Talk:Lindy Li

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Lindy Li (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• LindyLi.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• LindyLi (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Notability issues

Doesn't seem notable enough to have a page 128.12.123.154 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindy Li closed as "keep" in March 2020. (I was the nominator.) – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This article seems to have clearly been written by Li herself or in close coordination with Li. She is nowhere near notable enough to warrant the number of highly specific details that have been included in this piece. 161.253.25.24 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Citizen

Is Lindy Li a US citizen,? 67.60.219.158 (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. 2601:41:4300:9370:801C:C0F3:616D:31ED (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

@Guerillero: Hi there. Could you revert the edit by Napoleonjosephine2020? Three editors reverted their edit, in which they repeatedly removed sourced content. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you revert the edit to this point. In other words, to the point before the most recent edit by User:Napoleonjosephine2020, who was edit warring and had been reverted by three editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Party change?

Should we change Li's party affiliation in her Infobox from: "Independent (since 2024) Democrat (until 2024)"

Would do it myself but the page is protected. AllThingsCombined (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Change it to Republican which is what she actually is 2804:7F0:20:3D2B:5CE4:CA70:3BB4:662C (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

She is still a registered Democrat according to public records and never said she was an independent or republican. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m listening to a podcast where she says she is republican. Sean Ryan show, #167 2600:1014:B076:2190:2C19:E972:DD29:6129 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Co-chair position in the DNC

The chair of the DNC has denied that she ever had this position or title. It's a falsehood and is easily verified by simply asking the office of the National Chair. Please don't allow this falsehood to stand. Resist Republicans (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

She was given these titles through the Democratic National Committee's Ethnic Council in 2015. This has NOTHING to do with the current Chair of the DNC. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement and notability

The subject appears to be a minor democratic staffer and fundraiser. Most details mentioned are not notable. She has received media coverage, but her job appears to be media promotion and outreach.

She seems to have no notability other than appearing in several media programs, which is her job as a political promoter. Almost every detail mentioned is written like an advertisement. In several instances, authors of this page have written details that turned out to be deceptive, and in every instance the deception suggested she was more notable than she was. DenverCoder19 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The ad-like tone was gone by the time I got to it. She's notable as one of the few people in the DNC critical of Harris and doesn't seem to be going away.--Shelter3 (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Anything about her mother?

WashPo article talks about both her father and her brother. I guess she wanted privacy but perhaps someone can work on the article a bit so she isn't a ghost? Shelter3 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Shelter3, thank you for your exhaustive edits. I have a few suggestions: Li's resignation can be technically "voluntary" and still be a result of bullying if she feels like she was pushed out. Unfortunately the way you framed it sounds like she was telling an untruth when the whole point of the Vanity Fair article was that she was telling the truth and to give her side of the story. The author of the article, Peter Savodnik, was decidedly in her favor and was not contradicting her. Could you please correct this?

Also, she never said her 2016 campaign cost her a relationship. Where are you getting that? She has said in interviews that she doesn't like Taylor Swift, so I'm not sure this is worth including. A million times thank you. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

All are cited. Please read the entire articles from top to bottom, maybe even twice, then get back to me thanks Shelter3 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced items

I re-added the citation needed template in two places where IP reverted. I don't understand the reasoning "No citation is needed for the convention, which was a one-time event, not a continuing role" (and it didn't address both tags). I thought every factual claim needs a source on wikipedia. Anyway, if anyone sees it differently please feel free to chime in, but please let me know why. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I found something for one of them after searching, but cannot track down anything on the claim of a first for exclusive influencer access. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/21/1198913105/influencers-online-content-creators-democratic-national-convention Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, will add that when I can. Currently away from computer and I haven't mastered mobile editing. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) LizardJr8 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Now done. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you!! And I get it. I'm terrible at mobile editing haha Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Unnecessary Note

note seems like it's included because it explains why Li isn't endorsing Harris for Governor of California, but it doesn't further that reasoning in any way. Why is this included? talk

The note adds depth to her interview comments. Very relevant. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This note was included by an editor who has since been blocked because he violated his editing privileges while editing Li’s page. Since this note was part of the edit that was in violation, I don’t think it should be included. All of his edits are now suspect. 2601:41:4300:9370:5431:7E88:F915:BD54 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant to what exactly? Unclear what this is meant to convey. Iamnotanorange (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the note to one that's more relevant to the context. Iamnotanorange (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Li did not switch parties

Can someone please change her party affiliation? Li is still registered as a Democrat, not a Republican. Contrary to what the editor claimed, she is NOT working for the Trump admin or the government. She was appointed to the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee. 2601:41:4300:9370:C98:67E1:B72E:E0C9 (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe there needs to be a moratorium on IP editing of Ms. Li’s page, given the clear evidence of COI edits here. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Her page is already semi-protected. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s right, I didn’t register it immediately. I do believe someone who is Li or is closely related to Li is demanding edits on this page, though. I won’t make further non-significant edits given the recent history of editing conflicts concerning the page (there is at least one passage that remains, concerning the rationale given for switching districts, which appears to be written by someone close to Li), but I would maintain that these single-purpose IP editors are disruptive to the page. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have a recent statement from Li indicating her party affiliation? It's possible she's still a registered democrat, but unlikely given her rhetoric and affiliation with the presidential inaugural committee (PIC).

I'll be honest, I had to look up exactly what a PIC does and it's basically an non profit that organizes galas. DuckOfOrange (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2025

Change "Li attended Princeton University and was elected class president at age 17." to "Li attended Princeton University and was elected class vice-president at age 17.". Prunfola (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Ultraodan (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is so wrong. She was elected Class President freshman year and re-elected every year after that. The first class president Ashton Miller flunked out of Princeton, so there was another election. Can you please undo this edit? Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Napoleonjosephine2020 Do you have any reliable sources for that? Ultraodan (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/?a=d&d=Princetonian20090506-01.2.3&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-%22Lindy+Li%22------

As the article noted, she was elected Class President freshman year. Also what the Wikipedia article fails to mention is that Li is now the longest-serving Alumni Class President in history (serving from 2012 to the present day; she was reelected in 2012, 2017 and 2022 for 5-year terms, for a total of 17 years as class president):

https://pcur.princeton.edu/2017/02/looking-back-on-undergraduate-research-lindy-li-12-from-philosophy-to-a-career-in-politics/

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2012/06/05/excerpts-princeton-class-day-2012

https://www.princeton2012.com/officers Thank you so much for all your time and help. You're deeply appreciated :) Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Ultraodan (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You are amazing @Ultraodan!!! You renew my faith in humanity. Sending you and yours so much love and my warmest wishes. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is widely understood at this point that the subject of the article is attempting to direct edits on the talk page (and elsewhere), right? I’m not sure what the ethical guidelines surrounding talk page behavior is, but I don’t remember seeing as blatant a case in a decade of editing. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Editors with a COI are advised to request edits on the talk page so that an independent editor can vet them. This is working exactly as intended. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Birthdate

She states that she was born on the same day as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting which is December 12. see interview with Shawn Ryan (United States Navy) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHXVeLVHWuY beginning at 0.56 Patapsco913 (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Li was born on 12/14. Sandy Hook was on 12/14. Thanks. 2601:41:4300:9370:65A5:35EF:5930:78FA (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Citation/reference correction

The article is semi-locked, and I don't wish to make an account. Someone else might want to fix this though:

1. In Lindy Li#Career para 4, the citation reference following My Socialism Nightmare is dislocated, and should be moved one sentence up, as a citation for Li's interview show.

2. If you fix the above, then you'll need a citation for My Socialism Nightmare, and I suggest using this clip from the show: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6134298689001 99.128.2.202 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Party affiliation

Li was never registered as an independent. Can someone please remove that? Thanks so much!! 2601:41:4300:9370:6106:8267:CB85:D1AC (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Richard Blum

Why is this relationship relevant? Was there a romantic relationship? 47.204.134.181 (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Not at all. You’re right, it’s irrelevant and should be removed. 2601:41:4300:9370:3D95:5F1B:EBCC:443B (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Promotional + Notability Issues: Floating a Re-write/Overhaul of Article

This article feels bizarre. I've come across this by happenstance because the subject (Lindy Li) seemed inappropriately linked in another page. I clicked, and so began a weird trail of breadcrumbs. Now I am here.

This article is incredibly self-promotional and immediately strikes the uninitiated reader (myself) as such. I see there's been quite a bit of conversation already to this same effect. Looking at WP:BIO I ...... suppose there is enough meat on the bone to warrant an article, though 75% of this article currently feels like a WP:MASK, particularly pertaining to "Building a Biography". Many of the citations are flimsy, or Q&A-style quasi-journalism, or student publications, etc. Even with citations, so few of these details and quotes feel notable enough to merit inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

Is there a process for substantially reorganizing/streamlining an article like this? I'm volunteering.

Didn't want to do so unilaterally, since it looks like several folks are aware this article is a self-promo situation. Thanks

Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Article Clean up for Notability/Veracity

I’ve just done a clean-up of this article. Good prior work (discussed on this Talk page) has been done to rein in the most egregious self-promotion and conflict of interest. Upon digging into several of the article’s core claims (those that would nominally be used to establish notability), it seems that in nearly every case these claims were framed to appear more notable/positive to the subject than they actually are. In some cases, statements by Li herself are contradicted by quality sources.

I recognize Li is essentially member of an emerging class of political entertainment voices/social media influencers whose digital platforms can give them enough reach that they become notable for a Wikipedia article. This said, if Li were to be categorized under WP:ENT it is doubtful her notability would hold up. Further, the political/public relations nature of figures like Li means that WP:ROUTINE can often be misconstrued as notable when it probably shouldn’t be. To the point, much of the article was an excellent case study in WP:MASK. I’ve significantly paired things down such that her article rests primarily on concrete claims that may qualify the article to pass WP: BIO. Even after all this, so deep was the obfuscation of this article that a WP:NOPAGE wouldn’t be crazy.

Here's a breakdown of former and current article claims and whether they appear notable enough for this article to truly meet WP:BIO without running afoul of WP:NOT, esp. WP:NOTADVERT & WP:NOTPROMO:

1.     Press coverage from her attempted candidacy in 2016: Coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and one longer-form article in WaPo’s Style section does not Notability make.

The claim of ‘youngest female congressional candidate in history’: This is a contrived superlative with no workable way to quantify or verify it. A 21-year-old could theoretically ‘announce’ their candidacy (potentially getting some amount of press coverage) several cycles ahead of their actual legal age eligibility (25 in this case) without any trouble, thereby claiming the title. If we were to put guardrails on this, the only option would likely be to look at official candidate lists, certified by the respective State. Such lists come out at different times in different States, ultimately making the whole thing more of an arbitrary administrative game than a superlative of achievement. Even by this definition, Li cannot claim the title as she was never an official candidate on any ballot in 2016, being disqualified 4/4/2016, before the 4/26/2016 democratic primary link. Further, a cursory internet search shows that in that very same 2016 cycle, a woman, Erin Schrode, was an official primary candidate link for CA-2 congressional, at age ~25, 1 month, 23 days (link link link to circumscribe her age). It’s likely there are plenty more; Karoline Leavitt may have since beat Schrode. It doesn't matter. As a result, I see no notability beyond WP:ROUTINE

2.     2018 congressional candidacy: I have found nothing notable beyond the routine.

3.     A 2020 Twitter kerfuffle: This received coverage from Vanity Fair, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Independent, which could indeed make it notable as a single event. This said, it doesn’t really appear to have had any meaningful long-term consequences within the zeitgeist, so as a WP:EVENT, for this page to piggyback on, it feels like a stretch. Maybe, but it's pretty weak tea for an encyclopedia.

4.     Sporadic circa 2022 media appearances: In every case I could find, she was identified by her external role as a volunteer fundraiser/bundler for the Democratic National Committee. She was never identified as a contributor/commentator. It is exceedingly common for political fundraisers to parlay their proximity to party machinery into media appearances. Such appearances did not focus on Li herself, but had her on as a political talking head/unofficial mouthpiece for a party or stance. This is all well and good, but it is fairly WP:ROUTINE for someone in such a position.

5.     2023-2024 presidential election cycle media appearances + possible social media influence: In every appearance I was able to find across MSNBC, a smattering on CNN, and later somewhat exclusively on Fox, Li is described by her external role as a current/former DNC fundraiser or the like. She is never referred to as a contributor or commentator by any cable network. I am unable to find evidence she ever had any formal contract or paid relationships with any of these networks. Regardless, her access to the Democratic National Convention on a social media influencer credential and her more recent involvement in the politically conservative digital landscape is perhaps the first time coverage about her might escape the routine. In light of this, a primary article title as "conservative social media commentator/influencer" may well be the most appropriate, notable, and current title for her now (or in the near future).

6.     Miscellaneous claims: For the purposes of getting this article closer to something resembling an encyclopedic entry, I’ve cut much of the non-notable fluff that was building a biography. Honorific titles frequently given to political fundraisers (such as from the Democratic National Committee), claims of personally ‘knowing’ other notable people, irrelevant resume items, overly detailed retellings of minor events, coverage in overly promotional or quasi-journalistic outlets, have been excised for the moment.

Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

In a few minutes you just single-handedly removed the work of dozens of people over the course of several years in an effort to downplay all of her achievements and make her look bad. You clearly bear vitriolic animus towards this subject and should not be editing her page. Jamesdelilah (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you made your edit in good faith, so I don't think that bias needs to be alleged here, but I have reverted it as it stands. Notability exists on Wikipedia solely for the purposes of establishing who is on Wikipedia, not what is included on their page. Unless you are nominating this article for deletion, this is not relevant and discussion of these rules are unnecessary. Work should continue to rein in bias and shorten routine coverage, but this does not need to be done in such a big cut. This sort of blanket edit should also not be made until the completion of a Talk Page discussion, not simply the beginning of one. PickleG13 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

This "Sig" user has also been furiously scrubbing and deleting all mentions of Li from other Wikipedia pages and has been for weeks. Take a look at his edit history. Smells like a hatchet job. He appears to be erasing all mentions from her from the annals of Democratic politics. Schopenhauer1112 (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Pickle! This Sig user is clearly not a good faith actor. He's been removing her from pages like List of Chinese Americans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_Americans) and was promptly reverted by another editor who also expressed dismay. He is attempting wholesale erasure of Lindy Li. Napoleonjosephine2020 (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey User:PickleG13, thanks for the note of caution. Didn't see any movement on Talk so thought may as well be WP:BOLD and get some clean edits on record as part of WP:BRD. In any case, point taken.

Agreed that my discussion of notability above is relevant primarily for a possible deletion nomination. I sort of backed into the realization there may be a whole-article notability breakdown as a result of first trying to go through a more straightforward cleanup. After having worked out all the issues, I was left a bit on the fence as to whether the resulting article was still substantial enough to stand on its own two feet.

There are a number of current claims that (so far as I have been able to source) appear either incorrect, unsupported by citations, or inappropriate. I am happy to begin a thread of these so as to try and gain consensus a bit more gradually. Through that, hopefully it will become a bit more clear whether the article itself is sound.

As for these other commenters, it seems reasonably clear that Jamesdelilah and Schopenhauer1112 are sockpuppets (or the like) of Napoleonjosephine2020. To the extent there's concern, I'd encourage a glance at my edit history. It'll show just what I explained in my prior Talk post.

cheers Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sig. Chiocciola - I went through your big edit and in general I appreciate the impulse to consolidate and simplify the page, as I think the current page has become a little scattered. I know that consolidation will inevitably involve tradeoffs.

However, I noticed some tradeoffs involved deleting early career milestones with relatively trivial controversies. For example, deleting the local television show she had in PA and replacing that with an anecdote about retweeting Bernie Sanders. Or the connection between a PAC she helped run and SBF, both of which seem WP:UNDUE.

I understand your critique about WP:NOTPROMO but I also don't want to see this turn into an WP:ATTACK page.

The subject of this article is certainly controversial and much of the press surrounding her is detailing some controversy, a retweet, or a random quote designed to provoke anger (I think you had one about socialism?). However, let's try to stick to the important information, so a reader can generally understand who our subject is. With a WP:BLP we should remember that this is a real, living person, and stick to WP:NPOV. DuckOfOrange (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey DuckOfOrange, just created the discussion thread below to keep this going. I hear you on tradeoffs and I agree. To your comment, while I agree that, in principle, a local access TV series feels more legit than a Twitter dust-up, I'm trying desperately to actually stick to real sources here. The Twitter debacle received multi-outlet coverage, whereas I was unable to find sources as to the T.V. show having aired. The PAC situation was the same; it was actually well-documented by multiple outlets, whereas several of the details I cut didn't have sources (or were actually contradicted by sources). Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at the article improvement discussion below now. Although IP addresses have just as much of a right to edit as we do as named editors, it concerns me that so many of the reversions and potentially conservative additions are being made solely by IP addresses. Thanks to Sig. Chiocciola for being bold and working so hard on this page, and let's keep working to make this the best that it can be. PickleG13 (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

They're blocked now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish, for helping with the IP address problem. I was in part drawn back to this conversation by an IP address comment on my Talk page. Although I have received friendly praise for trying to neutrally help with the page on my Talk, it does seem to be a concern that there is so much interest in a WP:BLP with clear political fault lines involved. PickleG13 (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Article Improvement Discussion (Veracity/Relevance)

Okay here we go. As mentioned above, the more I tried to verify the current article, the more I discovered just how much it appears to have…drifted…from underlying sources. I’ll try to go claim by claim until I run out of steam.

The article’s first paragraph is itself a rabbit hole. As to Li’s topline titles, it looks like there’s confusion as to what’s what (I was confused trying to verify them).

Prior to her shift towards being a conservative political commentator, Li was a political fundraiser--commonly known as a bundler (NYT 2024 bundler explainer), (mentioning Li)--for the Democratic party. It’s standard practice that these are unpaid volunteers and Li corroborates this fact in several places, most recently on podcasts (linked at bottom because filter blocked them). Importantly, successful fundraisers/bundlers (in either party) are given honorary titles to reward their work (WaPo explainer). As one example, the 2020 Harris campaign rewarded bundlers/individual donors raising $25,000 or more with the honorific title “National Finance Committee” (news article), (list). This practice and nomenclature continued during 2024, as evidenced by this 2024 Fox News article, saying Li was, “a member of the DNC’s national fundraising committee, a membership for which she noted requires raising "millions of dollars" on behalf of Democrat candidates.”

In line with this, the fundraising titles “Women's Co-Chair and Mid-Atlantic Regional Chair”, are honorific ones for which I can find no independent sourcing. That these titles are currently sourced from what appears to be a self-submitted biography to an archived page from the American Association for Cancer Research (where it seems Li raised money at one time), doesn’t help. If you search these titles…Li is about the only thing that comes up. This fact doesn't mean these titles necessarily have to be scrubbed entirely, but they likely shouldn't be in the intro as they do not give a useful understanding of what Li's role/career actually was.

The same goes for the specific claim of serving on the Biden campaign’s 2020 'Asian American outreach' team. It’s currently unsourced.

The moniker of ‘campaign advisor’ just isn’t corroborated anywhere. When I google it, the only thing I get is a YouTube interview from just 3 months ago, in which the phrase is written in the video description. I can’t find any reputable (or contemporary) sources.

Here’s an avalanche of supporting sources, every one of which identifies her as a fundraiser, sometime with and sometimes without associated ‘finance committee member’, or other fundraising title:

The Hill, Fox Business, Fox News, MSNBC, and Fox News (again), introducing her as ‘former Democratic National Committee fundraiser’, and where, among other things, she states, “my family and I, we donated...an entire church to the campaign and buildings as well and that was called an in-kind contribution. We covered all the rent and all the property costs. We paid for it out of pocket….I'm so excited because I just got an unsolicited text from one of my biggest donors who gave a million last time. He's like 'I'm going to continue giving to you'. And he attended the inauguration. He's one of the donors that I got to give.”

For completeness’ sake, I can find no sources supporting the claims she is a ‘political contributor’ on any network, and in addition to not feeling notable enough for the intro paragraph, the local access TV show she did is sourced in the wrong place and also links to an Internet Archive video trove, rather than something a touch more substantial.

All that, just to propose a streamlined edit (similar but not identical to my prior) that I think is perfectly fair and cleanly sourced.

---

Lindy Li (born December 14, 1990) is an American conservative political commentator. She has made frequent guest appearances on cable news outlets including Fox News and MSNBC.

Li was previously a campaign fundraiser and bundler for the Democratic National Committee, fundraising for both the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign. She switched political party affiliation from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party following the 2024 presidential election.

---

youtube links from 3rd paragraph:

<nowiki>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV4j4kcDbXo&t=253s]<nowiki>

<nowiki>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm8MB58W5Cc&t=1213s]<nowiki>

I wish I'd never come across this article. I'm going outside.

Cheers, Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You are trying to strip Li of all her leadership credentials in a blatant attempt to discredit her well-substantiated criticisms of the Democratic Party. Why else would you scrub her existence from lists like List of Chinese Americans (for which you were promptly overruled) and baselessly accuse her of self-promotion? In your view, is ScottishFinnishRadish who admonished you on your talk page also a "sockpuppet"? Schopenhauer1112 (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what degree I should interact with personal attacks, but I'll do so here to create a record, I suppose. This is amusing because, upon revisiting my edits in question, they actually provide a fairly real-time account of how I stumbled into this to begin with. Li was included in a List of party switchers in the United States that is almost exclusively comprised of elected officials; there are just two others on the list described as 'commentators', both of whom substantially more notable than Li (who I was not familiar with). This piqued my curiosity and led me to remove Li from two more lists where she fairly clearly did not belong, List of foreign politicians of Chinese descent (all others in the list, so far as I found, actually held elected office), and List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign sub-national officials endorsements, as Li was not an 'official' elected or otherwise. The edit summaries speak for themselves and I stand by all 3. Furthermore, I posted in this Talk page the same day to express my confusion at possible self-promo (thread directly above this one). I removed her from 2 more lists a few days later after having done a bit more research. I stand by those edits as well, though I did not provide edit summary for List of Chinese Americans, and it was later reverted (I think this is what is being referred to above).

Notably, you'll find that of the 5 total edits under discussion, 3 of them were reverted by Napoleonjosephine2020 and Schopenhauer1112 within ~5 minutes of eachother. Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

This is factually wrong and an erasure of her accomplishments. Lindy is, in fact, a state official. Josh Shapiro appointed her a Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor’s Advisory Commission on AAPI Affairs. Tomandjerry1010 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Sig. Chiocciola - I decided to tackle the titles and search for some sources and I was able to validate most of them. Or at least I got pretty close. This took me WAY longer than I thought it would.

I'm missing sources for "campaign advisor" and "political contributor", but I think those are small caps titles, more like descriptions of her aforementioned roles.

My understanding is that "campaign advisor" refers to people who work with a presidential campaign and "political contributor" is a general description of people who contribute to political discourse on cable news. But I can't find a good sourcing for that. I don't want to do any WP:OR so I'm fine with dropping those until we can find a solid citation.

I did find good sources for a lot of the other titles from popular press.

women’s co-chair at DNC

1) “Lindy li is a political commentator and women’s co-chair at DNC” quoted from the verbal intro at about 1min 51 seconds in

National Finance Committee

2) “DNC National Finance committee member” , which lead me to:

Asian American outreach team.

3) Lindy li “helped lead Joe Biden’s Asian American outreach and will be a delegate at this year’s (2020) Democratic National Convention,” quoted from vanity fair

Nobody said this title, but I also found "Democrat strategist" - I'm putting this in quotes so the formatting is less confusing

4) “Democrat strategist”

the fundraising titles “Women's Co-Chair and Mid-Atlantic Regional Chair”, are honorific ones for which I can find no independent sourcing.

These took me longer than I thought, but I eventually found them:

5) “Women’s chair of DNC”

6) “Mid Atlantic regional chair”

Josh Shapiro appointed her a Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Governor’s Advisory Commission on AAPI Affairs.

@Tomandjerry1010 - I was able to verify this here (see #7 below), is this what you meant?

It looks like your account is kind of new, so I'll give you some quick advice. If you want other editors to take your suggestions, it helps a lot to drop a reference in your comment. That will save the other editors some time. just type #<#ref#> LINK</ref> (take out the hashtags and replace LINK with your http web link).

7) Governor’s Advisory Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Affairs

_____

_________ DuckOfOrange (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey DuckOfOrange, thanks for the support on this. Glad I’m not the only one.

Agreed to leave out “campaign advisor” & “political contributor” for the moment. My feeling is that “campaign advisor”, while a squishy term, ought to be well attested in the contemporary record for inclusion. As for “political contributor”, my two cents is that there should be some actual paid contractual (typically exclusive) relationship with a network, there’s a press release, the individual is referred to as such when introduced on air, etc. Otherwise, it’s a guest.

As for the various bundler unofficial/honorific titles (National Finance Committee, Women’s co-chair, Mid-Atlantic regional chair, etc.), I agree that they do indeed get bandied about (quite unevenly, as you and I have found) in various sources. This said, it’s the lack of more authoritative/independent primary sources attesting to these titles’ legitimacy (or in the case of the latter two, existence) and the imprecision with which outlets seemed to mention them, that support the conclusion they are unofficial. I'd come across your first source as well, and it does indeed seem to be a bit of an outlier in that the host only uses the fundraiser honorific (in this case, 'women's co-chair') without further context as to Li being a fundraiser. This is a particularly imprecise case, because without that context, to my ears the host has made it sound a bit like Li was a chair of the Democratic National Committee (which we can verify she was not and did not claim to be). By contrast, the preponderance of sources (like those previously linked) tend to directly call her a fundraiser in tandem with any mention of unofficial fundraising titles.

Specifically searching “DNC National Finance Committee”, “DNC women’s co-chair”, or “DNC Mid-Atlantic regional chair” turns up almost nothing for me, other than Li herself and a smattering of other former political fundraisers also using the finance committee terminology on their own resumes. To the point, I can't even find Li's fellow 'women's co-chair'. As mentioned above, the only sourcing I can find for any of these titles attests to 1) the 'national finance committee' moniker being an honorific title given to DNC fundraisers and 2) the general informal use of such titles as Li uses among political party bundlers.

Their unofficial/honorary nature makes them confusing (as this thread can attest) and maybe borderline inaccurate to include, as they appear to the reader as formal, bona fide roles with specific substance behind them. Heck, that's what I assumed when I first read it.

I’ve searched quite a bit, but for now I think these shouldn’t be included.

As for her playing a role in Joe Biden’s 2020 Asian American outreach, I agree that your source is fair enough and can be included. Even here (as you can probably imagine), it feels a bit squishy. It would be nice to have a somewhat more formal primary source of her actually being named to that role or serving in it to some capacity.

Lastly I agree that the sourcing for the PA advisory committee checks out. That said, for completeness I’ll note that Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro set up five advisory commissions via executive order, each with up to 30 members (150 total). This is an unpaid, strictly advisory role; being named to it does not constitute being a ‘state official’

P.S. Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish for help with decorum. As you've probably seen, the Tomandjerry1010 user was created 7 minutes before their prior comment and appears to pick right back up where the last ones left off... Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

In Pennsylvania, commissioners appointed by Governor Josh Shapiro ARE state officials, as their roles are established under state authority and they serve in positions that carry out state-level functions. These appointments often include commissioners for various state commissions, boards, or agencies, such as the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency or the Department of Human Services. Their authority stems from state law, and they are accountable to the governor, making them state officials in a clearer sense than county commissioners, who primarily serve local roles.

If you’re going to strip Li of all her well-earned positions and accomplishments, at least include this one.

Membership on Harris and Biden’s National Finance Committee IS a bona fide formal role. One must be rigorously vetted and appointed by the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Really seems like you’re trying to diminish Li in order to falsely discredit her well-substantive criticisms of the DNC. 2600:1002:B069:F86B:9030:A4AC:C486:6B8C (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Li’s leadership roles in the Democratic National Committee, on Biden-Harris’s National Finance Committee, and as a Governor-appointed Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are well-documented and well-known.

You can’t deny reality just because you don’t like it.

And you can certainly be a TV political contributor without a paid contract. Many contributors start as informal guests, providing commentary or analysis on news programs based on their expertise, reputation, or connections. Networks may invite you for one-off appearances or recurring segments without a binding contract, often compensating per appearance or not at all initially. These arrangements are typically verbal or based on short-term agreements, with formal contracts potentially developing if the role becomes regular. Fi346123 (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

For all those interested, and to lay my cards on the table before I'm delegitimized, I too am a new member/editor on WP for my own purposes. However, I hope my comments are given due consideration, regardless. From an outsiders perspective and non-American citizen viewpoint, I find Ms Li's story a compelling and fascinating example of a modern western political realignment. For many, the complex and forthright nature of Ms Li's account is enough to captivate the imagination. It matters not to me which side of the political fence is involved, I simply consider myself to have a fair and open minded ability to remain relatively impartial in matters like this and I hope it comes across and is received as such.

Having read through these edit threads, I too wonder what the issue is with fair self-promotion based on one’s experience, bona fide career history and political persuasion. Yes, it’s quite possible to exaggerate one's importance, however I read Ms Li's page differently to @Sig. Chiocciola. While I appreciate @Sig. Chiocciola groundwork, I'm sceptical that there may be an attempt to minimize and perhaps even to diminsh Ms Li's accomplishments all he same.

Sure, I can’t fault and even respect your willingness to accept areas where you have been be shown to be mistaken, but declaring much of Ms Li's article statements as "The most egregious self-promotion and conflict of interest" really says it all. It's a serious accusation and gives me real cause for concern. Some of your wording and constant picking at certain aspects of Ms Li's article over the weeks sounds like more than just a keen willingness to make corrections. Using phrases like "An avalanche of supporting sources", the "deep...obfuscation" and "contrived superlatives" are not statement of fact but matters of opinion that might show a significant bias. They are in truth, merely opinions. While you believe these statements can be backed up and have perhaps shown some "evidential" sources of proof of some correction required, it actually doesn't make you right or give these strong claims any actual basis. This makes me wonder what your true motive is.

Also Have you changed your mind about the "75%"? Having conducted my own research, albeit as a couch professional, and viewed the majority of her cable news and online appearances/interviews with the likes of NBC News, MSNBC, CNN historically and now more recently on Fox News, NewsNation, the BBC and others, her credentials have oft been repeated and seem fairly representative of reasoned the analysis that we see on her article page. Not saying change is not required. Just questioning the motivation and happy to be challenged. Rocketsdad12 (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

From an outsider who uses Wiki regularly and my current knowledge, It appears credentials have been repeatedly substantiated by NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, NewsNation, BBC. I think we should all remain professional and even if Sig’s motives are only questionable it’s best if someone else handles edits. I’ve witnessed a few petty changes on her page and a few others that aren’t completely locked a while back, and hope that any changes done to Wiki pages are in good faith. Anyways hope you all have a good weekend and thank you for all of your hard work. 2606:2C80:10F:F900:1C10:4C4:AE2A:E61F (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Right off the bat, I'll maybe look to PickleG13 / ScottishFinnishRadish (or others) as to how to evaluate the nature of the influx of new commenters. The Article and Talk page history for this topic presents such a pattern of disruptive contributors that it's hard to know how/whether to respond. In the meantime, here are the remaining factual errors/imprecisions I found when first going through clean-up, that also bear correction:

Current claim: Li having moved to Sheffield at age 3. Several sources are unclear (and contradictory) on this point, including in interviews with Li herself. It’s a minor detail anyway, so I’d left it out.

a. WaPo “Her parents emigrated from China to England and eventually to the United States when Lindy was 5 years old.” Speaks to Li’s parents’ immigration status but leaves Li’s a bit open-ended.

b. Huffpost (this is a Q&A-style article in which the writer states she has a preexisting personal relationship with Li. So, while low-quality as far as ‘independence’, it provides a similarly timed source to compare against). "Her parents left to study in the United Kingdom when she was two weeks old, but could not afford to bring her with them. She was raised by relatives and friends in China, joining her parents in the United States when she was five years old."

c.Fox News Li: “When I was born I found out that [my parents] had preferred to have a son. So that was one of my earliest recollections. My parents left me a few weeks after I was born so my grandmother ended up being my mother, essentially, for the first 3 to 4 years of my life”.

d.Shawn Ryan Show (again, not the most independent Q&A-style source, but in Li’s own words). Interviewer: “So [your parents] immigrated to England?” Li: “I did, actually. My parents left me two weeks after I was born and then picked me up when they were ready and we went to Sheffield, England.” This response contradicts the prior and does not provide a specific age for Li.

<>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHXVeLVHWuY&t=1128s<>

Current claim: She was elected class president freshman year.

a. She was elected class vice president (source).

b. She assumed the role of class president second semester, freshman year, following the sitting student class president’s departure from the school (source). She was not elected to the role, (so far as I can find).

Current claim: ‘first woman at Princeton to hold the position of class president all four years”.

a. This did get repeated in a few articles about her, including the WaPo source. As we see in the case of the ‘youngest congressional candidate’ claim below, just because it was reported does not prove its veracity. Per usual, it would be nice to have a primary source attesting to this (such as from Princeton), though I can’t find one. That said, a cursory search does not turn up contradictory information, so I'd say best available sources tell us this claim can be included.

Current claim: ‘Youngest female congressional candidate in history’

a. As described in a prior comment, despite this claim receiving a bit of play in WP:ROUTINE media coverage of Li’s 2016 candidacy attempt, it is disproven by sources. To the extend this claim--‘youngest candidate’, rather than youngest duly-elected official—should even be made, Li did not hold the title. Li was not an official candidate on any ballot in 2016; Erin Schrode was an official candidate that same cycle at just over ~25 years old. Being an official candidate is the first time the state has confirmed a candidate’s eligibility (including date of birth or age) and so must be the starting point of any ‘youngest candidate’ claim. Again, the most accurate course of action is simply to remove this statement.

Current claim: In 2018 Li was endorsed by Dianne Feinstein and Richard Blum

a. While Feinstein and Blum did contribute to Li’s 2018 campaign (which I believe is where this claim comes from), I am unable to find any official/formal endorsement. Campaign contributions and official endorsements are strictly different things.

Other Clarifications: January-February 2020 Twitter kerfuffle + related Fox News interview

a. Generated among the most press coverage Li has ever received and should be described coherently and chronologically. The current article puts these claims out of order, making them appear disjointed and confusing.

Other Clarifications: Li’s involvement in a Super PAC which received some criticism

a. Li’s involvement and subsequent criticism of the PAC is well documented by multiple sources.

Other Clarifications: Li’s inclusion on a few lists published by City & State Pennsylvania.

a. Li served on City & State Pennsylvania’s ‘power lists’ advisory board for at least two of the 3 years in which she was included on their lists, including 2022 and 2023. I wouldn’t consider this an especially independent source. In any case, these appear to be relatively low-importance lists, particularly based on the sheer number of individuals they name and the number of different lists they release (if you continue to scroll down the page on either of the prior two links, you’ll see the lists continue ad infinitum).

In summary, it’s the volume of claims like these (and all those in prior comments), which upon verification appear to have been systematically inflated/misrepresented across this article, that first piqued my interest in this clean-up to begin with. In so doing, I initially also removed a substantial amount of less concrete ‘fluff’ simply to make more clear (to myself, at least) the actual central claims of the article. If, once these many central claims are corrected, we would like to add back some of the supporting color, that’s perfectly fine.

For what it's worth, thanks DuckOfOrange for working down this same rabbit hole. Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Sig, it really seems like you are bent on destroying all the accomplishments of this woman. Does it make you feel good to smear an accomplished minority woman?

All of your claims are wrong and pure insinuations including this one. Li was in fact the YOUNGEST woman to run for Congress, as attested to by the Washington Post profile as well as NBC News, Cosmopolitan and countless other publications. Here’s just a few

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna418916

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a47782/lindy-li-youngest-woman-congress/

https://kpcnotebook.scholastic.com/post/meet-youngest-ever-female-congressional-candidate

https://amp.scmp.com/news/world/article/1851832/no-one-wants-more-me-chinese-american-lindy-li-determined-become-youngest

As for Princeton, please read the previous thread on the talk page on this. You’ve already been debunked. All officers have to run for reelection EVERY YEAR at Princeton not just once at the start of freshman year. She ran for election in her own right after the initial president left the university. 2600:1002:B06B:B280:10F0:198B:FF64:C485 (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Sig. Chiocciola I haven't had time to go through all of this, but I will remind you of the WP:OR policy. It's against Wikipedia policy to ignore information in high quality sources while preferring your own original research.

If CNN is using a specific moniker for Li, then I think we should honor that until another journalistic source claims otherwise.

Same goes for Honorific titles from fundraising or participating in a political campaign. They're still titles in their own right and it's outside of our jurisdiction to break down how legitimate those titles are. DuckOfOrange (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC) edit to fix @Sig's tag above at DuckOfOrange (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sig. Chiocciola

I did a shallow dive into Li's college electoral history a few weeks ago and did the best I could without risking defamation for a WP:BLP. I take full responsibility. You hit the nail on the head on what I was missing, so I put together a timeline with sourcing, so everyone can see how this all played out.

In short, she was elected VP and assumed the office of president after the sitting president left. BUT she was then elected president 4 more times.

As always, I remain angry at how much time I spent sourcing everything.

FIRST ELECTION TO VP

• 2008 VP Elections - “Elections managers finally announced Tuesday that Michael Yaroshefsky ’l2 will face Ashton Miller ’l2 for the presidency and Lindy Li ’l2 and Sojung Yi ’l2 will vie for the vice presidency.”

Assumes Class Presidency

• February 2009 - the sitting class President "takes the spring off" and Li becomes president.
• May 6 2009 - “The position has remained vacant since February, when former vice

president Lindy Li became the class president.“

CONTESTED ELECTION FOR CLASS PRESIDENT -

• After assuming the office temporarily, Li faced a contested election.
• April 2009 - “Damjan Korac ’l2 will challenge incumbent Class of 2012 president Lindy Li for her position. Five students are competing for the position of Class of 2012 vice president, which was vacated by Li, who became the class president in February after former freshman class president Ashton Miller resigned his position to take off the spring semester. “

FIRST ELECTION TO CLASS PRESIDENT

• May 1 2009 - “Class of 2012 president Lindy Li fended off a challenge from Damjan Korac, with Li getting 468 votes to Korac’s 236. “I’m really humbled and honored and happy,” Li said of her win. “I’m glad that we were able to retain all the officers we could keep because we have wonderful chemistry.””

SECOND ELECTION TO Pres

• April 2010 elections - Li runs unopposed
• “Facing no competition, Lindy Li will continue as president of the Class of 2012.”

THIRD ELECTION TO Pres

• Spring 2011 Elections - Li runs unopposed
• “The candidates for the remaining three Class of 2012 officer positions ran unopposed. Incumbent Lindy Li will serve as senior class president.”
• Bonus Positive confirmation of being president in 2011

FOURTH ELECTED TO PRES / Alumni Class Officer

• April 2012 - Li wins to be Alumni Class officer in a contested election
• Alumni class officers have never appeared on the USG ballot until this year. The Class of 2012 elected Lindy Li ’l2, the current class president, to continue representing its interests after graduation. She garnered 41 percent of the vote, beating John Monagle ’l2 and Laura Pedersen ’l2. “I feel incredibly grateful and excited to be elected, and I hope to do the best job possible for my classmates,” Li said in an email. She also said moving the alumni elections to the USG ballot was a “great idea.”

DuckOfOrange (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

DuckOfOrange you are a Gentleduck and a Scholar. This is beautiful sourcing, especially given the unbelievable tedium that seems to surround anything for this article. Much appreciated.

To be sure I've got it: Li was elected class VP first semester, freshman year before assuming the role of class president second semester, freshman year without election. She was then elected class president 3 times (for her sophomore, junior, and senior years). Thank you.

Li’s final election as ‘Alumni’ class officer (as you can probably already guess, coming from me) feels a bit separate/less notable for the article. I can generally understand the cultural currency of serving as a class officer in school, but by that same standard, I’d say alumni roles (which are also much less universal) for doings after leaving the institution are not as relevant (not that the article had previously mentioned it anyway).

Okay, in looking through the rest of our discussion, it’s feeling like we’re fairly close on most points (correct me if you think otherwise). That said, here are my two cents on open items:

1. These darn unofficial titles.

The current article states Li was “the Women’s co-chair and Mid-Atlantic regional chair of the Democratic National Committee”. At least as currently phrased, this cannot be true. The Democratic National Committee leadership is a finite number of official titles (2017 bylaws, 9/22 bylaws with roles named) elected either by party members or unilaterally by a newly elected Democratic President. This occurs in a highly documented national election/selection process every 4 years (NBC News and Wikipedia page). I’ve spent more time than I care to admit trying to make sense of this, and while there are plenty of people around the internet claiming all manner of hocus pocus state-level titles, volunteer titles, unofficial committee titles, fundraiser titles, ad hoc council titles, advisory group titles, etc. I just don’t have the sourcing to back up the current claim that these were ‘Democratic National Committee’ national titles. Given their lack of primary sources (or any secondary sources documenting Li’s actions germane to holding such specific and presumably important chair & co-chair roles), I’d like to maintain that they be left out for now.

At the very least, these titles do not appear to give a meaningful summary description of what Li actually did in her career at the time (political fundraiser) and so should be moved out of the lead (and reworded to avoid giving the impression of having been official DNC national roles.

2. This ‘youngest female candidate ever’ claim.

Regarding the 4 sources provided by an anonymous commenter above, the 1^st, 2^nd, and 4^th (which is just the republished WaPo article...) do not make this silly claim of ‘youngest female candidate in U.S. history”; they say that, if elected, she would be the youngest to serve. This is a distinctly different and common enough (link and link) hypothetical for any candidate (in this case female) who would assume office at a younger age than the then-youngest ever Rep. While this is just an observation, the fact that Rep. Elise Stefanik made headlines for this feat just the election cycle prior (2014) does raise the possibility of having influenced the current, somewhat tortured, claim on this page.

The 3^rd source does indeed make the ‘youngest candidate’ claim. What source is this? I’m glad you asked. It’s…the Scholastic Kid Reporter’s Notebook… and was written by a ‘kid’ reporter who was 14 years old at the time. Ladies and gentlemen, I beg of you.

As to your recent edit re: her notable but poorly sourced comments in a show, agreed. Still a couple bigger factual fish to fry.

Anyway, let me know what you think. I sense (hope) we are close. Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sig. Chiocciola Great work on this. Truly a pleasure to work with you to figure everything out. I think there's a middle ground solution to both of these.

1) The Titles Issue. It looks like we have a discrepancy between the official, primary sources and the claims being made in journalistic sources like CNN. I honestly don't know enough about how the DNC hands out honorific titles and the extent to which they document them on some primary source website. Personally, I'd guess that Li was given some honorary title while fundraising or speaking on the behalf of the Biden / Harris campaign so that she sounded more official on TV. We're in tricky territory here, because this is touching on WP:NOR and given the sensitivities of WP:BLP I want to treat lightly here.

Compromise #1: For “Women’s chair of DNC” and Mid Atlantic Regional chair, let's use a WP:INTEXT citation of the titles. "According to the Daily Mail, Li served as the "Women's co-Chair for the DNC." or "According to Fox News, Li served as Mid Atlantic regional Chair for the DNC."

2) Youngest Candidate Ever Claim For the record, I do feel bad for the Scholastic kid, but she should have been more on top of these claims. However, we know that congress people need to be 25 in order to serve, so a 24 year old candidate has got to be the floor for most purposes. It seems like we don't really know who the youngest candidate in congressional history was. There could have been a 23 year old who ran in the 1800s for two years and I don't feel like digging that deep here. Plus WP:NOR - we need to find the claim in a news article.

Compromise #2: Why don't we just swap this claim with the one we keep seeing? "If elected, she would have been the youngest congressperson in history." DuckOfOrange (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

DuckOfOrange et al.,

Thanks for your last comment and apologies for leaving things in limbo. As anticipated in my first comment, I did indeed run out of steam there for a moment. In any case, I’ve just (for better or worse) read through our thread again and thought about your comments. Here’s what I'm thinking based on all the evidence we've dredged up throughout this conversation:

1.     The Phantom Titles.

I think you’re spot-on about the titles being honorifics used to sound more official on TV. Given their ‘unqualified’ nature (ie. ‘woman’s co-chair’ of what? Bestowed by whom? For what period of time? Who’s the mythical fellow co-chair?), if you'd like to keep them I’d like to shift them into the career section.

My feeling is that this will avoid the reader confusion currently caused (whether by design or by accident) by presenting these titles as defining, seemingly self-explanatory descriptions of Li. As we can attest, these titles are neither ‘defining’ of her career role nor self-explanatory. They are honorific. Despite this, a reasonable reader of the current article would, based on these titles’ inclusion in the lead, incorrectly surmise that she was a key surrogate for ‘women’ and/or those in the ‘Mid-Atlantic’ specifically. You and I have read most of the canon on Li, and while I’m sure she did indeed interact with... women and the Mid-Atlantic... she was simply a general campaign bundler and surrogate. That’s where the lead should focus. Further, while these titles do exist in the record, they are quite infrequent and overwhelmingly secondary to her substantive role and citation as a fundraiser.

That said, and taking a cue from your suggestion (which erred on the side of giving more context), how about we state the facts in-line in the career section (example below, though we can re-word as needed):

“While a Democratic party bundler, Li would occasionally be referred to in cable news appearances as a ‘Women’s co-chair’ or ‘Mid-Atlantic regional chair’ at the DNC (not to be confused with the elected national DNC leadership).”

This way we provide the best context for these titles, both in terms of where the claims themselves come from and how they fit into her professional profile.

2.     Youngest Candidate Claim

It really appears this claim was inspired by the election of Elise Stefanik (in 2014 the youngest-ever woman elected to the House) the cycle prior. Given that Li was 1) never an official candidate of any kind during this 2016 election, and 2) that there was at least one other legitimate candidate that very same cycle who can claim the title (as well as several since), it feels clear this claim should be removed

The early news articles carrying this quasi-clickbait/sensationalized claim did so prematurely as Li was not yet an official candidate. This is to say, the veracity of the 'she could be the youngest woman' claim could not itself have been ascertained until she was certified as an official candidate months later. Only then would the 'what if' claim enter force.

That said, the issue is not that the claim was published (we see grandiose headlines like this all the time). The key is that once Li failed to qualify as a candidate, this previously published speculative claim about the future ended up losing its meaning. Unfortunately, Li never had the possibility of being the 'youngest..." because she was never an official candidate in the first place. The claim is now a red herring masquerading as a legitimate detail. This is a 'counterfactual' that just doesn't bear inclusion in an encyclopedia entry.

As a quick note, the few places this claim is mentioned all appear to have specified the female/congresswoman qualifier, which works neatly because it looks like there have indeed been a few younger male congresspeople (Link , Link, Link).

Let me know if you think these are fair. Sig. Chiocciola Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Sig. Chiocciola! Yeah I feel you on running out of steam. Hard to keep up the wiki-momentum.

I generally agree with your takes above.

1) Phantom Titles

Let's attribute the titles to the sources that used them. I don't want to inflate or deflate any of these titles, nor do I want to confuse any readers, so let's attribute everything thoroughly and provide context where necessary.

Here's a rough of what I'm thinking:

Li worked as a fundraising bundler for the DNC, a position that has been referred to as the "Women’s co-chair", "Mid-Atlantic regional chair" or a member of the "DNC National Finance Committee" at the DNC. This is not to be confused with the elected national DNC leadership. Separately, she has been a member of Joe Biden's Asian American outreach team and a member of the Pennsylvania Governor’s Advisory Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Affairs.

2) Youngest Candidate Claim

Ok this is messy. I don't see much point in providing a counter-factual as part of Li's career. Let's drop this for now. Happy to revisit with new information.

DuckOfOrange (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC) DuckOfOrange (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

DuckOfOrange this all sounds good. I think we're very much both on the same page.

That said, and may it please the court, I'd say we've reached sufficient consensus to begin revising the article accordingly. I'd be happy to do the initial honors, taking it from the top and working down the article. Having learned from our first go around, I'll try and make several individual clustered edits at a time, such that each change is specifically documented while ensuring the resulting paragraph/section is coherently written at the end of each 'edit cluster'.

I think our sourcing is rock solid on all central points.

That said, to the extent you and I (or perhaps others...) may have some back-and-forth editing as to style/article positioning, inclusion, etc. I think that's fine/expected. There may be some lessor adjustments (removing undue detail or adding additional sourced detail) that may merit some amount of additional justification (either in edit description, or here) but otherwise, I think we're through the woods. Whew.

Thanks as always Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. I have to be honest in saying that it feels like we've put an enormous amount of productive, civil, (and remarkably tedious) research and conversation into this thread, and it is frustrating to see the same bad-faith actor immediately revert everything. PickleG13 / ScottishFinnishRadish any assistance would be appreciated. I will resist the urge to revert/edit war.

DuckOfOrange, as you would be able to see if not for all the anonymous reversions... I went right down our Talk conversation and right down the article itself. Now that things are (were) in chronological order, I wonder if two subsections could be useful to help partition what is otherwise still (despite the streamlining) a rather long Career section. As you know, everything is fairly meticulously cited (though I'm walking away for the moment, so please fact-check if you'd like to). As always, your edits are welcome. Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sig. Chiocciola - yeah I saw it. Trying to repair now and also organize this mess of a page. DuckOfOrange (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sig. Chiocciola

I wonder if two subsections could be useful to help partition what is otherwise still (despite the streamlining) a rather long Career section

Literally, we are on the same exact page. I just added 4 sub-sections and I'm not loving the phrasing of Views on Socialism and Bernie Sanders. If you have a pithier title, I'd be forever grateful. No need to discuss, just make the edit and I'll edit back if I can improve on it. I'm sorta ok with Transition to Conservative but I think we can do better. DuckOfOrange (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi DuckOfOrange and Sig. Chiocciola, I'm just tapping into this discussion right now. I agree that both of those section titles feel a bit off, with a particular emphasis on their usage of capital letters: this is not common, and I think it's part of why things aren't feeling right. I don't claim that these are perfect, but they are certainly an improvement in my eyes. PickleG13 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

An alternative that I am considering is a more thorough consolidation of sections, without regard to ideology. It is clear that Lindy Li was subscribed to multiple ideologies, but this feels less relevant to her actual activity. I would argue for a section on "Congressional campaigns", "Views" (including socialism, Bernie Sanders, conservatism, etc.), and "Fundraising" (her job of prominence on either side). What do we all think? PickleG13 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

DuckOfOrange thank you for looking over everything and for your edits--I was hoping you would add the sources as to the Princeton student class elections. Didn't seem right for me to add those.

I will take a stroll through the article (a task which already feels so much less arduous now that we've done the lion's share of the fact-checking) and spot-check.

Thank you for your last edit, which jogged my memory about those 'top 40/top 100' lists. Copying down an excerpt from our reams of earlier comments:

a. Li served on City & State Pennsylvania’s ‘power lists’ advisory board for at least two of the 3 years in which she was included on their lists, including 2022 and 2023. I wouldn’t consider this an especially independent source. In any case, these appear to be relatively low-importance lists, particularly based on the sheer number of individuals they name and the number of different lists they release (if you continue to scroll down the page on either of the prior two links, you’ll see the lists continue ad infinitum).

Given the above, they seem to be more of 'filler content' than truly relevant/legitimate accolades. If it's all the same to you, I think I'll likely end up removing it as I read through.

Thank you PickleG13 for the extra set of eyes, and I think I concur with your last two comments as to sub headings.

Lastly, much obliged ScottishFinnishRadish for the work behind the scenes. Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding PickleG13's edit comment that the Intro paragraph's mention of Li's recent involvement in a Youtube show is not sufficiently cited--you're right. I looked around a bit and the only halfway valid reporting I can find on this show (or, for that matter, Li's involvement) is from The Bulwark. The article makes two primary claims as to what Li stated. I have provided links to the original video here as well, to validate.

Li variously calling undocumented immigrants "parasites"

<<https://youtu.be/p9XvbY76Llg?si=K7QLZmbLuQ6928aG&t=250>>

Li endorsing the Great Replacement Theory:

<<https://youtu.be/p9XvbY76Llg?si=8UmTX58r-Eb22Q76&t=950>>

A separate article from The Bulwark has long been cited in this page. As a result, I assume this source is sufficient to support the intro paragraph statement. As a result, Li's statements--which are indeed the subject of The Bulwark's coverage of her--also bear inclusion. That said, I am finding it most logical to include them there in the lead, particularly given how current they are. Li has frequently made (and continues to make) politically provocative statements, so at the end of the day, this seems to be par for the course. That said, I wanted to make a note of this here so we're on the same page. Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sig. Chiocciola - Wait I'm not sure we're on the same page anymore.

Why'd you delete the sentence about her current show? I know the citation was weak, but it certainly seems like her main endeavor at the moment. I like'd @PickleG13's solution of simply flagging for a better citation.

I'm also surprised you deleted the City & State power list, I know it's a little fluffy, but it seems like the type of recognition you'd expect to see early in someone's career for someone like Li. Same with Joe Biden's Asian American outreach team - that's the stuff you should see in that section.

IMHO the career section should focus on career stuff.

What I'd like to avoid here is turning this page into a collection of crazy things that Li has tweeted or said on TV. A lot of political TV is driven by people putting a crazy idea out there, so it can be debated and people can see that it's crazy. If Li has a specific and consistent ideology she's endorsing, then let's talk about that. Otherwise, we're going to turn this page into a collection of crazy tweets and soundbites. Remember WP:INDISCRIMINATE. DuckOfOrange (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

DuckOfOrange I just checked now and it looks like my last comment (which did keep the sentence about the YouTube show) was removed by another editor.

That said, I think the relevant edit summary is a fair one. Based on that, I'd say we could add back that Lead sentence about the YouTube show (using The Bulwark source) this time with an accompanying line in the body of the article mentioning the statements made on the show (thereby ensuring the lead is indeed summarizing content written in the body, per the comment). Otherwise, maybe the YouTube show stuff just remains totally out for the moment, unless/until it garners more substantial press coverage/notability (beyond The Bulwark)?

As for the 'power lists': Li being on the website's literal 'power lists' advisory board for years...during which time she was continuously named to the same 'power lists' year after year (in my experience such lists at least try and find new people each year to get fresh blood, etc.) just doesn't sit right. In addition to the source itself being of questionable quality (the lists are just about endless), this particular claim looks like fairly straightforward inside baseball.

The Asian American outreach mention is still included, (though to your comment, I do think maybe I had temporarily duplicated/removed it during one of our edits).

Anyway, yeah, I hear you on the inclination to avoid this article sounding too crazy. It's part of what I was wrestling with in my last comment. That said, I think you're right on the money as far as outlandish statements being what often drive clicks/views and (as we've seen in several examples with Li) secondary coverage than can then be used to justify notability. We can probably soberly describe Li as currently playing the role of a political provocateur, deliberately making controversial statements to try and drive audience engagement.

Just as example, prior to Li endorsing the great replacement conspiracy theory on the YouTube show, she herself states "I'm about to say something controversial", before explaining it and then saying "I actually think it's happening".

As always, let me know what you think. Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sig. Chiocciola Thanks for your thoughtful response. Here's what I think:

1) Readers should definitely have mostly up-to-date information with regard to Li's current endeavors. I'm not saying we cover breaking news, but this is clearly her main gig right now. Her participation in the show isn't in dispute, so we should just put it up with their press release and/or the Bulwark.

2) I hear you on the lists, but we shouldn't editorialize too much. How about a one sentence remark as a compromise? Readers should understand her career pathway and I think that's part of the story. I view the PA lists as context for where she was in her career at the time.

3) For the AAPI thing - honestly I did the same thing at one point. I thought we had two sentences about the same AAPI appointment, but was actually two separate appointments.

4) I wouldn't be mad if we added provocateur as a descriptor somewhere in the article. DuckOfOrange (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

DuckOfOrange. Fair enough, per your comment above, I've added back the current YouTube activity (hopefully correctly this time, in article body, and then in the lead) utilizing The Bulwark source. In tandem, I did a bit of clean-up across other Wikipedia list pages that Li was inappropriately included on--this issue had come up early on but I'd forgotten about it until now.

And, per your request, I've added back the 'power lists' mention with some context + conjoined two subjections into one. I'm not totally satisfied with new sub heading, but maybe it's an improvement.

I think we reserve the right to include provocateur if there's a spot for it. It seems highly probable that moving forward, any further press attention she receives will indeed be for provocative/extreme statements as we've discussed above.

I hope this crosses a few things off our list. Best, Sig. Chiocciola (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! I've made some edits, but I think we're circling a consensus. I like the additional context of the advisory board detail. IMO that's the way to go with this page. WP:NPOV but lots of context. DuckOfOrange (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Questionable Source for Great Replacement Claim

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I noticed that the reference to the Bulwark article by Will Sommer does not appear to relate to the subject matter of this article (Lindy Li or her statements on immigration). The cited source actually appears to be about someone else entirely (Shiloh Hendrix). I propose removing this citation as it’s not relevant to the stated claim. CosmicFuzz (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How so? There's literally an entire section in the Bulwark piece starting with the title A hallucinatory vision of The View for conservatives. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.