Talk:Julia Salazar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did you make these changes to the lead?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Salazar&type=revision&diff=856853945&oldid=856853241

user:E.M.Gregory, First of all, I can't understand why you deleted "She is running for the 18th district seat of the New York State Senate" from the lede. This is the most noteworthy thing about her. Do you think she would have this much (or any) news coverage if she weren't running for Senate? --Nbauman (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error. Just put it back. I was cleaning up the lede, moving trivial career details down the page. moving sources out of lede. When you spot an obvious error like this JUSTFIXIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Nbauman, Wikipedia disparage the use of sources in the lede - exceot hwere a direct quote is involved. Standard style is for the lede to summarize the most significant points made and reliably sourced in the body of the text.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gadfly editing[edit]

Salazar is notable because she has repeatedly given false bio details to the press in interviews and on her campaign pages - most notably her repeated, well-documented claims to being "an immigrant" when, in fact,she was born to an U.S. citizen mother in Florida. While I understand that her false assertions aobout her place of birth are upsetting to her supporters (trying to imagine how I would have felt if Barak Obama had been born in Kenya - maybe I would have gone bonkers and harassed the editors adding the info to the page) It is no excuse for endless tagging of well-sourced materia, removal of reliably sourced material (lies she has told about herself), and flinging accusations of bad faith at fellow editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that you yourself are engaging in "Gadfly editing"? One of the main guidelines of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. You can't use Wikipedia to attack a candidate. All you can do is give information from WP:RSs.
See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
In particular, you can't say in Wikipedia's voice that she has given false details. You have to quote a WP:RS saying that. This is a particularly strict requirement under WP:BLP.
I have no objection to making it clear that WP:RSs accuse her of lying -- if they are indeed saying that. But it has to be done following WP policies and guidelines. Accusing someone of lying can be libelous. --Nbauman (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"life" and "controversy" sections[edit]

Unverified assertions made by Salazar about her birthplace and the family's religious or ethnic background before the controversy about the veracity of her statements broke with the ~23 August news cycle belong in the "controversy" section, not in "Life and education."E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City & State[edit]

My apologies for not having properly linked this source. This is not an"op-ed," it is a reported story that ran in City & State, a politics newspaper that hires journalists to cover the government of New York City and New York State. Widely cited by major news organizations and on Wikipedia in articles about New York politicians and politics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing and promo[edit]

Deleting large swaths of reliably sourced material about candidate's contradictory statements abut her identity is not NPOV editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such an accusation is completely unfounded, it is careful and considerate consolidation of redundant info. This was previously written in an incredibly non-neutral way, the sources are still there, but less about the journalism pieces themselves, just the claims. Per BLP, this has to be phrased neutrally, not as the article previously was. JesseRafe (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen, the sources were preserved, but the tone was altered and emphasis shifted. This isn't a "gotcha!" website, but an encyclopedia. It is not Wikipedia's role to gather and publish "evidence" but to simply and neutrally state that one time she said X and another Y, we just log the evidence, not make arguments using it like a prosecutor. That's synthesis. Nor do we need to liberally quote and over-site non-notable blogs/sources with each additional phrase, just mass them at the end. JesseRafe (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Material you deleted includes info on 2 of NYC's major daily newspapers that Salazar's campaign website was changed in the wake of the revelations. Changing a campaign bio from a claim that candidate is an"immigrant" to claim that her Dad was an immigrant is a pretty big detail to delete, and the story about her having done so is well-sourced. And you also removed the well-sourced, reported details of her contradictory statements, statements she made to many different journalists: that she is or is not an immigrant; that she is of is not Jewish. Given that her bio and campaign were pegged to the fact that she self-described in interviews as a Jewish, immigrant Latina, it is pertinent to have the well-sourced details of the claims she made on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) We follow what the sources say, and in this case it would seem that WP:RSes are mainly covering the veracity of bio claims of immigration/ethnicity/religion - and not much else.Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources and claims are still there, are you kidding me? Whitewashing would be deleting them. Info about her contradictory interviews is still on the page, just less emphasis on tying the red yarn to the timeline and interview dates, as that's undue weight. JesseRafe (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whitewashing by Rafe, presumably due to support for her candidacy, continues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Salazar was a WP:MILL unelected candidate, with WP:MILL coverage of her first campaign, including some profiles form publications that agree with her progressive political positions. If an experienced editor had noticed this page a week or two ago, it would have been nominated for deletion and deleted. Her WP notability - national and international coverage - stems from her remarkable way of presenting false biographical facts - I say false because an individual was or was not born in the United States. It cannot be both, and yet she made both claims. This is why the lede needs to feature the controversy over her self-description of her background. And why the whitewashing by JesseRafe is problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You getting delusional... What whitewashing? I didn't remove the claims, and it's still 33% of the lede, it's just written better. Have you even read it? Or do you just revert? JesseRafe (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparable article that doesn't exist[edit]

Melissa Howard (politician) is an interesting comparison case in re: notability. Earlier this month she was running for a seat in the Florida House of Representatives, very like Julia Salazar. She lied about have earned a college degree, and the lie was covered in the New York Times: Florida Candidate Who Lied About College Degree Drops Out of Race, the Washington Post: Florida candidate tried to prove she’s a college graduate. The school says her diploma is fake, Florida candidate who was caught touting a fake college diploma drops out of race. There is no Wikipedia page for Howard, despite the fact that she got national coverage not only in the Times and WaPo, but on CNN, CBSNews, and other national media. To me, it is an indication that Salazar article should be nominated for deletion. User:Bearian, User:Redditaddict69, User:SportingFlyer, User:Johnpacklambert, User:TonyBallioni, User:StAnselm, User:Bearcat you're all active at politician-related deletions. Any of you care to weigh in?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the discussion below where @JesseRafe: and I both provided an extensive list of sources from before this latest spate of coverage. However, I'd be more than happy to see the article turned into a redirect to New York state elections, 2018 or a different article until she wins or gains enough notability to completely quash your argument.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):First of all, this is in the wrong section. Second, you're trying to prove a negative for some reason. Third, that woman was never notable. Fourth, you're willfully ignoring that Salazar's national press coverage detailed below was all entirely before this minor incident which is 30-40% of the article. Fifth, you're canvassing. JesseRafe (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you make a great point, EMG! Melissa Howard was not going to have an encyclopedia article because state legislature candidates get no national press. However, Salazar is the exception. She's been covered a lot by the national press. Again, before this controversy. So the absence of notability outside of faking a college degree the Republican had provides context for just how notable all the Salon, New Yorker, Jacobin, etc coverage of Salazar was as it existed all summer. JesseRafe (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory:All I have to say in the matter, disregarding all comments and solely expression opinion on deletion: If I see any article that has primary coverage on three or more major news sites (e.g. Fox, NYT, WaPo, USAToday, CNN, NBC/MSNBC, etc.), I say it's notable. Salazar has primary coverage on just two: Fox News and New York Post (though not always reliable). Those are right-wing sources and Salazar is left-wing, so they may have only covered it due to bias OR the left-wing sources didn't cover it because they favor her. I think it has the potential for deletion given how many people lie about their past in local candidacies. She is a somewhat relevant person at this moment, so I say wait a month, and if nothing else comes out on her, nominate this for AfD. Redditaddict69 19:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She's been covered in the NYT as well.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not "primary" coverage, but non-trivial coverage in multiple articles.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MainlyTwelve:, I'm pretty sure that WP:GNG requires notability to be based on full articles, not just passing mentions. If the sections on NYT are long and not just stuff repeated in a local source, let us know. I didn't see anything when I searched the following: "Julia "Salazar" NYT NBC WashingtonPost CNN". Redditaddict69 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's GNG, but this was templated with NPOL, which contradictorily seeks mention in articles where the person is not the primary subject. The NYT articles make non-passing mentions of her and her campaign in articles for which she is not the focus. Detailed below. I don't know why Greg made a half-dozen separate sections today, but when the other user put up the template, I made a section heading for sources to address it. JesseRafe (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FYI, not sure how you're searching, but she is mentioned in passing on CNN well before the controversy: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-25-days-congress-democratic-socialist-new-york/index.html I just did this search now, but it's just one sentence so I won't add it to the list below, all of which I sought to find sources that are primary focus or more than in-passing mentions of other-focus articles. JesseRafe (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redditaddict, did you set your search parameters correctly? She also has a whole story about her campaign on WaPo, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/sex-workers-knock-on-doors-for-political-candidate/2018/08/23/10d54684-a71d-11e8-ad6f-080770dcddc2_story.html?utm_term=.4d27e13c2663 -- seems to me like a significant bit of national coverage, not a passing mention. JesseRafe (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
USAToday also has a passing mention of her in 2012, https://www.usatoday.com/story/college/2012/10/26/controversy-surrounding-columbias-abortion-coverage-policy/37398855/. At some time there's a tipping point, no? It's rare that state legislature candidates get any national press, this is a lot of different and disparate mentions from many of the sources you identified as go-tos above. JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah at this point I'd say her notability is unambiguous.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has huge WP:PROMO, WP:RECENT, and WP:BLP1E issues. Would probably vote delete if brought to an AfD - simply passing WP:GNG doesn't guarantee an article. SportingFlyer talk 02:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage about her purportedly falsified biography just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring encyclopedic interest who has passed the ten year test. So no, that's not enough coverage to deem her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies for the purposes of exempting her from WP:NPOL. The test for what makes a candidacy special is not just that the number of citations has expanded into the double digits, or that it's started to expand beyond the purely local — the test is whether the media coverage demonstrates a compelling reason why even if she loses her election this fall, people might still be looking for an article about her in 2028 anyway. But this coverage, in this context, isn't compelling evidence that Julia Salazar has passed that test. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, please scroll down to the actual coverage and sources. This user has intentionally obfuscated the talk page discussion by starting a half dozen sections within a few hours, the sources are all pre-controversy.JesseRafe (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents are that I would !vote to keep both articles. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

Templating article for POV. Statements that have been documented by multiple press reports, for example, the fact that her campaign website describes her an an immigrant, the fact that whe was directly quoted in multiple publications calling herself "an immigrant", the fact well regarded journalists and publications state that she told them that she immigrated to the U.S. from Columbia as a "baby", have all been deleted, elided, and whitewashed into misunderstandings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many different sections does the same thing have to be reiterated? There was no whitewashing. I consolidated poorly written sentences that were redundant together. The sources are still there. The above user has made blatant lies, e.g. removed info from the lede, whereas in reality it is still there as one of three sentences in the lede, which is quite due. Other edits were to remove the "gotcha!" style writing which is wholly undue and the over-emphasis on the timeline of the reports. Let them speak for themselves. Whitewashing would be to remove these claims entirely. This was just tidying up the page. It was riddled with incomplete and out-of-place sentences, duplicate references, over- and under-linking, etc etc. Largescale copyediting was needed and provided, but no facts were removed or altered. References that were removed were either duplicative or overly-relied on (for example Dunst article used on every other word). The facts still speak for themselves and the article still reports that she made contradictory statements. That is neutral. Using Wikipedia to draw conclusions from these neutral contradictory facts is not allowed and that is what was removed. JesseRafe (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A stmt such as Journalists understood from statements made by Salazar that her father was a Colombian Sephardic Jew, descended from the medieval community that was expelled from Spain, and that she started to explore Judaism in college - endorses Salazar's psoition that the Journalists' misunderstood her, which is not what is being reported in RS. We should certainly provide the BLP's response - in an attributed manner - but we shouldn't endorse Salazar's view in our own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was already in the article, and not part of what you're too hastily calling an edit war. It's also cited to a newspaper, not her. In any event, itt's unchanged. The prior version had unnecessary repetitions of who was Jewish or who was Israeli, and was sourced to every clause. I just consolidated those portions.JesseRafe (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Haaretz article also says:
There is an emerging community in the South American country of Colombia who are descendants of the Spanish Marranos, also known as Anusim, who concealed their Jewish identity when they emigrated from Spain centuries ago.
While they assimilated into the overwhelmingly Catholic country, some family rituals remained with traces of Jewish practices. Salazar is among the names in Colombia associated with Sephardi-Jewish heritage [and also non-Jews].
So you're quoting selectively, just the parts that support your case, and ignoring the parts that support Salazar. That's one of the problems with your POV editing.
If Haaretz is right, then it's possible that Salazar's father was descended from Marranos. It may have been part of family lore. You don't know. --Nbauman (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • we're not at NPOV yet. Section fails to include mention of the fact that she was directly quoted in several publications, and cited inothers as having told an interviewer that she is an immigrant. Section fails to include the fact that she changed the text on her website when her contradicting claims became public. Quotes form her stating that she immigrated to U.S. "as a baby" have also been removed. minimizing the extent to which she ran as an immigrant have been minimized, which is a POV whitewash. I am less interested in the Jewish claims, but when someone runs as a Jewish Latina teh fact that her most recent paid job was as a Jew in a Jewish outfit, and that she sought and got endorsements form Jewish progressive political orgs. as a Jew do need to be included before we can remove the POV tag.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Haaretz had Salazar-as-Marrano=name thing, but other publications quote head od Jewish community in Columbia stating that the community knows of no Jeiwsh Salazars.  There was

Sources for WP:NPOL[edit]

Seemingly easily meets barometer of "significant press coverage" for publications that do not mention the contradictions about ethnicity, citizenship, or religion at all:

Also meets threshold for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

Gotham Gazette weekly roundups of significant political happenings mention her campaign events:

Also, another Gotham Gazette article not about the subject, but about the Working Families Party gives her a paragraph:

As WP:POLOUTCOMES states:

"Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. For example, a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country, or who emerged as a significant national spokesperson for a political issue, may be considered notable on that basis. Note that this distinction may not simply be asserted or sourced to exclusively local media; to claim notability on this basis, the coverage must be shown to have nationalized or internationalized well beyond their own local area alone. -WP:POLOUTCOMES

This notability threshold is conferred by the Salon, New York Magazine, Village Voice, and Washington Times pieces, as those are national publications, and state legislatures are exceedingly rarely covered outside of their own constituencies. JesseRafe (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources (some already cited)
I won't include them here but she also has at least 5-6 mentions/references in other articles in some of the above publications and other notable outlets.

--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, two more reliable source national magazines one already in article the other just added. One giving her significant coverage outside the scope of a usual state legislature candidate, the other a significant mention in an article not about her, but Cynthia Nixon and the DSA. We should be able to take down this notice, as it's more than demonstrated. JesseRafe (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources above are WP:MILL coverage, exactly the sort of sourcing found in candidate articles deleted every day in even-numbered years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're "MILL" at all...I don't think a single other state-level insurgent candidate, in NY or elsewhere, has received this level of coverage this cycle.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was she notable prior to the 2018 election cycle? Was she notable prior to the bio scandal in the election? Note that the New Yorker, Village voice, and NYT would all be seen as local regional papers in this context - not national - as they cover the NY races as local news (as they cover NYC as well).Icewhiz (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about Village Voice but in any context the New Yorker is a national publication, and I'd argue the same for the NYT. She was absolutely notable before the bio "scandal", the bulk of the articles above are from before the Tablet article was published.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in bold, the coverage was prior to and independent of the "scandal". Every link I mentioned here is independent of this controversy. It's not MILL at all, and national publications constitute national coverage. Show me articles about other state legislature candidates those publications run. Even the NYC-based ones other than the Times and Gotham Gazette don't cover State issues hardly at all, mostly City and national. However, in these instances they're clearly run as national pieces, unless you're claiming Massachusetts and Missouri are also part of New York. JesseRafe (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how final decisions are usually made in situations like these as I typically abstain from talk page discussions, but I think she clears the threshold for notability and the notice should be removed.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer is, "when it's resolved": WP:WTRMT, but these two are probably going to say it's not resolved, the discussion is still ongoing and leave it up per WP:WNTRMT, so we need more editors to see it and weigh in. JesseRafe (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Thanks for the info.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think those citations clearly establish notability, in local and national news media. We can take down the notice. --Nbauman (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since combative editors (undue template warnings on user talk pages) put the notices up and WP:canvassed on the matter, I think the most prudent action would be if someone not already involved removed the tags. Possibly RedditAddict, who claimed to seek 3 national mentions for GNG and only found 2, however I linked to him/her another article they may have missed which would satisfy their personal criterion. JesseRafe (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA please. There is no consensus this individual is notable. It might however make sense to hold off AfDing this bio until after the election since if she is elected she will be notable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least three editors (@Nbauman:, @JesseRafe:, and me) are in consensus, and she passed the canvass-summoned test that @Redditaddict69: suggested. I am not sure what further proof you could need to convince you she's notable. Bear in mind Gregory's editing of this page means the discussion is split between this section and the section headed "Comparable article that doesn't exist".--MainlyTwelve (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, I'm also happy to do it in a few hours if no one else has.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MainlyTwelve: – This looks good to me. I see WaPo, NYPost, Salon, and a pretty good set of statements in NYT. I think this certifies notability for sure. Redditaddict69 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few things regarding Wikipedia:GNG (general notability guideline)[edit]

@JesseRafe: and @MainlyTwelve:,

  1. If an article passes GNG, it is notable. It does not need to also pass WP:NPOL or WP:N or WP:POLOUTCOMES. It has received significant coverage if it passes GNG, therefore, it is notable.
  2. The requirements for GNG, or a simple rule of thumb, is that if the subject has multiple articles written about him/her/them/it in national publications, it meets GNG, and they can not be just passing mentions nor can they be solely local news sources. Salazar meets these requirements with an article written about her in WaPo and several pieces of info (not just trivial) about her in NYT.

That is all. Redditaddict69 22:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help--much appreciated!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While User:Redditaddict69 is not inaccurate, you might want to read some of the politician-related AfD discussions. In general, editors working on those discussions looking at not-yet-elected candidate pages regularly want to see one of two things: pre-campaign coverage of accomplishments that demonstrates notability - lots of notable people don't have WP pages until they run for office. Or truly extraordinary national coverage of the kind garnered by candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Even more useful in understanding how this process works, click Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians and scroll down to the box anc click the archive link, this will take yo to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive, where you can see which articles have been kept and which deleted, and why. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:E.M.Gregory, WP:NPOL says: 'an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".' How do you dismiss that? Who is another politician who has been deleted in an AfD with as much coverage as Salazar? --Nbauman (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I contacted the Salazar campaign for some CC-SA images that can be uploaded to Commons. Will keep you posted of any progress. Shushugah (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Material that will need to be added to the article if it is kept[edit]

Includes the fact that she also lied about growing up in tough economic circumstances, childhood home pictured here: Family members question Julia Salazar’s claims. Also, Dad was a naturalized U.S. citizen when she was born, Mom, Julia and her borther, as the world now knows, were born in the U.S..E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost like you're not even attempting a veneer of impartiality anymore. "The fact that she lied about growing up in tough economic circumstances" is emphatically not the type of thing that goes into an encyclopedia. JesseRafe (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements[edit]

Despite the claim made in the revision history, endorsements are not usually contained on an individual's page. Endorsements properly belong on the page about the election, because they are not about the subject, but the subject's campaign. In addition, if a subject is an elected official, endorsements in individual campaigns are not added (see broadly WP:WEIGHT). Finally, our community has long recognized that Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign brochures. --Enos733 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is on the verge of OSE, and it may be against policy (which I've never seen), but in my vast experience that is not a true description of usualness on individual's pages. I've only ever seen endorsements broken out for big national elections like POTUS and Senate. For instance, there's about six contenders for Governor of New York on my watchlist and I believe every single one of them have endorsements on their individual pages. Note, I am not actually making the "OSE" argument, but you only mentioned what is or is not "usual" which is a point of fact I contest. Is there actual MOS policy on this matter? I don't truck with WikiProjects much but didn't see anything there in a quick search. I've edited, created, improved, sourced, and watched literally 1,000s of politician-related articles, never once saw this argument about removing endorsements, again, except for the very large federal elections where they get a complete breakout. JesseRafe (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, you are correct that there is no explicit policy or discussion, beyond the statement that Wikipedia is not a campaign brochure, about listing endorsements. However, I point back to WP:WEIGHT about any campaign coverage - that in many cases of elected officials, the snippet about any campaign is at most a paragraph or two, unless there is a controversy. I do argue that the addition of endorsements during an election does turn Wikipedia into a campaign brochure, because there is usually no sense of context or importance added to the line about the endorsement (In this case, Salazar is a member of DSA, so her endorsement by DSA should not be surprising). As an example, the page for Representative Warren Davidson there are no endorsements on the page, but his prominent endorsements for the special election are on the page for the campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand your concerns, but if they were that commonly shared or grievous then the Politics WikiProject would say something about it, no? As I said, I've seen them on hundreds of pages. As long as they're presented neutrally, sourced, and stated as simple and direct facts, I don't see the argument that they should be removed. No different than listing their policy positions, which again, almost every politician's article does. As to the context or importance, isn't that achieved via wikilinks and deduced by the reader? It's not Wikipedia's business to decide the context and importance, but to provide accurate and sourced declarations of fact. I also think the unspoken brightline rule is only notable entities should be mentioned, i.e. blue links. JesseRafe (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a couple of the assumptions in your response. I first turn to WP:WEIGHT as the overall policy guidance (in the context of why the subject is notable). Second, in general, I believe that the context of any information (in this encyclopedia) should be on the page, so a reader does not have to follow links (especially if those links are to primary sources. Depending on whether the subject wins her primary, it may be worth a neutral editor to review the article in total and determine what is and what is not relevant. --Enos733 (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV edit spree[edit]

@E.M.Gregory: I asked you several times to stop it with the POV edits and come to talk and you just go right along making different POV edits. I am not playing whack-a-mole with you today. Please stop and discuss here and get consensus before continuing your agenda against Salazar. Do you have a CoI to disclose because your behaviour here seems oddly personal. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:Sour grapes because the deletion failed. User has a clear bias and selectively uses reliable sources, but extrudes bad faith selective conclusions from them. JesseRafe (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, my "bias" is an intense dislike of liars, and, in particular, of political candidates who tell lies in order to get elected. I continue to believe that if she loses, she will not look notable in 10 years time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Just for the record" you've been doing this all over the encyclopedia for a long time, or is this not the exact type of behavior I described? Needlessly using the pull quotes to wallow to try to embarrass a candidate you politically dislike? JesseRafe (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding post-election coverage of a candidate from Politico. Are you kidding me? Look at my record and you will see that I edit AFD on candidates left, right and center. You cherry-picked a single edit. sheesh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not cherry-picked at all, just an example of edits you've made that I've seen with my own eyes where you go out of your way to say politicians whom you disagree with "went down in flames" or other such technically sourced but still polemical language when that is obviously not standard for an encyclopedia. Am I not supposed to draw from my own personal experience when remarking on past NPOV behavior I've personally observed? How do you reconcile that? JesseRafe (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was attempting to achieve NPOV, so that page tag could be removed. It still needs quite a bit of work to meet NPOV. If you think you can do it, be my guest. Among other problems, the lede omits to mention that, according to several bluechip sources, the lion's share of media attention has come in the form of the many articles that havefollowed the August expose in The Tablet magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)(edit conflict)[reply]
How about you discuss major revisions here at talk before going forward? Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem in logic with the above. The news is not history, it will always be weighted to the most recent and once something has come up, it won't recede until a new item comes up. This is called the news cycle. She was a notable person and had much mainstream bluechip coverage before the controversy. This has been made clear to all but two editors on this page, see the abundance of sources in the "NPOL Sources" section above. Yes, of course, the scandal has attracted more attention, and that's covered in the article. However, to claim that the lionshare is about the scandal is intentionally misleading because it is the most recent and every article about her will mention it because, unlike an encyclopedia, the news has no prohibitions on not over-favoring the most recent event. JesseRafe (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. She had no pre-campaign notability. She got a little WP:MILL campaign coverage, in local and in a couple of minor publications in her particular bandwidth of the political spectrum. Then an article accusing her of having fabricated and embroidered her biography and used the fake bio in her campaign ran in an online publication, Tablet (magazine). And a large amount of coverage followed. But do note, as I wrote at some length in the AfD, that the coverage continued to be primarily local, even the New York Times coverage ran in the LOCAL edition of the paper. Of course, if she wins , she passes WP:POL. But if she loses the whole thing may well look like WP:BLP1E in the clarity of hindsight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just refuse to engage with reality. Noted. JesseRafe (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and her 2011 arrest[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BLP - starting a topic just to accuse a BLP of a crime is inappropriate.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

OK, so, that with the latest round of stories about her bizarre behavior, I no longer consider this a WP:BLP1E that should be deleted. She, and her partisan supporters made this very candidate, strange college drop-out, and serial liar into a national news story. And she will be an enduring part of the strange political moment, 2018. A moment when sincere progressives fell for a girl who made a lot of stuff up. I have no idea what is true at this point - beyond her lies about being "an immigrant." I certainly have no idea whether she and Keith Hernandez had a fling or whether she is a failed thief. I am only here to say that it is now WP:TOOLATE to delete this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a genuine concern about the WP:NPOV of the article page, but posts like this do not contribute to that. I will WP:AGF that you will conduct yourself more encyclopedically and neutrally on the talk page and article in future. Shushugah (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major media from Politico to the New York Times are reporting this story today. Salazar is not aprivate individual, she is a politician. And she is in the headlines today because she was arrested in 2011 an counter-sued her accuser in 2013. Salazar is a public figure and wants to be an elected member of the NY legislature. Well-sourced information about her belongs on the page - which, by the by, got more page hits yesterday - when this story broke - than it had even gotten on a single day. When you run for public office, your prior arrest record becomes a matter public interest. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pure WP:RECENTISM being used as a WP:COATRACK for a WP:ATTACK on Salazar over whom you have an obvious grudge. You tried to make this page about the "birth controversy" failing that you tried to get the page AfD'd and failing that now it's another attempt. This is bad for the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV qualities of the article; we've asked you several times not to make edits like this without consensus. Please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with every point made above. These edits are grossly inappropriate on their face for content such as "police found probable cause that...", this isn't a crime blotter, but an encyclopedia. The plain reading of the facts from the sources you mention is that Salazar is a victim, but you manage to twist them into another attack on her. This is bordering on the need for RAA and your involvement with this page is far from neutral, but aggressive in its hunt for ways to disparage her. If there were an eight-year-old story about her that was positive you would surely shriek and bemoan giving it its own subsection with 3 paragraphs as undue weight and NOTNEWS etc etc --- which is one way to tell if you're not being objective about the article. JesseRafe (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the story, [1]. And look at the coverage:
  • An Arrest? An Affair? Keith Hernandez? Just Another Day in the Julia ...New York Times-18 hours ago
  • State Senate Candidate Was Arrested in 2011 on Suspicion of ... Highly Cited-Tablet Magazine-Sep 6, 2018
  • State Senate candidate Julia Salazar battled ex-wife of Mets hero ...Local Source-New York Daily News-20 hours ago
  • NY Democratic Senate hopeful Julia Salazar was accused of having ...Highly Cited-Daily Mail-Sep 6, 2018
  • Everything to Know About the Julia Salazar Controversies New York (magazine), The Cut-1 hour ago
  • Dem socialist candidate Julia Salazar was arrested in 2011 on suspicion of fraud Fox News
  • If you DONOTLIKE the material I posted, then let's rewrite it. My point is that this is a significant part of the coverage of Salazar, and a section about it - with multiple points of view and links (I was interrupted as I was adding sources) belongs in the article. Deletion can be a POV action. And Whitewashing (censorship) the page is inappropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one clearly acting from a "I don't like it perspective", as the abundance of time and attention and ARTICLE WEIGHT you are throwing behind this and every other minor blip is beyond undue. Newspapers are in a different business than encyclopedias; what merits significant coverage there is different than here. This should only have a sentence or two at most, if it's even worth mentioning. This is just gossip fodder because she's already been in the news (you know, for being so notable) so much that they're finding all sorts of irrelevant things to keep readers clicking -- which again, is what differentiates newspapers from encyclopedia. Seriously, I know that you evidently hate being directed to policies, but Wikipedia does have them and this is both undue weight and not news. You should maybe try reading these policies or, just once, responding in a pointed and direct manner to the criticisms of your edits. JesseRafe (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per BALASP, we should give significant coverage to the 2011 affair. We cover public sources as they are covered in RSes, and it seems this individual is mainly covered in the context of various scandals.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. WP:BALASP Yes, I am arguing for WP:BALASP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per BALASP, this allegation of an affair (which was thrown out of court) should be given no more than one or two sentences as I said above. She was not a public figure at the time, and per the plain recording of the facts, not only was not found of doing any wrong, but won in her claim of defamation. Of course, to those with an ax to grind, you see this as further confirmation she's a bad bad terrible person, ruling of two different courts is irrelevant. JesseRafe (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You appear, still, not to have read the article, or the material I just posted, the principal allegation is not about an affair. it is about the attempted theft of money by identity theft. The fact that she was not a public figure when it happened is irrelevant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them, you evidently did not read this talk page. Icewhiz literally said "we should give significant coverage to the 2011 affair" and I was responding to that. You've demonstrated time and again that you don't read or respond pointedly to any others' comments on this talk page, but insist on behaving like an WP:ICANTHEARYOU editor who is still upset their deletion nom did not go their way.
As I wrote, everyone involved later denied that there was an "affair" - alhtough it needs to be covered briefly, as I did in my edit, because it has been all over the media. What did happen is that somebody attempted to steal money form Hernandez' bank account. the allegation was a not "dismissed," she was arrested. this also needs to be on the page because it has a major news story. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's like I'm in the Twilight Zone... Allegedly money was stolen, we don't know by whom or if that ever happened. And yes, she was arrested first and then the case was dismissed. That's literally the only order those events could occur in. You can't have a criminal case without an arrest, and arrests don't imply guilt let alone indictment or conviction, it's how police procedure operates. JesseRafe (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV edit. I have attempted to achieve NPOV and meet BALSAP. If you disagree with the content as written, the proper response is to improve it using WP:RS. I strongly suggest that editors who DONOTLIKE this material read the evidence presented in yesterday's Tablet article. And NOTE the sequence of events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more condensed rewriting of the info that was added in a more drawn-out and loaded way ("The case dragged through the courts" etc) in diff etc:

In 2011, Salazar was arrested on charges that she used personal information about neighbor Kai Hernandez to try to take money from Hernandez's bank account; police detective Charles Weinblatt said "the state attorney’s office felt that there was not a likelihood of conviction" and the case did not go to court.[1] In 2013, Salazar sued Hernandez for defamation, saying Hernandez told police Salazar was having an affair with her husband Keith Hernandez; the case was settled with a payment to Salazar by Hernandez's insurance company in 2017. Hernandez's attorney Lynne Ventry said "if Kai hadn’t gotten ill, we could have tried this case and won this case, I truly believe that."[1] But Salazar's attorney Adam Hecht called Hernandez's side of the story, "bizarre and fraudulent attempts to defame and victimize Salazar".[1] Salazar said in 2018 that the allegations that she tried to steal money from Hernandez were "baseless", and said: "Women in politics always face a double standard, and the extreme scrutiny of my personal life in this race has been a manifestation of that."[2]
  1. ^ a b c Rosenberg, Yair (6 September 2018). "State Senate Candidate Was Arrested in 2011 on Suspicion of Criminal Use of Personal Information". Tablet. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  2. ^ Pazmino, Gloria (6 September 2018). "Salazar denies Keith Hernandez reports, amid swirl of questions about her background". Politico. Retrieved 7 September 2018.

However, I am not convinced that an accusation that didn't go to court, and led to a defamation judgement in her favor, is notable enough to give even that much weight. It should probably be condensed further (e.g. stripping out the bit I struck out above). -sche (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that since 2018/2019, the article has had any mention of the arrest scrubbed. The above discussion seems most about how to properly describe the arrest without presuming guilt, but is there really any reason to not include the fact of the arrest? JustinBlank (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting attack content[edit]

@E.M.Gregory: why did you revert my deletion of your attack section? Consensus was clearly against you on this issue at talk and you provided no edit summary. Please self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize it as an 'attack section' but it probably should be edited down a bit, and it's not *currently* urgent to include given that the story has only just broken. However in general I don't like the tenor here of "how dare you attack this person by including controversial material!" Well, they're an extremely controversial figure. Words like "shitshow" come to mind. Controversial figures will have Wikipedia pages that spend a lot of space recounting controversies! TiC (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is "urgent" in the sense that the election is next week, and the page currently omits SIGCOV of her in violation of WP:BALASP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPA and AGF regarding other editors. This individual a public figure running for public office, and is mainly known for a number of scandals which we should dedicate a large portion of our article to - in accordance to the amount of coverage in RSes for these aspects.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TitaniumCarbide:You might have missed the bit where the user in question has had a one-person campaign to either make this article a WP:COATRACK for negative statements about the candidate or has attempted to get the page deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: I am aware that @E.M.Gregory: nominated this article for deletion, which I disagreed with at the time. I don't agree with your implied characterization of his motives. One could as justifiably say, e.g., "a brigade of leftwing editors is tag-team campaigning to keep damaging, reliably-sourced material out." Ultimately what's important is the standing of the actual material not speculation about motives.
I don't see how WP:COATRACK applies. Being realistic, every one of us is here because of the controversy over Salazar's biography and her trustworthiness. That's what has sparked all the coverage (after an initial wave of navel-gazing from the Brooklyn media bubble over a minor "socialist" political candidate.) The controversy is not some tangential subject it's core to the person's public notoriety. If there is some argument to the contrary I haven't heard it. So my feeling is, we can debate the exact wording or amount of detail, but this bio is inevitably going to have a lot of "negative statements" if it's going to fairly track with the published, reliable-source coverage. TiC (talk) 10:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK clearly applies as EMG is beyond unduly attempting to weight this article to these minor and recent scandals, while still steadfastly refusing to admit that Salazar got national coverage well before the "immigration" mistake. It's also incredibly rude, dismissive, and patently untrue to claim "every one of us is here because of the controversy" -- maybe that describe you? In the future, please speak for yourself and yourself alone. It's also laughably false that there was just "navel-gazing from the Brooklyn media bubble". Really, the Washington Post (a paper derided almost universally in left circles) is in the Brooklyn media bubble? Say what you will about the titles of "Village Voice", "New Yorker" and "New York Magazine" -- but those are national/international press. Jacobin, Salon, and the Washington Times are too. It's a fallacious argument to write these off as "local press" if they happen to be based in NYC-- it's almost as if NYC is the media capital of the country, if not the world -- all the more unlikely given how these publications almost never cover state legislature candidates, because... they're inter-/national in scope! And again, every link above in #Sources for WP:NPOL is pre-"scandal" coverage and in many of which she even identifies as being born in Miami. Wow! As to the "negative statements", nobody is saying there shouldn't be any in this article, but it's how they're presented. If you read the version of the Hernandez story as EMG wrote it it sounds like she was a criminal, but if you actually read the sources Salazar was a victim of Kai Hernandez's, as evidently the latter lied about the whole thing. JesseRafe (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

material about childhood affluence that needs to be added[edit]

  • By tomorrow, there will be more media covering the latest story in the Daily Mail (yes, I know, but the photos are real, Daily Mail has a reporter in Florida.) Julia's brother, Alex, is close to her in age, and he's sharing childhood photos: big house on the water, a boat, a maid. [2]. This explains the odd fact that a family Julia regularly described in campaign speeches as struggling and working class was living next door to a baseball star like Keith Hernandez. Dad (a Vietnam vet), and Mom made a very comfortable living. Yes, Julia has stated tha ther brother is saying all this because he's politically conservative. But this info needs to be mentioned on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DM, please avoid using the Mail diredtly. If someone else picks it up - you can use their coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies"[edit]

The "controversy" section of this article looks like a classic WP:CSECTION, devoting WP:UNDUE space to what it contains, including by repeating some of its information several times in a non-concise way; it also seems to present it in a slanted way, e.g. the unnecessary first paragraph and the wait until the final paragraph to mention that she identified her birthplace as the US in other interviews. I have had a go at rewriting it to be more concise, WP:NPOV and DUE.
I also fixed an error that was causing a </ref> tag to be displayed in the prose, and fixed a sentence which was enclosed in quotation marks and attributed to The Intercept, although it does not appear to be a quotation of The Intercept. I also added Rosen's name as a critic to provide context for the quotation at the end where she says he engaged in "race science" (which otherwise comes out of the blue and causes readers to wonder who he is and how he fits into the situation); that quotation still doesn't make that much sense because Rosen isn't (yet) mentioned as being sceptical of her Jewishness, which seems to be what she was responding to him about. I also replaced various positive and negative tinged verbs (saying her mother "confirmed" her account, etc) with variations on "said", following WP:CLAIM. -sche (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • She is a public figure.. All coverage of her came as a candidate for public office. Much of the early coverage was about her status as a socialist Latina immigrant from a working class background who graduated from a top college. The lion's share of the regional, national, and international coverage of her has been about the fact that she turned otut not to be an immigrant, not to be from a working class background, and she never graduated form Ivy League college she attended. Because she is a public figure, the policy that applies here is WP:BALASP, aka WP:PROPORTION. The article needs to describe her life and career objectively, with emphasis on aspects of her life given space in WP:PROPORTION to the coverage they have received in reliable publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete edit summary[edit]

My finger slipped.

What I meant to say is:

WP:DUE WP:CRIME - neither supports the inclusion of WP:WEASEL words to try and impugn an innocent person. And she is quite evidently innocent in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the administration of the above policies, the plain facts are that Salazar was a victim, but the details of her arrest are salacious and unnecessary. It's undue weight to spend significant time on the details of the charge considering it was dismissed, but the more details there are, the heavier the bias is towards her alleged criminality. Yes, it's in the RS, but as shown above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper and details collected in the latter don't necessarily belong in the former, that's why we have BLP guidelines about what should be included. It should be balanced, relevant, and neutrally stated. JesseRafe (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since she is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE (making CRIME moot), and this scandal, as well as others, have received widespread coverage (so obviously DUE) - we merely reflect the sources. As for Salazer being a victim in this incident - we should reflect sources which have a variance opinion in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was using DUE to suggest it shouldn't be covered, but DUE to argue that it shouldn't include tedious details and minutia. There aren't "variant opinions" on the matter, just the facts that the first case (against her) was dismissed and the second case (for her) was settled in her favor, which suggests she was the victim of defamation. Article doesn't and shouldn't say that, but Simon and I can express our private understandings of the facts in our own voices on the talk paged, e.g. "innocent" and "victim". Article as it currently stands has no such opinions presented in Wikipedia's voice, and no burdensome crime blotter details. JesseRafe (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The other user is intent on just reverting to just revert, rather than respond to any of the issues and details of substance, such as the mundane and trivially needless detail of Salazar living with her mother for one instance. Surely this is irrelevant to the alleged fraud (prior paragraph) and even more irrelevant to the defamation suit against Hernandez (the paragraph it's in). But rather than engage in discussion per BRD about the contents of this over-burdened section and tedious steadfastedness to what the RSes report, the editor chooses to make strawman arguments and revert wholesale. JesseRafe (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223 and JesseRafe are both selectively and inaccurately citing various irrelevant Wikipedia policies and using them as a cudgel to suppress relevant context and details about a negative event involving the subject (an arrest for fraud). The details I am referring to are the use by police of recorded conversations (tapes) to identify Salazar as the perpetrator of a fraud, and arrested her on a felony for that basis. This was reported in an extensive story by Tablet, which was cited. Apparently a prosecutor decided not to pursue the case because they felt that they needed a stronger body of evidence for an assured conviction. Hardly an exoneration, but nonetheless these two editors have repeatedly removed information referencing this. JesseRafe has also slung accusations of bias at just about every editor willing to disagree with him on this talk page, including myself despite the fact that my edits have included both positive and negative information about the subject, whereas JesseRafe has only made edits to emphasize positive information and has dedicated most of his efforts to defending the subject personally. We really need other editors to step in and put a stop to this. In addition, I am reporting JesseRafe for violating 3RR unless he self-reverts his last edit. Bunchesofoats (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what happened. She was a victim of some misconduct that led to an arrest record for which she was exonerated. I don't think it's due or in keeping with WP:CRIME to present this information as if she had done something wrong or to use WP:WEASEL words to try and impugn her on the basis of an arrest for which she was, I reiterate, exonerated. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be updated if she is elected?[edit]

This is to compile all pages or other content that needs to be added in the event Salazar wins the election. Please edit this list as you deem necessary Shushugah (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox as Democrat nominee
  • Primary percentage (win or lose)

Birthdate[edit]

As in many BLPs, the sourcing in this one for the birthdate needs improvement. The birthplace and birthdate had been sourced to JTA (which only confirms the place) and Gotham (which only has the year, not the date, and which is subpar because it listed the wrong place); I replaced the Gotham cite with the Intercept, which has the right place, but still not the date. I've looked around and haven't yet spotted a reliable ref that has the date; WP:Daily Mail has it but is unusable; it was apparently added based on WP:OR guesswork based on tweets. Gotham and NYDY/Lovett could be used to cite the year (Gotham directly and NYDY via WP:CALC from the statement "in December 2008, when she turned 18"), but if there's not a reliable source for a clear date it should be removed. -sche (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the date, leaving only the month and year. -sche (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018[edit]

"for making inaccurate statements about her ethnicity" should be deleted. She was not known for that, any national media attention focused on that was miniscule and inconsequential. It was a minor controversy during the race and should not be compared with the other things listed in that sentence. Catfacts22 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed only the word "ethnicity" as the decently referenced lower sections in the article don't seem to justify the claim that there was "national attention" on this subject. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section on the personal history dispute seems a bit WP:UNDUE.[edit]

Now that the election is over, it's probably safe to tackle this one. While there are a bunch of sources, virtually all of them are from a very short timeframe; and most of them just pick up and report on the same one or two articles. There's enough to mention the issue, of course, but I don't think it needs more than a sentence or two, let alone a section to itself - it feels like campaign-season WP:RECENTISM at this point, especially given how rapidly coverage died off after the primary. In particular, almost no sources mention this more than in passing after September 13 (the date of the primary.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Six months ago no one had ever heard of Julia Salazar. New york had two primary elections in the summer before the 2018 midterm election. After the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez upset victory in the 1st of the primaries, Salazar got a brief moment of national attention as one of a group of Socialist candidates running in the Democratic primaries. Then journalist Armin Rosen asked Who Is Julia Salazar? and for several weeks she became the subject of intense media scrutiny as it came out that she had sought political advantage by telling a series of untruths and half-truths about her family's Jewishness; her birthplace (she claimed to be an immigrant,) and the tough economic circumstances of her working class childhood (it was comfortable, and she inherited $600,000.00 from her Dad.) More stuff came out about two court cases. this stuff - especially campaign by falsely claiming to be an immigrant, should be on the page and in the lede. Because it accounts for the preponderance of WP:SIGCOV of Salazar. Once she won, she went back to being just one of a group of newly elected Socialists. the lies and the bizarre Keith Hernandez story: New York Times, An Arrest? An Affair? Keith Hernandez? Just Another Day in the Julia Salazar Campaign are what she is known for.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of this intense wave of national coverage has been purged from the page in old-time Soviet style.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is just your opinion that that is what she is known for. She had considerable press coverage well before the Rosen piece as has been gone over ad nauseum above and will not be retread again. Your commentary above is loaded with weasel words and makes you objectively non-neutral in this matter. JesseRafe (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A very large proportion of the coverage of Salazar, definitely national and international coverage, is in pieces containing this identity scandal. This is not surprising, as generally state senators (and all the more so candidates and recently elected ones) are not very widely covered - they pass wiki-notability - but coverage is mainly local and even very local. Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for coverage - this persists in coverage of her in November 2018 - in Forward and Jezebel.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sure you're aware, neither Forward nor Jezebel are particularly good sources. They're political-enthusiast blogs - it is natural for them to reference even comparatively minor election-year dust-ups in passing, since they're aimed at an audience that cares about that detailed blow-by-blow. But overall I don't agree that "a large proportion of coverage" was focused on that topic; it made up a minority of coverage on this page even at the height of the scandal - and much of that 'weight' came from excessively citing every single secondary source that mentioned Rosen's piece. WP:DUE doesn't just require a sudden burst of coverage like that, it requires long-term impact to avoid WP:RECENTISM, which isn't really present here if the best sources you could find still mentioning it are blogs (and even those, only in passing.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Forward is a newspaper/magazine that has been around for more than a century; it is certainly not a political-enthusiast blog.Knowitall369 (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Forward is a serious NEWSORG that has been around well before the term blog has been invented - it is nothing of the sort.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current presentation of identity controversy is POV, non-neutral, inaccurate and misleading[edit]

The part of the entry dealing with the identity controversy, as it now reads, is factually incorrect and materially misleading, unfaithful to the sources it cites as well as other WP:RS, and severely POV.

First, there's a real need for edits to fill in information from existing sources whose omission makes the entry misleading or outright false. For instance, the entry now states that Ms. Salazar has said "her father was a Colombian Sephardic Jew descended from the medieval community that was expelled from Spain." None of the sources cited say that Ms. Salazar has ever made such a claim, and the sources cited in the entry that claim to have discussed the matter with Ms. Salazar and other members of her family acknowledge that both sides of her family were Catholic for several generations, and that Ms. Salazar claims not that her father was a Sephardic Jew but that her father had one or more ancestors several centuries ago who more Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain, that Ms. Salazar's mother defers to the claim on the grounds that her daughter looked into it, and other family members deny even the claim of descent or claim no knowledge of it. Similar omissions plague the entry's discussion of Ms. Salazar's claims to be an immigrant, and other aspects of the controversy.

Second, the entry currently misleads the reader into believing the controversy and the allegations came from two sources only, whereas the multiple sources already cited in the entry show that the controversy and allegations came from numerous WP:RS. For instance, the entry now says "Rosen also raised questions about Salazar's immigration background, which were picked up in an article a week later in City and State New York. They said that Salazar (who was born in Miami) has sometimes given the impression that she herself was an immigrant, rather than being born to an immigrant family." But it's not disputed that, as the New York Times reported, "Ms. Salazar said that she 'immigrated to this country with my family when I was very little,' at a campaign event captured on video." The Lovett source already cited in the entry reported that Ms. Salazar's campaign spokesman said Salazar was "a naturalized citizen who lived in Colombia before coming to the U.S. with her family." The Vox piece cites Ms. Salazar stating in an interview with Jacobin magazine "My family immigrated to the US from Colombia when I was a baby." (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/julia-salazar-interview-socialist-new-york-senate). It's POV and misleading to say that Salazar "has sometimes given the impression that she herself was an immigrant" when the sources agree that Salazar has said point blank that she herself was an immigrant.

Third, the entry now gives insufficient weight and context to the controversy. For example, the entry is non-neutral by stating in the lede that Salazar "attracted national media attention for her support for sex workers rights and other views" but not due to the controversy. Even major media outlets that were sympathetic to Ms. Salazar, such as the Nation, stated that while the "merits of the accusations have been contested, [] the fact is that Salazar said things that simply were not true on many occasions during the campaign. Versions of her biography contained claims that were found to be inaccurate." (https://www.thenation.com/article/the-reason-julia-salazar-won/). The New York Times' Bari Weiss was much harsher, accusing Ms. Salazar of "fabricating [her] life story" and being "to put it gently, allergic to the truth." The controversy is probably the most famous aspect of Ms. Salazar's political career. It's difficult to find any writings about Ms. Salazar that do not refer to the controversy.

Reviewing the history of the entry, I can see that a number of editors like JesseRafe and Aquillion have been very protective of Ms. Salazar, and have repeatedly deleted and rewritten parts of the entry to exclude any description of the identity controversy they consider to shed an unflattering light on Ms. Salazar. The election is now over, and these partisan editors should take a step back. It is important for editors without a partisan agenda to prevent the partisans from bowdlerizing the entry on disengenous claims that editors trying to restore NPOV are "intentionally phras[ing matters] in non-neutral ways." I have given my shot at restoring the entry to NPOV, only to have JesseRafe (one of those involved in prior attempts to bowdlerize the entry) revert. I will get back to working this entry into NPOV form, and in the meantime, I urge others to take a crack at it too. The sources are already there in the entry and on this talk page.

Likewise, in the meantime, I suggest that JesseRafe and other partisan editors reacquaint themselves with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign website for Ms. Salazar. The material is in the WP:RS in the entry; massaging it into hagiography is improper. Knowitall369 (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. My reading is that this is that the controversy, while it attracted attention for a few weeks, was essentially only in the news for a brief window immediately before the primaries, after which it mostly disappeared, getting an occasional aside mention at most. The election, as you say, is over, and it's time to step back and recognize that tempest-in-a-teapot controversies that loomed large at the moment are now mostly trivia. As far as coverage goes, article is full of coverage that doesn't mention it - in fact, even at the height of the controversy, with every single redundant bit of secondary coverage anyone could find thrown in, it was still a sharp minority of sources on this page. Also, you do need to be more cautious in adding sources; some of the ones you tried to add just now - like that editorial by Bari Weiss - were opinion pieces, which obviously can't be used for statements of fact about a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to not only assume, but see good faith, and welcome you to display it. Your reading of the controversy as being inconsequential is not matched by the sources. It's difficult to find any WP:RS that refers to Ms. Salazar since the controversy that has not discussed it. I could keep adding sources, but we both know that no number will ever suffice for you. As you also know, opinion pieces are certainly evidence of the fact of national attention. I don't want to get into the kind of edit wars you have waged with others over this page. Your partisan politics are clear. Please step back. Knowitall369 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to avoid edit-wars, you should stop reverting to try and force your preferred addition into the article now that you know there's objections to it, and start discussing in good faith instead. While more recent coverage does mention the controversy, it is generally treated as a minor aside and not as the major, lead-worthy event you're trying to frame it as. See eg. here, where it gets one sentence (weighing it equally with many other things this page more accurately treats as comparatively minor), or here, or here, which makes no mention of it at all. I'm not suggesting excluding it from the article, but it's not lead-worthy, and none of the sources you've presented really imply it is; simply dumping a bunch of coverage repeating the same thing within the same small timeframe doesn't take an election controversy that lasted roughly one news cycle and make it appropriate for the lead of a WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Aquillon, if you want to avoid edit wars, you should stop reverting (if you'll recall, that's where you started), and you should stop trying to force your preferred additions/deletions into the article (look at the history of the article) despite your knowing others' objections to it. It is important to discuss, and one of the signs of good faith is that you are open to being persuaded. However, as I far as I can see, it makes no difference what I will show you, your conclusion will always be the same. You claimed that the controversy "attracted attention for a few weeks ... after which it mostly disappeared." That is incorrect. Now you claim that "more recent coverage does mention the controversy, [but] it is generally treated as a minor aside." The fact is that it is difficult to find any article about Ms. Salazar post-controversy that does not mention it, at least as an aside, while there is no other feature about Ms. Salazar that appears to have driven national coverage. That means it belongs in the lede. Where is there evidence that Ms. Salazar is known on the national scene for anything other than the controversy? Given your record on this page, however, it is plain that this is a conclusion you will never reach, due to your feelings about the politics of the matter, rather than WP policy. If you want to convince me, show me a large number of national articles about Ms. Salazar post-controversy that don't at least mention it. What would convince you? P.S. Thanks for The Cut story; it appears to be a good source for the claim of Ms. Salazar being known for advocacy regarding sex workers; I am adding it.Knowitall369 (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add: I think it would make sense to clean up the lede by moving ALL the sources down to the body of the article, and I'll be happy to do so once I'm certain you won't use it as an excuse to try to re-politicize the lede. Knowitall369 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a suddenly resurfaced account that was dormant for years makes vast non-neutral changes to a political person's article, where have I heard that one before? You need more consistent lies, friend. You falsely and maliciously accuse me of bullshit while at the same time cry that the lede is too white-washed and makes no mention of the controversy, whereas if you weren't lying out of your ass, you'd see that I recently sought to keep some of that info in the lede as it's neutral and relevant, to wit. Alas, you're just a partisan hack who gaslights and accuses others of what they themselves are doing. That is making non-neutral edits on a BLP to force their political agenda into a neutral biographical article. Also, "take it to Talk page" as you were already asked means you make a [readable!] post on the Talk page and then wait for consensus, don't resume your problematic editing. This is also my last response to you, so please keep my name out of your lies, or at least sign into your main account instead of hiding behind this alt. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a procedural note, Knowitall369, I'd like to remind you that (as noted at the top of this talk page and when editing the article itself) "you must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" (on the 9th you re-instated the disputed content after Jesse previously removed it, and reinstated it again after Aquillion removed it), a rule designed to discourage edit-warring in a topic area (US politics) that is known to be controversial.
On a content note, I broadly agree with what Aquillion has said, the issue does not seem to be given as much weight (or slant) by sources as you want to give it. (I previously suggested a possible compromise wording of what happened here, but due weight must also be established for inclusion in the lead, and not just neutral phrasing.)
-sche (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So let's start on the procedural note. On the 7th, JesseRafe reverted a series of edits I made, falsely accusing me of intentional POV editing. He demanded that I take it to the Talk page. I did. And I waited. JesseRafe woke up several days later to revert ENTIRELY DIFFERENT EDITS (I was still waiting for JesseRafe to comment before returning to any substantive material about the controversy, which is what I edited on the 7th), and this time falsely accused me of having not waited for his response, which appears to be a series of personal insults (primarily consisting of falsely accusing me of doing what JesseRafe has been doing for months here), with absolutely no substantive response. I am not interested in an edit war, and really do not intend to respond in kind to JesseRafe's and Aquillon's partisan vandalism of this entry, other than to note this is the third time that the pair have reverted a pair of edits (changing net 1878, 2063, and 3063 words respectively), giving explanations that are transparently dishonest. But I will continue to await any substantive response---not that I can imagine how anyone can substantively defend JesseRafe's and Aquillon's turning the article into a partisan website for an already victorious candidate.
-sche, please reread. I did not reinstate the "disputed content after Jesse previously removed it." This is simply a falsehood made by JesseRafe to justify his continued partisan editing.
-sche, as to the question of the content of the lede, I would urge you to go to the sources in the entry, rather than relying on Aquillon's mischaracterization of them. Coverage of Ms. Salazar since the controversy, even if about something else entirely, almost invariably mentions it. I don't see how anyone can honestly say the controversy is not one of the most notable features of this person, or honestly deny that she received national (indeed international) attention over it. The only thing that seems anywhere close to the controversy in winning her national attention is her membership in DSA, which is (properly) in the lede as well. Knowitall369 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Aquillon, when can I expect you to scold JesseRafe for neglecting his duty to assume good faith? Knowitall369 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, JesseRafe, since the one substantive thing you said here was that you actually believe the controversy belongs in the lede, and the only reason you deleted it now was personal pique, when can we expect you to restore it? Knowitall369 (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth I Strongly Oppose including anything about this overblown "controversy" in the lede. Frankly it barely meets WP:DUE mentioning this non-issue at all. Oh no! She claimed membership in a religion based on patrilineal ancestry rather than matrilineal ancestry! Somebody fetch the fainting couch. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy made it to the New York Times (several times), Rolling Stone, the Daily Mail, Fox News, Vox, The Cut, The Intercept, New York Magazine, Business Insider, Haaretz, the Forward, the Times of Israel, Town Hall, Gothamist, New York Daily News, The Nation, The Weekly Standard, Politico, Tablet, New York Post, the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Insider, vice.com, Huffington Post and others. It's a little late in the game to say it's not an issue. Knowitall369 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The more central question I raised is how the issue should be presented. Knowitall369 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case both sides - patrilineal and matrilineal - are Christian per coverage in RSes, and mlst of the coverage this individual has received is due to various representations of her background (including claims she was an immigrant - it is not just religion).Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite true that Salazar never claimed "her father was a Colombian Sephardic Jew", she said she believed he had Jewish ancestry and that her surname had a Sephardic origin.--Pharos (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her New York state senate bio has an official photo, with a CC license, but it's NC-ND, which is apparently unsuitable for upload here. Alas, the article goes pictureless. -sche (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hernandez legal issue[edit]

This was added and immediately removed. I restored the content but moved it into a controversies section, grouping it with the Keyes incident.

I don't see any justification for excluding this material: it's notable and cited. If you disagree, please explain. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems WP:UNDUE to me, at least unless it's being covered elsewhere - it's an unsubstantiated allegation that never went to court and received almost no coverage. The single source provided is a speculative Tablet piece, and we already have an entire paragraph of criticism of her coming almost entirely from Tablet magazine; I feel that if we're going to include this, we should probably try to rely on other sources to avoid giving their editorial opinion of her undue weight. (Also, for the other criticism that was added recently, we definitely can't cite stuff to YouTube videos - that much is straightforward per WP:RS and WP:BLP.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was first reported by the Daily Mail, and then this article was used as the basis for additional coverage by, among others: Tablet, Fox, The Cut, C&S NY, Deadspin, NY Mag, Syracuse, and NY Times.
I'm sure that's only a partial list, but I believe it fulfills your demand for evidence that it's covered elsewhere. Moreover, many of these articles cite this issue in the broader context of a constellation of scandals that have affected her. For example, The Cut article is entitled Everything to Know About the Julia Salazar Controversies and leads with "What do claims about a fabricated identity, the Democratic Socialists of America, and former Mets player Keith Hernandez have in common?"
I have no objection to using other sources in addition to Tablet, but it's clear that the initial reporting comes from Daily Mail. We can use other sources for their analysis, as appropriate, so as to avoid any original research. In particular, we don't want to declare her scandal-plagued or whatever; if that's mentioned, it should be attributed. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that some text about this was present and discussed in 2018: Ctrl-F "Hernandez" on this talk page. I said then that "I am not convinced an accusation that didn't go to court, and led to a defamation judgement in her favor, is [important] enough" to be due the large amount of space it was being given then and again now. I also notice the articles linked above are mostly or entirely from the same one news cycle, which I've seen people suggest (elsewhere, about other things) signals a lack of enduring / encyclopedic importance. I wouldn't rule out including something about this if there were enough sources, but we would have to be careful to mind WP:BLP with regard to suggestions that one or the other party committed a crime. -sche (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There can be one or two sentences about this. More would be undue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's agree on a couple of sentences. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like User: JesseRafe is working to get me blocked again because I don't always agree with his edits, so I'm just going to leave this here.
This is what got cut:
In 2011, Salazar was arrested for trying to gain access to the bank account of Kai Hernandez, a family friend who was then married to baseball star Keith Hernandez. Salazar had allegedly called UBS Bank multiple times but was unable to access Hernandez' bank account due to security questions. A detective from the Tequesta, Florida police department interviewed Salazar, identified her as the voice on the recordings of the calls to UBS bank, and placed her under arrest. She was not ultimately charged, because the state attorney office did not think a voice recording was sufficient evidence to prosecute her. Salazar sued Kai Hernandez for defamation, but Hernandez, who suffered from cancer and autoimmune disease, "could not afford to continue the process," so her insurance company paid Salazar a settlement of $20,000.[1]
I suggest we go with:
In 2011, Salazar was arrested for trying to gain access to the bank account of Kai Hernandez, a family friend who was then married to baseball star Keith Hernandez. She was not ultimately charged, because the state attorney office did not think a voice recording of her calls to UBS bank was sufficient evidence to prosecute her.
These are just the first and fourth sentence, with one word ("UBS") added. It would be nice to add something about the lawsuit, but it's hard to compact it.

References

  1. ^ "STATE SENATE CANDIDATE WAS ARRESTED IN 2011 ON SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION". tabletmag.com. Tablet Magazine. Retrieved July 2, 2019.

24.47.152.65 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "Ctrl+F", when you find that previous discussion it might sound very familiar to the one you are having now. Conclusions can be drawn on one's own, will have time for an SPI later, but for now, parties at this talk page may be interested in a conversation at ANI about this editor. And, to do the barest due diligence: The suggested text also violates UNDUE as mentioned and WP:BLPCRIME and is clearly couched in terms to make her look guilty rather than accused and cast aspersions, e.g. intentionally omitting the standard "allegedly" and also attributing the calls/voice mails to her as if it were a statement of fact despite a plain reading of a court finding otherwise. Again, just a clear bias and intended to smear the BLP more than inform the reader of anything, no matter the claims to the contrary and lip-service paid to WP guidelines. JesseRafe (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if we skip over your personal attacks and poisoning the well, what you're actually asking for (other than for me to be blocked forever) is that we add "allegedly" before "trying"? I have no objection to that, although I do object to your insane behavior.
Here's the proposed change. Feel free to comment on it, not me.
In 2011, Salazar was arrested for allegedly trying to gain access to the bank account of Kai Hernandez, a family friend who was then married to baseball star Keith Hernandez. She was not ultimately charged, because the state attorney office did not think a voice recording of her calls to UBS bank was sufficient evidence to prosecute her.
See, that's what a productive discussion results in. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that with that caveat, the story doesn't meet WP:DUE, especially given the marginal coverage that seems to have evaporated almost immediately. A mere allegation would only be included if it was very heavily covered or if, after significant time had passed, there were legal proceedings or other reasons to think it was true. The fact that this allegation went nowhere makes it hard to argue that it belongs in her biography today. --Aquillion (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One or two sentences can't be considered undue, especially if we are to be generally inclusionist for a relatively small article.
In 2011, Salazar was arrested for trying to gain access to a bank account of neighbor and a family friend Kai Hernandez, after a detective identified her as the voice on the recordings of the calls to the UBS Group investment bank. She was not charged and sued Hernandez for defamation, whose insurance company ultimately settled the claim for $20,000.[ref]

(Minor copyedits subsequently made, as marked.) Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can shorten it down, but what's left can't distort what our sources say. Unfortunately, the earlier attempts do, so here's another try.
In 2010, after Salazar worked as a house-sitter for her neighbor, Kai Hernandez, the homeowner accused her of stealing about $14,000 in cash and other items, and had her arrested for allegedly attempting bank fraud through impersonation. Salazar was not charged because the evidence consisted of voice recordings of the phone calls, which was not considered enough for a conviction. In 2013, Salazar filed suit against Hernandez for defamation over the theft accusations, which was fought for 4 years until Hernandez, citing health issues, settled out of court with her insurance paying $20,000 to end the case.
If you can do better, please offer your alternative. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered the best proposal so far. This is not a big deal so we shouldn't make it look like it was. Many details you have proposed are irrelevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working to improve it. I'm still concerned that your suggestion doesn't match what our sources say. For example, Kai Hernandez is the one who identified Salazar's voice. The detective agreed, which is why an arrest was made, but he didn't know Salazar and wouldn't have recognized her voice all on his own. Likewise, identifying them as neighbors is more precise and accurate than "family friend". I could go on, and I will if you'd like, but these are the sort of details that I've been paying close attention to. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can include that they were neighbours but I can't do anything more. Adding the details you are talking about is very undue. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our highest priority is to not mislead, but cutting it as short as you'd prefer would be misleading.
For example, the reason it's important to mention that it was Hernandez herself who first identified Salazar's voice is that, without this detail, the defamation lawsuit doesn't make any sense at all. Salazar's claim is that, by accusing her of bank fraud and getting her arrested, Hernandez had attacked her reputation (allegedly maliciously). If some random detective decided Salazar was the caller, this lets Hernandez off the hook and removes all context. Fundamentally, it is simply not true that she was arrested because a detective identified her, and saying this doesn't even make sense in the narrative.
Perhaps we can come up with something in between the two suggested versions that, while remaining short, sticks to the truth. I'm willing to give it another try, but I need to understand what your specific objection is to mentioning who identified her voice. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In 2011, Salazar was arrested for trying to access a bank account of neighbor and family friend Kai Hernandez, after accusing Salazar of calls to the UBS Group investment bank. She was released without charge and sued Hernandez for defamation, whose insurance company ultimately settled the claim for $20,000.[ref]
The matter of a voice on a call is not notable enough, but we can present this as Hernandez accusing Salazar. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me try to combine the two.

In 2001, Salazar was arrested based on her neighbor, Kai Hernandez, identifying her voice on recordings of someone trying to access her bank account, but Salazar was not charged because the recordings were deemed insufficient for conviction. In 2013, Salazar filed suit against Hernandez for defamation over this arrest, as well as allegations of stealing about $14,000 while house-sitting for Hernandez. In 2017, Hernandez's insurance company paid out a settlement to end the case.

This version streamlines a lot of the details, but keeps it down to three sentences while using more neutral terminology. It omits the name of the bank, because it doesn't matter. It doesn't mention that the detective agreed about whose voice it was, but that's implied by the fact that she was arrested. It doesn't mention the alleged affair because it's salacious and hard to condense. Moreover, all parties agree that there had never been an affair; they disagree only about whether Kai had claimed it. 24.47.152.65 (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Issues[edit]

user:JesseRafe removed a section on Salazar’s legal issues for allegedly containing "unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content." The section was based on articles in the New York Times and The Tablet, both of which are reputable, reliable sources that are used elsewhere in the article. Please stop removing well-sourced information because you do not like it.

Literally discussed directly above this. Consensus was inclusion was undue, and your current edit uses weasel words to spin it as if she were found guilty of something. Anyone can be "arrested". How curious how you found that section of my talk page though, almost like you've been there before... JesseRafe (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above does not appear to show a consensus that inclusion was undue. Aquillion raised concerns about the lack of coverage being a possible WP:DUE violation, but a cursory google search shows a bunch of articles from a slew of different reliable sources. You brought up the problem of tone and weasel words, but that can be solved without removing the section wholesale. Other users discussed ways to include the information so it wouldn't be a WP:DUE violation, but those suggestions seems to have been ignored. I would be in favor of those suggestions. --Bowmerang (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure how factual statements like "on {date}, X was arrested for Y" could constitute "weasel words." As Bowmerang notes, there are many reputable sources that discuss Ms. Salazar’s legal dispute with Kai Hernandez. Given that there was no preexisting consensus that inclusion is undue, and that elected officials’ legal disputes are important biographical content, Ms. Salazar’s legal dispute with Kai Hernandez clearly merits inclusion. --Competitionlawnerd (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the discussion in the last section was misrepresented by user:JesseRafe. The consensus was to include a shorter paragraph summarizing the events, and in any case "weasel words" can be edited and are not grounds for removal. Unless user:JesseRafe can put forth additional, specific complaints, I suggest user:Competitionlawnerd or another editor here redo the edit by incorporating this discussion per the BRD Cycle. Egawaryuki21 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On my reading, no consensus exists for the section. Two users, User:Aquillion and JesseRafe, oppose inclusion on the basis of a short presence in the news cycle and no enduring coverage. Two users, User:Onetwothreeip and the IP user User:24.47.152.65, argue that this coverage is sufficient for 1-2 sentences, or a little more for context. Freelance-frank (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is patently obviously negative material about a BLP that wasn't previously in a stable version of the article and which numerous editors have raised reasonable objections to; therefore, you must demonstrate a clear consensus in order to include it. Neither this discussion nor the previous one showed anything remotely resembling that. --Aquillion (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that the controversy should be written in a way that maintains WP:NPOV, and not be overly long and detailed as to violate WP:DUE. I agree that the number and nature of the sources pass muster and therefore merits inclusion. --Bowmerang (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number and nature of sources isn't the only thing that matters; we don't include every single accusation against a BLP just because there was a news cycle on it. There's still no WP:SUSTAINED coverage (in fact, that's even more clear today than it was in the first discussion; has anything covered it since then?) Considering that it's a criminal accusation against a BLP in which they were not only not convicted but not even charged, it would be necessary to show that this is a significant part of her biography through sustained long-term coverage before we could include it, which doesn't appear to be the case. Do you have any sources from after 2018? --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aquillion above, the comments were removed as not continually significant. Further, the good faith move of the Early life and education section into a non-standard "Personal details" section was replaced as the first header after the lede which is standard for BLPs. Trimmed the fat on the Rosen hit piece and Keyes allegation. Retitled some sections and clarified a few bits. Cheers, JesseRafe (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Continually significant" is not in any way a relevant standard for any Wikipedia matter. The details are reliably sourced and should be included. This seems pretty straightforward. Nor is this just an accusation. Being arrested for something is a simple factual matter. It is a deep stretch of what the BLP policy says to have this not included. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What a crazy random happenstance that a couple leftist Wikipedia editors can't tolerate any facts that undermine their ideological struggle. This is not your blog, and Salazar's long history of lies, controversy, and legal trouble are more noteworthy than any of her political policies or "achievements." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.43.66 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it helps to assume good faith, and attacking users for their perceived political biases is not helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its kind of a known fact though, Joshua: https://twitter.com/Yair_Rosenberg/status/1413511094237229056 Ignoring bias like this makes this whole project a joke tbh. AaronY (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the content in question, wording like "her well-documented history of lying about her past and background, and her attempts at scamming a dying woman out of tens of thousands of dollars", a POV unsupported by RS, is obviously not going to fly in any article, let alone one on a living person. An entire section devoted to an arrest, sourced largely to a piece in an outlet noted for its hostility to her, over something she was not charged with because there was not evidence she actually did anything, and over which she indeed then won a defamation suit, would also be UNDUE even if someone fixed the POV issues with how it was presented (implying that she did it and stating she only won the defamation suit because the other party was sick, after having just mentioned another possible cause, the lack of evidence that she did anything). If someone wanted to draft a few more concise, less POV sentences about this, they could be discussed on their own merits. -sche (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later coverage?[edit]

One argument against inclusion I've seen other users make is that all coverage on this was from a single news cycle. Looking at the sources mentioned above from July 2019, this appears true. The majority of articles were published on the same day, September 6, 2018, and the latest is from two weeks later. I searched reasonably well for follow-up articles that mention this, but I see none.

From my point of view, the argument for inclusion would be significantly improved if any article mentioned this episode after that 2018 news cycle, even in passing. Is there an article that I have missed that mentions this matter? Freelance-frank (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DSA in infobox[edit]

JesseRafe (talk · contribs) It is eminently clear that this is not how the field is used across Wikipedia. We do not say "Blue Dog/New Dem/FL Dem Party" for Stephanie Murphy. We not not use DSA for the most high profile members in the country, AOC and Tlaib after extensive discussion. If it's an improper use of the field for someone like AOC is absolutely is for Julia Salazar and Jabari Brisport. It is an ideological membership org. Do we want to put Federalist Soc/Sierra Club/NRA/SEIU for others? No. We discuss it in the article as linked within their positions and ideology. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false equivalence. Why would we say "Blue Dog" or worse, Sierra Club etc? That's beyond facetious and arguing in bad faith. AOC and Tlaib are basically paper members now, yes, but DSA should be listed on their infoboxes, although less strongly than here. For Salazar and Brisport (and the rest of the DSA for the State/City slates) DSA membership, their own experience with DSA organizing, and the DSA volunteer base was integral to their political success and identity. To claim otherwise is whitewashing their politics and making the encyclopedia less informative. JesseRafe (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, why would we say a membership organization over an formal congressional party faction? It is not "whitewashing their politics and making the encyclopedia less informative" when there's a whole article. It is simply not the purpose of the infobox to parse every nuance of their political positions. The most famous an popular members have clearly kept them out for this reason despite you snidely calling them "basically paper members now." You are talking about experience and history, then put it in the article. But it is literally not how the field is or should be used. Opening this up leaves room for more stupid inclusions like NRA or CAPAC or Squad or Tea Party membership to be in the infobox. Put it in the article. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of how much coverage they get. Salazar's membership in DSA is a major part of her biography and of this article (it is mentioned in the lead), so naturally it belongs in the infobox. Other articles should be decided after looking at comparable coverage. This is part of the reason WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an important to keep in mind. --Aquillion (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

In the lede it should be "workers'".

Not "workers". As it is now.--2603:7000:2143:8500:A0C6:F635:E96E:C46B (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks. Isabelle 🔔 00:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2021[edit]

Removed dead-wikilinks which are “Jews for Racial and Economic Justice” and tendentious budding "jOurNAlIsT" of a polemics-author in “Armin Rosen” of oh-so-reputable ethnocentrist rag. Regards 103.163.124.73 (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Removed red wiki links. DarthFlappy 14:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthFlappy: Acknowledged. Have a blissful life ahead. —103.163.124.73 (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2023[edit]

Is Wikipedia so biased that it will neglect and ignore basic facts regarding Senator Salazar's lies about her own past? Her lawsuit with Keith Hernandez' ex-wife? Her arrest for attempted theft, calling a bank impersonating someone else? The voice recordings are part of the public record. Come on Wikipedia..... 173.56.203.152 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2023[edit]

Julia Salazar is the subject of a graphic novel: https://www.topshelfcomix.com/catalog/radical-my-year-with-a-socialist-senator/1079 73.60.240.66 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There needs to be significant coverage in independent secondary sources covering this to demonstrate that it is WP:DUE for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2023[edit]

Add to personal section:

In February 2023, Julia Salazar came under fire for mocking a man's stereotypical Jewish looks. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-732707 https://nypost.com/2023/02/25/sen-julia-salazar-slammed-for-mocking-jewish-mans-looks/ Mrnhghts (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Appears to be potentially unduly negative, and given that the subject is covered by WP:BLP, please seek further consensus before requesting this change again. Melmann 23:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julia_Salazar&oldid=1212823346"