrabarti, which is also available on YouTube. I think it is a reliable report on the interview, but what do others think? 20:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"...experts have agreed with Mitrani's assessment."
I Legal and campaign finance experts have agreed with Mitrani's assessment. because none of the sources cited (nor any others that I've seen) support the statement. The sources do not include any campaign finance experts agreeing with Mitrani (or commenting on Mitrani's assessment in any way). There are other issues (whether they are RS, whether this is DUE), but not-supported-by-sources is the biggest one. Leviv&thinsp;ich 23:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Their opinions clearly comport with Mitrani's assessment. You could have (and should have) simply clarified that rather than deleting entire content including multiple reliable sources. Castncoot (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's OR for you to say that expert A's opinion comports with what attorney B said. Also, none of the expert's opinions comport with Mitrani's assessment. Mitrani says there was no wrongdoing and everything is on the up and up. The sources don't say that experts said that. Leviv&thinsp;ich 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * about this revert, neither of the sentences you put back in are supported by the cited sources. The software wasn't made while he was at Justice Democrats, it was while he was at the Bernie campaign (and our article says so, too, right in the preceding section)... and none of the sources say experts agreed with Mitrani. We shouldn't misrepresent sources like this, especially in a BLP. Please check again and self-revert. Leviv&thinsp;ich 02:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and you re-wikilinked attorney to a DAB. Why are we wikilinking attorney? Come on man don't just blanket revert me and put back bad stuff. Leviv&thinsp;ich 02:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume I'm a man? That's inexcusable. By the way, it appears that the consensus agrees with the content restored (save wikilinking "attorney"). Castncoot (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I posted at WP:BLPN. Leviv&thinsp;ich 21:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Bose controversy
He left because of this: https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2019/07/13/subhas-chandra-bose-t-shirt-lands-aide-democrat-nazi-soup.html

Why doesn't this mention the fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.153.134 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because some AOC fanboi is scrubbing this article to hide the fact that she employed a Nazi sympathizer. 2601:647:4F00:7D:2C06:667E:134:97A8 (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)