This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm fairly confident this isn't really encyclopaedic material and should be removed, just not quite sure enough to be WP:BOLD about it, so wanted to seek confirmation. Thanks!! TheMrP (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. You are right and I removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
117th congress
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
She is now serving in the 117th congress, not the 116th. Not all of the article reflects this. 2600:8801:3091:E100:E46B:AC0B:B6AB:A2A8 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Surname
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
She once went by "Sandy Ocasio," are there any NPOV and reliable sources that show her birth and/or legal surname? Is Ocasio her legal surname? Did she adopt Ocasio-Cortez at a later date? Or was she born Ocasio-Cortez? TuckerResearch (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tuckerresearch: If voting records are anything to go by, Ocasio-Cortez is her legal surname. But it's not uncommon for Latinos whose name has followed the Spanish naming custom to pick one last name to use. Trillfendi (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to request that "In February 2021, Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she is a sexual assault survivor, comparing it with her experience during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.[272]" be reworded to "On February 5, 2021, Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she is a sexual assault survivor, comparing it with her experience during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.[272]" since it sounds more professional to me. Bruiser O5 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
She is *allegedly* a sexual assault survivor. Nothing has been legally been proven. Kirk123456789 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kirk123456789: do you have any WP:RS which add the "allegedly"? –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 21:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EN-Jungwon 01:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
"AOC lied" ?
Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion
This should not be covered in an encyclopedia, we do not need to exhaustively cover every tit-for-tat "yes you lied, no I didn't, yes you did" conspiracy that bubbles up from the QAnon realm. ValarianB (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
100% agree. This is an attempt at a distraction from what actually happened when MAGAs stormed the Capitol. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree. It is complete nonsense. Everyone knows that if that mob got their hands on her, she probably would have been murdered. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi and Ilhan Omar. Cullen328Let's discuss it 20:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
And Pence, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
At some point we should mention how the Right singles her out for unfounded criticism. TFD (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
That content could be worth drafting up. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The article as is seems to imply that her office is in the Capitol. her experience during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Specifically, Ocasio-Cortez claimed she had hid in her office bathroom. We should clarify that it is not so. starship.paint (exalt) 03:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do you believe that? What news sources do you use? About our coverage, I think the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten. To start off with her previous assault experience is not the way to go. Ilhan Omar also thought she might not make it. Both of these women have had numerous death threats and it's quite normal that the violence that was going on would be extremely traumatizing to them. I think that we need to stress how AOC was almost immediately called a liar by some outlets, FOX, for example. Melanie, you are a good writer; what do you suggest? Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
starship, she was in her office, Gandydancer, AOC's office is located in the Cannon Office Building across the street from the capitol and connected via an underground tunnel. There isn't enough room in the cap building and its been the norm for a while that members with less seniority are assigned to offices adjacent buildings, many from both parties were in the Cannon Building during the attack and expressed similar concerns. OgamD218 (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/technology/aoc-capitol-riots.html
Thank you, but I was/am aware of the circumstances that you have explained. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Gandydancer Sorry I originally misinterpreted Why do you believe that? What news sources do you use?, not gonna lie it was news to me though lol. Imho it should be included considering how far from common knowledge it is OgamD218 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There should not be a sec "AOC Lied", bc POV/the simple fact she didn't. Some outlets may have assumed she was in the capitol at the time but she never corroborated that and the main story was the attack itself-which is no minor issue. A congresswoman's experience/response to the most open and violent assault on congress since The War of 1812 should not be minimized in detail as it currently is. More should be added, incl the widely made accusation that she distorted her experience. This claim went well beyond the Quanon fringe to the point several outlets felt a need to clarify the record. Not all attacks on AOC or any politician belong here, this particular one is related to a major event in her career and has received a very high level of coverage, an encyclopedia should note and record what happened.OgamD218 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Garret Miller. The discussion will occur at Wiki: Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Garret Miller until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Not the youngest congressman
Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
The second sentence in the third paragraph states that AOC was the youngest congressman until Madison Cawthorn but there were two younger congressmen before both of them - Jed Johnson Jr. and possibly William C. C. Claiborne MoreIraFord (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the phrasing makes sense. She was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and the youngest member when she arrived in Congress. The men had been elected at younger age, but were not members of Congress when AOC assumed office. TFD (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
She was born October 13th, 1989 and sworn in on January 3rd, 2019, making her 29 years and about three months old. Jed Johnson Jr. was born on December 27th, 1939 and sworn in January 3rd, 1965 making him 25 years and 7 days old.MoreIraFord (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes but Jed Johnson Jr. wasn't a member of Congress when AOC entered and even if he had been, AOC would have been the youngest member, since she was younger than every other sitting member of congress. By then Johnson would have been 79 years old. TFD (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree the current wording is confusing and more clarity would certainly be helpful. Perhaps by saying she was the youngest member of the 116th United States Congress?. Thoughts? Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, agreed Spy-cicle - if this statement includes the specifics of the 116th Congress at the time, then the following statement of being the youngest until Madison Cawthorn is a moot point because he is incoming for the 117th Congress. I think this sentence as a whole just needs to be re-worked. MoreIraFord (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course, because she’s not a man, she’s a woman. So she wouldn’t be the youngest Congressman. Trillfendi (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
changed to “youngest member of the 116th Congress”. Avoids confusion, and takes Cawthorn out of the picture. starship.paint (exalt) 03:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Translation of name into Spanish
Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
There is no need to translate her name into Spanish in the first sentence of the article. A consensus about this has been reached at various places:
MOS:LEADLANG - "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses." AOC was born in the Bronx, and her father was born in the Bronx. How does she have a "close association" with Spanish?
MOS:NICKCRUFT - "Foreign language details can make the lead sentence difficult to understand".
MOS:FIRST - "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere."
Except for the fact she can speak Spanish and has a Spanish name, there is nothing in the article indicating a need to translate her name into Spanish in the first sentence of the article, and Wikipedia policy does not support it. The input of others is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The population of The Bronx is 56% Hispanic or Latino. Whether one parent is Nuyorican and the other was born on the island, it doesn’t matter, being Hispanic is her heritage regardless. What’s not clicking? Trillfendi (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Not directly related to the content of your comment, but your edit summary for this comment is essentially an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
AOC is a citizen of Puerto Rico which has Spanish as one of its official languages. TFD (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I would question the utility of including a Spanish pronunciation. Including relevant alternative language names is important when the names are very different from each other. A minor difference in articulation is a) very obvious to anyone with even minimal proficiency in Spanish, and b) next to useless to the 99% of readership that can't easily parse IPA. The cross section of readers who would both be able to parse the transcription and learn something from it seems vanishingly small and doesn't seem like it justifies further cluttering the lead. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
my personal opinion only, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish one...if you want to see her name in Spanish, see the Spanish Wiki English....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
We have, and should have, lots of non-English content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Where did the Spanish pronunciation come from? Does the subject actually pronounce her name in two different ways, depending upon which language she's speaking at the time? (Some people do.) Or did some editor ignore the subject's own pronunciation and decide that the "correct" (according to the editor) pronunciation in English is one thing and the "correct" pronunciation in Spanish is another way? What we want is "the subject's own pronunciation(s)", not some editor looking at a high school Spanish textbook and deciding that there 'should' be two different correct ways to pronounce her name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
She pronounces her own name with a Spanish sounding accent. Gandydancer (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Always? Then we should remove the "English" one, because that's "wrong". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I can't say that for a fact but yes, I believe she always pronounces her name in "a Spanish sounding sort of way...". Until only recently most Spanish names were said without the Spanish sounding accent, the way a native Spanish speaker pronounces them. But recently one is starting to hear names pronounced with the Spanish accent by Spanish speaking news men/women. Miguel Almaguer is an example. I believe that this is a deliberate attempt to accept that Hispanics have a right to keep their native language--to learn English but not give up their own language. (Native tribes in America are also making an effort to teach native languages in schools where the languages are dying.) Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe it's just because if you pronounce "Jean" as something closer to "John" than to "blue jeans", you're probably not going to recognize the latter as actually referring to you.
@Pigsonthewing, this has reminded me of the Wiki: Voice intro project. When there's a dispute about the pronunciation of living people's names, it's really nice to have a recording of them saying their own names. I don't suppose there is anyone watching this page who could beg a friend to ask for a voice recording? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we're better off keeping it the way it is with both pronunciations. I found one youtube site that had quite a few news, etc., commentators saying her name and they all said it with an English accent. Here is a site with it said with both an English accent and a Spanish accent and I doubt most native English speakers could say it. I sure couldn't. [1]Gandydancer (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Verbal assault/harassment section
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Is the verbal harassment section still due? It seems like something that was a so and so early on but no longer seen as important. Basically boiling down to a high school spat. Should we remove the section or at least trim it considerably? PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Then coverage almost immediately died. So something like WP:NOTNEWS comes into play since it has had no long term impact on her life. The issue is not coverage by RS, the issue is WP:DUE weight. PackMecEng (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the due weight link, I'm still learning. Due weight is largely determined by prevalence in reliable sources: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" — WP:DUE. For what it's worth, I suspect many readers may be inclined to agree with you regarding the relative triviality of the verbal altercation compared with more serious issues like crime. But from what I can surmise, the length of the section is appropriate. Best, — Ix-holtzman (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely a notable event for Yoho to be covered on Yoho's page, as he resigned from a board over it. As for AOC's page.... I'm not sure. It drew a lot of attention at the time, and could be seen as worth keeping. But there's so much else to cover for her as well.... A trim would not be amiss. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that a considerable cut would be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gandydancer, Muboshgu, Ix-holtzman, and PackMecEng: - I trimmed and merged it into the Other issues section. As you can see, 177 words cut, 2 references cut. Apologies if this is a repeated ping, don't know if the first one went through. starship.paint (exalt) 08:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
AOC and Israel
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hey all,
I recently made this revision[2] but it was reverted. I wasn't sure why (it's notable and well-sourced), so I thought I would bring it up for a discussion. My user pages discloses this, but I want to be clear here as well that this is my new account after losing access to my old account Pretzel butterfly per WP:VALIDALT. Benevolent human (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Because contrary to your edit, the House resolution does not mention BDS or Israel.[3] It merely affirms that boycotting is a protected right as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's probably why mainstream media ignored it, which means it fails weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The mainstream media source I cited refers to the resolution as "a document that is widely understood as a specific show of support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel" given the timing [4]. And that Omar said right before filing that it was an "opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement." However, while I still think the sentence should go in, if BDS isn't in the resolution text itself, it's not worth my time to continue to push it if there's disagreement. Thanks for pointing that out! Benevolent human (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Forward is a biased publication on this issue, with a Israeli nationalist bent, and has numerous times described statements by people in questionable, biased, and inaccurate terms in order to push the framing that anyone who critiscizes Israel is "antisemitic". Describing the resolution merely as a "BDS resolution" is a biased and not good faith attempt to refer to it, it is merely a political talking point and an intentional distortion. Give their numerous bad faith inaccurate articles to push this right wing narrative I do not think they can accurately be described as "mainstream" any more than any other publication with a clear nationalist ideology.2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Far left
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I notice that in the wiki for Marjorie Taylor Greene it states that she is a "far right conspiracy theorist". To be fair, shouldn't the wiki for aoc state that she is Far left? In reality, it should also state that she doesn't comprehend the legislative process, the 3 branches of government or the Constitution. The article also puts her net worth at $30,000 yet she has received half a million dollars in salary as a Congresswoman not to mention millions in income from other sources including Netflix. 71.34.175.2 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have any complaints about how MTG is described, discuss it at her article. Don't complain here just to make a point. AOC is a self-described democratic socialist, which doesn't make her far left in reliable sources. And making money has no relevance to one's political position. TFD (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The salary of a representative is not nearly half a million. She's worked a grand total of two years in DC and that region can easily eat up a six figure salary on just living expenses, saving 30k in net assets from what I can assume was nothing in a couple of years actually indicates she's rather frugal.2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Far left
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I notice that in the wiki for Marjorie Taylor Greene it states that she is a "far right conspiracy theorist". To be fair, shouldn't the wiki for aoc state that she is Far left? In reality, it should also state that she doesn't comprehend the legislative process, the 3 branches of government or the Constitution. The article also puts her net worth at $30,000 yet she has received half a million dollars in salary as a Congresswoman not to mention millions in income from other sources including Netflix. 71.34.175.2 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have any complaints about how MTG is described, discuss it at her article. Don't complain here just to make a point. AOC is a self-described democratic socialist, which doesn't make her far left in reliable sources. And making money has no relevance to one's political position. TFD (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The salary of a representative is not nearly half a million. She's worked a grand total of two years in DC and that region can easily eat up a six figure salary on just living expenses, saving 30k in net assets from what I can assume was nothing in a couple of years actually indicates she's rather frugal.2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on the Endorsements section
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am wondering about other's feelings on perhaps cutting this section back. At the time it was perhaps interesting as it showed what she was up against, but on the other hand it is/was not surprising in that he was a pretty powerful Democrat who was fighting Trump and had a pretty decent platform. I'm going to print it out here. Perhaps there are still some good reasons for keeping it all rather than just a short mention.
This is all very relevant as AOC's main notability derives from her success as a insurgent candidate. Incidentally IIRC the Working Families Party did not endorse Crowley but nominated him so that his name would be on the ballot as a candidate for their party. Neither the party nor Crowley were able to remove his name before the November election. TFD (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, good--I trust your judgement and thanks for the quick reply. About the nomination, I read that and felt that a reader would need to read the source. If you know how to make it more understandable I'm sure that would be an improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Anti-Semitism
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Add that AOC has made false and baseless claims smearing Israel as an "apartheid state."[5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickplops (talk • contribs) 00:30, May 18, 2021 (UTC)
This article says that AOC went to live with her mother in the Bronx after college. I would like to propose this to be changed in light of the above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing in that link that would warrant a change. It was a tabloid-ish piece of sensationalism, and if you read it all the way through, would see that the accusations were rebutted. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Since AOC graduated from Boston University in 2011, evidence that she lived in Westchester in 2016 is not evidence that she did not live in the Bronx after completing university, since the Westchester house was rented out. It could be she moved there in order to prepare it for sale. Since none of the articles that claim she lived in Westchester are reliable sources, there are no changes we can make. TFD (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems like bias to refuse to include the fact that she didn't live in Bronx after age 3 - this is proven by public records as well as multiple interviews where she herself is the source for the information on living in Westchester. Asaturn (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Article needs revisions
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (/oʊˌkɑːsioʊ kɔːrˈtɛz/; Spanish: [oˈkasjo koɾˈtes]; born October 13, 1989), also known by her initials AOC, is an American politician. AOC votes and confers support to militarism, inequality, unemployment and poverty. This is precisely contrary to any concern she may publically declare, moreover any legislation she may propose.
AOC represents an obedience to tyranny that is mostly hidden. Her concerns are eloquent and lucid but festooned with the weaponized propaganda of social justice. A masquerade determined to prevent equality and at the very least hope or dignity.
The intent here is not cynicism or contempt for AOC - instead AOC is a newer, brighter example who only confirms the complete absence of democracy in the United States.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.220.82 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Neither of your sources says anything you have written, but even if they did, you would need something better than a blog, which should not be used in biographies, and an op-ed published on the World Socialist Web Site, which is almost certainly undue. (And please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this: ~~~~.) Kleinpecan (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Who is the tyrant? TFD (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Where does AOC get her funding?
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Our politicial system responds to money and politicians are very capable of deceiving and mis-guiding many of those mistreated by the system into fighting against the very forces that might help them. This may apply to Ms Ocasio-Cortez, as much as it does Bernie "Lockheed Martin" Sanders or Joe "Huge Oily Coal" Manchin. So, politicians themselves have very little power but they are owned:
As your source shows, 79% of AOC's donations came from people who contributed less than $200 each, 15% comes from large donations for people working in education or who are retired, and 5% comes from other large individual donors providing up to $2,800 each. She received no money from PACs. So you could say AOC is "owned" by small donors, a huge number of ordinary people with little money.
The reason Sanders supported placing 18 Lockheed Martin planes in Vermont is that it provides employment to local people rather than that it benefits the company, according to a CNBC article.[6] Had they not been placed in Vermont, they would have been placed elsewhere. Large donors (i.e., $200 to $2,800) employed by the company gave $138,000 to Sanders' campaign in 2020, which raised $211 million, while the company gave nothing to PACs supporting him.
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
In the sentence "The Young Turks have continued to cover Ocasio-Cortez and defend her from political and media elites who see her as outside the political culture of DC, with occasional criticism on some of her policies", the phrase "political and media elites" seems like a loaded term with a connotation of non-neutrality (AOC vs. shadowy unnamed "elites").
Recommending a NPOV alternative such as "opponents". A {{who}} tag might not go amiss either. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the sentence pending any consensus on wording to include. "Political and media elites" is too POV a phrase. "With occasional criticism" isn't particularly descriptive, either. It reads as promotional for TYT to me. Is there anything of substance to say about how TYT covers AOC? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Not from my knothole. There's plenty of other parts of the article that talks about TYT and their early promotion of AOC (which is notable, I think) but I fully agree this sentence offers nothing of substance. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate this addition to the Talk. The above are examples of problems with many political articles. There is other language in the article, and definitely from the summary edits wherein such motive is disclosed, that either attacks her from what would seem to be a conservative bias or that promotes her and editorializes events in her favor. I think both should be watched to maintain as objective an article as possible.SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
AOC's vote on 9/22/21
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Opinion post, unrelated to article content. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AOC votes, Raytheon Technologies and Israeli-based Rafael Advanced Defense Systems receive more funding:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York and the highest-profile progressive in the House, apologized on Friday to her constituents for an abrupt decision to pull back her vote against providing $1 billion in new funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, suggesting she had done so after being subjected to “hateful targeting” for opposing it.
AOC reliably supports military spending, the poverty it creates, the extraordinary wealth for a few it creates, including apartheid and violence in the Middle East. Profit for American defense corporations is sacrosanct, with the requirement of indemnification by the theater of democracy.
This conduct is, without any elaboration, a requirement (or red line) for her "job" as a representative.
The purpose of this post is not to debate the merits of AOC, denigrate her character, argue vehemently about things no rational person would want such as more violence and more inequality. AOC has very little power to do anything other than what she is told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.191.18 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
pardee school
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
AOC graduated from Boston University in 2008, before the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies was established in 2011. The attempt to connect AOC to the CIA is in tin foil hat territory. TFD (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Got your dates mixed up a little bit there, TFD. AOC graduated in 2011 and the Pardee School was established formally in 2014 (still after she graduated though). The program that AOC was in was absorbed into the Pardee School when it was established, but I agree with you that it would be inappropriate to associate her with a school that technically didn't exist at the time. As for the CIA stuff, it's less "tin foil hat" and more a red herring. The CIA is well known to recruit from many universities and schools with prestigious international relations and political science programs, for hopefully obvious reasons. Hell, I was recruited by the CIA from the U of Arizona's Eller College of Management. Big deal. The FBI recruits from college criminal justice programs. HHS recruits from college public health administration programs. They go to college job fairs for crying out loud. It's a perfectly normal thing for government agencies to recruit from universities and is wholly non-notable/irrelevant to AOC. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): QuinnCraig2075.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This sentence fragment "Ocasio-Cortez was endorsed by progressive and civil rights organizations such as..." is needlessly embellished and should be edited to read as "Ocasio-Cortez was endorsed by organizations such as...". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not embellishment it's a description. TFD (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
If it fits within the guidelines of biographies, could editors add a section/appropriate subsection that includes the serious and significant/noteworthy threat made by Paul Gosar against Rep. Ocasio-Cortez? In November 2021, Gosar tweeted an altered anime showing him doing bodily lethal harm to the Congresswoman. SeminarianJohn (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe calling this "threats" is begging the question (original research) so I have removed it from the title of this section per WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN.
We should neutrally call this a modified "anime music video" edit of the Attack on Titan opening theme.
The term "lethal bodily harm" I'm also not sure of. I admittedly haven't seen this anime, but while a double-sword chop to the back of the neck would be lethal for a normal human being, in this case we're talking about some kind of godzilla-sized giant human who dwarfs the Incredible Hulk.
Comparatively, it looks like a mosquito bite, and the injury you see does not look lethal at all.
If you do some basic research on this show like read https://attackontitan.fandom.com/wiki/Power_of_the_Titans#Regeneration the "Titans" in this show have amazing healing abilities, so you need to look at sword wounds not just in context of the size of the wound it causes on the Titan but also their ability to recover from it.
Assuming this is anything more than a metaphor (does Gosar own swords?) for the huge power the democrats wield seems like undue speculation.
Also, having watched the unmodified AOT opening, I think we should perhaps mention the character names if we can find out what they are.
It seems that the sword-wielding tiny person Gosar's face is superimposed on is actually a woman, while the giant person leveling the city that AOC's face on is actually a man
So in both cases these are transgender modifications to the original characters. WakandaQT (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
These seem more like personal analyses of the subject matter, and thus of no real relevance here. The Wikipedia follows what reliable sources have to say, nothing else. Zaathras (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I ask that you include controversies section as you have for many other people. I see nothing but a glowing review here, and mention of other peoples wrong doings against her, not nothing of her issues she has started, problems, or wrong doings 2601:445:8380:D140:E5AE:EADF:B92A:3190 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Request undo of edit 1055855394
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Requesting the following good faith edit to be undone: [7] Diff: [8] Although Donald Trump is no longer in office, her position on his impeachment is still a significant and relevant part of her congressional record. Her record on historically significant votes (like an impeachment) never goes "out of date". If not undone outright, it should be at least wrapped into section 3.2 (Tenure) as a record of what occurred. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I've undone the edit. Kleinpecan (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
As it stands it is out of date. There never was an impeachment on "emoluments" so this is not a significant vote.Jack Upland (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Her positions on the previous administration remain relevant. The actual articles that were passed and the results of the subsequent trial are immaterial to the relevance of a political position held by this Congressperson. By your reasoning, we would have to get rid of most of her political positions unless there was a specific bill that exactly mirrored her political position on a subject. Further, as a matter of historical record, it remains relevant, just as the political positions of Congresspeople who are no longer in office about the policies of long-past administrations are still relevant. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
For a comparison see for example Bernie Sanders where we have four paragraphs on his opinions on Trump in his political positions section. Sectionworker (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you read what I said.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
You wrote that it's out of date; it's not. A politician's past opinions are notable regardless of how much time has passed. You wrote that Trump was never charged for breaking the foreign emoluments clause; it doesn't matter. What matters is that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez actively said she sought the impeachment of Donald Trump. It is a relevant statement to her page. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Spoken Article
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So, I am thinking I might like to lend my voice to reading this article aloud, So I'd like to ask editor's opinions. Does this article get changed too often to be reliably recorded, or does the semi-protected status help my desire to have it stay somewhat static? Gallomimia (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
"Sandy Cortez"
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Why is the subject's birth name burred in the second section when other famous persons have their birth name in the main top section? (And why is the birth name in "scare quotes"?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7029:6100:6015:5900:BD4D:427C (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
What? Her birth name is Alexandria. "Sandy Ocasio" is just a name she went by for several years as a teen and young adult. Zaathras (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Sandy is a common short form for Alexandria for women and Alexander for men. It's fairly common for people to use shortened forms of their names, or "nicknames," particularly when they are young or among friends. TFD (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments7 people in discussion
I notice that wikipedia, will be sure to state that a Republican congresswomen you define them as right wing conspiracy theorist, but leftist extremist such as AOC you are mum. 2600:1006:B01D:2EC3:AD46:4393:81D:37EA (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Well since AOC is neither a conspiracy theorist or an extremist, we won't put that on her page, no. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
If you have concerns about the characterization/tone of a specific article, please bring those to a discussion on the relevant Talk Page for that subject. Posting an unsupported rant on a completely unrelated subject's talk page accomplishes nothing. Headphase (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I forgot about all those left-wing conspiracists who believe healthcare and living wages are a basic right. So evil. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Praxidicae I mean in the United States that is not a majority opinion. So it is left wing Matteow101 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
You need WP:RS it's not about the people's or our opinions. If enough RS describe AOC as a far-left politician, you could make that argument and start an RFC if needed. Andre🚐 21:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so articles must characterize subjects in a global context, not just as seen in the United States. Acroterion(talk) 21:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion: controversy section
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
What would make a more balanced article for critics would be a controversies segment, if there are any to speak of. Ech0inthef0rest (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
A specific "Controversy" section in a biography is to be avoided. When there are significant & noteworthy criticisms deemed worthy of inclusion, they can be worked into the text at hand. ValarianB (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Could also make a section labelled "Views" which is more neutral and reads better in wiki voice. Eruditess (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
left-wing/far-left in the lead?
Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments12 people in discussion
JameyRivendell insists on adding left-wing and/or far-left in the lead, despite what I think appears to be consensus against it and reverting by two separate editors (against this articles 24 hr revert policy) as well as inserting Left-wing politics in the see also section, which doesn't seem entirely relevant to me, but less concerning than the first two issues, so I'd like to open this up for others input. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I looked up Mitch McConnell's wikipedia page for comparison and it didn't say, "Part of a series on Republicanism in America." I sense that calling AOC a socialist up at the top of her wikipedia page when she claims to be a Democratic Socialist, which the two groups would both say has a different philosophy, might be part of a political labeling campaign by some other political faction in the U.S. that loves to paint and label with a broad brush. Paul Klinkman (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The idea of "mob rule," as the European nobility sniffed, goes back to the founding of the United States and is hard to distinguish from socialism. Socialist ideas such as free public education were born long ago in U.S. history. In this light, calling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a socialist is a redundancy like calling her a United States Congresswoman. Why would we distinguish her socialism from her being the people's representative as opposed to her being a king or a noble in an autocracy? Paul Klinkman (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Ocasio-Cortez is far from being a far-left politician, but it is weird to describe her as left, right-wing, whatever, on the lead; it doesn't seem to be the custom in politicians' articles. Bedivere (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The sockpuppet (JameyRivendell) who started this is long blocked, and was doing it to create a false symmetry between a politician that they felt was being unfairly labeled was far-right, despite being characterized that way in mainstream media. DFTT. Acroterion(talk) 02:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
These labels should be strenuously avoided. How do we define far left vs just left of center (which presumably describes most democrats. Then again, that she is a member of the house elected on the Democratic ticket is a non-subjective fact. How far left she is (even that she is left) is at least semi-subjective and thus should be attributed ("... is considered to be...") or just left out of the lead. Absent a strict definition we are effectively reporting an opinion in wiki voice and, even worse, in wiki voice in the lead. It would be better to state critical positions or similar. All of our BLPs about politicians would be better if they all read like they were written by people who were detached from the topic instead of as if we support/oppose the person. Springee (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It is unusual to place politicians along the left-right axis and no reason why we should make an exception for AOC. People like her - she is a member of the DSA - are normally described as center left, at least outside the U.S. But then so are approximately half the politicians in Western countries. TFD (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
in the US, where you can be accused of being a "commie" for thinking social welfare is a good idea, can see why some folk might think AOC is "far-left" but it's just plain absurd, any such suggestion in the lead would be a gross mischaracterization. Acousmana 10:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
The relevant question is whether sufficient reliable sources describe her as "far-left." I think she is more commonly described as "left-leaning" "progressive" or a "democratic socialist." I think there's an argument to be made that this represents a more left-wing position than say, Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat who is more commonly described as "moderate" or "center." If we had several academic or social science sources that deemed AOC "far-left," that could be included. I think she is unquestionably a "left-wing politician" and a further-left-wing politician than many of the others in her caucus. Usually, "far-left" in the discourse describes outwardly Marxist or communist thought, which AOC is not, she is a social democrat. However, terms do change so we have to follow the sources if they exist. I am not saying they do. We are having a similar RFC on the Donald Trump article and many editors do not believe he is "far-right," even though many sources do describe him this way. So I think it's only fair, even though I am generally on AOC's side, we shouldn't shy away from labelling her as "left-wing" if that is what the reliable sources call her. Andrevan@ 16:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I believe "far-left" should be in the lede to keep it consistent across wikipedia as many republicans are labeled as "far-right". After five minutes of Google searches I found numerous sources where AOC is described as "far-left" or "hard-left" . These links include articles from sources like Politico which is viewed as generally reliable on Wiki according to WP:RSPSS. Honestly, I am little surprised "far-left" or "hard-left" is not in her lede already as this is mostly what she is known for. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
As a subjective assessment it should not be in the opening sentence of the lead and I would prefer it not be in the opening paragraph. We absolutely should not be labeling AOC "far-left" because people put "far-right" into other BLPs. With few exceptions this shouldn't be done in any BLP unless the person self identifies as or embraces the label. Stating later in the lead that "she is a member of the X-part of the Democratic party" or "is considered to represent the more liberal wing of the Democratic party" (assuming correct sourcing) makes more sense. Assuming WP:V we can say where people consider her within her party but on the absolute scale, no she is not far left like Castro. Overall BLPs would be better if we labeled less and provided more of the supporting content instead. Springee (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Springee, I agree but Donald C. Bolduc is labeled as "far-right" in his lede because of his belief that Trump won the 2020 election. Bolduc does not label himself as far-right or embrace that characterization. Additionally, there is not a Wiki policy that says "the individual needs to label themselves or embrace" any sort of title in this way. We need to be consistent across wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with that article but would say that's a BLP violation. I don't think any definition of "far-right" includes thinking that Trump won in 2020. Additionally when we link to our definition which includes white supremacy as a characteristic we are deep into problematic areas. Springee (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
"Far-right" for Bolduc is supported by a half-dozen quality sources, so, apples and oranges. If you have a problem with that, then take it up at Talk:Donald C. Bolduc, not with WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments here. Zaathras (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
In my initial comment to this talk page, I listed sources from Politico, New York Times, and Fox News. My problem is that this seems to fall along party lines. Grahaml35 (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
If I may step in and address that, the only use of "far left" in the NY Times citation was in quoting Evan Thies, an adviser to Mayor Adams, and a Fox News OpEd section is hyper-partisan and entirely irrelevant. Politico is an acceptable source, but one journalist engaging in some slight hyperbole isn't much of a threshold. ValarianB (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't call Bolduc "far right" just because some journalists do. In fact it is a term that should be used with care, because it can have both a narrow and a wide meaning, i.e., as far right on the political spectrum as possible or merely to the right of Mitt Romney. But I don't see AOC being called far left in Wikipedia approved reliable source journalism. TFD (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It appears editors on that page are not concerned with those issues. I've opened up a talk discussion there. Springee (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
AOC got arrested
Latest comment: 1 year ago39 comments11 people in discussion
can we add something about this? MrMemer223 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
No. It's nothing more than an "obstructing traffic" type of citation. Zaathras (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Kinda think it should be mentioned if it gets heavier coverage in the coming days, civil disobedience by members of Congress is worth noting. nableezy - 01:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Members of the US Congress being arrested for civil disobedience is not that unusual. Here is an article from nine years ago about the arrests of eight members of the House of Representatives. It is interesting to see that Jan Schakowsky was arrested both of these protests, but nobody is trying to add that to her Wikipedia biography. Perhaps that is because she is 78 years old, has been around for a long time, and is not currently a "boogeywoman" on tabloid websites. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I dont think it should be added now, but if it gets heavier coverage. And to be clear, it is not because I think AOC or any of "The Squad" are bogeywomen, but rather it highlights an issue she feels strongly about, strongly enough to willingly be arrested for it. We dont have anything on her views of abortion, and I think that should be added along with a line that after the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v Wade, Ocasio-Cortez was, along with fifteen other members of Congress, arrested at an abortion rights protest in an act of civil disobedience. (im sure somebody can phrase it better) You do this because you want it known that you feel this strongly about it, not because you dont. nableezy - 15:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I am on record as being a fan of hers, so she's more of a hero to me than a boogeywoman for this arrest, and I also think if this arrest gets some coverage in sources, it could be added along with her statements on the abortion issue. Andrevan@ 01:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
It'll be helpful for you to know Ocasio-Cortez wasn't handcuffed. If you search her name on Google, you're immediately presented with 5 articles from reputable sources detailing the incident. How can this reasonably be viewed as insufficiently notable? Does it need to be some life-altering event in order to qualify for inclusion in the article? Additionally, her views on abortion don't need to be mentioned. Paging Nableezy and Andrevan
Um the handcuffing thing is stupid, she said she placed her hands behind her back to avoid escalation with the police not to "fake being handcuffed", thats just the typical hysteria that AOC gets, and the only reason to include this would be in the context of her position on abortion rights. nableezy - 14:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Do you agree to this incident being included in the article or not? Additionally, I didn't allege she faked being handcuffed. The fact that you read heavily into a nonexistent trivial political aspect of what I said suggests to me you don't have the article's best interests in mind. How can this only be mentioned in the context of her views on abortion? A simple "On July 19, 2022, Ocasio-Cortez was arrested at a protest rally in Washington D.C." would suffice. DeaconShotFire (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
lol, ok, Im the one that doesnt have Wikipedia's best interests in mind. How can this only be mentioned in the context of her views on abortion? Hello, it was at an abortion right protest. nableezy - 15:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
It clearly has enough sources to be included. Please go ahead and add it to the article with appropriate NPOV. What I meant about the abortion thing is that you could include it with her statement as to why she was protesting, which led to her getting arrested. That context helps explain the relevance of it to her biography and the political role that this protest has in her life and work. Andrevan@ 14:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
It should not be included unless it receives on-going coverage. AOC is one of the most covered members of Congress and not everything she does has weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
On-going coverage is not needed. There was no ongoing coverage of her non-attendance at Joe Biden's inauguration, yet that is mentioned in the article. Being arrested as an incumbent elected official certainly warrants inclusion.DeaconShotFire (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The addition by DeaconShotFire in the personal life section was absurd imo, the story isnt part of her "arrest history" or some nonsense to make it not related to her political career. I added a bit on abortion to the healthcare section and included a short line on civil disobedience. nableezy - 15:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Text looks good IMHO. Thanks Andrevan@ 15:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Well done. That appears to be DUE weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
DeaconShotFire, I think your copyedit is an improvement, but I'm curious why you'd rather refer to it as the Supreme Court overruling Roe versus the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that overruled Roe. It seems to me that wikilinking to Dobbs is going to give readers a way to find out more about the precipitating events versus linking to just the Roe page. It's a minor point but I am curious. Andrevan@ 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I dont think it is an improvement though, the first couple of sentences should be combined to be less halting (and both supported by the same source). And the protest was in favor of abortion rights, not strictly a protest against the ruling. The location fix is appreciated though. nableezy - 16:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I do think it's an improvement if the location was incorrect. That's more important than the phrasing if there was a factual error in paraphrasing the source. Let's try to AGF here. Andrevan@ 16:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that part was an improvement. The rest of the edit I disagree with. Not sure what AGF has to do with it. Sorry I mixed up the location originally. nableezy - 16:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I think the protest was in response to the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe, that related to AOC's view on abortion rights. Andrevan@ 17:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
What the sources say, eg [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], is that it was an abortion rights protest. Yes obviously triggered by Dobbs, but it is protesting in favor of abortion rights more broadly than just against the Dobbs decision. nableezy - 18:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it was an abortion rights protest, in response to Dobbs. Andrevan@ 18:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
So the article should say that? nableezy - 19:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes... we're agreeing... I know it's a weird feeling! ;-) Andrevan@ 19:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
DeaconShotFire, nothing about any topic warrants inclusion, only the weight of its coverage in reliable sources. See Balancing aspects: an article "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The reason for that is that editors may disagree on what is important. The archives are filled with discussions about AOC stories that received little coverage. Instead of editors arguing among themselves about what they consider important, we leave it to reliable sources to determine. This policy actually serves readers, because they are interested in what reliable sources find most important, not what you or I do. There's enough material out there to write a lengthy book about AOC, not all of which can be included in a short article. TFD (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I removed attempt by SouthernCaliforniaExploration to add the handcuffing stuff. That is not going to cut it. First of all, NY Post should really be considered unreliable. Also, this business about "faking handcuffing" doesn't have to do with her biography, positions, political views or activities. It smacks of drama. Andrevan@ 22:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Andrevan, you do not hold a right to silence factual information posted to a website in the United States of America. Freedom of Press is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment of The United States Constitution, and the ability of American Citizens to hold such a right is NOT to be tampered with. Your belief that the New York Post, an accredited, valued reporting agency of the United States, as unreliable is solely an opinion, and not enforceable as fact or law in a Free Nation. Permitting personal biases to commandeer factual reported is unacceptable and will be abruptly stopped. Should you continue to alter, molest, or remove factual information added to Wikipedia Pages by myself or others, you can rest assured that you will be met with fierce resistance and be made the subject of administrator reports on Wiki English.
- Best,
S.C.E. SouthernCaliforniaExploration (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department.WP:RSP. Hope you get that checked out, and have a better day from here. Andrevan@ 23:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
None of this childish grandstanding nonsense is going to impress anyone. You do not have any "freedoms" in this project. No freedom of press, no freedom of speech. There are Wikipedia policies that you either adhere to, or run the risk of being blocked. Now as for the content, the NY Post is a tabloid that is generally unusable in Wikipedia articles, per its listing at WP:RSP. We do not use fringe, unreliable reporting in biographies of living people. Zaathras (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I know I'm a little late in the game to respond here. I think the arrest deserves a mention in this article, and the sentence that exists now is perfectly adequate. However, I do think the little handcuff thing should also get a mention. It has gotten a pretty reasonable amount of coverage to be mentioned along with the arrest, and the incident is something that is specific to AOC that occurred in the arrest, which makes it more biographically significant here. This is what it could look like: During her arrest, she placed her hands behind her back, which made some of her critics accuse her of pretending to be handcuffed. She pushed back from the criticism saying she was just trying to avoid any escalation. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Really? I do not think the "faked handcuff" thing meets the threshold for inclusion. Yes, you have technically found 2 good sources that basically cover what you just said: a few conservative lawmakers said that AOC had her hands in "cuff position." That is not a legislative activity, it doesn't relate to politics, it doesn't relate to policy, biography, life story, etc. I mean it technically does involve one of her statements since she responded to it. But what does it go to exactly? Her positions? Not that I can discern. Her opinion? The only thing this seems to demonstrate is that even when she's being arrested, some people will find something else weird to talk about about her appearance. This is Obama's tan suit caliber. Andrevan@ 01:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I get your point, and I don't hold a very strong opinion either way. I was just thinking if this incident was getting coverage along with the arrest, it wouldn't hurt anything to mention it along with the arrest itself. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Right-wing memes don't get airplay in BLPs. You know better. Zaathras (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Fine you've convinced me! The handcuff thing shouldn't be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
There seems to be a solid consensus against including the nonsense about handcuffing, so I removed it again. And also the idea that reproductive health is not related to healthcare is not one I can understand. nableezy - 15:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you're reading the consensus correctly, and I'll add my voice to it. We shouldn't focus on undue detail, Fox News is not a reliable source for this, and the version added most recently did not present the content in an NPOV way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The handcuffing-or-not-handcuffing is irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree with nableezy, Firefangledfeathers and Muboshgu Andrevan@ 15:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
age at next inaugural, 35+ years, eligible for presidency
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
Please add that on Jan 20, 2025, the date of the next presidential inauguration in the United states, aoc will be 35 years 3 months and a week old, per US constitution old enough to be president [+35 years] Thank you 216.197.78.177 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
No, that probably shouldn't be added. Andrevan@ 01:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Simply stating that numbers exist is not relevant to a Wikipedia article of this nature. Nothing about her even running for president should be put in this article if it is not related to her announcement (or lack thereof) to run for office. EytanMelech (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Not relevant. Maybe should be included if she announces a run for president in 2024. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, though, it could be worth noting that many activists, including Michael Moore, have talked about her potentially running for president one day. Perhaps this could fit in the media coverage section. GrammarDamnerhow are things? 20:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Problematic Interpretation of IPCC report on Climate Change
Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments3 people in discussion
Under the Environment heading one sentence reads, "Referring to a recent United Nations report indicating that the effects of climate change will be irreversible unless carbon emissions are reined in over the next 12 years ...".
I understand this claim is properly sourced from The Hill article which reads "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", however this is a false claim.
In an Axios article entitled "Climate Scientists refute 12-year deadline to curb global warming" several reputable scientists speak out stating, "12 years isn't a deadline, and climate change isn't a cliff we fall off — it's a slope we slide down", "We don't have 12 years to prevent climate change — we have no time. It's already here. And even under a business-as-usual scenario, the world isn't going to end in exactly twelve years." and, "All the time-limited frames are bullshit, Nothing special happens when the 'carbon budget' runs out or we pass whatever temperature target you care about, instead the costs of emissions steadily rise!".
The 12 years deadline is a misinterpretation propagated by Miss Cortez herself, among others, and is not a conclusion/finding actually made in the IPCC report.
Based on the information I have provided above I believe it is reasonable to conclude the sentence in question contains false information. To fix this issue I propose the sentence be removed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Ocasio-Cortez has argued that to avoid the end of human existence global warming must be addressed immediately and that the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, referring to a United Nations/IPCC report on climate change. However several climate scientists have criticized this interpretation of the report stating that "12 years isn't a deadline, and climate change isn't a cliff we fall off — it's a slope we slide down". RomeshKubajali (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Proposed change is original research and has NPOV issues. Andre🚐 03:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Having reviewed each policy I respectfully disagree. If you could give an explanation as to how the change violates those policies I would greatly appreciate it. If I did violate those policies however, I maintain the sentence being discussed contains false information and should be removed in its entirety, or reworded such that it does not misrepresent the findings of the report. RomeshKubajali (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
You can't say that climate scientists criticized the interpretation, when the article you linked says, " Their comments were about the framing of a rigid 12-year timetable in general, not specifically in reaction to Ocasio-Cortez's remarks." It goes on to quote scientists basically saying that she was right, "In reference to Ocasio-Cortez's comments, Marvel said: "She's right that decisions we make in the next decade will determine how bad climate change gets — we can't prevent bad things, but we have the power to avoid the worst-case scenario."Andre🚐 04:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
AOC did not say, "the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change." If you provide obviously false information, don't expect other editors to take your request seriously. TFD (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Correction: She used the phrase "going to" not "gonna". RomeshKubajali (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
It's a partial, out of context quote. The source you linked reads, ""Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up, and we're like, 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?' " she said." The current article describes it fine. Andre🚐 04:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I apologise, that is a fair point. I was wrong for the inclusion of that partial quote and I should have read past the headline. I concede my proposal should not be added for NPOV reasons, however that does not change the issue of the false information in the original statement which should be removed or corrected in some form. RomeshKubajali (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, well, thank you for that. You are welcome to edit the article or propose something else. Just keep the policy and sources in mind. Andre🚐 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you too, I'm glad we could come to an agreement. Unfortunately I am too new to Wikipedia to edit semi-protected articles. If you or another user could implement the change that would be greatly appreciated, otherwise I'm happy to wait until I've made enough edits to do it myself. RomeshKubajali (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
How's that for ya [14]Andre🚐 04:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your removal of the time-limited frame. I also think that the part of the sentence stating it "could become irreversible" ought to be changed. This statement is contradicted by Kate Marvel in the Axios article when she says "climate change isn't a cliff we fall off — it's a slope we slide down", and by Gavin Schmidt who said, "Nothing special happens when ... we pass whatever temperature target you care about".
I suggest the phrase "could become irreversible" be substituted for something to the effect of "will worsen severely". This interpretation of the report is supported by the same article which says, "The IPCC report, for example, found the impacts worsen considerably beyond 1.5°C of warming.". RomeshKubajali (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sold on that. The IPCC report does indeed say climate change could have irreversible effects. Some scientists think we are already there. And more to the point, that's what AOC was referring to - the possibility of irreversible damage from climate change. So I think it's fine as is. Andre🚐 14:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Your right, having looked directly at the report it says, "Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level". I am happy with the wording in its current state. Thanks for all your help. RomeshKubajali (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
My mistake. But mainstream media took her comments as she claimed they were meant.[15] "Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal." Whether in politics or Wikipedia editing, people should avoid exaggerated statements since they can be misinterpreted. Of course it's possible that AOC misread the UN report, actually believed the world would end in 2030, then back-pedaled when she realized what it meant. But we don't know that.
To a reasonable reader, twelve years is at best an estimate. Obviously, as long as there are people on the planet, climate change can be reversed. It's just that by 2030 approximately, it may become next to next to impossible to do so.
While AOC is mentioned in the source, it seems that the criticism was directed against how the report was interpreted in general. I do not see then that it has weight for inclusion in the article.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Could someone add her foreign policy position on the Russia/Ukraine conflict? I have not rewearched it, but have heard that she is for continuing the war. WordwizardW (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC) correction: "researched" WordwizardW (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Image Okay?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is the image with the description "Ocasio-Cortez with Kerri Evelyn Harris" okay for everyone else? On my screen, the image appears bugged. Everything else appears fine. I have uploaded what I see on my screen here. Cable10291 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Historical note: The discussion was closed with the move being performed, the discussion is now archived here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Any criticism?
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
So we can’t add the ethics issue? Do editors understand how biased this looks. Tentemp (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Until actual details are released, there's really nothing to report. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I want to request the addition of adding the topic of how AOC is a symbol of the battle against misogyny and sexism in the work force in America. She has battled the traditional, and sexist views of many of her older, male peers in Congress boldly and has taken a stance to not only help the world become a better place, but also help young women realize that they deserve to be treated with respect.
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. Also see WP:NPOVCannolis (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation / LOTT complaint
Latest comment: 1 year ago24 comments5 people in discussion
Looks like The Independent and The Advocate are covering the interaction and are incidentally mentioning the ethics complaint. If we're going to have content on this (not sold), we should keep that framing. I'd be more likely to support a short mention in §LGBTQ equality than a long one in §Other issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
In the interest of WP:DUE I could rewrite the prose to include the counter-arguments to the claims Raichek is alleging. However, I'd want to wait until there is clear consensus to include it in the first place. Perhaps we could wait for additional coverage, such as Ocasio-Cortez's office responding? Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Coverage of this matter in relation to the overall notability of the topic lacks significance. AOC is a frequent target of right-wing media and little if any of their complaints receive wider media attention. If you read through the archived discussions, there have been many of these incidents: AOC's foot in the bathtub, AOC dancing on the roof, etc. TFD (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The sources cited meet WP:RS. Is there something in particular about them that you're concerned with? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The interaction between AOC and Raichek is WP:UNDUE for this biography. So is the complaint, unless it goes anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, what makes this particular interaction and complaint unsuitable for inclusion compared to the Jan 6th committee issuing a complaint against McCarthy (which hasn't gone anywhere, yet)? https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/wiki/en/Kevin_McCarthy#cite_ref-125.
This is the talk page for AOC's article, not Kevin McCarthy's article. Discussion of content on Kevin McCarthy's article belongs at that talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Wait a sec I just clicked over to McCarthy and you are trying to compare McCarthy getting subpoenaed by a Congressional committee to an outside complaint? Apples and oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Two events, one is the subpoena, the other is the ethics complaint for failing to show up. Both could be argued as WP:UNDUE, but what do I know? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Wiki is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Significance is needed based on the events themselves and the depth of coverage. AOC/Libs of TikTok doesn't demonstrate either. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there an issue with the particular sources I used, specifically, which ones fail to show significance or depth? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:RS is not the sole criterion for inclusion and no one questions there are rs that the Heritage Foundation has made this complaint. The issue is WP:DUE. Is this information significant enough about the topic in proportion to the body of reliable sources that have written about her? The fact is that a complaint by a thinktank that has received little media attention is UNDUE. A complaint by the Heritage Foundation about a progressive politician is like a story about an airplane that didn't crash. It lacks significance. TFD (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
What sources have covered this? I tend to think it should stay out unless more becomes of it. I do suspect if the facts were reversed (left leaning person doing this to a right wing candidate) it might get more political coverage and people would suggest it's white washing to leave it out. However, when we zoom out and give it some time, I don't see complaints meaning much unless something becomes of them after the complaint is filed. With stuff like this we should err on the side of exclusion. Springee (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
(*may not be reliable, but should be considered in light of the other WP:RS in this list.)
There are several other sources which probably aren't suitable to bring up here, but they did publish stories about this. Hope this helps. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
For someone of AOC's notability, I would expect to see coverage in all the network news channels and leading U.S. broadsheet newspapers before considering whether it had any significance. What can we say anyway? AOC accuses a right-wing activist of spreading incorrect information, Politifact confirms it's incorrect and the woman complains that she was defamed. The Wikipedia article says, "Libs of TikTok is a far-right and anti-LGBT Twitter account owned by Chaya Raichik." There's nothing AOC said that has already been reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Would you honestly say that everything in AOC's BLP is as well-sourced as this incident? I very much doubt it, but I'm not going to take the time to look, honestly. I will defer to the community. and stop responding here because I've already made my arguments. Cheers. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, and other editors have made similar comments, the issue is not WP:RS, it's WP:DUE. If we put everything about AOC that was reliably sourced, the article would be thousands of pages long. We therefore have to decide what is significant for inclusion and we do that by the extent of coverage in reliable sources relative to other aspects of the topic. TFD (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing WP:RS in my last response. I was pontificating on whether or not there is information in this BLP that isn't as widely covered as this incident (slash) complaint. I'm guessing there is, but I'm not going to bother figuring that out, so I'm just asking for some intellectual honesty from other editors.Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF about other editors, rather than questioning our intellectual honesty. If a left-wing think tank filed an ethics complaint against, say, Jim Jordan, I would oppose adding anything about it unless there was a noteworthy result. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
My intent was not to insult anyone, so I'll agree to stay on topic. So what is this dispute about? Whether there are enough sources to include the material or the material itself is controversial (or both)? If that's the case, what's the threshold for inclusion, and are we being consistent? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a combination of breadth/depth of sources and significance, considering WP:LASTING. If we included everything that was verified by sources, this article would be excessively bloated. An ethics complaint that goes nowhere isn't passing the WP:10YT, while one that has repercussions could. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:LASTING notes that, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Also, WP:10YT is more directed at full articles, but even the parts which could apply here seem to suggest that rewrites in the future are a valid approach. I'm sorry, but adequate sourcing exists and the policy you just cited seems to suggest that we should include this event and remove it later if there seems to be consensus for it's exclusion. I'm still interested in hearing what you and other editors have to say though. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree WP:LASTING is the wrong policy because it applies to whether or not articles should be created not what their content should be. However, Balancing aspects says, "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."
While we may not know the lasting impact of this story, people aren't glued to CNN to see what happens next.
Of course most articles have material that is UNDUE and the solution is to remove it, not add more UNDUE material. In fact it is inevitable for people in the news. TFD (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Anti-Poverty
Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion
Is anyone actually pro-poverty? It might be worthwhile to remove the "anti" in the subheader, given that the topic under consideration is poverty and being in favor of poverty is not a position that anyone seems to assume outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.40.199 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, none of the other headings are used to define a position either, just stating the topic. - Odin (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I doubt there's a person out there who would be described as "pro-poverty", no. But there are certainly politicians, e.g. the bulk of the Republican Party, that are indifferent to the plight of impoverished Americans. So yes, "anti-poverty" is a valid political stance to note here. Zaathras (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't read the proposed change here as making any change to the text under the "Anti-poverty" sub-header, I would agree that's relevant info and of course is a valid political position. But when other section sub-headers read "Banking", "Labor rights", and "Tax policy", it seems like these are describing policy areas, and the text describes the position that AOC has taken. However, "Anti-Poverty" to me describes a position, while "Poverty" describes a policy area. - Odin (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Ideologically one may be antipoverty and declare him/herself as such, while at the same time some people may argue others are (ideologically) pro-poverty, but doubtfully these may recognize themselves as such. Bedivere (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
If WP:RS describe her as "anti-poverty" then we should use that. We aren't suppose to dictate what politicians are for or against, just what the reliable sources say, otherwise we breach WP:OR. Eruditess (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:OR, original research is material "for which no reliable, published source exists". So, changing the section heading to "Poverty" is not original research. We would only be making the heading consistent with the other headings like "Banking" or "Tax Policy". JonSnow64 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@AlsoWukai: you had removed a part of the Defense spending section of this article in a recent edit citing neutrality. The part you removed had reliable sources and was phrased in a neutral manner. More importantly, it was about what Ocasio-Cortez had said herself, so what was the reason behind the removal? JonSnow64 (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources used are opinion and analysis, hence not relaible sources for facts, per WP:NEWSORG. In order to support the inclusion of these opinions, you would have to show that her comments had received attention in reliable sources, per WP:BALASPS.
In this case, we don't know if AOC meant her comments to be taken literally or rhetorically. The fact it was in a tweet rather than a policy paper would tend to indicate it was meant rhetorically. She could have meant for example that the cost of universal health care was small in terms of what Congress considered material. Had her comments received major news coverage, we no doubt would have received a response from her and various interpretations of what she said. We could then apply weight to determine which response enjoyed greater support. TFD (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay, got it. Thanks. JonSnow64 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Archive 8, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses. ®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.
Done. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EN-Jungwon 01:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Garret Miller. The discussion will occur at Wiki: Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Garret Miller until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC) 
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): QuinnCraig2075. 