Talk:Julio Cabral Corrada

Campaign finance issue

I'd be glad to hear some opinions about whether it's appropriate to include the campaign finance issue that came up at the AfD discussion. Here are four secondary sources that mention Cabral-Corrada in relation to it:

• New York Times
• El Nuevo Dia
• NotiCel
• El Vocero

On the basis of the sourcing, it would seem to bear inclusion, because we actually have more reliable secondary sourcing on this than on any other aspect of this biography (even after pruning, much of the article is still based on sources that are self-published, non-independent, etc.)

At the same time, because we have so little else in terms of independent, non-self-published sources, I'm not sure how best to apply principles on due weight and harm. To my mind this is why "pseudobios"--those lacking sufficient reliable sources to give a "full and balanced" accounting of the subject--should be removed from the encyclopedia, rather give a potentially unbalanced accounting. But we could not get consensus on that at AfD so I'm wondering where we go from here. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The NYTimes article, directed against a gubernatorial candidate in the heat of a campaign that was lost by less than 2%, mentioned the subject of this article in passing and does not include a "full and balanced" accounting of the issue that ricochets on the article's subject., who is not the subject of the journalistic accounting. Due to the harm that it may inflict, it should be left out of this article which I originally authored, unless the serious allegation triggers a bona fide investigative process and not simply the ire of one of Mr. Pierluisi's opponents in the heat of the campaign. BTW, the last sentence of the deleted material, regarding this issue being one of the main reasons for the primary defeat is totally unsourced. Lacking any serious investigative follow-up, I would side with doing no harm. Pr4ever (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I'm concerned about harm too but not because these sources are inadequate--Pr4ever, as you pointed out at AfD, El Nuevo Dia is about as significant a source as we could ask for on a PR topic, and then there are three more that address it as well. For that matter, for the most part Cabral is not given more substantial focus in the sources that deal with other aspects of his life either--if these aren't sufficient journalistic accounting, then the more favorable ones aren't either.

To that point, my harm concern is about the paucity of the other sources we have, that we don't have enough on other aspects of this bio to make a balanced article that wouldn't give undue weight to this aspect. And of course cherry-picking only favorable coverage isn't an acceptable solution (then we'd have to start talking about the entry harming the encyclopedia!), which is why I argued for deletion at AfD, and why the harm test explicitly says so-called "pseudobios" (an unduly negative term that just means, entries for which we don't really have enough sourcing to fill out a bio properly) should be avoided. I'm just not sure where we go from here. One of us could renominate for deletion but since there's been interest by another editor in the campaign finance question, it may actually be hard to get it deleted now! So we may need to be talking about how to phrase this material as concisely and neutrally as possible... I'm not sure. I will go cross-post a few places like the help desk and the harm talk page and see if we can get more input. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A few initial comments... For an event self-described as a "reception" and "dialogue" to be considered a “fundraiser”, the purpose of the event should be to collect contributions from invited members of the invited investment community. Such contributions from persons employed by investment firms should able to be verified at the FEC website. That was not the case in this event with respect to members of the investment community, which is verifiable by Mr. Pierluisi's campaign managers quote to that effect in http://elvocero.com/auditaran-actividad-de-recaudacion-de-fondos-de-pierluisi/ . In fact, Mr. Cabral has never contributed a dime to the Pierluisi campaign. The reference to Congressional rules and prohibitions is a fact more relevant to an article about a member of Congress than to an article on one of the hosts of a meeting or fundraiser who are not directly subject to Congressional rules. "Openly hinting" is not a fact but the opinion of the author of the edit, and should therefore not be part of the article. I may draft a text that would try to provide a consensus of all points of view. Pr4ever (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Would be very happy to see a draft that you think represents all points of view better Pr4ever. One quick thing while you may be around: "opening hinting" is not from the author of the edit, but rather a direct quote from the New York Times article (that's why I updated to put it in quotes, to make clear it was NYT reporting). So it's not automatically disqualified. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok have now read that article. A campaign manager's claim there were no such donations is clearly not an independent, reliable secondary source we can base facts on. And instead we do have a reliable secondary source, the New York Times, which said: "Campaign finance records — for Mr. Pierluisi’s House race and his account in Puerto Rico to fund his bid for governor — show contributions around the time of the event from more than a dozen financial industry figures and lobbyists." Additionally, the secondary source you cite reports the OCE finding the complaint met the requirements to escalate to the audit board, which certainly doesn't offer independent confirmation of the campaign manager's claim. So we could include something in the WP entry saying something like, "Pierluisi's campaign has denied this," but, if you want to cite that El Vocero article as the source for it, dealing with it neutrally probably requires acknowledging that the complaint did get escalated to the audit board. Do you know (/are there secondary sources reporting) if the audit board has released a finding? Innisfree987 (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

27 months (more than a full congressional cycle) have passed since the event described as a "reception" or "dialogue" that triggers the subsection of this article took place, over seven months since the NYT article that raised the issue was printed. The FEC has not taken any action, the Electoral Comptroller audit didn't result in any action nor did the House Ethics Committee take any formal steps. It appears to me that in view of the absence of any significant official follow-up the mention of the allegations loses credibility or value and should not be part of an encyclopedic article the t should not be a log of media mentions but a presentation of facts. If anything, it only confirms that the subject of this bio is notable.Pr4ever (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Over four years have now passed so the presumption of innocence must prevail! Pr4ever (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

After five years, I've once again taken a deep look at the controversial “Pierluisi pay for play” section of this bio on another person.

Never ever has there been any legal forum nor media outlet stating whatsover any type of “pay for play” of any kind, as stated. There is no credible court or judicial link to substantiate the use of this politically and legally highly charged accusation—as per Wikipedia guidelines. "Pay for play" is a very strong phrase used against a public official for using his or her power in office to perform an act in exchange for a monetary quid pro quo. That is not the case with respect to urging someone to attend a reception where one may dialogue with an elected official!

There never was any investigation whatsoever specific to Mr. Cabral’s actions, which do not extend beyond to inviting at least one personal contact to attend a reception five or six years ago.

The evidence points that the NYT article is nothing more than a piece highly critical of Mr. and Mrs. Pierluisi in a heated primary race. Unfortunately, Mr. Cabral (and others who were actually mentioned by name-he was not) got thrown in the fire as apparent scapegoats. The article is not focused on him and the reporter even misinforms about him. As reported by other news outlets and as is evident by the title in his highlighted email, Mr. Cabral was not a “broker” at Morgan Stanley and did not have anything to do with any issuance of $3.5 billlion for Puerto Rico. He was an “Institutional Analyst” and worked on the “Equity Division”, which has nothing to do with the municipal market within which Puerto Rico made debt issues. As per Wikipedia guidelines, here is a credible link of El Nuevo Dia evidencing this: As reported by the local El Vocero, Mr. Cabral actually did not organize the fundraiser. The official invitation of the event had the Pedro Pierluisi Federal Committee as the organizer of the event. Mr. Cabral’s note is simply an email, not the official writing of the Congressman stating Mr. Cabral as the actual organizer of the event. As per Wikipedia guidelines, here is a credible link from El Vocero evidencing this:

The Federal Elections Commission, the Puerto Rico Office of the Electoral Comptroller and the US House Ethics Committee had the opportunity to look into Mr. Pierluisi’s political finances and never came up with any observations remotely linked to Mr. Cabral during the past 5-6 years. Based on his presumption of innocence, the “controversy” section has no factual relevance in this article.Pr4ever (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The controversy section should be removed. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. It's a consensus! Thanks for your edit. I also removed the "pay-for-play" phrase in the text and the subtitle, which didn't appear in any reliable link and which is a very legally- and politically-charged phrase. Thanks, once again for having helped solve this lingering years-long issue.Pr4ever (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Following your recommendation after the extensive data-based conclusion that the "controversy" section be removed, I went ahead and took it out. Should anyone be interested in having the issue covered by Wikipedia, it should be placed in the bio of the subject of the NYT secondary link, which is not Mr. Cabral but the candidate he supported over half a decade and two elections ago.Pr4ever (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Education?

Has anyone got a reliable source indicating which division of Cornell Cabral-Corrada attended? Postcard Cathy has been very kindly gnoming the categories and other details here, particularly to get it some better categories, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything reliable (since LinkedIn is a no-go for BLPs) that says anything more specific than Cornell. Help, anyone? Innisfree987 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional links and elimination of texts without valid/live links

I've dedicated over 15 hours to research links that substantiate the text of the article. Text that has no live links has been stricken. Once I finish my edits, the article will be ready for warning tabs to be reevaluated. Subjects growing prominence since article was initially drafted strengthens his notability and prominence among Puerto Ricans of his generation.

I'm about 80% done, only missing the last few graphs. Pr4ever (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've basically completed additional links and edits, and would invite administrators to review and remove no longer needed warnings. Suggestions welcome.Pr4ever (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Copy Edit

Copy edit done. --EOu-ajb (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice removals

I have removed the initial notices regarding notability, etc. They have all evidently been resolved with multiple cites that evidence his prominence as a source of information and opinion on Puerto Rico's problems and his appearance as a major academic event in March on the subject. See: https://www.whartonpuertorico.com Pr4ever (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Cabral is the author and organizer of the linked source. He is the organizer of this group at the Wharton School, where he is currently a student according to a LinkedIn profile. This is not an appropriate or credible source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.49.20 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)