Talk:Alejandra Caraballo

Disclosure

I don't consider myself to have a COI with Caraballo, who I have never met, but decided to submit this through AfC out of an abundance of caution since I am an (unpaid) affiliate with the Berkman Klein Center, which is also home to the Cyberlaw Clinic. I am also doing a (paid) fellowship with the Harvard Library Innovation Lab, which is a part of the Law School, but to my knowledge Caraballo has nothing to do with the LIL. I've written this article solely because I've come across Caraballo's activism online, and I was not asked to write it nor am I writing it as a part of anything to do with the BKC or LIL. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Being someone who finds the views of the subject of this article horrendous, I think you did a great job adhering to neutrality. I will say that I find the activism section somewhat unfocused. Since when is activism on the same plane as purported expertise? Especially in such a controversial area, those should he treated as two completely separate topics. 2600:1012:B05C:B412:E938:818E:B111:1446 (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point on the expertise—I've moved that sentence up a section. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

House hearing

Beginning a discussion since Digital Herodotus challenged my removal of the paragraph about the Dec 13 House hearing. I went back and forth on it myself, but ultimately decided it's not significant enough to include. Most sourcing out there is either unusable or marginal (WP:MREL). Most of these MREL sources have notes about being cautious in using them in BLPs.

The only WP:GREL source I could find reporting on it was a brief CNN segment that did not do much beyond stating that the conversation happened, without explaining why it was noteworthy beyond other questions that were presumably asked of her and other witnesses, which is ultimately why I decided to remove it.

• Generally reliable: CNN
• Marginally reliable or no consensus: RealClearPolitics, Newsweek, Washington Examiner, Washington Times
• Unreliable/deprecated: Fox News (×3), Daily Mail, New York Post, Post Millenial, Daily Wire, Daily Caller

My concern is the weight being given to a paragraph that is largely coming through deprecated or questionably reliable sources, and whose only reliable source consists of fifteen seconds of a journalist saying "this happened today".

It's worth noting that the edit summary ("This information is important and not including it borders on violating the neutrality stance of Wikipedia by editing out any negative stories about her.") is erroneous: WP:NPOV requires we establish due weight for any statement based on its inclusion in reliable sources. If "this information is important", you need to establish how. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s very significant. For the source question, there is a CNN video just linking to footage of that specific part of the hearing, so I think that’s totally valid as a source. And a big part of Alejandras work is monitoring what she perceives is anti-LGBT rhetoric online which could lead to violent actions against LGBT people. She’s at a hearing by the federal government concerning extremist rhetoric that could undermine democracy. It’s a very bad look for her since it’s incredibly hypocritical for her to base her career on calling out something she was caught red handed doing. I believe not including that information is essentially running damage control for her by not referencing something that doesn’t look good for her and thus breaches the neutral stance Wikipedia articles ahould have. Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to add that your listing of reliable and unreliable sources is heavily biased and question what this is based on. Digital Herodotus (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

My listing of reliable and unreliable sources is from WP:RSP, which I linked above.

It does not matter if you personally think it's significant, which is not sufficient reason for inclusion. We need evidence that reliable sources think it is significant, which—as yet—does not exist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Either way, CNN is listed as a valid source. One of the links is a CNN video of the hearing. It still stands to include this news in this page. It’s also very relevant since it exposes a clear degree of hypocrisy for her entire professional career. Digital Herodotus (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Digital Herodotus: Again, that is your personal opinion on why the information should be included, which is not useful. We need reliable, independent sources explaining how this is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia article about her, which as yet does not exist. The CNN source says nothing besides "this conversation happened", which doesn't explain how it is noteworthy in the context of Caraballo's life or career to the point that it should be included in an encyclopedia article (see WP:10Y). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no rule whatsoever that a source has to explicitly explain why the news they are reporting is noteworthy. It’s very clear why this is noteworthy as I’ve explained. You need to provide a solid reason as to why this shouldn’t be included in the article because it’s very clearly breaching the neutral standpoint by removing any negative news about this person. Articles should be objective, not an endorsement that removes any and all negative press in a very relevant way. Digital Herodotus (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Digital Herodotus: That's simply not true. WP:IINFO: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

“'I carry a gun everywhere I go': GOP lawmaker grills activist over rhetoric”

“Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) called out Harvard Law instructor and LGTBQ rights activist Alejandra Caraballo at a House oversight hearing over some of her past tweets.” - from the CNN source.

This woman’s career is monitoring extremist content online, she was at a hearing concerning extremist online content that could pose a threat to democracy. An elected official, who was targeted in a vandalism attack on her home, pointed out that Alejandra has herself posted the same sort of content she makes a career out of monitoring. It’s blatantly obvious why this is relevant, you have yet to provide a reason as to why it shouldn’t be included based on this.

Digital Herodotus (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it backwards; the onus is on you to establish consensus for inclusion. The only reliable, independent coverage is a brief video with a snappy headline attached. I've found no analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of this exchange by independent, reliable sources. Therefore I've removed the material as WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Social media presence

It seems odd that a lawyer's congressional testimony, which was reported by multiple national media outlets falls under WP:UNDUE, but an internet beef with andrew tate doesn't. Obviously, I think the paragraph about her tweets being discussed in congress should be included in "Social media presence". And I don't think "sustained coverage" is necessary to avoid WP:UNDUE, unless that's a WP:BLP thing I'm unaware of (definitely possible).

Or, maybe the part about her internet beef with fans of a sex trafficker should be deleted with the whole section. As it is now, this is a BLP that has an entire section devoted to how she got the specifics of a Romanian criminal investigation wrong, and upset some incels. That looks like WP:UNDUE to me. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Kleuske (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind. I should've looked at the talk page before posting, I see this has already been discussed. I still think the tate thing is obviously undue if a congressional hearing reported by CNN is undue. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The discusssion before resulted in no consensus. There's a reliable source (CNN) and video to boot. WP:NPOV demands we do not delete things we don't like. Agree on the Tate thing, though. Kleuske (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you look at WP:BLP again. Sourcing needs to be more careful with BLPs. The problem is the CNN "article" is barely even an article. There's no analysis or context, it's basically a soundbite. And it's already been discussed on this talk page. my bad. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Basically with a BLP you need consensus for inclusion of content, but not necessarily removal. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

CNN is not a printed medium, and the source is a news segment, so putting scarequotes around "article" does not help. It's not "a soundbite" (which would translate to "quote" in printed media, generally considered perfectly reasonable source, if published by a WP:RS). The requirement of "analysis" or "context" for sources is new to me.

So we're at the "work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" (WP:CON). So I'm looking for reasons based in sources, policy and common sense, since this use of WP:BLP boils down to a heckler's veto, which, in my opinion is not the way to go. I still hold WP:NPOV demands we also include stuff we do not like. We open Wikipedia up to fair criticism of partisanship and hypocrisy otherwise.

So which do you dispute?

• What a subject of an article said (or is told) at a congressional hearing is relevant
• CNN is a reliable source

If none, on what grounds do you claim no consensus? (to both @Sativa Inflorescence: and @Sangdeboeuf:). Kleuske (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PSTS: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources ... [A secondary source] contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The brief CNN clip contains no analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of this exchange. It is essentially a primary source. It doesn't matter whether Caraballo was speaking before Congress or at a Kaffeeklatsch; the important thing is what published, reliable sources have written about it. I left the Andrew Tate pizza box rumor in because it had analysis from multiple independent sources to draw from.

The heckler's veto comment is a red herring; Wikipedia is not a free speech zone. The onus is on those seeking inclusion of disputed material to establish consensus for inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, NPOV demands that we give due weight to the predominant views of reliable sources and avoid undue weight on views not reflected in reliable sources. It does not require us to parrot right-wing media in order to avoid charges of partisanship and hypocrisy. Those with an axe to grind will criticize Wikipedia no matter what we do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf Caraballo, the focus of this article, is an activist who often employs social media to agitate. Caraballo has a trend of using social media heavily and often generating controversy by doing so. It is absolutely not WP:UNDUE to mention this person's tweets when they are relevant to a congressional appearance they made, while also generating national headlines in doing so. It is not WP:UNDUE to mention this in Caraballo's article in a small paragraph, within a relevant subsection, than it is for Donald Trump's to mention his prolific Twitter and social media use (like said article does). Furthermore, you have reverted the addition of this section no less than five times in the past five days, and seem to be both engaging in WP:EDITWAR and WP:BLUDGEON. I suggest you stop reverting this, and perhaps step away from this article. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Due weight is not based on what you or I think is relevant, important, or controversial, but on significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. As I stated below, the CNN source itself does not quote or comment on Caraballo's tweet at all, let alone call it "controversial". At best this is a source for what Mace said, not Caraballo. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP. The 3RR doesn't apply here. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the info other than that it presents negative information on the person. This is an article about a left wing activist, which opens a can of worms, but outright removing all negative and pertinent information on her is blatant bias editing. If a persons entire career is based around monitoring extremist online content, and they get called out for posting extremist content by a public official, of course that is relevant and important information. Digital Herodotus (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It only makes her look bad if you already disagree with her. IMO the quoted tweet shows she understands politics. Being targeted by a nutjob rep also makes it clear she's on the right side. If the article was about me, I'd be proud to have it on there. But the issue is sourcing on a biography of a living person, as has been explained over and over again. You're just restoring a paragraph that makes her look cool. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Digital Herodotus: the reasons are explained above. No one has proposed that we remove all negative and pertinent information about Caraballo. Whether you or I think something is relevant and important is beside the point. As GorillaWarfare pointed out, It does not matter if you personally think it's significant ... We need evidence that reliable sources think it is significant, which—as yet—does not exist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s now blatantly clear that this isn’t about any sort of rules, but left wing activist who don’t want any negative info on her page and are simply looking for any excuse to remove it. Sativa_Inflorescence has revealed that hand. Digital Herodotus (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is in you to achieve consensus for inclusion. Personal attacks will not help you here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

DH, you yourself have made it clear in arguments above that you want this section included because "It’s a very bad look for her" and your own personal opinions on its relevance, rather than any policy-based argument that it ought to be included based on its prominence in reliable sources discussing the subject. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Who has an issue about this inclusion other than you though? There are more of us that want it included rather than the latter. Digital Herodotus (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus is not a head count. GorillaWarfare has already raised very valid concerns about this material; see § House hearing above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. There were multiple sources that did all that, but these were all deemed unreliable or questionable. All of them were right of center publications, while CNN, a left of center one, was the only one that was deemed to be allowed. I can understand if it was something like a Breitbart article. Also, the issue is that there is no real debate, she did post that comment, but why is this important to include in the article. I guess my issue is more with wikipedias rules, but I don’t see how Washington Times isn’t acceptable for this, but stuff like GO! or Them.com is considered a reliable and unbiased source. Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You can read about why these sources are considered reliable or unreliable at WP:RS/P. If you have a question about a specific source, you can start a discussion at WP:RS/N. The other sources you mention are not used for anything controversial, just basic biographical info. There is a higher standard of sourcing for surprising, contentious, and/or important claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A standard that is unmet for the congressional hearing info. I support removal, unless more reliable sources than a CNN video clip have covered this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, in the clip, CNN itself does not reproduce or comment on the content of Caraballo's tweet, let alone call it "controversial". It's just a video of Nancy Mace, who is not a reliable source, quoting Caraballo's tweet back at her and displaying a large printout of it. At best this is a source for what Mace said, not Caraballo. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC) edited 17:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I found a Virginia local news station[1] that had a much more responsible story about the hearing generally. It says what the hearing was about. It includes some of Caraballo's testimony, along with context. And there's one sentence at the end about rep Mace blaming the left, without repeating all the personal attacks against Caraballo as in the more tabloid sources. I'm not saying this necessarily needs to be put in the article, just posting as an example of what the story looks like outside of hyperpartisain focus on a single exchange. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Firefangledfeathers I am creating this section so as not to start an edit war over this topic. Caraballo's Tweet: "The 6 justices who overturned Roe should never know peace again. It is our civic duty to accost them every time they are in public. They are pariahs. Since women don't have their rights, these justices should never have a peaceful moment in public again." made only 14 days after the attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh, are on their own, taken simply at face value, are very clearly and oblique (if not direct) reference to the attempted attack on Kavanaugh. Hence the claims by some of Caraballo seeming to either tacitly or directly be encouraging that sort of behavior. I do not think this is unreasonable to include in this section. Watch the congressional questioning of Caraballo by Representative Mace, and it is obvious that at least some people believe so. Caraballo's remark at best seems like a crass, oblique reference to the attempt, at worst a direct approval of employing violence, enough so to make national headlines and warrant inclusion. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC) The tweet was posted the day after the Dobbs decision, so no mind reading needed. As I noted above, I think the sourcing on the whole segment is too poor to justify inclusion, and I think the implied claim about the reasons behind the tweet is even less supported. If there ends up being consensus to include the whole lot, I think it's important that we squarely attribute the loose temporal connection to Nancy Mace. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia articles are not based on what some people believe, but what independent, reliable sources say. US politicians like Nancy Mace are generally not reliable sources for anything but their own statements. WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER is unusable for exceptional claims like this, and WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated outright. We would need reliable sources that explicitly state there's any connection to Kavanaugh to warrant inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC) References

Pizza box rumor

Just from reading Caraballo's pizza box tweet, the only explicit claim about Andrew Tate is that Romanian authorities were monitoring his social media. That his arrest was due to a pizza box is certianly implied, but saying Caraballo "falsely claimed" this is POV and not supported by independent sources, which use words like "theorized", "suggested", etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

“ Romanian authorities needed proof that Andrew Tate was in the country so they reportedly used his social media posts. His ridiculous video yesterday featured a pizza from a Romanian pizza chain, Jerry's Pizza, confirming he was in the country.

This is absolutely epic.”

Exact tweet for anyone wondering. She presented information in this tweet that was false, so I don’t see the controversy in explicitly saying that. Digital Herodotus (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't analyze tweets to label things as true or false in articles. Instead we summarize independent, reliable sources, taking care not to go beyond the meaning of the sources themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I see now that Caraballo claimed Tate "tipped off" authorities in a reply to the original tweet. However, this reply isn't mentioned in any of the independent sources we cite, so we can't infer anything from it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)