User talk:24.47.152.14

About the Justice Democrats

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I notice that you have added "endorsed by the Justice Democrats" to the lead section in multiple articles about politicians. That kind of information should be in the article text, not the lead. I am going to remove it. This does not imply that you did anything wrong, but that kind of information does not belong in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, the article doesn't mention the endorsement anywhere. Justice Democrats means a few things. One is the caucus, which is a political affiliation. Another is that it's a PAC, which is an endorsement and source of funding. It only mentions the caucus.

As for location, I looked around to try to find precedent before I changed anything. The closest parallel to the Justice Democrats is the Tea Party Movement, which operates within the Republican Party to oust "establishment" politicians at the primary level, much as the Justice Democrats do within the Democratic Party. This led directly to [List of politicians affiliated with the Tea Party movement]. The first one was Robert Aderholt, and the second paragraph of his lede starts with "Aderholt is a member of the congressional Tea Party Caucus".

Based on this, I believe my edit was correct, so I'm going to restore it now. Your edit was in good faith, but mistaken.

That placement is clunky, at best. Do not reinsert in the lead without consensus to do so. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, 24.47.152.14, let's discuss this, because I don't fully understand what you are saying. What you added was "endorsed by the Justice Democrats", but you are now comparing it to articles that say "member of the congressional Tea Party Caucus." Are these people members of a Justice Democrats Caucus in Congress? If so, and if these people are members, that might belong in the lead. (Or might not; most congresspeople belong to dozens of caucuses; the only reason Tea Party is mentioned in the lead is because it got such overwhelming publicity at the time of its formation and ever since.) If what you are saying is that these people were endorsed and financed by a particular PAC (of which there are hundreds if not thousands), I don't see how that belongs in the lead. At the Justice Democrats article I looked in vain for any mention of a congressional caucus, although it did say that half a dozen members of Congress have "joined the group", whatever that means. Please explain, and then let's see what is the best way to get something about Justice Democrats into the article.

For starters I took a look at the article Raul Grijalva; that article states that he is a member of the Justice Democrats Caucus. However, a list of his caucuses at his website [1] lists dozens of caucuses he belongs to, but does not list Justice Democrats. The link (reference #10) that supposedly supports Justice Democrats in the Grijalva article is a dead link. (My mistake, there is no link supporting Justice Democrats.) What I think I am seeing here is that Justice Democrats is a PAC and an idea, but not actually a congressional caucus. A look at Caucuses of the United States Congress confirms that there is actually no such caucus at the present time. Let's agree on that, and then we can discuss where to put "Justice Democrats" in the articles about these people. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, it's a bit confusing, so let me try to break down what I've found.

1. Upon further research, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a Justice Democrats Caucus. Instead, the 7 sitting Congressional members of the Justice Democrats (JD) have gained control of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. This means that listing the caucus affiliation is not sufficient to identify them as JD, although we should still do it for uniformity.
2. The JD aren't just a PAC or an idea, they are a well-defined organization representing a party faction. According to their site[2], their "mission is to elect a new type of Democratic majority in Congress", and that new type is defined in terms of a specific platform[3]. Membership is not based on informal agreement with these goals, but is instead publicly documented[4]. In short, they are a PAC which defines a party within a party.
3. The parallel between the JD and Tea Party is that these are both movements within their respective parties that run candidates who are anti-establishment in the primaries so as to shift their party further from the center. As such, whether a politician is running under the banner of one of these groups takes on greater importance than other, incidental associations because it identifies which faction within their party they are part of. This is made more notable by the ongoing public friction[5]. Knowing who's JD and who's not is essential to understanding why there's so much conflict.
4. The Congressional members of the JD are unusually prominent, which makes their shared membership notable even for those not particularly interested in intra-party politics. Useful metrics to support this include the number of Twitter followers; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has an enormous following.
5. The Political activity section goes into great detail about which candidates or politicians are members and their electoral success. Since they're mentioned in one direction, we should make it possible to find them from the other.
6. I don't understand what Muboshgu means by "clunky", and they didn't explain. But should we be having this discussion on Talk:Justice Democrats?

---