alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 4

It seems like anything someone purports as negative on this page gets immediately removed by people protecting this person. It was removed and I remedied the criticism when I added the edit, so why was it removed again this time without a note? I am not trolling, how is this not important regarding her environmental policy positions? If you think the world is ending from climate change in 12 years, it obviously impacts your policy positions on the matter. There has been no redaction or statement regarding her apocalyptic prediction so I am still confused why this is trolled, can someone help? 2 people on here seem to be bullying me about it also, Levivich and Tsumikiria Visser003 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Your actual addition writing a clear hyperbole as fact in an attempt to unduly cast doubt on the subject is making your above statements quite disingenuous. No one here is trying to bully you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think the world is ending from climate change in 12 years, it obviously impacts your policy positions on the matter. -- perhaps, but there is zero evidence that she literally believes that, and a great deal of evidence that she doesn't. You are improperly characterizing the meaning of her statement that has been ripped out of context, and ignoring other statements that she has made that make clear her actual meaning, which is a reference to the IPCC report. Claiming that Ocasio-Cortez is a silly person who literally thinks that the world will end in 12 years is a fun game for right wing ideologues to play in social media, but it doesn't fly here. -- Jibal (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You delete my talk posts here and say my views are idiosyncratic and I dont belong here. YOU ARE BULLYING ME. Saying you are not is the proverbial equivalent of forcibly grabbing my arm and hitting me with it saying "Why are you hitting yourself?" None of what I posted was hyperbole and how do you know what she said was hyperbole? Do you have a source, because all I found was her backing up her statement that the world will end in 12 years unless we take drastic measures in CLIMATE POLICY (exactly where I am posting this in the wiki). Just because you dont like what she said does not mean you can bully people on here. WP:IDONTLIKEIT Visser003 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly hyperbole. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's my explanation for reverting. The sentence added, which I reverted is:

Ocasio-Cortez stated on Climate Change policy "Millennials, and Gen z, and all these folks that come after us, are looking up and we're like 'the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?'" during the MLKnow event on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, January 21st, 2019 in New York City.

I reverted it because "...and we're like 'the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" (bold added) seems to me to be obvious rhetorical hyperbole, as indicated by use of the word "like". The statement isn't literally meant to suggest the world will literally end in 12 years, but rather it's a reference to a well-known UN report saying that climate change effects will become irreversible in an estimated 12 years if not addressed. Hence she says, "The world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change", which is a clear reference to the report. RSes agree:

• The very same The Hill article that is cited in Visser's edit states: Her comments are in reference to a United Nations-backed climate report, published late last year, that determined the effects of climate change to be irreversible and unavoidable if carbon emissions are not reined in over the next 12 years. [1]
• National Review: The timeline Ocasio-Cortez referenced was likely based on a U.N. backed report, released last year, that predicted the consequences of man-made climate change would become irreversible in twelve years if global carbon emissions are not immediately and dramatically reduced. [2]
• Newsweek (not really an RS but...): Although she didn’t explicitly attribute her source for the 12-year time frame, Ocasio-Cortez was likely citing a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released last October that predicted that there’s only a dozen years left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Any higher, even by half a degree, would significantly increase risks of floods, drought, extreme heat and potential poverty for hundreds of millions. [3]
• RT (ditto): Mockery aside, Ocasio-Cortez’s seemingly oddly specific number is sourced in a report released by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October last year. Well not quite predicting the end of the world, the report did suggest dire consequences in a dozen years if serious action is not taken to fight global warming. [4]
• WaPo is already defending her on it, and calling out USA Today, which is linked under "feign alarm that she has exaggerated": Apparently all anyone has any strength or enthusiasm for is applying a literalism test on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)’s all-too-accurate warnings. She said recently that if we don’t start to address climate change aggressively right now, the world will end in 12 years. I know, let’s feign alarm that she has exaggerated instead of having genuine alarm about the genuine problem she is raising the red flags over. [5]
• USAToday article called out by the WaPo op-ed above makes no mention of the UN report [6]
• Fox News proves why it's Faux News: it mentions the UN report but doesn't mention the 12-year part: While a steady stream of international reports have raised alarm about climate change, they stop markedly short of predicting the end of the world. A widely publicized study last fall by a United Nations panel said the world should take “unprecedented” actions to cut carbon emissions in the next decade – this, to avoid rising past 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. [7]

So, the usual from the media. Anyway, this having happened less than a week ago, I think it's WP:RECENTISM to include it. (Another week, another recentism.) Maybe after four weeks, in hindsight, it will become a notable part of her biography, but right now, it's just another soundbite. ^Leviv_ich? ! 22:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So if someone puts "like" in front of what they say, it is always hyperbole? This is an interesting take I have not heard before. Please elaborate. Visser003 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Visser003, sure, no problem.

Like is sometimes used colloquially as a quotative to introduce a quotation or impersonation. This is also known as "quotation through simile". The word is often used to express that what follows is not an exact quotation but instead gives a general feel for what was said.




Like can be used as hedge to indicate that the following phrase will be an approximation or exaggeration, or that the following words may not be quite right, but are close enough. It may indicate that the phrase in which it appears is to be taken metaphorically or as a hyperbole. This use of like is sometimes regarded as adverbial, as like is often synonymous here with adverbial phrases of approximation, such as "almost" or "more or less." Examples:

• I have, like, no money.
• The restaurant is only, like, five miles from here.
• I, like, died!
• They, like, hate you!

^Leviv_ich? ! 22:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There is still a question of correctly expressing her position on the gravity of climate change. Both [8] and [9] indicate that AOC sees a hard-deadline that we have to meet or all is lost. This explains her call for an effort equivalent to WWII or the Great Depression. We should try to capture the magnitude of her apocalyptic vision as best as we can from secondary sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Two concerns:

1. Formatting: A section heading followed by only one or two sentences is poor formatting in my opinion. I have kept section headings for the sections that have at least one solid paragraph of sourced content. The rest I turned into a bullet list under the heading "Other issues". I imagine as those items get expanded, they can get promoted from the bullet list to their own subsections.
2. Responses to proposals: I removed, and challenge on WP:WEIGHT grounds, the addition of new content in the "Political positions" section where "She stands for X" is followed by "Here is what so-and-so has to say about X" (e.g., Krugman). I don't think this is appropriate. The purpose of the positions section is to describe what her positions are, not to judge or evaluate those positions, or convey others' judgments or evaluations of those positions. Discussion of the policies themselves, and media punditry response to those policies, belongs in an article about the policies, not in biographies about people who advocate those policies. For example, we don't write "Alexander Hamilton was a federalist, but Thomas Jefferson criticized federalism on the grounds that..." We just say that Hamilton was a federalist; on Jefferson's page we say that he was an anti-federalist; but nowhere do we quote what, for example, a newspaper columnist wrote about federalism at the time. I don't think we should do it any differently here. No matter what policy position, and no matter whose biography, there will always be people supporting and criticizing those positions; we shouldn't turn a biography into an article about the benefits and drawbacks of various policy proposals. ^Leviv_ich? ! 18:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic. However, whenever I try to limit a BLP to purely descriptive wording I'm accused of "whitewashing." At present we have in WP:BLPSTYLE the mandate "Criticism and praise should be included ..." This may require a wider discussion that goes beyond this BLP. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I understood "criticism and praise" to refer to criticism and praise of the person, not of the person's policy positions. I'm certainly not opposed to a wider discussion; there are plenty of BLP issues project-wide; recentism being the other big thing IMO. ^Leviv_ich? ! 19:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this interpretation. Once you start including "criticism and praise" of policy positions, you're going way off into the weeds, as it were. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I've taken a look at the changes. I think they're fine, and certainly cut down some of the cruft that was previously there. I haven't read through them with a fine-toothed comb, but so far, job well done, I'd say. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Looking though it I think it looks good so far. Certainly cut down on a lot of the fluff and condensed things down to the important points. Thanks for the hard work. PackMecEng (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with the above two comments. I hope this is the new consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment It's all part of the bias in the article. A widely-reported, significant, inarticulate comment made by the subject is followed by an articulate rephrasing to buff the subject. It is just the editing consensus here to do that in this article, and experienced editors can cite Wikipedia policies permitting them do that. Also, here's a PSA for editors of this page: https://www.theonion.com/fox-news-debuts-premium-channel-for-24-hour-coverage-of-1831814505 patsw (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  patsw, you may want to just drop the pretense and innuendo in your chronic accusation of other editors of "buffing" and POV. The NPOV and Incidents noticeboards exists for that. Otherwise, please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think the responses to her proposals, such as the Krugman bits, are helpful as it provides necessary context that may be unfamiliar to American readers. We can use another section for that, but due to the page's nature it might become troll magnet. So integrating it with the prose may still be viable. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 18:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's a real problem that you've tucked away the section covering her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict along with the bulleted sections with no more than 1-2 sentences. This is not WP:DUE according to the sources. I'd also like to hear an explanation for this revert from @Tsumikiria:, whose made some highly opinionated statements on the topic. The user said it "isn't a significant one of her proposals yet," but that's not what the section is about; it's about her views on the conflict per reporting in WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• To my knowledge AOC has not endorsed organizations, introduced legislations, or made additional or controversial statements about her stance on I-P/A-I conflict, comparing to her advocacy in other issues, so the development of this subsection is moot. She only received explosive coverage and commentary because she's quite the only prominent figure to support Palestine and use the UN designation. This conversation happened before. The compressed wording before your change was sufficient for the purpose, else we might as well split this subsection into another article. "some criticism" and "walked back" is also editorializing. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
None of this is why material should or should not be in an article—what determines WP:WEIGHT is coverage in WP:RS, of which there is plenty on this. walked back are not my words, they are from the secondary source that was cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920, Gandydancer, and Tsumikiria: In my edit that is the subject of this thread [10], I did not change the content of the Arab-Israeli conflict section at all. I moved it, in its entirety, from its own subsection to a bullet list under "Other issues". At that time, it was shorter, and the reason I did it was primarily because of length, as explained in my first post in this thread above. This edit has received, as I read it, nearly unanimous consensus in this thread, and that was a week ago.
Per WP:BURDEN, it seems the burden of consensus is on the editor who seeks to add material, not on the editor who reverts a bold addition. Wikieditor's edit here [11] added material without consensus (material that was not present a week ago when I moved the section). I believe that was out-of-order, and Tsumikiria's revert was permissible under policy, and Gandydancer's revert of Tsumikiria stating Tsumiki needed to obtain consensus for reverting Wikieditor's addition is thus incorrect. So I'm asking Gandydancer to revert the revert, and Wikieditor to obtain consensus here for adding material to that section.
Finally, as to the content itself, I believe it is improper for the section on AOC's policy regarding Palestine/Israel to spend more text discussing a gaffe or Israel's response to the use of certain language, or anyone's response to the policy at all, than is spent actually explaining the policy itself. And, per my comments above, I don't think we should be including people's responses to AOC's policies in the sections detailing her policies. So when you take that stuff out, all that's left is, essentially, that AOC supports a two-state solution, which really isn't enough to support its own section. AOC is notable for a lot of things, but her policy on Palestine/Israel is not one of them; let's not pretend this is a major part of her life.
P.S. It should be called "Palestine-Israel conflict" not "Arab-Israel conflict". ^Leviv_ich 22:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think you're misunderstanding what policy actual is in calling my edit "out of order." The subject's "gaffe" actually revealed something about her opinion and it received significant coverage in WP:RS; your edit ignored this entirely and bundled it along with several other bullet points that have received little-to-no coverage. And by the way, So when you take that stuff out, all that's left is, essentially, that AOC supports a two-state solution, which really isn't enough to support its own section this isn't what's been reported in the sources, so you should refrain from injecting your own opinion into what this boils down to. This information previously had its own section, still should. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, so move it to its own section. But don't add to it without consent. ^Leviv_ich 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly what I did. You, on the other hand, were the one who initially downgraded the section] with the slightly presumptuous summary Please seek consensus before re-inserting. You're not the arbiter of what consensus is or isn't, and when a section has been in the article for weeks without challenge, it has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. If you want to make a policy argument as to why we should only cover her views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to the extent that you think it's important, go ahead, but if we're actually following policy, we go by what's been reported in WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

As of this writing there are 8 images in the article. Looking at her class, the List of freshman class members of the 116th United States Congress#House of Representatives, and comparing AOC to Republicans (maybe someone else can do an identical count for the Democrats), nearly all of them have 1 image, typically an official photograph. The exceptions: Denver Riggleman has 2. The unfortunate Russ Fulcher, Steve Watkins (politician), and Carol Miller (politician) have none. It's an anomaly rather than a criticism of the editing consensus here. patsw (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Those other articles need way more pictures. ^Leviv_ich 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, add freely licensed photos to those other articles, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I could see getting rid of the low quality images in this article. For example the image in the Early career section is to low quality to be helpful. Heck it is even hard to tell what is going on or who it is. The videos are also questionable but not that big of a deal. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The videos are indeed questionable, as we can apply many of the same standards of MOS:IMAGES to videos. The video of her speech on the House floor does add something—I won't object to keeping that, though it could've been clipped better. It seems like it starts with another representative speaking. The other one, the generic interview, conveys no useful information and really shouldn't stay on the page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that is basically what I was thinking. We have a picture of an interview then a video of another interview. I also agree the speech on the House floor is probably fine. PackMecEng (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Many articles on House freshmen are stubs. This one is quite a bit longer. Comparing her to those other freshman is an apples and oranges thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu is probably right, though I still think we should show a little more discretion over these photos. The photo of her being interviewed probably belongs next to the "Media coverage" section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement: this page states she is a member of the Democratic party. It also states she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Question: does she say she's both? How are these two statements reconciled? Thank you. Arminius Hermann (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

People who want to can be members of more than one party? I'm guessing here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
DSA is not a party. ^Leviv_ich 14:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Most DSA members who are elected officials are also members of the Democratic Party. Consider Ron Dellums, a founder of the DSA. He served in the House of Representatives from 1971 to 1998, and as mayor of Oakland, California from 2007 to 2011, as a member of the Democratic Party that whole time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DSA is an organization, not a party. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I forgot about 1RR for a minute, but@Wikieditor19920:, you've nevertheless been reverted. You don't like the subject, we understand that. Now would be an appropriate time for you to explain the reasonings for your removal of multiple pictures in the article. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tsumikiria: You have no idea who I "like" or "don't like," so instead of making bad-faith accusations you should read the relevant policy pages over the use of images. Wikipedia pages are not meant to be an artistic mural. Per MOS:IMAGES, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. There is no need to have an image of the subject next to every section. We don't need an image of her in a bar to show she worked in a bar. We don't need a video interview that's unrelated to the section. Images should be used conservatively, and the article needs some media trimming. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand "not primarily decorative" to mean don't put a picture of a flower because it's pretty, or use a decorative border image or something. "Decorative" (aesthetically pleasing) as opposed to "illustrative" (used to illustrate something in the article). I wouldn't call any of those images "decorative"; they're all illustrative. As a policy matter, I don't agree that images should be used conservatively; quite the opposite actually. One per reasonably-sized section doesn't seem too much to me (and larger sections can have more). I think it's neat to show a picture of her bartending; that's the kind of thing that gives you a better image of the biography subject, and is also surprising to the reader (they wouldn't expect that in an encyclopedia). The video isn't an image and should be a separate discussion, as a separate analysis applies to videos. The one that's there now doesn't even load for me so I have no opinion on it. ^Leviv_ich? ! 01:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: We a policy stating that too many images are distracting. Are you honestly defending a grainy image of her at a bar, a generic interview, and a photo of her at a rally as significant and an important illustrative aid to understanding? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's neat this is the kind of reasoning that leads to an article being littered with unnecessary images. Each image in the article should be chosen carefully and serve a precise purpose. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Hell yes, I'm honestly defending a grainy image of her at a bar. (BTW, it's grainy because was reduced in size to comply with WP:IMAGERES. Someone who knows what they're doing with photoshop could resize the original to make it come out clearer.) The RSes often discuss how AOC went from bartender to Congresswoman. A picture of AOC tending bar has exactly the same encyclopedic value as a picture of Jimmy Carter's family store or Bill Clinton's Student Council President campaign flyer (both of which are in their articles): it shows them as they were when they were young, or in AOC's case, slightly younger, but in any case, "before they became a politician." If we had a better photo, I'd be all for it.
Regarding your other points: Photographs of her campaigning are obviously an excellent choice for the section about her campaign. I am a big believer in embedding snippets of video interviews of biography subjects. It lets the reader see how they sounded, how they moved around, their affectation and mannerisms. A video is awesome for a biography. Every biography article should have video of the subject if possible.
The policy says "too many", and that's really subjective. I don't think we have enough yet. "Neat" isn't something to shy away from. The best Wikipedia articles, in my opinion, are "neat", or interesting, or cool, or whatever word you want to use to mean "something interesting that I want to read". Remember: this article is a biography about a human being, it's not about a set of policy platforms, or a campaign, or a slogan, or the Future of the Democratic Party, or any of that stuff. It's about a person, who used to be a bartender, and then ran for Congress and won. Pictures and video of the person are extremely useful to the reader to help understand who that person is. ^Leviv_ich? ! 02:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

An image of the subject at a bar is not an important illustrative aid to understanding. Everyone knows what a bartender is. We don't need to be melodramatic about BLPs nor should we document every event in a subject's life with a photograph. The quality of the photo alone is enough to excise it: also from MOS:IMAGES: Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used. You should stop thinking about what you personally would like or prefer to see in the article and what's neat and consider what truly is necessary and adds encyclopedic value to the page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about being melodramatic. I agree that a better picture of AOC bartending without the bar logo - if found, should replace the current one. But right now the picture is being illustrative, and 4 pictures of the person and 2 videos are not too much of something to ask. They're relevant to their adjacent text, and is fulfilling their purpose as being pictures. I have to, respectfully, object removing them. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 03:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tsumikiria: First of all: you can't even see what's going on in bartending photograph. Second: a Wikipedia page is not the appropriate place for generic interviews. How many other pages have two videos of the subject? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem with using two videos and I generally like a lot of photos, however the bar tending photo is so poor that I strongly feel that it should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I updated the photo. It's still not the best quality, frankly someone who knows what they're doing with photos would probably be able to get a much better crop, but I think it's better? ^Leviv_ich? ! 05:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Gandydancer, too sucky image to do any good. And why should this article mention the name of the restaurant she worked on and that there's an image of her on their homepage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, no good reason to use non-free image I can see. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I was able to get in touch with the original photographer who was keen on us using it. I'm going to have him re-upload it to Flickr and mark it Creative Commons for us to use. The lorax (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: So what's the basis for calling four media files in a single section reasonable? Just curious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

"Her mother, meanwhile, cleaned houses and drove school buses."

Does that line, which is currently in the text, have any weight for inclusion?

The early career circumstance of AOC (bartender, waitress) is portrayed clearly enough. The part about the mother seems like narrative pushing/excessive poignancy.

I get that in sections about childhood, mentioning the parent's career may be necessary, as children are dependents. This section however is about early career. Thoughts? Cesdeva ^(talk) 15:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It should be relabeled "Early life and career." Details about the subject's upbringing is appropriate and even expected for a BLP if the information can be supported with reliable sources, which this is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
How do experiences after college count as upbringing? Also she's 29 and her waitress job is fairly recent, so how is that 'early' life? Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
She's fairly young, and the main delineation is pre-political career and post-political career. Her parents' working situation when she was fresh out of college is obviously relevant to her biography according to the sources in which it has been mentioned that cover her life before she became a politician. What is your point here? WP:DUE is dependent on whether or not the material has been covered in WP:RS, not editors' personal opinions over what matters and what doesn't. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
It's trivial information. But sure, let's blindly mirror everything written in a source, without consideration for the neutrality of our prose or the weight given to points. WP:DUE isn't entirely dependent on what's in a source; it also depends on the article subject. In this article the subject is AOC; so the career section should detail her career, not her mother's. Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
A BLP covers more than just a career. That's why it's called a biography. I don't see how this is trivial, and it's been reported on by enough sources to conclude otherwise. Her favorite food when she was five might be trivial; this aspect of her family/home life is not and imparts something of value. Someone's socioeconomic background is often one of the most important elements of a bio, and this is no different. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems very relevant to me, since it indicates the context under which she was working early on - she was living with her mother at the time (extremely common for New Yorkers of her generation given New York's rent), so her mother's career continued to at least partially define her circumstances. It's especially relevant considering the very next sentence (about her and her mother fighting foreclosure), which is obviously an important part of Ocasio-Cortez' biography and which her mother's job is pretty relevant to. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this is actually OK. However, not every random work in her early years deserves a mention in the lead, so I fixed it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion Ok I'll admit it's more relevant than I initially thought. If the statement is dependent on the foreclosure text then I think it could be framed better. Right now, while the two facts have proximity, there isn't any prose asserting a joint context. I had a go myself at drafting new prose but it was just turning out too ambiguous. Cesdeva ^(talk) 16:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A lot of text was deleted in this edit[12]. I don't particularly mind removing most of the content but I want to keep:

• Text noting that her primary win was a surprise and that we should mention the lack of print media coverage prior to the win (despite her being a NY politician).
• Text noting that she has become a boogeyman in rightwing media, and her response to the extraordinarily extensive and negative coverage of her. We HAVE to include this. It's one of her claims to notoriety. She, as a House Rep with a six-week tenure, has more name recognition than most Democratic presidential candidates in large part due to this coverage.

What do you think? Pinging My very best wishes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I simply think that if media said something really important about the person, that something should be in other, substantial parts of the page, not in the generic "press coverage" section. If you want to restore something, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised to see such a massive amount of long standing information removed without introducing the matter on the talk page first. I think the information should be restored. Interestingly, I've always thought that it is not surprising that she didn't receive much media considering that there was no question that her run would not be a success. But concerning the publicity following her win, it was absolutely stunning. Within a few days she was invited to every major outlet to speak and all of the talk shows as well. Furthermore, her place in the media continues to be extremely unusual. Again, I'd like to see this long standing copy returned. Gandydancer (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
If the entire point is that she was widely covered in press, why not say it in a couple of phrases? If this is something else, that should be in another section. I am not going to revert though. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
As the person who did revert this removal, I will just expand on what I said in my edit summary: the breadth of national media coverage on her is well beyond what most newly-elected representatives get. Most are basically unknown outside of their own states. The fact that she has been made the face of the Democratic 2018 candidates (or at least of the progressive wing) is notable in itself. In fact, the only reason her policy positions are notable is because her media exposure has given her a platform. Given that she has no political experience thus far, and that she hasn't yet really made any moves in Congress, her media stature is probably her most notable quality. Not only does it merit mention, but it certainly merits mention well beyond a couple of phrases. As years pass, other aspects of her career may well overshadow this part, but right now, the amount of text here is clearly due weight. Grandpallama (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• This subsection definitely belongs in some way per sources, but it is too excessive. AOC is no Trump yet this article has much more information about her press coverage than Donald Trump. There are WP:SYNTH/WP:Recentism problems in the text. Also don't forget that negative coverage ≠ incorrect coverage. The free media coverage is already appropriately mentioned in the lead, which I wouldn't touch. I must say though that material should not be removed without considering moving it somewhere. wumbolo ^^^ 16:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I would remove a lot. With all due respect, I do not think every interview, a comment on twitter or a comment about her in media belongs to the page. This is WP:Recentism at worst. Most of that is simply non-informative, especially on a BLP page of a politician who is already famous like her. One should emphasize facts and actions, such as her involvement to the Green New Deal, not political squabble. Why? Simply because the squabble is uninformative. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• I believe that Grandpallama summed up my position very well. As time goes on we most certainly will adjust the information about her media coverage but for now it is the most remarkable issue in her bio. I don't see that WP:Recentism applies since we generally cover even day by day accounts of the political activities of all of our other political figures. I would however like to see perhaps a few small cuts, for instance the names of the television programs she appeared on. Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the section above titled Leader, I attempted to address how her media exposure has been recognized by people on all sides of the spectrum as putting her in a position of leadership of the party. It is not through a position of authority or seniority, but by being the voice of political direction facilitated by her media coverage. We should reflect that in explaining to novice readers looking up her name on wikipedia, why she is important, when titles and hierarchy does not explain it. Trackinfo (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, she is not the leader of the party by any reasonable account (she is too much to the left and has too little experience). She just received a lot of publicity, which can be summarized in just a couple of phrases. My very best wishes (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
As I said before, the idea that this fresh politician has become the face of a new generation of the party, and certainly of the progressive wing, merits significantly more attention and text than just a few phrases. New House reps do not get this sort of national exposure. She is a more household name than some of the current declared presidential candidates. Again, as of now, the most notable feature of AOC is her national media exposure. Not only is the section due, but reducing it would not accurately reflect her notability, or the reasons for it. I also reject the idea that this is a recentism issue; it might be that a great deal of detail on each individual appearance as they occur isn't needed, but her massive media exposure will always be a major facet of her first election.

It's also pretty clear that she has become an internal leader of the party, in the sense that she's got a voice and has been given influence that is generally not accorded to freshman representatives. Grandpallama (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the surname "Ocasio-Cortez" really using Spanish naming customs? From the looks of it to me, her surname is just a combination of each of her parents' surnames, which is not actually Spanish naming customs. In Spanish naming customs, children have their paternal then maternal surnames, but only use their paternal surname in everyday life. Like in the case of Enrique Iglesias being born "Enrique Miguel Iglesias Preysler" — if his name was Enrique Iglesias-Preysler and he used the surname "Iglesias-Preysler" in everyday life, that would not be truly Spanish naming customs. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the same thing today: that we should remove that tag because it isn't accurate. If she were using Spanish naming customs, she would be Alexandria Ocasio Cortez for formal occasions and Alexandria Ocasio most of the time. Instead she is using the American/British custom of hyphenating the surnames of her parents. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I will remove the note. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but more investigation is needed, bc I think she is vegan or vegetarian and supports plant-based. I added this to her page, but was reverted, so again im not sure but worth looking into bc she says she publicly supports plant based and reducing meat and dairy. Ideas - please share? Steven02511 (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Steven02511: The article you used to cite this did not say that she was vegan, just that she drank vegan milk. It was unclear on reading whether she always drank vegan milk, or just sometimes. If she does advocate for eating less meat and having a more plant based diet, this would be good to include in the article (probably under 'Environment' in 'Political positions'). We would need a better source than a blog, though - newspapers and news sites are typically good sources. We have a pretty good guide on what makes a reliable source here at WP:RS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure, but I may have read this, but cannot find the exact source. She also is the creator of the Green New Deal, and part of this bill would possibly end animal agriculture, as this is a significant negative factor in climate change. More investigation is needed. Steven02511 (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a sentence at the end of the "116th Congress" section saying that she and three other freshman U.S. reps have formed a group called "the squad." The only reference is an article that mentions how AOC captioned an Instagram photo of those three with the word "Squad." The sentence in the page makes it seem like these four have formed some type of formal coalition, when in reality, "Squad" is just popular Instagram slang for a group of friends, and AOC didn't mean anything official by it. I think we should remove that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benn257 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Benn257: Good catch. I've removed that sentence. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing the sources, there is something confusing in the text. The current text says that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez graduated from Boston University with a major in International Relations and Economics, but there is no such major at the university.

They have a BA in International Relations, and a BA in Economics. Did she get two degrees? Otherwise, this appears like the product of sloppy journalism in the source articles. Is there a way to clarify / fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.202.70.188 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Likely a double major. Grandpallama (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the sentence about being the youngest person elected to Congress to reflect that William C. C. Claiborne was elected to Congress at age 23, in 1797, although sources differ on his birth date, with some citing his being 22 when he began Congressional service and others stating 24. However all sources put him in the House at a much younger age than Ocasio-Cortez. 70.59.13.28 (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

•   Already done (The article says "youngest woman".) ^Leviv_ich 21:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I object to the characterization of the sources and the framing, which doesn't correspond to what the cited reliable sources discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I rewrote the section you objected you. I think it works now. Please have a look and let me know what you think.
Vcuttolo (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• objected to Vcuttolo (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone want to chime in? I believe the "neutrality" concern has been fully straightened out.
Vcuttolo (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Fake news" promoted by CRTV belong to page about CRTV, not to this page. Moved to page about CRTV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• Statements of opinion from notable public figures should be given in-text attribution rather than just attributed to unnamed others (WP:WEASEL) . Generalizations (like saying she made a bunch of verbal gaffes) need to be directly supported by the sources rather than cobbled together from a bunch of disparate news stories. Nblund ^talk 17:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
• There are sources discussing responses by the media and fact-checkers to the fair amount of falsehoods she's defended. [13] [14] [15] [16] I oppose including what her political opponents think about it because this article is not about them, I can't find sources discussing it, we don't have anything similar at Donald Trump or Veracity of Donald Trump, and virtue signalling/grandstanding by her political opponents is in fact inconsequential to her biography. I also object to the recent moving of her false statements to the Healthcare section. The sources cited actually discuss multiple falsehoods that she has said or defended, and making false statements isn't a "political position". Putting false statements into the political positions section only discredits the actual political positions without informing the reader of anything s/he is looking for. wumbolo ^^^ 19:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

All of that sounds reasonable. Yes, perhaps this should not be in Healthcare section. But this is also not just a "media coverage", but criticism of her comments. Was it something really important? I am not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

So I tried to move the deleted comments from the "Media" section into a new "Criticism" section, and was reverted before I could get going. Is there a proper place where the criticism for her many gaffes gets a mention in the article? Where would that be? Or is all criticism of AOC disallowed?
Vcuttolo (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Vcuttolo, "criticism" sections are a bad idea. See WP:CSECTION. What do you want to add? It should all be case by case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You've seen people objecting your content and tagging your addition with Template:POV section and yet you added virtually the same content again. Aside from a obvious 1RR violation, a dedicated criticism section is strongly discouraged especially on BLP articles where it may be a magnet for trolls and POV editing. This isn't about disallowing criticism of the subject if your attempt is apparently disingenuous considering your previous effort back in November where you tried to make the subject appear to endorse "terrorist" "invaders". This is not a battlefield to fight a war for your POV and then accuse everybody of revering the subject more than god. Please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I had included a mention of her numerous gaffes in the "Media" section, saying that she had been called out by the media for having made a significant number of errors. I did not specify the gaffes, but the statement was followed by seven sources. Someone reverted me, saying that the gaffes should be listed, lest I violate WP:WEASEL. The same editor seemed to want the gaffes in a different section as well. In an attempt to comply, I began specifying some of the gaffes in a "Criticism" section, which is what I thought I was being instructed to do. There have certainly been a number of verbal gaffes made by AOC, and she has been called out on such by the mainstream media on a number of occasions. Where does this earn a mention?

While we are here, Muboshgu, may I ask you to please intervene concerning the harassment I have been receiving from Tsumikiria? His claim above of trying to do "edit conflict" is obviously false. The guy has been a thorn in my side for months. He just gave me an official warning (the third or fourth time he has done so) on my Talk Page over my most recent AOC edits, something I might have taken seriously if it came from you, not him. Tsumikiria has been warned before because of his tone and edit-warring nature. He once reverted me because I used an Israeli newspaper as a source, and, wrote Tsumikiria, "everyone knows israeli (sic) media lies". Can you please get this guy off my tail?

Thank you on both counts.

Vcuttolo (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What I said in my edit summary was "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel". I was unfamiliar with Haaretz at the time and that was the only mistake I did. It's concerning that you took this matter personally when numerous editors in the past months have explained to you on how your edits were unacceptable. It's even more concerning that you're willing to misquote people to advance your perceived ideological battle. This is, reasonably speaking, disruptive editing. Please stop. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I think there's sufficient coverage to briefly mention that AOC has had some back and forth with fact-checkers. For my part, I think we need to avoid subjective language about the number of gaffes, attribute opinions as opinions, and cite AOC's critics and defenders. Vcuttolo: you are obviously going to get reverted if all you do is move more or less the same content around without really engaging the discussion. Pitch some changes here instead of edit warring. Nblund ^talk 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with briefly mentioning well-documented factual errors she made from neutral sources with attribution, but there's definitely no need of documenting them indiscriminately as most of these are barely mentionable. Writing subjective summaries like numbers of gaffes, etc. should definitely be avoided. There also seems to be conflicts among reliable sources on fact-checking her statements. For example Jacobin magazine explicitly criticised Washington Post writer Glenn Kessler's methodology and factual accuracy in the latter's piece that awarded AOC with three Pinocchios. If we are including these, we must properly reflect and attribute these conflicts. Although presently I don't think these are encyclopedic at all. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedic and WP:UNDUE, but man, that Jacobin piece is ridiculous. The guy seriously thinks that 32.40$ is the minimum "living wage".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Isn’t his name Riley Roberts? Barb100763 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Barb100763, yes, thank you for pointing out that error. I corrected it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I just added a paragraph to her committee assignment section and now reading through the entire article I see similar info in the preceding section. I'll try to fix it as best I can or perhaps others have ideas on what to do?... Gandydancer (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to leave my new section up for awhile and others may do what they want with it for now. The important thing for me is that it is noted that she did stand out for her ability to get things done because to now it has been suggested that she lacks competence. That David Brooks, a Conservative, would single her out and applaud her is quite remarkable. Perhaps his comments should be moved into the previously written section, delete the rest of what I wrote, and leave it at that? Gandydancer (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, I think I did a good fix. I deleted the block quote by a lesser known personality and added the ones I had used in my version of the events... Hopefully all's well that ends well? Gandydancer (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It has been noted in multiple publications that AOC does not have a double major International Studies and economics degree. Instead she has an International Studies (IS) Major and an Economics Minor. To list that she has a degree in IS and Economic is patently false. This should be edited to be accurate. https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-cepeda-column-st-0110-story.html https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/how-old-is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-where-did-she-grow-up.html/

NinelineOR (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done Diff MarginalCost (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
MarginalCost, thanks, but I have undone it. This issue was discussed extensively here, and the wording currently in the article is the result of that discussion. Basically what we found is that there are conflicting reports of how "economics" fits into her degree - whether it was a separate major, or a minor, or an emphasis within the international studies department, or what - and so we came up with a wording that covers all the possibilities without endorsing any of them. Of course, we could discuss it again, but we should start from the discussion and sources provided at that earlier discussion. Of the two sources provided here, one says "minor" in passing toward the end of an article about something else, and the other is not a reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The Chicago Tribune link is to a columnist's opinion piece, not investigative journalism. Also not an RS in this situation, IMO. Leviv ich 16:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, especially MelanieN for your encyclopedic memory (pardon the pun) of this and many other complex discussions.
For my part, I'm not wild about the current wording, as it seems to state a major for which I don't see enough evidence to state definitively, and would prefer the slightly more ambiguous "degree in International Relations and Economics" or something like that. Nonetheless, I have absolutely zero desire to get much into the weeds on a hot-button US politics article, and am happy to respect the previously determined consensus. MarginalCost (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the School of Economics at BU just named AOC as a recipient of the annual "Distinguished Alumni Award," which is an award "established in 2014 to recognize and publicize the outstanding accomplishments of the graduates of the Department of Economics’ undergraduate, master’s, and PhD programs." (Emphasis added.) I know you have to synthesize the two sources to draw the conclusion that she graduated with at least BA in economics and is therefore not an appropriate citation for the article, but I figured I would just post the sources here to maybe satisfy your curiosity. HoldingAces (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is interesting. Most of their bio of her is just boilerplate copied from other sources, but they certainly should know if she is, or is not, a graduate of the Department of Economics! Let me give this some thought. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I have returned the sticky note photo. I believe that it is significant in that it shows a comparison between AOC and many of the other congressmen/women. I also returned the info re the Cohen hearing. It was deleted saying it was primary sourced. The source and the way the information is being used is perfectly OK and similar to info in many other BIO articles. Gandydancer (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A photo of her office with notes of encouragement may be nice, but it's not significant or appropriate for a Wikipedia article. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX for the subject. And the material on the Cohen hearing is all based on primary sources, which is generally not appropriate for BLPs per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Opinion pieces criticizing her should be avoided, as should opinion pieces with praise. Opinion pieces and interviews are both primary sources. And if we're going to include material from a primary source, it has to also have been covered by a written WP:SECONDARY source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the sticky-note photo; let's discuss. IMO this adds nothing to her biography or our understanding of her, except that she apparently has supporters. (We AGF that she did not tell her staff to create all these stickies and take the picture.) This does not "show a comparison" with other congressmembers because we have no basis for comparison; for all we know they might have all gotten support stickers too, it may even be a common practice or tradition in congress. IMO this is puffery, not biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I support keeping the Cohen hearing material, which is cited to secondary sources (the "primary source" rule does not prevent us from quoting comments by others about her; a primary source would be her own words). However, I trimmed the material by about a third because of opinion and excess quoting of reactions. We need to be careful not to use her biography as a way promote her - or to sneak in implications of wrongdoing by Trump or others. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am very dissatisfied but it appears that my position has no support and I will not further discuss. IMO the article should have reflected the fact that her line of questioning Cohen was very widely seen as heads and shoulders above the rest, especially notable because she's been called a dope so often. All the networks and many individuals remarked on it. As for the post-notes, when I first saw that info added I wanted to remove it and it was only when the photo was added that I felt it to be improved. You believe it added nothing, I felt that it added a visual picture of one of the many ways that she is a departure of what we've come to think of as our congressional reps. Now my grandchildren finally have their own representative - she has the beauty of youth, she dances, and... she gets post-a-notes. IMO now that the photo is gone it is silly to have the mention of the notes remaining. You say, "for all we know they might have all gotten support stickers too, it may even be a common practice or tradition in congress." Coming from you, that really surprised me. Gandydancer (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
No offense, but this is the kind of reasoning that should be avoided. We have to treat all subjects fairly and according to WP:NPOV. Not every factoid needs to be illustrated with a photo. And the fact that some commentators described her performance in glowing terms does not mean that WP editors should also do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I originally added it because it seemed extraordinary for Post-It Notes to be left on a Congressperson's door and I hadn't heard of such a phenomenon happening before. It seemed to be an incredible gesture by her supporters.The lorax (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN on keeping in the Cohen hearing material, and I agree with Wikieditor19920 about aligning the rationale for an article's content with WP:NPOV. I support inclusion of the Cohen hearing material on a WP:RS, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:UNDUE basis. As for WP:RS, her questioning at the Cohen hearing has received a ton of traction in the news (both left and right); as for WP:PUBLICFIGURE, depending on the outcome of the congressional probes into Trump's affairs, AOC's questioning will likely be cited as the genesis of its findings and is therefore relevant; and as for WP:UNDUE—in the article's current form—her questioning is not overly emphasized by any means and MelanieN did a good job at trimming the puffery. HoldingAces (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm in favor of putting the post-it notes back in. Granted it doesn't have the best RS coverage. What I can find is that The Hill ran two pieces on it (one on the notes being put up, one on AOC being told to take them down) [17] [18], Roll Call ran one [19], and Mashable surprised me with these two pieces [20] [21]. Journalist Matt Laslo said it's the first time he's seen it in 12 hears [22] but that's hardly authoritative. Still, a biography is supposed to be about a person, and I think this picture (and accompanying explanatory text) gives the reader an understand of "who this person is". (She's the Congressperson with post-its on her door.) As for Cohen, I'm definitely in favor of it being included, but that can be done in a number of ways. Leviv ich 22:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I lean towards excluding the post-it picture, though my concern over this issue is minimal. I think to some extent, Wikieditor19920 may be on to something with WP:SOAPBOX. To a larger extent, however, WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE seems to support excluding it, its status as a quasi policy/guideline notwithstanding.
I am not so sure I follow your "She's the Congressperson with post-its on her door" rationale. If anything, it would seem best if the reader left with an understanding of AOC's early life and political activities; something encouraging something less than that understanding, IMO, should be excluded. That being said, I would be interested in hearing a fuller explanation of what you meant in case your point just went over my head. HoldingAces (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Bill Clinton is known for playing saxophone and our article includes a photo of him playing saxophone. Barack Obama is known for playing basketball, and our article includes a picture of him playing basketball. I put AOC's post-it notes, dancing, and social media in the same category–they're the well-known aspects of or reflections of her personality. The picture of the post-it notes, like a picture of Clinton playing the sax or Obama shooting hoops, gives the reader an instant snapshot into who they are as a person and how they're viewed as a politician (young, informal, with a very direct connection to her supporters). Leviv ich 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Those are featured articles of substantial length and editors have a bit more leeway to choose which photos make it in. And secondly, those photos are of the subject. No one looking at that photo would even know what it is without reading a caption or finding the reference to it in the article. That's not an illustrative aid as defined by MOS:IMAGES. Stop this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, photos of the subject, like photos of Bill Clinton's family coat of arms or childhood home, Jimmy Carter's family store or Jimmy Carter's family, Queen Elizabeth's palace private residence, or George W. Bush's protestors? As for your concern that "No one looking at that photo would even know what it is without reading a caption", I would suggest maybe we could put words like in a smaller font below the picture to explain what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And now, here comes OSE... Leviv ich 04:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I initiated this subject. I think several key points have been deleted inappropriately from the whitewashed version that appears currently. 1) Almost all of the committee had already taken their turns at Cohen, almost all had wasted time bloviating, which I included in a source. 2) Unlike her predecessors, Ocasio-Cortez's line of questioning was efficient and direct to the necessary points. I sourced that too. 3) Had she not done this, the necessary precursor needed for the committee to ask for Trump's tax returns and financial records had not yet been achieved. There was no prior accusation of Trump's financial wrongdoing established by all the previous representatives, so there would be no cause. Only Ocasio-Cortez got the accusation on record.

It is an often repeated series of accusations against Ocasio-Cortez of her being too young, too inexperienced, not knowing "how things work" in Washington. Numerous press accounts singled out her performance in this hearing in the opposite direction. She alone did what the others had failed to do. To remove this sourced reporting from her article is in effect allowing wikipedia to omit information to the contrary of the talking points, turning wikipedia into a vehicle of mis-reporting or in the least, omitting countering information. And this is not in an external comment like Twitter, this is from her actual work in a live committee hearing. By the way, Wikieditor19920, this is not the first time you have made an improper accusation of WP:PRIMARY. The sources I added and many I didn't add because I didn't want to pile on, are secondary sources. Unless you want to prove that Ocasio-Cortez has ownership or editorial control of The New York Times, The Boston Globe and CBS News, your actions to remove content on that basis are disingenuous. Trackinfo (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Furthermore, I found the suggestion that we need to be careful about promoting her so as to not "sneak in implications of wrongdoing by Trump or others" to be troubling. Putting anyone, including Trump, down was not my intention in the least and I fail to get the connection. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Trackinfo, if you can drop the links to the NYT, Globe and CBS praising her Cohen questioning, I think that would help editors understand the merit of the removed passage. Leviv ich 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
[23] [24] [25] [26] More for your reading enjoyment [27] [28] [29] "It's very rare in a House committee hearing for people to pay much attention to the least senior members on the panel. Usually, all the questions have already been asked and all the revelations have already been made by the time it gets to the 20th Democrat (or Republican) to ask questions.
But because AOC is, well, AOC, everyone was waiting to see how she handled her first major moment as a member of Congress. And man, did she nail it."--Chris Cillizza, CNN [30] [31] Shall I go on? Trackinfo (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The article currently reads: When President Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen appeared before the Oversight Committee, Ocasio-Cortez asked him whether Trump had ever inflated property values for bank or insurance purposes and inquired where to get more information on the subject. Cohen's reply implied that Trump may have committed potential tax and bank fraud in his personal and business tax returns, financial statements and real-estate filings. David Brooks, a commentator for The New York Times, praised her for "laying down specific questions for specific predicates". (Citations omitted.)

Trackinfo, would you mind proposing your suggested changes so I can better understand what you're advocating for? HoldingAces (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Of those sources, it seems to me CBS, Boston Globe and SFGate report but do not laud. Washington Examiner and Mitu not reliable. That leaves CNN, GQ, MSNBC, a NYTimes columnist (David Brooks, in a PBS interview), and an op-ed published in the NYTimes by Caroline Fredrickson of the American Constitution Society. Those strike me as all left-of-center sources (yes, I include Brooks; yes, you probably disagree). I don't like that the current prose name-drops Brooks and I think that should be removed and replaced by some language in WP's voice about the media response to her questioning of Cohen. I'm not sure about specific words (I don't think "widely praised" is warranted, but it's clearly a significant amount, even if it's from one "side"), and I'm looking forward to reviewing suggestions if anyone has any. Leviv ich 18:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "name drop" and I see no reason to not include Brooks' name. However his words were not very illuminating and I'd agree that WP language would be better. As for the ACS, I'd like to see that info returned. Hopefully someone can come up with some better wording than I did. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Gandydancer, "name drop" means writing things like "David Brooks said she did great at the Cohen hearing" or "Michael Moore says she's the new leader of the Democrats" or "Paul Krugman says her economic plan makes sense". It gives way too much weight to the opinion of an individual pundit, suggesting that Brooks is the proper judge of congressional questioning, Moore the kingmaker of the Dems, or Krugman the arbiter between sound economics and fuzzy math. If an opinion is widely held, it's better for us to say that in WP's voice than to pluck a pundit to quote. Leviv ich 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, since you called Brooks name dropping I thought that we may not be on the same page. I see no reason to not include his name as it is being used in the article at this time. IMO it's proper and it adds to the section. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
"Some expected grandstanding, but instead, Ocasio-Cortez led Cohen through a series of questions that developed further investigative leads for congressional investigators to explore.--SF Gate, while I used bloviate, a wiki defined term, from the NY Times in my rendition, SF Gate gets to the point. Cillizza, Rocah and O'Donnell clearly analyze that 20 previous representatives (granted the Republicans deliberately did not try) failed to elicit the information her questions produced. And in what world can CNN be called a left-leaning source? They hired a right-wing Republican operative, Sarah Isgur Flores, former campaign manager for Carly Fiorina, former spokesman for Jeff Sessions as their Political Editor.[32] Yes, they finally revised that earlier today,[33] but that is still a clear indicator of a right-wing agenda at CNN. For your other accusations, look into the shift of the Overton window to determine where the center really is. Your version of a neutral source, the Globe said it softer "There wasn’t a major bombshell in the first five hours of testimony." Some of the best analysis is from the Washington Examiner, a notably Right leaning paper. Reading that article I was waiting for the giant "BUT she's a communist" or something equally, irrationally derogatory. They pointed to the Washington Post and used the word "lauded" as they quoted the Post reporter's tweets "she is asking better questions than 90% of members. Short, specific, factual, with no speechmaking." They also pointed to [34] Trackinfo (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
she is asking better questions than 90% of members. Short, specific, factual, with no speechmaking. That's what we want in the article if we want it to accurately reflect her questioning. And we want it to be known that she was widely applauded by numerous individuals and other organizations. What we've got in the article right now is very inadequate. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC) PS: I just googled her name to see if there's anything new re the recent lawsuit and instead I find: "It was refreshing to see that the rhetorical uniqueness of Ocasio-Cortez’s questioning was noted by the news media and political pundits." After all these days! [35] Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Gandydancer, that's a guest column in the Des Moines Register, reprinted by USA Today. [36] Doesn't seem like WP should say in its own voice what some random guest columnist in some newspaper says? Leviv ich 02:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Levivich you don't need to explain perfectly obvious things to me such as why to not use Moore or a "random guest columnist in some newspaper" in our article. I am the principle editor on several politician's articles and have been editing WP long enough to have learned the basics. Gandydancer (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Trackinfo, maybe it's semantics; the SF Gate quote you posted is what I'd call a neutral, factual description of what happened, not praising (for an example of praising, see Gandy's bolded text above). As for sources, I don't agree that Washington Examiner or Huffington Post are reliable–too right, too left–and as for CNN, I agree with Pew: [37]. Leviv ich 02:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop trying to make me seem like a dope - I did not suggest that we use that wording. This is getting pretty irritating. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Gandy, I thought you were suggesting that wording. I wasn't trying to make you seem like a dope (you're not a dope). Leviv ich 03:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a sentence under the Primary election heading that reads, "In a sign of her outsider status, by 11 p.m. on election day Crowley had not phoned Ocasio-Cortez; she believed he did not have her phone number and stated that she did not have his." I recommend that the sentence be removed.

I cannot find a source that states "she believed he did not have her phone number and stated that she did not have his." Also the "In a sign of her outsider status" clause does not have a clear meaning and seems a little like editorializing. What's more, Crowley not calling AOC to concede seems to be part of bigger scenario than is reflected by this sentence. Put plainly, it seems to me the whole Crowly-not-calling thing is quite trivial and not really worthy of mention. See number 4 and WP:TOOMUCH.

That being said, I know this article has had an increase in problem edits, so I figured I would bring it up here before just removing the sentence.

My recommendation would be to remove the sentence and change the sentence that follows to read:

Crowley, an amateur guitarist, played a cover of Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" at his election night watch party by way of conceding defeat, having dedicated it to Ocasio-Cortez.

HoldingAces (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I regret that User talk:HoldingAces was unable to find a source indicating that the routine concession call by the loser, Joseph Crowley, did not happen as soon as the primary election results were conclusive. And it didn't happen between June 26, 2018 (primary day) and had not happened for 16 days when these articles began to appear. This mutual and incredible claim of being unable to find each others' phone number was widely covered at the time.
1. Gstalter, Morgan (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez accuses defeated Dem of mounting third-party challenge". The Hill. "[Crowley] stated on live TV that he would absolutely support my candidacy," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on Thursday. "Instead, he's stood me up for all 3 scheduled concession calls... Numerous phone calls have been set up but Ocasio-Cortez's aides have failed to follow through with providing a phone number, the aide [to Crowley] said.
2. Honan, Katie (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez Clashes With Congressman Over Concession Calls". Wall Street Journal.
3. Campanile, Carl (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez: Crowley refuses to take himself off ballot". New York Post. The two have not spoken since Election Night on June 26, even though it's customary for the losing candidate to make a concession call... But amid the chaos of Ocasio-Cortez's upset victory and phone tag between the two campaigns over the past two weeks, they have not connected. A Crowley campaign official said the rival campaign never provided her personal phone number ... Alexandria, the race is over and Democrats need to come together," he wrote. "I've made my support for you clear and the fact that I'm not running. We've scheduled phone calls and your team has not followed through." ...
4. Kreig, Gregory (July 12, 2018). "The primary is over, but Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Joe Crowley are still clashing". CNN. Asked then if they had spoken, Ocasio-Cortez laughed. "We're looking for [his phone number] and we've been reaching out," she said. "I greatly look forward to having that conversation."
5. Nahmias, Laura (July 12, 2018). "Ocasio-Cortez vs. Crowley feud erupts on Twitter". Politico. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the winner of a Democratic Congressional primary in ... And Crowley's camp pushed back hard, accusing Ocasio-Cortez of ... Instead, he's stood me up for all 3 scheduled concession calls. ... asking for Ocasio Cortez's phone number, and that her team waited hours to respond.
That's five sources, and this was well-covered by dozens of news sources because it was a Twitter war between the two, with reporters following up with the candidates and staff. Ultimately, there was no report of actual completed phone call between the two in the weeks following. patsw (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks patsw for the response. I've been waiting for someone to take an interest in this section for a while. But I think you may have misunderstood my comment. I had no trouble finding a source that discussed Crowley's failure to call (hence, my NBC citation). I was trying to point out—as you expanded upon with your comment—that "Crowley not calling AOC to concede seems to be part of bigger scenario" that is not discussed in the WP article.
Of the five sources you cited, four of them do not contain a statement that AOC said "she believed he did not have her phone number." The WSJ article may contain that statement, but I cannot access it to tell.
Anyways, to reword the main point of my original comment: I think the whole Crowley not calling AOC is a little trivial and does not add much to the article. Also, what does "In a sign of her outsider status" mean? HoldingAces (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Now entirely moot, and not too interesting, but on July 12, 2018, when the Twitter war broke out, it wasn't merely about a failure to follow political etiquette, but the possibility that Crowley would actively run on the WFP ballot line. He didn't, and the tactical lie about phone numbers was a just a indication of the on-going friction between the two. Crowley is now a lobbyist at Squire Patton Boggs. patsw (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I see. Then do you agree with my suggested edit? (i.e., removing the Crowley not calling sentence and changing the next sentence to reflect the change.) HoldingAces (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC
I have edited out a lot of the superfluous stuff, and made it clear the dispute ran from primary night to (at least) July 11. I added a quote from The Hill which summarizes the position the two sides took, in case anyone gets curious. patsw (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I like the change. Nice job, patsw. Thanks. HoldingAces (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

When a person is referred to by initials, it is a sign of being widely known across society. For example, FDR, JFK, MLK are all standard ways to refer to well known people. The fact that she is now widely referred to as "AOC" indicates that she has become well known by many people, not just her fans. It would be interesting to know when she was first referred to by the media as "AOC", and see how fast it spread. Pete unseth (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible earliest mention here during the primary campaign.
"6/17: 1 Bronx Pride Parade with DSA + Ocasio 2018 Team!". Action New York. June 17, 2018. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
In some other places "AOC" appears even earlier referring to her Twitter handle, or as abbreviation in a transcript indicating that she and not the interviewer is being quoted. I will add that while I was curious enough about the question to attempt to answer it, I don't think the the "earliest mention" is particularly significant. patsw (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there any reason to think the initials "AOC" are as notably recognized as "FDR", "JFK", "MLK", etc? I believe almost everyone is "also known by" their initials, and the citations given are (1) a link to a speculative statement by a third party, and (2) a twitter handle, by no means an authoritative source on what a person is typically called [does the page for Donald Trump state that he is also known as "realDonaldTrump"?]. This statement [the "also known by her initials AOC" clause] is jarring and may be alienating to readers, and I don't think it warrants inclusion on the page.73.154.104.67 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

To editor Gamaliel: How is Washington Examiner not a reliable source? I see no consensus at RSN against it, though I imagine it's not to your liking politically. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what its politics are, but thanks for your usual assumption of bad faith. I assume it's a local version of Examiner.com, whose user-generated content makes it ineligible for use on Wiki English. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't an assumption of bad faith. I noticed this edit of yours with the edit summary "Unreliable source, POV" which is why I asked. You are mistaken: Washington Examiner is its own entity. Per WP:BRD, I have reverted you. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Assuming you are correct about the alleged reliability of this source, that still doesn't address the POV tone of the edit. Also, that's not how BRD works. What you've done is BRRD. I encourage you to self-revert per BRD and BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree WashEx is not a reliable source, and certainly not for negative information about a BLP Democrat. Also, WP:RSP: Almost all editors consider it a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be properly attributed. Looking at the most recent RSN discussion, it seems to me there was consensus that it was not a reliable source in that instance. This might be a good one to post to RSN. Leviv ich 19:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• It's not the worst source, but it's clearly a partisan source and the article (and the edit) read like someone trying to insinuate some kind of hypocrisy related to Ocasio-Cortez's living arrangements. If editors want to include prominent criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez, they should cite criticisms attributed to notable figures instead of just cramming in some WP:COATRACK innuendo about her apartment complex in the "Personal life" section. Nblund ^talk 20:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Not only is the Washington Examiner "known for its conservative political stance," but in the case of this story, the source of its information is the Free Beacon, which is avowedly political. The Free Beacon says it is "modeled after liberal counterparts in the media such as ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo"; just so we are clear, I wouldn't accept either of those sites as a source either. The Washington Examiner article, since it is repeating information from the Free Beacon (in large part in the same words), should not be accepted. Aside from the source, the sentence as added is argumentative and POV. (I thought I had reverted it, for those reasons, but I'm not in the history so I guess someone else must have beaten me to it.) Reminder to everyone: this article is under 1RR restriction. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. But what strikes me the most, aside from the weasely POV/innuendo of that edit and the questionable reliability of the source, is the underlying assumption that Cortez from now on must always reside in areas offering affordable housing since she campaigned on a platform supporting it. I find this premise ridiculously POV and sloppy, and an attempt to crudely typecast the congresswoman. Dr. K. 20:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Well, I'm disappointed that editors feel it's ok to remove sourced content primarily because it doesn't praise the subject of the article. I wasn't aware sources had to be of the same political orientation to be included. Content in Wikipedia has to pass NPOV and we can negotiate re-writing the sentence, but sources don't have to be. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Come on, Chris. We have content in the article that "doesn't praise the subject" and will undoubtedly have more. And as I pointed out above, I wouldn't accept POV material from an avowedly liberal source either. If some notable person makes a comment along these lines and it gets reported, we could possibly use it, with attribution. Stating as fact, attributed to nobody, where she lives together with a clearly POV synthesis to imply hypocrisy? No. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A notable young woman got a new job in a new city that pays $174,000 a year, and she rented an apartment in a building that markets itself as "luxury". How can that possibly be encyclopedic content? Unless those simple facts are spun into POV pushing by insinuating hypocrisy where none exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Well she should have moved in to one of those low cost studio apartments in the neighborhoods around Capitol Hill. You know the ones that definitely exist. Nblund ^talk 00:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Nblund, who are you to say what she "should have" done in selecting an apartment? Talk pages are not a forum for our personal opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Cullen: Should have used my sarcasm tags there. My point is that those apartments don't exist because it's one of the most expensive cities in the country. Nblund ^talk 01:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) So what I'm not hearing is that Gamaliel was right to revert because the source isn't reliable or that the source is false asserting that the subject lives far from the proletariat she claims. Am I correct in hearing that a bunch of admins think it's not encyclopedic that the subject, according to one partisan outlet, lives this way but we're not going to mention that? That's what I'm hearing. I don't recall seeing a guideline or policy requiring that criticisms only get included if they're made by someone notable. Couldn't we state the source in the sentence and let the reader decide? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Chris troutman, please provide a source where Ocasio-Cortez talks about the "proletariat she claims". I am unaware that she uses that political term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not trying to prove a point about her campaigning. I saw an admin remove cited content with the claim that it violated NPOV or the source was unreliable. Both of those assertions seem false. Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The source is partisan and its source for this "story" is even more partisan (or even unreliable). So yes, NPOV is not being met particularly well here. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The policy says "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone". Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, we can identify the source of the claim. Unless you really think the source is making it up, you're just discounting perceived partisan reporting. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says you *must* attribute the source of the claim - but the edit in question didn't appear to even acknowledge that it contained an argument, much less an argument attributed to another source. And WP:DUE says that we should refrain from reporting viewpoints that are held by a tiny minority. Nblund ^talk 01:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nblund: We can craft a better sentence that attributes POV and doesn't attempt a smear, just communicates the facts. The thing about DUE is that we're only writing one sentence and attributing it. If your point is that only one journalist is reporting about this, then how many other sources would we cut because only one of them is reporting it? This encyclopedia is usually very inclusive of content, until times like this when suddenly nobody wants to include stuff like this. You can imagine how this looks to more cynical editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris troutman, is the specific fact that you want to include the fact that a famous person with clear security concerns and a salary of $174K has rented an apartment in a building that uses the word "luxury" in its marketing campaigns? Please explain why that is encyclopedic. Why didn't you answer my question about the word "proletariat"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No. The source says that the subject moved into an apartment that doesn't offer low-cost housing. That's all that we need communicate. I don't have to prove a narrative of hypocrisy because I don't even seek to add a sentence saying that. I have half a dozen editors complaining that for some reason that source isn't allowable and others saying that whatever the source says, it's not encyclopedic. I can see the consensus is against adding the content but I'm not impressed with the vague or false reasons given why. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, saying that "Cortez lives in an apartment that doesn't offer low cost housing" is tantamount to implying that a. Cortez should live in an apartment that offers low cost housing b. Cortez is somehow connected to apartments that offer low cost housing c. There is a problem with Cortez not living in an apartment that offers low cost housing d. Cortez is the only congress member who is expected to live in an apartment that offers low cost housing. If a, b, c, or d are not valid, why would anyone want to add such a contrived and trivial detail to her BLP? This is obviously a badly thought out political hit piece trying to stereotype Cortez. We should not add to the article such transparently ill-thought out hit-pieces. That the sources are predictably not great is just the icing on the cake for the case of not adding this into the BLP. Dr. K. 11:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Does our article on Mitch McConnell say anything about where he lives? No? Then why would we do it for a freshman congresswoman? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
That's my point exactly. Thanks. Dr. K. 14:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Where Ocasio-Cortez lives, in this case a luxury apartment with no affordable housing units, is certainly relevant. She campaigned with a plank that all apartment building should include affordable housing, yet she lives in a building that is exactly what she campaigned against. As for McConnell - I am not aware of him ever making statement regarding affordable housing, so inclusion of his residence in an article about him is not relevant.JohnTopShelf (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You use bottom-of-the-barrel journalism to smear the congresswoman. Two things: See WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:COPYVIO. You took a platform the self-described socialist campaigned on in her bid to become the youngest female member of Congress. from the tabloid and pasted it right into this article. Dr. K. 03:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 24h on the basis that at least two editors have violated the 1RR/BRD rules on this article and it's a better idea than throwing out numerous blocks. The D in BRD is quite important, let's do it please. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Leave it to Black Kite to point out the importance of the D.^[FBDB] PackMecEng (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sheesh! I just reinstated the semi-protection (it may need to be permanent, we'll see) and immediately a bunch of auto-confirmed editors go crazy with inserting stuff and reverting each other! Several of you should thank Black Kite for their kindness in locking the article instead of blocking you for 1RR violations. OK, let’s get some things straight:

• This article is under 1RR. That means if you make an edit or series of edits that revert the work of other people, you should not make any other reverts for 24 hours. That applies whether you are reverting the same material or different material. The only allowed exceptions are reverting vandalism and serious BLP violations. In an article under 1RR restriction, if you violate it, you can be blocked immediately and without warning by any administrator. (Personally I find this restriction hard to follow, so whenever I revert at an article under 1RR, I write a note to myself that I made reverts to such-and-such article at such-and-such time. That reminds me not to revert again until 24 hours have passed. Yes, it IS that strict.) The reason 1RR is imposed at highly controversial articles is precisely to prevent the kind of edit warring we saw here.
• If you add something to the article, and someone else reverts it, that means it is challenged. It should not be re-added, by you or by others; it should be discussed at the talk page instead.
• If something is under active discussion at the talk page, people should not take it on themselves to ignore the discussion and insert their own preferred version into the article. After consensus is reached, the consensus version of the material should be put into the article, and it should not be changed or removed without further discussion leading to a different consensus.
• Wiki discourages “Controversy” sections. It is preferred to incorporate negative or controversial material into the relevant section of the article. See WP:CSECTION. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

True on the 1RR but this is not consensus required. If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Why bother editing this article? It's inevitable form is predetermined by the PC establishment from which the subject originates. Sadly, this appears the case more and more often. Personally, I gave up fighting the editorial powers that be. Snit333 (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Since it was at the crux of the controversy, I would like an unambiguous acknowledgement from everyone involved that this edit does not currently enjoy consensus and is potentially-negative material about a WP:BLP; therefore, it must be removed from the article per WP:BLP until consensus can be demonstrated. It's possible that discussions might still get somewhere (although I'm dubious at this point given the weakness of the arguments to include and the fact that the subject seems to have already faded from the news), but simply pretending that there's a consensus is not the way to resolve a dispute that is this unambiguously contentious. --Aquillion (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  "Hey, HoldingAces, I didn't get a chance to post earlier but actually I still object to the inclusion of the language, would you mind self-reverting?" is maybe a better way to phrase it. Leviv ich 05:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  I did, in fact, weigh in on the discussions earlier, repeatedly indicating that I thought the inclusion was WP:UNDUE; several other people did as well. Most of them gave no real indication that they'd changed their minds. I agree that this sort of meta-discussion is mostly pointless and that it was an honest mistake, but waiting one day before concluding that multiple people who have expressed the opinion that an extremely controversial addition is WP:UNDUE have all silently changed their minds seems to me like a bit much, and given the slightly overeager way people were throwing "consensus" around I want to be clear where we're starting from when continuing discussions (ie. still debating whether this should be included at all, without any clear consensus for inclusion.) --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I had preferred to leave it out but was agreeable to one sentence because I thought that a consensus had been reached. I'd still like to leave it out. Gandydancer (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to extend my warmest thanks to Levivch for defending me. I truly appreciate that.

With this response, I intend to rebut the accusations against me that I manufactured a consensus, engaged in edit warring, or otherwise acted improperly. With that being said, I attempt in the following few paragraphs to summarize the talk-page discussion. If a detail is incorrect or I misquote something, please let me know. Reading through that huge conversation while taking notes is difficult. If you find a detail I left out that you think I should have mentioned, please know that I did not intentionally leave out to advance my case: I am human, I make mistakes.

This particular talk-page discussion began on March 1, 2019, after I recommended that Athaenara’s edit adding the first FEC Complaint (the one that claimed AOC paid $6,000 to her boyfriend) be reinstated.

Breakdown of user support for first FEC complaint inclusion

The users who disagreed and maintained that the this first FEC complaint not be included consisted of:

• NorthBySouthBaranof
• I am One of Many
• MelanieN
• Levivch
• Aquillion

Users who supported its inclusion:

• me
• Rusf10

The discussion then shifted on March 5, 2019, to the second FEC Complaint (the AOC campaign paying $18k to Chakrabarti’s LLC).

Breakdown of user support for second FEC complaint inclusion

Users who immediately voiced their opinion that it should not be included within the article:

• Levivch
• MelanieN

Users who immediately supported its inclusion.

• me

The next day, March 6, 2019, Melanie created the Taking another look – this may be more than just an FEC complaint section to this talk page. In that post Melanie explained that she realized that there was a difference between the first and second complaints. She did not say which way she was leaning (i.e., inclusion or exclusion) but noted, “this allegation seems to have a little more weight than just another FEC filing.” After this comment by Melanie, a long discussion ensued. By the end of the conversation, the following individuals agreed that this second complaint should be added:

• me
• Levivch
• MelanieN
• FallingGravity

Users who thought it should not be included:

• Aquillion posted a dissenting comment March 6 that was responded to by Levivch; on March 7 Aquillion posted the final dissenting comment (expressing concern that link between AOC and the payments was too tenuous and a concern that there was not sustained coverage of the issue). I tried responding to this comment the same day but never received a response. After, this post Business Insider ran an article, Market Watch ran an article, and Snopes ran an article.
• Volunteer Marek posted a dissenting comment on March 6 that was responded to by Melanie and me.

Users who I am unsure about where they stood:

• Gandydancer I am unsure because Gandy does not appear to have disagreed with it’s the second FEC’s complaint’s inclusion following Melanie’s March 6, 2019 post. Gandy did, however, repeatedly express a concern over how the language would read. See, for example, Gandy’s March 6, 2019, post, March 7, 2019 post (asking for recommended language). Notably, however, Gandy did post today (March 13, 2019) the following: “Just for the record, I had preferred to leave it out but was agreeable to one sentence because I thought that a consensus had been reached. I’d still like to leave it out.”

Timeline continued

On March 7, 2019, I proposed language for addition. Melanie and Levivch were the only ones who responded, both wanted to make changes to my proposed language. Melanie made her own version and posted it. Both I and Gandy expressed our agreement with Melanie’s proposal on March 8, 2019. On March 9, 2019, Levivch created a chart that compared the substance of the sources reporting and identified the essential elements that should be included. On March 9, Melanie and Levivich agreed on language to add. Melanie then kindly stated, “Before taking any action we should see what HoldingAces has to say,” and Levivch “[a]gree[d] on waiting to hear from Aces and anyone else who might have input." I replied the next day, March 10, 2019, recommending some slight tweaks. Melanie, Levivich, Gandy, and I agreed that the language was good, with Gandy agreeing last on March 11, 2019. On March 12, 2019, I inserted the agreed language. Bradv added to the sentence the following: Campaign finance experts found no evidence of wrongdoing.” I reverted him with a note that read: “see the talk-page discussion first before changing, please.” Then NorthBySouthBaranof reverted me. I wanted to revert North, but I was aware of the 1RR rule so I didn’t. Instead I created the new section in the talk page, “Some editors changing proposed language.” Then Levivch reverted North. Then North reverted Levivch. Then Black Kite locked the article.

Whether there was a consensus

From March 7 (the last day an objection was made) to March 12 (the day I added the edit), no one else said anything. The last objections were received on March 6 and 7 by Volunteer Market and Aquillion. Both of their objections were addressed directly by either Melanie, Levivch, or me. Consensus occurs, in the ideal way, when there is an “absence of objections.” Like I said, after I, Melanie, or Levivch responded to the last objections made on March 6 and 7, we never heard another objection until I added the language on the 12th. I cannot see how, in the context of this 12-day long discussion, five days of silence from anyone who objects is not a sign that the added language took in "all of the proper concerns raised.” And I think the accusations that I manufactured a consensus are ill-founded and hurtful.

I want to recognize the very real possibility that someone new is reading this. That person may look at the above conversation and say, “What the hell is this person talking about? There are obviously a ton of people who disagree.” I would encourage that person to look at the dates of all those dissenting above. There are no dissenting comments between March 7 and March 12 at 14:46. Any dissenting comment after March 12 at 14:46 came after I added the language to the article.

I did not engage in an edit war

An edit war “”occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other’s contributions.” I reverted only one person, Bradv. Then I was reverted. So instead of reverting again, I started a new talk page section. The WP:1RR rules states that the correct procedure for when you are reverted and have already used your only 24-hour revert is to start a talk page discussion. That is exactly what I did. I did not revert more than once. I have been trying extremely hard to follow all of the rules here and find it incredibly rude that some are accusing me otherwise. HoldingAces (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

HoldingAces, while I appreciate that you've spent a lot of time to put this together, it really isn't necessary. No one has been blocked or otherwise sanctioned, and no one is trying to put together such a case. Let's focus on further improvements to the article. Bradv🍁 15:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand, Bradv. Two things, though. While no one is trying to block or sanction me, I am well aware that this whole scenario could later be cited as an example of my alleged malfeasance. Further, my post is indirectly related to the discussion because NorthBySouthBaranof now wants people to say that there is no consensus for the language I added on March 12th. I believe that is wrong for the reasons I lay out in my post. I think now North, and those aligned with his way of thinking need to change that consensus. Nevertheless, I do agree that there is no consensus on whether the statements made by the experts in the NBC article should be included and whether AOC's response to the FEC Complaint should be included. The former I am against, the latter I support. HoldingAces (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
HoldingAces, trying to analyze whether something might have had consensus in the past isn't a particularly fruitful exercise. As for the FEC paragraph in question - either we include the allegations with the expert analysis, or we leave the whole thing out. I'm fine with either. Bradv🍁 16:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, with all due respect, it is a very fruitful exercise. The difference is whether we start from scratch or build upon what we already have. If I am right, then we do not need to rehash the whole March 1 - March 12 conversation; we only have to decide whether to include the expert's opinion and/or AOC's response to the complaint. That, IMO, is worth fighting for. HoldingAces (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bradv, it's easy enough for an editor to dismiss another editor's efforts to set the record straight when it is not their feelings or WP reputation that have been hurt. HA has accurately shown the moves that led us up to where we are at. I certainly felt that consensus had been reached and when the agreed wording had been achieved I wondered why it was not added, even to the point that I was thinking I should make a note saying something like "don't let me hold things up by suggesting that we need to provide a link" or something to that effect. As for my holding back during discussion, I do that sometimes, and other times not. I'm always blown away by the wisdom of my fellow editors and they help me to form my opinions. In this case I'd have preferred it left out but was willing to bow to what I thought was consensus. Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Gandydancer, it was not my intent to dismiss HoldingAces efforts, but rather to express that they don't need to defend themself. I disagree with their position, but take no issue with their methods. Bradv🍁 16:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Consensus cannot override fundamental policy, and policy plainly demands that if we include allegations of wrongdoing against someone, we must provide space for responses to those allegations weighted in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources, including at the very least, the subject's responses. There cannot be a consensus to include the claims but not the responses - such an inclusion would violate basic encyclopedia policy. So the question is not whether we include reliably sourced responses, but rather how to include them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Perfect response, NorthBySouthBaranof! You are absolutely right that consensus cannot override policy. I just wish you would have framed your argument that way from the start instead of suggesting that I falsely claimed consensus. To be clear, I totally agree with you that "at the very least, the subject's response[ needs to be included.]" I disagree, however, that policy requires the inclusion of the expert's opinion. To ensure that we are not having two sections on this talk page discussing this expert opinion issue, I think we should continue our talk about the expert opinion above (where we already have a dialogue going). HoldingAces (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Clearly, there is no consensus for including this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Explain that please. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)