Talk:Andrei Cherny

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrei Cherny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?120525+primary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319185731/http://www.andreiforarizona.com:80/media/news/2012-02-goddard-throws-full-support-behind-cherny to http://www.andreiforarizona.com/media/news/2012-02-goddard-throws-full-support-behind-cherny
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409041627/http://www.andreiforarizona.com:80/ to http://www.andreiforarizona.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrei Cherny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141211082128/http://thecandybombers.com:80/ to http://www.thecandybombers.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for improvement/edits/corrections

I work for Andrei Cherny's campaign for Congress and am requesting help from the Wikipedia community in correcting information that was recently added to his page.

1) The first paragraph states "The company is under investigation for allegedly inflating the impact of its carbon offsets." Nowhere in the sources is there any such allegation stated. Nor has there been any such allegation made.

2) Furthermore, why would this sentence belong in the opening paragraph of Cherny's bio? He has served as a White House aide, Navy Officer, Arizona's Assistant Attorney General, author of two books, wrote Barack Obama's 2008 campaign policy plan Change We Can Believe In, drafted the 2000 Democratic Party Platform, etc. None of those are in the opening paragraph. Defer to you on whether they should be. But why an investigation of a company he left two years ago in the opening paragraph?

3) Cherny did not leave when the SPAC deal fell through. The merger was called off in August 2023 and he left in October 2022 https://news.spacconference.com/2023/08/23/interprivate-iii-financial-partners-calls-off-aspiration-deal/. Articles at the time said it was "amid a delay" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-13/aspiration-ceo-cherny-stepping-down-as-spac-merger-faces-a-delay but there has never been any statement tying his departure to anything involving the SPAC deal other than that he left at the same time as the delay

4) It is categorically false that Aspiration promised "to help them offset their greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees." There is no source for that statement.

5) The history shows that edits were made to the article by Cliffh123 at 00:35, 13 February 2024 that more correctly explained the company's carbon credit business and provided an example of a deal with Meta/Facebook. This shows the company did not just "aim" to sell carbon credits. Those edits were taken down by another editor.

6) The information added on the investigation of Aspiration does not include the fact that this is "part of a larger effort to scrutinize the industry" https://kjzz.org/content/1868800/report-financial-regulators-probe-arizona-congressional-candidates-former-company. That makes it misleading

7) The statement "Bloomberg reported that authorities were investigating Cherny's actions as part of the probe." is also false. The article and all subsequent articles state his actions are being "reviewed." Two very different things.

8) The section on the investigation of Aspiration is roughly half of the entire section of Cherny's long business career. There is no discussion of the Aspiration Impact Measurement, the Aspiration Redwood Fund, the Aspiration Planet Protection Service, Aspiration as the world's largest private sector reforestation effort, etc. Why does a routine investigation of a company Cherny left two years ago merit this much space while none of these other items are mentioned? Why is this information about the investigation even on Cherny's bio as opposed to on the Aspiration wikipedia entry? https://www.inc.com/profile/aspiration-temp https://www.fastcompany.com/90420608/do-you-know-what-your-bank-does-with-your-money-once-you-give-it-to-them https://blog.aspiration.com/aspirations-reforestation-initiatives-recognized-in-climate-category-of-fast-companys-2022-world-changing-ideas-awards/ https://fortune.com/2020/01/14/aspiration-fintech-banking-andrei-cherny/ https://fortune.com/2021/09/24/climate-fintech-startups-aspiration-climate-change/ https://fortune.com/2021/06/11/minimum-wage-25-an-hour-aspiration-ceo/ CHERNYFACTS (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

For (4) the article says: "In a video launching his candidacy, Cherny echoed Aspiration’s recent claim that the company has planted more than 100 million trees. The company has claimed that those trees are all in the ground as of February 2023, with 40 million more funded but not yet planted." so that was the source for the paraphrase about trees. Wording can always be improved, but I don't see how it's "categorically false" as written. On (7) the AZ Republic article uses "reviewed' and "being probed" to describe it; I'll change it to "reviewing" from "investigating". BBQboffin^{grill me} 18:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The tree planting initiative was totally separate and apart from the carbon credits CHERNYFACTS (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: While the accusation is still an accusation, I'd say it's probably not WP:DUE for the lead (but fine for the body, as long as it's clear that these are allegations). If the allegations result in actual action against the company, that's a different story. It's a little bit of a WP:COATRACK anyway, as this is an article about the co-founder of the company, not the company itself. So for now, safe BLP move is to put that stuff in the body, not the lead. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Federal investigation and review

I think the most clear wording, following the sources, is to say that Aspiration the company is under investigation, and that the actions of the BLP subject are being "reviewed" as a part of that probe. Now, the Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are investigating whether Aspiration “misled customers about the quality of carbon offsets it was selling,” Bloomberg reported Thursday. Authorities are “reviewing the actions” of Cherny and Sanberg, according to Bloomberg. Media contacts for both agencies did not respond to requests for confirmation or additional specifics about the investigation.

As I said in my edit summary, I'm fine with the rest, but putting "investigation" in the section header on a BLP definitely gives the impression that the BLP subject is being investigated. I still have some reservations about the amount of weight this topic is given in the BLP. The company's article, sure, go nuts, but putting this much about the company into the BLP is really edging into WP:COATRACK territory. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

References