Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Notability

She is notable[1][2][3] Aldous Hooplah (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly notable; see for example:

In one of the biggest political upsets of the decade, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year old socialist and former Bernie Sanders organizer from the Bronx, has defeated Joe Crowley—the fourth-most powerful Democrat in the House, one of the most powerful Democrats in New York City... This is a heavily Democratic district; the primary is tantamount to the general election, meaning Ocasio-Cortez will be the next member of Congress from New York’s 14th. source.

I will remove the tag. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely notable; the Kara Eastman primary upset against a former incumbent congressman resulted in a consensus of notability when proposed for deletion, but this political upset is vastly more significant and is receiving far more coverage. It's highly unlikely that any proposal to delete this article would result in a consensus for deletion, but luckily this has not yet been proposed. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Asteroid named after her

This fact should be included...because it's amazing! According to Ozy, Ocasio-Cortez won a science contest and got an asteroid named after her!

"Ocasio-Cortez has always been eager to explore uncharted terrain. The longtime Star Trek nut entered a global science competition in high school, and when her microbiology project won second place, MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory named a small asteroid after her, 23238 Ocasio-Cortez, which continues to hurtle through space."--The lorax (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

We just need an WP:RS--the link you included above is a 404 for me--do you have another source? Marquardtika (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

She also confirmed it on Twitter...--The lorax (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a very unusual and interesting thing to add, but I'd prefer we use a source rather than a primary source such as her campaign's twitter. As long as a reliable secondary source is identified, feel free to add it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Here it is on nasa.gov, I guess it's still a primary source, but 4 Vesta cites the same site. eduardog3000 (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

NASA is a very fine source; it appears that this was already added to the article with a secondary article source, but I've added the NASA citation you linked to as well. Thank you for finding this. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

People at MIT merely recommended that the asteroid be named after her. The International Astronomical Union is the body that officially names asteroids. Perhaps this should be clarified.MathPerson (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The wording should be clearer and more accurate; if you have not already done so, it would be appreciated if you made this change. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Ocasio-cortez-picture.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Significant references

I don't want to edit article as a non native speaker here are a few significant links/references with lots of information https://www.cootieszine.com/new-blog/2017/7/23/interview-with-alexandria-ocasio-cortez http://www.nhimagazine.com/2017/07/01/nhi-congress-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/ http://www.nhimagazine.com/2017/12/31/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-named-2017-nhi-person-year/ https://millennialpolitics.co/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/ https://www.thenation.com/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-fights-power/ https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2018&id=NY14 Eifelochse (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC) https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interview.htmlEifelochse (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)https://www.bu.edu/studentactivities/buleads/speakers-2/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/ https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2018/06/15/crowley-ocasio-cortez-stay-civil-despite-differences-in-primary-debate-470236Eifelochse (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of her father's death

Her father died in 2008 during the financial crisis of 2007–2008.

Overall, I don't see the significance of her father's death here (significant yes, but maybe not for a WP page) but more so -- what is the relevance of it being during the time of the financial crisis? Arbalest Mike (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Economic inequality and suffering was core part of Ocasio's message. Very few congress members can say they were working minimum wage jobs to support their family. It's notable in how it influenced her. Shushugah (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I left in her father's death because it's normal family background in a BLP. However, I removed the fact that he died during the financial crisis. To explain why it's relevant would take a fair amount of material that would at the end of the day be WP:UNDUE. Without explanation, it has zero relevance. I reluctantly left in the part about the probate court, only because supposedly she had to spend a lot of time on it and arguably had an impact on her ability to pursue her agenda as an activist.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have a guess: the loss of precious income and emotional support after her father's death had piled on to an already difficult time in her life due to the financial crisis.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad guess by any means, but only if she or a source states clearly that her father died as a result of the financial crisis should this be explicitly added when mentioning her father's death. It would be worth including then, as that would be a significant part of her personal life and development and would help the reader understand how the effects of the economy on her personal life led to her becoming a young politician. Until then, we can simply keep the current version which mentions the event but not that it was during the financial crisis. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Past employment

A reference was made to her work at a 'taqueria.' The Wikipedia article states that such establishments are outdoors in food trucks or at counters facing the outdoors. A Google search of the establishment indicates that it is enclosed with a plate glass window and door, hardly matching the Wikipedia article description for taquerias.Dogru144 (talk)

The restaurant calls itself a taqueria and that is not what our article says is you read it more carefully. Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

far left

Wow, making a claim without any citation on her views in comparison. The citation only links to Dem Socialist affiliation, which is hardly any support for a label of far left especially with the U.S.'s skewed to the right politics. Shame on whoever did that. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely not accurate to call a progressive social democrat a far-leftist. She's not an anarchist, communist, or even socialist (though some people use the word "socialist" loosely to refer to more moderate positions). Agree with the anonymous IP editor - shame on whoever did that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not much to talk about here seeing as the inaccurate, silly label is being added only by drive-by IP editors who I doubt will discuss this with us. --RevivesDarks (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

She isn't even any further left than the likes of Bernie Sanders. It's just IP editors using it to smear her. She hasn't called for seizing the means of production or completely open borders or anything. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why the top of the discussion has this as part of WikiProject Socialism. Democratic Socialists and Socialists aren't the same. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Several sources describe her and her platform as "far left" or hard left:

they weren't cited, nor were you willing to sign off your acct or cite them here. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Goodkind, Nicole (2018-06-27). "Who is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Democratic Socialist who wants to abolish ICE unseats 'Next Speaker' Joe Crowley". Newsweek. Retrieved 2018-06-27. ...when asked about her far left views.

Quince, Alexander (2018-06-27). "Who is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?". ABC7ny.com. Retrieved 2018-06-27. ...With a low budget and far-left platform, 28-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Honan, Katie (2018-06-27). "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' Startling Primary Win Upends New York Politics". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2018-06-27. ...The 28-year-old hard-left-leaning upstart never ran for office before her unexpected victory over Rep. Joe Crowley.

− Given how wikipedia editors have flippantly labeled Republicans as "far-right," "hard right" and "alt right" using less than reputable outlets I think there is more than enough evidence here to use the tern "far left" to refer to AOC. JustinCastreau (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable about calling Ocasio-Cortez "far-left" in Wikipedia's voice. The guideline is WP:LABEL, "Contentious labels," which is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It doesn't specifically list "far-left" or "far-right", but Wikipedia prefers neutral words that don't express a point of view. As for Stephen Miller (political advisor), I wouldn't have used "far-right" in the lead myself, and in any case, Wikipedia doesn't operate by precedent. You could reasonably argue that the description "far-left" is notable, because several news sources have used it, but that would belong further down in the body, preferably with a discussion of where she stands in the American political spectrum. --Nbauman (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you wrote under "Political positions" that some people called her "far-left", with citations, provided you followed it with a summary of her response like this:

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/27/623752094/who-is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez

Ocasio-Cortez's leftist outlook found her tilting at the Democratic Party establishment. Most notably, she is a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which has its roots in the Socialist Party of America. That group's most famous leader was Eugene V. Debs, a union leader who was a perennial presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket from 1900-1920.

"What I see is that the Democratic Party takes working class communities for granted, they take people of color for granted and they just assume that we're going to turn out no matter how bland or half-stepping these proposals are," Ocasio-Cortez said...

--Nbauman (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Only if a similar section were added on those that disagree. It is an unnecessary addition designed to smear with little substantive support.96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In response to the content of the article excerpt: The later part of that statement seems to stretch it; saying that she's a member of an organization which has its origins in a different organization which she is not a member of and was founded by a different person 100 years ago who she has no relation to isn't exactly relevant. However, it is perfectly fine for us to show prominently that she is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, because that is very true. The part about SPA and Eugene Debs, however, is not particularly relevant here. It may however be accurate to mention that she mentions a desire to challenge the establishment, as many other progressives state they intend to do. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Two of those three articles are from right-leaning sources. I don't expect the Wall Street Journal or International Business Times-owned Newsweek to characterize Ocasio-Cortez honestly. What's next, Fox News? Let me know when the New York Times calls her far-left. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Very disingenuous to dismiss the WSJ and Newsweek as being "right leaning sources." If anything, Newsweek is decidedly liberal although not as overtly leftist as Salon which is used to bolster the Stephen Miller (political advisor) "far right" cite. How about the Guardian which refers to AOC as an "unabashed leftist." Barkan, Ross (2018-06-27). "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez represents the future of the Democratic party". Guardian. Retrieved 2018-06-27. ...Ocasio-Cortez is an unabashed leftist, supported by the Democratic Socialists of America and numerous progressive organizations. (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It is accurate to say that overall the Wall Street Journal has a slight leaning to the centre-right, but its publications vary greatly from editor to the editor (especially if it's an editorial opinion piece). Unabashed Leftist is correct. She is a leftist, and unabashed means unconcealed. Her campaign was focused on showing that she is a left winger, not centrist. Unabashed Leftist is simply accurate; far leftist is not. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

WSJ is owned by Newscorp through subsidiaries. If you think they aren't influenced by the same bias that creates Fox I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. And that shift came when they were bought by it. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

A far leftist or a hard leftist may also be termed an unabashed leftist. The three cites I have provided ought not be discarded just because some Chomsky devotee complains that "she isn't really one of us."JustinCastreau (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you can provide direct quotes from her providing her views as fully far left, then it is unsubstantiated opinion96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to politely remind you to attack the arguments, not the editors. With that being said, unabashed simply means "unconcealed, not disguised, not hidden, obvious" - not radical or far. That's definitively true. Per WP:EDITORIAL, WP:LABEL, and WP:MOS contentious wording is not to be added, and it's highly contended whether she's just a left winger or a radical left-winger. As for you trying to smear me as a Chomsky devotee who's just complaining, I am concerned that you might not be here for the right reasons. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Given some of the actions on his edits

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at March for Our Lives. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges."

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of people banned from entering the United Kingdom, you may be blocked from editing."

I think your assertion is correct and safe bet that this person is just her to vandalize more.96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I decided to look at the other contributions from the account (though there aren't very many) and they included changing March For Our Lives from a "student-led protest" to a "communist-led protest" so it's probably very reasonable to conclude that they have a vested interest in labeling people/events as being extreme. Though I won't jump to conclusions on this talk page as that would itself be a WP:NOR violation on my part, it wouldn't be unreasonable for another party to consider seeing if WP:NOTHERE applies. (update - the user was blocked indefinitely for bad faith down to their username being about castrating Justin Trudeau; I've struck out their comments) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's depressing to see people seriously arguing about this. Let me phrase this in a way that anyone, even a child, can understand:

• Far left
• Not far left
• Far left
• Not far left
• Far left
• Not far left
• Far left
• Not far left
• Far left
• Not far left
• Far left
• Not far left

Please have some perspective here. Sure, social democrats are further left than America is used to, the New Democrat model is strategically centrist. On a global level, whether historically or today, by no standard is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a radical far-leftist. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A similar discussion cropped up with Steve Bannon awhile back where people took issue to him and/or Breitbart News being called far-right. (which associates him with figures such as Hitler and Mussolini among many readers) In fact, this discussion is practically a mirror to that old one. I personally gave up on that discussion because I could only take defending someone I dislike so far, but you can see the compromise ultimately made. If a significant number of reliable sources refer to her as far-left, it can be dissociated from Wikipedia's voice with a section headered: Ocasio-Cortez called far-left. Granted I understand that BLP differs from a business (it gets grey when you run said business) and that should really be at the center of this discussion, in my opinion. -- sarysa (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree, there is a difference between opinion articles and substantive research. And I'm sure cherrypicking opinion articles wouldn't be hard to do. It really has no business being a part of a FACT based database like Wikipedia. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources by default don't include opinion articles. -- sarysa (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only way such a compromise could have been made is for people to recognize something that frankly seems sinful among Wikipedians...in that the news is not infallible and emotional associations can slip into even the most unbiased news coverage. I was afraid to say it myself when discussing Bannon but it's more true today than ever. -- sarysa (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If the articles were required to stick to fact based references and not opinions as references there wouldn't be this problem. Quote the person, quote their platform. Those are facts.96.31.177.52 (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's so sad when it comes to politics what all wrong things are written about idiologies in the USA Her position has absolutely nothing in common with socialism. In Europe, most of the world, health care for all is common sense, is even ideology of conservative parties. In Germany it was founded in 1883! by Bismarck...not a socialist ;)Bernie Sanders could be member of Merkel party in Germany I don't start with the crazy definition of liberalism by some far right in the USA. Eifelochse (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to apologize in advance for this lengthy comment because I feel like we're getting way too deep into WP:NOTFORUM here, but: Eifelochse and Sarysa's points are very well-said. This is a classic example of a shift in the Overton window. It's a natural part of changes in political trends. The window of US politics just happened to be shifted significantly to the right of the rest of the developed world. What the "far-left" to America (Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna, Elizabeth Warren, Kara Eastman, Ben Jealous, etc) advocate for is quite literally just the system Europe had for decades, even under right-wing administrations. A universal healthcare system has existed in the UK (the NHS) since the years following World War II, and even many Tories helped establish it, but from 2016 to 2018 news outlets have literally labeled politicians like Sanders communists for supporting it, while the nominally "left" outlets have still called it state socialism and compared it to Venezuela. News is not infallible. Though these politicians support the Nordic model, we can put Scandinavia aside - virtually any part of the developed world has the kind of system these "far-leftists" speak of, whether Germany or Canada or Australia or Slovenia or, in the case of universal tuition-free public colleges, even developing countries like Brazil. These allegations (or rather accusations) of the social democrats being far left are rooted solely in opinions formed through a narrow view clouded by the Overton window where the New Democrat (economically conservative, socially liberal) model is "the left" (technically true, it's to the left of the Republican Party). It's still accurate to call them "Liberal Democrats" as they're comparable to the UK's Liberal Democrat party which is a centrist party that split from the left-wing Labour party which is economically more in line with the right-wing party and therefore joined a coalition under David Cameron. The United States simply hasn't had any major left-wing leadership for decades. When your country's political spectrum ranges from Centrist to Right-Wing, any left-winger looks like a radical. That doesn't mean they're actually far-left, even if these emotional preconceptions slip into reporting. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Disagree what Sanya said is well said. Taking opinion pieces that anyone can cherry pick and using them as fact or in a fact based media has no place here. There is a huge different citing studies, or facts from news articles, and taking OPINIONS and using them as reference. I think political pages on wikipedia are a mess right now and should remove all opinion based references. These pages should stick to just writing documented facts from their own statements and let the reader decide. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I do think you have a point; while I maintain that much of what Sarysa said I agree with, I do not agree with Sarysa's proposal that we add a subsection dedicated to the allegations of Ocasio-Cortez being far-left. I believe that would be WP:UNDUE, subject to far too much opinion, and would likely spark many messy RfC debates. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

If Dinesh D'Souza is labelled as "far-right", then she absolutely deserves the label of far-left. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and describe things in an objective way. "Abolish ICE" is way to the left of most Democrats, let alone Americans, to name one. This page looks like a gushing salon.com editorial, not an objective statement of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.237.114.67 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right or a valid argument. Should be removed on all articles like this including his, and stick to just their stated positions and quotes. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific than saying it "looks like a gushing salon.com editorial" - considering your only edit was replacing the part about her being endorsed by progressive organizations with a statement that she's far-left (and you cited a headline that read "With Ocasio-Cortez’s rise, Dems now own their loony far-left flank"" which instantly fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV for obvious reasons), it's not hard to tell that this a classic example of bad-faith. What parts of the article are "not an objective statement of facts"? The lead is fine; she is in fact an activist, she spent much of her life as a teacher, she is a community organizer, and she is a politician. She did win a primary against a 10-term 20-year incumbent, and there's no shortage of outlets that describe it as a large upset, regardless of whether they like or dislike her. These are uncontested and accurate things to state. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the top of the article is much improved now. It now looks as it should, and is clear and non-biased. I just thought it was a bit too gushing for Wikipedia at first but now it is accurate and impartial. Good work guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.49.10 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

BrendonTheWizard has claimed that there is some sort of consensus, and then goes around punishing users who disagree, when there is clearly much debate to be had. While he is right that Wikipedia does not function on precedent, it does encourage consistency, on the page far-left, democratic-socialism is listed under the four main branches of European far-left politics. Further, BrendonTheWizard admitted that Socialism is a far-left ideology, but rejected the claim that Ms. Cortes is a socialist. However, she claimed that "socialism," not just democratic socialism is a part of her. Therefore, his own political bias in not wanting to categorize Ms. Cortes when the overwhelming amount of evidence from herself, and other sources friendly to her (specifically slate, which was the citation provided to the article), say that she is either far-left or a socialist. BrendonTheWizard has made consensus with himself, and it is pertinent that we reopen this debate in order insure the correct and consistent usage of terms on Wikipedia.Canijustedit (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)CanIJustEdit

Canijustedit, your argument is flawed in several ways. First of all, a Wikipedia article like Far-left politics is never acceptable as a source for another Wikipedia article. Secondly, that particular article is tagged for a variety of problems. Third, what relevance does the European political lexicon have to U.S. politics? Fourth, the article does not say what you claim in does. It mentions one scholar, Luke March, who classifies democratic socialism as one form of far left politics in Europe. On the other hand, that same article mentions another scholar, Serge Cosseron, who believes that, in France at least, the term applies to groups to the left of the French Communist Party, and that section concludes "but there is no real consensus." Accordingly, what that article says is of no value whatsoever in editing this biography.

In the context of U.S. politics, I believe that most observers would agree that groups like the Communist Party USA, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Socialist Worker's Party, the Progressive Labor Party, the Worker's World Party and the Spartacist League all qualify as "far left" groups and there are many others. I doubt if many neutral political scientists would describe a DSA member running on the Democratic Party ticket as a "far left" candidate. In the end, though, we summarize what the full range of reliable sources say about her ideology, with special consideration given to her own self-identification. We do not cherry-picked a handful of shocked and surprised breaking news sources to come up with a description of a candidate's ideology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You make a good point, I agree. My argument was too relativistic.

References

Democrat?

Sorry, I don't understand how someone can be a Democratic Socialists of America member - but win the Democratic primary (I'm UK and don't understand these things). I'm sure that it's self-evident to a US reader, but brief text explaining - or linking to - how primaries work would help those readers not in the US. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand why you would be confused and it would be good to clarify, but Democratic Socialists of America is not a political party; it's an organization with a membership program where you pay a monthly membership fee / donation. Party primaries in the United States include running to be the nominee of the political party to appear as the representative of that political party during the general election, so Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ran under the Democratic Party to seek the party's nomination as the candidate for house member. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Since its founding in 1982, DSA has encouraged principled participation in the Democratic Party, endorsed and campaigned for left wing Democrats starting with Jesse Jackson in 1984, and its members have often run for office as Democrats. Ron Dellums, who served 26 years as a Democratic Party member in Congress representing Berkeley and Oakland, ran initially as a socialist and joined DSA when it was founded. There is nothing contradictory about membership in both DSA and the Democratic Party. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Great, but that doesn't change the fact that the DSA is not a political party, which is what the infobox parameter is about. — Hugh (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Hugh; we list her political party in the infobox as Democratic because that is the party she is a member of, but we continue to mention elsewhere that she is a member of the DSA organization. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well, but this thread did not begin as a discussion of an infobox parameter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In the state of New York,one registers to vote and may or may not enroll in a political party as part of registration,which (depending on the rules of the party) may entitle one to vote on the nominees of that party.Parties are recognized by the state if they poll 50,000 votes for their gubernatorial candidate.(Where I live,the Democrats nominate by primary election,the Conservatives nominate by caucus,and the Working Families Party by party committee decision,for example).Ocasio-Cortez is an enrolled Democrat in terms of voting registration,which entitles her to be and to vote for a nominee of that party,but also belongs to Democratic Socialists of America,which is not a party but a membership group with an ideology,which may support candidates of any party that support that ideology(in New York,likely to be Democratic,Working Families,Green,Women's Equality,or Liberal).Candidates are allowed to be nominated by multiple parties if the organizations of the parties other than the one in which they are enrolled consent to allow their nomination.12.144.5.2 (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Democratic Socialist v Social Democratic positions

I recommend we continue to mention that she is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, but we refer to her as a Social democrat where we currently refer to her as a Democratic socialist. This is not contradictory as it's a very common position among DSA members as shown in their ideology section, but linking to Democratic socialism would mislead the reader to believe she advocates for seizing the means of production (democratic socialism), which she has never advocated for. I would not suggest that we don't refer to her as a democratic socialist at all, because she is in fact a member of DSA, but linking to the article on democratic socialism directs to a less accurate description of her policies.

In short, I suggest a very minor change to the wording in the lead for the sake of semantic accuracy. She is a DSA member and a progressive social democrat, so we should continue to prominently feature both of these facts, but she does not advocate for democratic socialism. As I have the ability to do so, I will make this change myself, but I thought I should fully explain my rationale here first in case any editors would like to discuss the most accurate way to describe her. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet she refers to herself as a democratic socialist. The CNN article itself refers to herself as a Democratic Socialist. The fact that we do not include that would be confusing since people are going to be looking for. That has to be mentioned, no? Vyshan1 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If Ocasio-Cortez describes herself as a democratic socialist and there is a reliable source for this, then that's what should be included in the article. We could use a similar formation in the lead as in Jeremy Corbyn's page: "Ideologically, Corbyn identifies as a democratic socialist." Wikipedia is not really the place to debate whether she is truly a democratic socialist or whether she's better described as a radical social democrat, etc. — Zcbeaton (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Our article calls her a socialist and then uses a source where she states she is a democratic socialist. We should be going with the term that she is using. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Zcbeaton's rationale that we should mention that she ideologically self-identifies one, as it would be difficult if not impossible to know whether or not everything a politician advocates for is what they philosophically support. This should be similar to how we phrase it in the Bernie Sanders article as Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist but it's a well known and little-disputed fact that he is more in line with social democracy: "A self-described democratic socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive, Sanders is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality. Many scholars consider his views more in line with social democracy." Perhaps we can simply avoid the semantics of socdem/demsoc by referring to her as a progressive because she both self-identifies as progressive and can definitively be referred to as one. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's an interview with Stephen Colbert in which he calls her a "democratic socialist," she agrees, and defines what she means by that. Many WP:RSs refer to her as a democratic socialist. It's not a contentious label. I can't find any quotes in which she calls herself a "progressive."

That should be enough for Wikipedia to describe her in its own voice as a democratic socialist.

I also prefer "democratic socialist" to "progressive," because "democratic socialist" is more precise, and the term "progressive" is used very loosely, for example by the Progressive Policy Institute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_1G4_oPt_o

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez: Trump Isn't Ready For A Girl From The Bronx

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert

Jun 29, 2018

Colbert: You described yourself as a democratic socialist. That's not an easy term for a lot of Americans. What is the meaning of that? What does socialist mean to you?

Ocasio-Cortez: For me, democratic socialism is, ... I believe that in a modern, moral and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live.... so what that means to me is health care as a human right, it means that every child, no matter where you are born, should have access to a college or trade school education if they choose it, and I think that no person should be homeless, if we can have public structures and public policies for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States.

The video meets the standards of WP:RS according to WP:PUBLISHED, since there are permanent archived copies.

I would also consider putting that exchange in as a block quote, since in it Ocasio-Cortez explains her own political position better than most WP editors, including myself, could do in a paraphrase. --Nbauman (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the above discussion indicates that there is consensus that we can refer to Ocasio-Cortez as a democratic socialist, because (1) many WP:RS call her a democratic socialist, and (2) she calls herself a democratic socialist. That's the Wikipedia criteria for including any content. Any objections? --Nbauman (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would object unless asterisks exist; she self-described and defined it the way Bernie Sanders does, but in the same sentence where we mention that Sanders self-identifies as a democratic socialist, we note that many have pointed out that his positions are more in line with Social democracy. I have no objections to saying she self-describes as one, because that's true without question. However, to say she is a democratic socialist and go on to say in the same sentence how her policies are universal healthcare and a robust welfare state - or worse, to say that it is because she holds these positions that she is a democratic socialist - would compromise accuracy as that's a description of socdem, not demsoc. In short, I am completely fine with "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez describes herself as a democratic socialist and is a member of Democratic Socialists of America" but not "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist and believes (list of SocDem policies)" - we can refer to her policies as progressive to preserve accuracy as best as possible without having to worry about the semantics of it. Unfortunately, the kind of sentence I opposed is what we currently have in the political positions section (though this has changed a few times) - we currently say she is a democratic socialist and then immediately go on to list only social democratic policies. We can still include all of the content you described: we can still say with citations "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez describes herself as a democratic socialist" without compromising accuracy; the problem with the previous version is that the user can be misled in one of two ways 1) wrongly assuming that Alexandria wants to seize the means of production 2) wrongly assuming that democrat socialism and social democracy are synonyms, or rather that socialism is a form of capitalism. It's a very easy fix to modify the wording to say what is definitively true, reliably sourced, and not subject to any questions: she is a steadfast progressive and card-carrying DSA member. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:BrendonTheWizard, do you agree that many WP:RS describe her as a "democratic socialist"? --Nbauman (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree the same way I agree that many WP:RS sources describe Bernie Sanders as both a "democratic socialist" and simply "socialist" ([4][5][6][7]). For that reason, I believe we should watch our wording in the same way we do on that article: we mentioned that Bernie Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist, but we don't refer to him or his policies as socialist in Wikipedia's voice, no matter how many headlines called him one (a ctrl+f showed 38 mentions of "socialist" - most of them in the citation headlines, the remaining mentions of Sanders as a "socialist" were either in his voice or the media's voice, but not in Wikipedia's voice). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:BrendonTheWizard, I don't understand what the problem is. Do you agree that at least ten WP:RS describe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a "democratic socialist"? That's a simple factual question. Yes or no? --Nbauman (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

We're discussing what to do with the sources. I already told you that I agree that dozens of sources describe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a DemSoc. That doesn't mean I agree we should use Wikipedia's voice to refer to her as one for the exact same reason why Wikipedia's voice does not and should not refer to Bernie Sanders as a DemSoc, even though his article has about three dozen sources calling him a socialist/DemSoc in the title. I don't see what part of this is confusing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 04:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:BrendonTheWizard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a Wikipedia policy, which means "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Under WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT says:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

Do you agree with that policy, as defined above? --Nbauman (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, which is precisely why I'm not opposed to including that she refers to herself as a democratic socialist. Saying that she, by definition, is one because the sources say so in the headlines would be extremely problematic, and would necessitate that we immediately make changes to Bernie Sanders. We have a precedent for how to approach situations when a politician's self-identified ideology and in-practice ideology are two vastly different things, and I've laid out how we can properly approach it here. Not to be rude, but I can't help but notice that you haven't addressed anything I've been saying, and instead have asked more questions regardless of the answers I give you. Stating that they ideologically identify as a socialist is not just common on Bernie Sanders, but also Jeremy Corbyn - we state that he ideologically identifies one, which is using Jeremy's voice, not Wikipedia's voice. This is a straightforward and beneficial practice, as it doesn't tell try to tell the reader that Sanders or Corbyn are or are not socialists, it simply lets the reader know that they personally identify as socialists. The same should be done here. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Saying that Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist because WP:RS say so (not just in the headlines, but in the whole story) is not "problematic," it's the way Wikipedia works, as you can read in WP:RS. Wikipedia requires that we present "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." Reliable sources have published that she is a "democratic socialist." That's a significant viewpoint. Therefore we should present it. Why is that "problematic"?

(I don't want to get into Bernie Sanders because (1) Wikipedia doesn't follow precedent; there is no guideline or policy that says we follow precedent. (2) I want to concentrate on one thing at a time.) --Nbauman (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Whether Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist or is described as a socialist are two different things, and are not viewpoints. Though I understand your concern, it would not be accurate to say that Wikipedia does not operate based on precedents, because precedents have played a crucial role in virtually every RfC I've seen in the last few years. There may be no policy mandating that we follow precedents, but this is an instance of de jure versus de facto: in practice, it is true that precedents are one of the most decisive factors in discussions, despite how no policy reads that precedents are important. Over time precedents can change, but your arguments' rejection of precedents altogether doesn't put forward a compelling reason to change them here or there. Can we say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been described as a socialist? Yes. Can we say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described socialist? Yes. Can we say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist? No. There's a reason why we don't use Wikipedia's voice to call Jeremy Corbyn a socialist at any point in his article, and chances are discussions similar to this are why this practice is so common. Accuracy is what we strive for, and if we say that Ocasio-Cortez is a socialist we're compromising it. Even worse is to say she is a socialist and immediately follow that with basic welfare-state-capitalist ideas, which is what the previous version did. That is highly problematic, and there's good reason why we don't do that for any socialist politicians that never speak of the socialist ideology or the means of production. These words have definitions. To give you an example of a similar discussion that we just had, the discussion to label Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez "Far Left" resulted in a strong consensus against labeling her far-left, and one editor noted that a very similar discussion occurred on whether or not we should label Steve Bannon as "Far Right" which ultimately resulted in a consensus against that, because news is not infallible and presentation of political labels by editorials won't always align with objective or well-accepted definitions of those labels. Ocasio-Cortez is not a radical far left winger, and socialism is not a form of capitalism. If we started calling people far left when, from a global perspective, they're centre-left, we would be compromising the accuracy of the article in favour of a very limited view because headlines said so. If we started calling people one ideology when they speak only of another, we'd be knowingly compromising the accuracy of the article. I sense that you implied I am saying we ignore the sources, which I am not; I am saying we should do what we do with every similar BLP politician article: using their own voice, acknowledge their self identification, and if relevant use the media's voice to acknowledge their description by outlets, but never use Wikipedia's voice because we know it would be objectively and definitively inaccurate to do so. That's not a controversial position. The rationale is there, it doesn't compromise accuracy, it doesn't ignore the abundance of sources, and it's a longstanding uncontroversial practice. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨

User:BrendonTheWizard, TLDR: If the statement "Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist" is not a "viewpoint," what is it? Is it a fact? Is it an opinion?

Wikipedia says things in its own voice that represent the consensus of WP:RS. If there is no consensus, Wikipedia says in its own voice that things are disputed, and gives all significant sides. If there is an overwhelming consensus in WP:RS that the sky is blue, then according to the Wikipedia guideline WP:MOS WP:WEASEL we don't write, "It is often reported that the sky is blue." We simply say, "The sky is blue," and cite WP:RS.

We don't write, "It is often reported that Governor Andrew Cuomo is a Democrat."

Similarly, if there is an overwhelming consensus in WP:RS, including her own repeated statements, that Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist, then following WP:MOS, we don't write, "It is often reported that Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist." Under WP:WEASEL, we should simply say, "Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist," and cite WP:RS to support that.

You're saying the statement "Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist" is not a "viewpoint."

Even if it isn't a "viewpoint," Wikipedia policy still says that it should be included. According to the policy WP:NPOV, under WP:BALASP:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

So if it's not a viewpoint, it's an "aspect." I think Wikipedia guidelines and policies are clear that when many WP:RS consistently say something, we can say it in Wikipedia's voice, with citations to WP:RS. If there are dissenting opinions, then we say, "According to some ... according to others. You violate Wikipedia style when you say, "According to many sources, the sky is blue."

So here's my question for you: If the statement "Ocasio-Cortez is a democratic socialist" is not a "viewpoint," what is it? Is it a fact? Is it an opinion? Is it an "aspect" of the story? --Nbauman (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the entirety of this response was hyper-focused on the last third of the first sentence and nothing else in that wall of text, leaving me to question whether or not any further substantial replies would be taken into consideration. The reason why it is not a viewpoint whether or not someone is a socialist and can be called one in Wikipedia's voice is because these words shockingly do actually have definitions, and as another editor pointed out in a different discussion on this talk page, the term "socialism" will mean different things to different people with different ideologies, and Ocasio-Cortez has neither endorsed nor rejected the ideology described in the lead of democratic socialism. What does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez think about seizing the means of production for the workers through democratic means? Nobody knows because she hasn't spoke of that at any point, and considering the responses she's given when asked about what democratic socialism means to her she certainly doesn't describe that as her belief, so saying she's a democratic socialist and linking to the Wikipedia article about how democratic socialism is the democratic seizure of the means of production would be awfully misleading and inaccurate. With all due respect, comparing this to saying It is often reported that Andrew Cuomo is a Democrat is an absolutely terrible comparison. By what definition can we say someone is a Democrat in the United States? The only determining factor there is whether or not they've registered as a Democrat. "Democrat" is not an ideology. "Democrat" doesn't have a political, ideological, or philosophical definition beyond its most literal definition of supporting democracy. A counterargument like that is so dismissive that it doesn't warrant further response. Nobody's suggesting that we say "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described member of DSA" as the definitions of someone in DSA and the definitions for someone that subscribes to the ideology of democratic socialism are by literally no means the same. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: for all the same reasons why we do not and should not say "Bernie Sanders is a socialist" and "Jeremy Corbyn is a socialist" we shouldn't say it here. Even if we are to ignore all precedents as you've suggested, and only focus on this one instance, it just so happens to be the case that the rationale for doing the same here mirrors the rationale for doing the same there, but that is a rationale that your arguments have not made the appearance of a response to, only focusing on 2-3 words out of the 500+ present in my last reply. Even worse is comparing that to saying "According to many sources, the sky is blue." which is doesn't even warrant being humored. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

So even though WP:NPOV says:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

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.

and even though you agree that dozens of WP:RS describe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a democratic socialist, and she describes herself as a democratic socialist, you don't believe that we should say in Wikipedia's voice that she is a democratic socialist. You don't believe that WP:NPOV applies because the fact that she is a democratic socialist is not a viewpoint or aspect of the story.

Is that a correct statement of what you believe? --Nbauman (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies if this comes off as rude, but have you actually read any of my replies? Not only have I answered that, I gave excessively lengthy responses to what you have to say about RS, NPOV, whether or not it's a viewpoint, and why we shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice. It appears that my previous thoughts were correct: it doesn't matter what I say, how much detail I go into, or how many times I repeat myself, the response I'll be met with will ignore virtually the entirety of the reply. If you want my answer to your last question, it's already on the talk page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me like Nbauman is just baiting you each time. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear rules to determine what belongs in an article and what Wikipedia can say in its own voice. Those rules are based on finding a consensus of WP:RS, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. You are substituting your own personal opinion for WP rules. It's simply your opinion that we shouldn't call Ocasio-Cortez a democratic socialist, even though virtually all the news media call her that, and Wikipedia is an aggregation of WP:RS. Read the WP:RS, even the ones that we've cited. The story they report is that a "democratic socialist" won an election. You are keeping that fact out of the story for reasons that I can't understand (and reasons that are not Wikipedia policies and guidelines).

Rather than simply making the changes myself, and getting into an editing war, I decided to try to explain to you how WP policies should operate, and try to figure out what your reasons were, and see whether there are any mutually agreeable solutions. From my perspective, all of those arguments that you accuse me of ignoring are irrelevant digressions, such as whether socialism means seizing the means of production.

(BTW, It would be easier for me (or anybody else) to get through your writing if you would break your ideas up into separate paragraphs.)

I'll wait for a while to see whether anyone else weighs in on it.

But to sum everything up, the argument I'm making is that for virtually all the WP:RS, the main story here is that a democratic socialist won an election. Our Wikipedia entry based on those WP:RS should reflect that.--Nbauman (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Does prehistory of this article demonstrate Wikipedia's male-white-hateful right-wing macho toxic self-obsessed cultist systemic bias?

On June 26, 2018, shortly after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the New York primary, NBC News reporter Ben Collins tweeted from his verified account that she "didn't have a Wikipedia page until an hour ago. Last August, moderator shut down someone creating her page, then killed the entry. Not enough 'reliable sources discuss(ed) her in depth.'" Collins attached a screenshot showing the edit in question by User:Czar on 14 Aug 2017.

The next day, Gizmodo likewise reported, "Democratic Candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Didn't Even Have a Wikipedia Page on Monday." Writer Matt Novak asserted that by denying subjects or people their own pages, Wikipedia sends "a signal to the world that this subject or person isn't important. Until yesterday, Wikipedia editors didn't deem Ocasio-Cortez as important."

Director/screenwriter Lexi Alexander then tweeted from her verified account, "The fact that Ocasio-Cortez didn't have a Wikipedia page until 2 days ago because the moderator deleted it, convinced she isn't significant enough to have one—that's life for women-of-color in America explained."

From Italy, Giorgio Romano concurred, "Wikipedia has a serious problem with its male-white-hatefull [sic] moderator." Richard Cheeseman agreed, "This is @wikipedia to a T. Fun fact: ~90% of Wikipedia editors are male. (!) Most are white. Wikipedia's internal culture is right-wing, macho, toxic, self-obsessed and cultist. Outside purely factual matters, and in particular for anything political, it is useless or worse." In retweeting Lexi Alexander, Barbara Clarke added the comment, "Really? She had her Wikipedia page deleted by moderators? We've seen what they let through, so just another reminder of systemic bias."

In response to such allegations, it may be pertinent to note that a woman Wikipedian named Deb originally deleted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's page on 5 Aug 2017, citing "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." That was nine days before the presumably male Czar "shut down someone creating her page."

In any event, I offer this background to better inform editors of the scrutiny we are under—rightly or wrongly—as accused cultists enforcing Wikipedia's systemic bias. KalHolmann (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kal and you made me smile. Gandydancer (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't really have much idea what this conflict is about, but the article, at the time I deleted it, consisted of four sentences, and had no references and no categories. The subject was a candidate, not an elected politician, and therefore did not meet the notability criteria, as they stand now or as they stood then. The creator, User:Emass100, whether or not he/she was a supporter of hers, had worded the article in such a way as to encourage support of that candidate, and we do not allow advertising on this project. It seems from the above that the Twitterers don't have much idea of how Wikipedia works. Deb (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• I think that experienced Wikipedians would agree that she became notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography in the hours following her stunning upset victory, as a result of the massive press coverage that followed. I am a white male editor who has recommending deleting the biographies of hundreds of non-notable unelected white male political candidates, and others as well. Our notabilty standards apply to candidates of all genders and races. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussing the history of the article is completely appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's us he's getting at, he means it's what the Twitterers think we are. Deb (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The article compares O-C to Dave Brat. The creation of their WP-articles are also strikingly similar. Many would-be BLP-creators have on the Teahouse and other places been told that just running for office is not enough for an article to stick. I have no doubt Deb acted correctly, at the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Deb comments above that "the article, at the time I deleted it, consisted of four sentences, and had no references and no categories." To help us appreciate just how meager that fragment (too skimpy to even be called a stub) was, admin Peteforsyth has restored the version which Deb deleted on 5 Aug 2017. Yeah, sure smacks of systemic bias to me. KalHolmann (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Struck this because admin Peteforsyth has re-hidden the restored edits to which I referred, thus rendering my comment meaningless and incomprehensible. KalHolmann (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I created that pathetic article on August 5th, 2017. It was my third article created on the website, created before I even had done 20 edits, and I didn't know what I was doing at all. I admit I was a supporter of Ocasio-Cortez, and I wanted to boost her legitimacy for a project I was doing, so I created a wikipedia article for her. However, I didn't want to be bothered with actually writing the article, so I copy-pasted the first two paragraph of her campaign website bibliography and posted it here. So yeah, honestly, I agree it should have been deleted.

No issues with that. We all make mistakes, especially when we first start. And there was a time, when the project began, when that kind of article would not have been looked at twice. Deb (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not indicative of any "male-white-hateful right-wing macho toxic self-obsessed cultist systemic bias" on wikipeida, it is a reflection of wikipedia's goal to be free from advertisorial content. This is the same for any non-elected election candidates (except if you get a large amount of coverage from autoritative sources, like Jon Ossoff). Emass100 (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Emass100, you say you created the article on June 5, 2017, but this diff shows it was August 5, 2017. To avoid confusion, please clarify. Thanks. KalHolmann (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I meant August. Sorry. Emass100 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Emass100. It seems that at least the Wikipedians agree that, imperfect though WP is, this particular problem wasn't a problem so much as WP working the way it should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an acquaintance on Twitter asked for my take, and I dove into the Twitter discussion, and much social media drahmahz ensued. If anybody's curious, the thread starts here. But the part I wanted to note here on Wikipedia is that to support that discussion and allow readers to see the full process for themselves, I undeleted the original 3 edits from August 2017, that were previously removed. I can't imagine having them in the edit history now causes any harm, and it might help some curious readers understand how things work. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I've joined in now as well. Sadly, the people who moan the most are those who would never dream of taking the trouble to create an ID and do some editing to help redress the balance.Deb (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth, restoring the edit history makes it look like I squelched text when in reality I redirected a blank title. It doesn't show why the article was deleted in-between. I don't think it clarifies more than it confuses, especially considering the predilection for misinformation in the threads resulting from the original tweet. (Also "much social media drahmahz" on your replies? I don't see it?) (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 10:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: You make a good point that I didn't anticipate. I'm happy to re-delete, I don't think the invitation got much notice anyway. Sorry for creating confusion with that. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm having technical difficulty getting it back to how it was. Are there any experienced admins in this discussion who can advise, or fix it for me? Deleting these specific revisions has a very different result from the initial deletion of the page -- the edit history still shows the edit lines, but crossed out. I don't know if there's a way to simply remove those three lines from view, as it was before I restored them...at this point, would that require oversight? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth, when you delete specific revisions from a live edit history, they'll show as revdels (crossed out). To put them back as they were (deleted but not in the edit history), you'd delete the article and restore all edits but those three. czar 19:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Thanks, I hadn't considered that approach. I'm happy to do it if you feel that is best. However, my online time is pretty limited in the next few days, so it might not be immediate. If you're looking for it to be done swiftly, I might suggest making a request at at WP:AN. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You did absolutely nothing wrong. I meant to mention the fact that you only redirected, not deleted. If you had deleted, the Twitterers wouldn't even have known about it because they obviously don't understand how to read an article's edit history.Deb (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Peteforsyth, yes, I think returning to the edit history to its original state makes the falsity of the Twitter accusation less confusing to outsiders. czar 16:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll do so tonight, late at night New York time (since there will be a brief period of disruption). For what it's worth, Twitter user KalHolmann (presumably the same as wiki user KalHolmann) raised an objection to this approach, but as I stated on Twitter, the objection is based on a misunderstanding of what we're discussing. I'll watch for any further input before I pull the trigger. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI: I'm going to delete and restore the article now, as discussed above. It will be back in a few minutes. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: thanks for weighing in. I apologize if I seem dense about this, but I'm honestly still confused about what you actually did in your 14 Aug 2017 edit that has attracted media attention. "In reality," you explain, "I redirected a blank title." As best I can reconstruct from the redacted edit history available to non-admins, you responded to a 5 Aug 2017 edit by Emass100 in which he inserted an internal link into the article Brand New Congress by enclosing "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" in double brackets. Obviously NBC News reporter Ben Collins was mistaken in tweeting on 26 Jun2018, "Last August, moderator shut down someone creating her page, then killed the entry." Emass100 was not creating her page with the edit you reverted, but trying to link her name in the candidates list at Brand New Congress to her BLP that he would create a few minutes later (16:18, 5 Aug 2017) and that Deb deleted five minutes thereafter (16:23, 5 Aug 2017). Have I got this right? KalHolmann (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but either way he didn't delete an article. Could there have been some exchange between these two users that we haven't found and that neither of them remembers? Deb (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Not that complicated. I wrote Brand New Congress (BNC). Emass started the AOC article with no sources, linked the candidate from BNC, which became a redlink when Deb rightfully deleted the article for having no sources. I created a redirect over a week later (the Forsyth-restored edits were not in the edit history) and subsequently removed the circular redirect from BNC. Pro journalist strolls by a year later and sets fallacious argument before Twitter, and the horde wrings its hands about the decline of Wikipedia with the epithets from this discussion's title. No one answers what sources we were supposed to use to do justice to AOC's biography on the day prior to her election, nevertheless in 2017 a year earlier. Much easier to deflect blame to a WPian—someone who actually looked for sources a year before anyone on Twitter cared—than to indict one's own profession for missing the story and not creating the sources to paraphrase. Much easier to cast a set of users as right-wing patsies than to actually look at my open edit history. Overall, much easier to sabotage the people actually doing the work whose lack they purport to lament. This discussion and the click-bait headlines that started them are a non-story. The only revelation worth nothing is that journalists continue to have the opportunity and privilege to ask questions, fact-check, and educate the public, but cannot resist the opiatic rush of retweets. czar 19:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has a huge anti-progressive bias - Given the number of butthurt trolls who came to this page to label Ocasio-Cortez as Marxist, far-left, etc. and removing sentences that they disagreed with, even if they had a billion references. Ottoshade (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say Wikipedia has a bias, but rather that random trolls (very often IP editors with no accounts or new users whose only contributions were edits to this article, past vandalism, or both) are inevitable on any potentially controversial subject, and therefore guaranteed on any high-profile political article because politics are inherently subject to disagreement. It may be beneficial to seek temporary protection until the daily page views go down to a normal amount. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 10:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I remember one time when Sarah Palin was newly announced as running mate, someone replaced the article text with "milfmilfmilfmilf" or similar. These things happen and often we catch them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm a progressive woman and a feminist and I've been here for over ten years. The fact that we have so few women does change the "flavor" of the place to some extent IMO, but I've almost never seen women to be treated in a toxic, macho, etc., manner. The arrival of Trump has heated up what has long oftentimes been a political food fight, but in my experience our articles are mostly fair (liberal).Gandydancer (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I had to twice revert the wholesale deletion of the article AFTER the media blitz from her upset victory[8][9]. I don't know that the users who tried to put the kibosh on the article, or tag it with various BLPunreferenced type warning banners, weren't doing so out of good faith reasoning but some political reason, but it doesn't seem hard as Cortez was the top story on Google News and various other sites, to do some basic due diligence before erasing an article with no PROD, CSD or AFD. Aldous Hooplah (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 and User:JocularJellyfish should be pinged so they can explain. I would, however, point out that redirect is not the same as deletion, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to undo it. Deb (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: always happy to explore my actions but as I have not been follow this page could you or another editor tell me what you want me to explain? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe it's this edit that's caused some controversy. I'm assuming you didn't realise she had already been elected. Even now, parts of the article are out of date. Deb (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Deb: My understanding of the guidelines is that you can only get a wiki page if you have won a general election, not just a primary (aside from some special cases, of course). Ocasio-Cortez only won the primary for New York 14, so I redirected the article title to the election section to allow for future development of the article if/when she wins the general election. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 15:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I see - I don't know anything about American elections, but I would say that any such general rule would be overridden if she met the general notability guideline. Deb (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As someone who does know about American elections JocularJellyfish is correct. She has won a primary. In November she will, almost for sure, be elected to the House of Representatives. She does appear to be one of the exceptions I talked about in that edit summary but as this was happening mere hours after the election. I stand by my edits as most people who win primaries do not have lasting notability even if they get news coverage as part of their win. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Which she, of course, has. Within 24 hours of her victory every major news source had mentioned or even interviewed her. This girl is on fire and she has, without doubt, created a firestorm. Gandydancer (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: winning this primary made her a candidate of a major party for a House seat. I'm pretty sure that's enough for notability. There's no chance a candidate for Representative of one of the major parties wouldn't get enough coverage. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I might be missing something because I read WP:NPOL Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability and WP:POLOUTCOMES Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls as say something different. Can you shed any light here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: you're technically right. I'm being specific here and saying that any candidate for Congress from one of the two major parties is going to garner enough coverage to be notable. Minor party candidates, most of them won't. Maybe there'd be circumstances where a House candidate would be ignored, but I can't imagine them. Virtually impossible for a candidate for the Senate. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Senate candidate from Major party, yeah it is impossible for that to happen, but house races it can happen. There are a lot of districts that are populated significantly majority by one party, and basically whoever wins the primary for that party wins election, and if the other party even has a contender, they typically won't have enough coverage to be considered notable. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Using this bio to campaign for other candidates

I have worked extensively on both the Warren and Sanders articles and nothing like this was ever entered or even suggested to be entered into their bios. I think that most if not all of this should be deleted:

After her victorious primary campaign, Ocasio-Cortez threw her support behind several other progressive candidates for Congress, including Brent Welder over incumbent Kevin Yoder in Kansas's 3rd Congressional District election, Kerri Evelyn Harris over incumbent Tom Carper in Delaware's US Senate race's Democratic primary, Kaniela Ing in Hawaii's first district's Democratic primary, Chardo Richardson over incumbent Stephanie Murphy in Florida's seventh district's Democratic primary, Ayanna Pressley over incumbent Mike Capuano in Massachusetts's seventh district's Democratic primary, and Cori Bush over incumbent Lacy Clay in Missouri's first congressional district's Democratic primary. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Per per WP:NOTPROMOTION and Wikipedia:Be bold, I have removed that content. Let's see if consensus forms to restore it. KalHolmann (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know. I don't feel strongly, but it seems to me she has put a significant emphasis on supporting other progressive candidates, and so it is noteworthy. I'd lean towards putting a trimmed version of that back in, say:

After her victorious primary campaign, Ocasio-Cortez threw her support behind several other progressive candidates in Democratic primaries, including Brent Welder in Kansas, Kerri Evelyn Harris over Tom Carper in Delaware, Kaniela Ing in Hawaii, Chardo Richardson over Stephanie Murphy in Florida, Ayanna Pressley in Massachusetts', and Cori Bush over Lacy Clay in Missouri. Crust (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

How does your trimmed version overcome the nexus of WP:NOTPROMOTION? KalHolmann (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. That was not my intent. I feel the original version was too wordy, and my version was intended to address that.

I don't read WP:NOTPROMOTION as applicable here: Maybe I'm missing something, but saying "X endorsed Y" is reporting objectively about X's advocacy, but is not itself advocacy. From the policy:

"... Wikipedia is not for: 1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions."

(There are four other headings under the policy. But the other four I think you will agree are inarguable.)

All that said, I don't actually feel that strongly about inclusion. Crust (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of any endorsements made by Ocasio-Cortez. The proper place for most of these would be either Democratic Socialists of America or the candidate's own website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Democratic Socialists of America would definitely be inappropriate, since these are Ocasio-Cortez's endorsements. (Of course her own website is appropriate.) Crust (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
• Mixed views We can mention in her campaign section "During her congressional campaign, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has also campaigned for a variety of other candidates that share her views." in one sentence with a few sources and go back to talking about her own campaign. We don't need to list them off, though; Ocasio-Cortez endorses more candidates than most politicians normally would, which may itself be a notable fact, but as the list of candidates she backs grows we only have more reasons to not list them here. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable to me.Crust (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Same here. The Politico citation I've added should suffice in this regard: She had a unique win, so she's using her political capital uniquely. Once the dust has settled we'll see how everyone has fared. kencf0618 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Your edit looks good to me, thanks kencf0618. Crust (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Ocasio-Cortez discusses ‘Democratic Socialist’ label

Here she is again, in case anyone needs clarification of how she feels about "democratic socialism."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-0Tn2cpAH8
Full Ocasio-Cortez: 'There was a lack of listening on the ground' in surprise NY primary
NBC News
Jul 1, 2018
In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Democratic House nominee Alexandria Ocastio-Cortez tells Chuck Todd that Democratic politics need to be more closely rooted in the communities that elected leaders serve.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/01/democratic-socialists-ocasio-cortez-689647
Ocasio-Cortez discusses ‘Democratic Socialist’ label
By IAN KULLGREN
Politico
07/01/2018
Democratic congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Sunday she embraces the “Democratic Socialist“ label, but doesn’t want to force other Democrats to do the same.
“It’s part of what I am, it’s not all of what I am,” Ocasio-Cortez said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. “And I think that’s a very important distinction.“

--Nbauman (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

The word "socialism" has different meanings to different people. To some it means government social programs to help people get health care, education, food, housing, etc. To others, it means seizing the means of production, such as farmland, factories, and businesses. So far all reliable sources show Ocasio-Cortez endorsing the former, while neither endorsing nor rejecting the latter. This article would benefit if it could get her position on the latter from a reliable source, but so far, there doesn't seem to be one. Veralenya Sarconyacov (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's what she said on Meet the Press today: CHUCK TODD:

Let me talk about some of your policy positions. First, explain this to me. You were endorsed by a group, the democratic socialists. And you have embraced this label. And I think The New York Times has a headline this morning, that sort of, ‘Millennials have embraced socialism.’ What is your definition of democratic socialist?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ:

Well, for me, again, and there's so much focus on this endorsement. But I also think it's important that an important part of my strategy in winning was building a broad based coalition of people. So while there's the focus on this one aspect of the coalition and to me, you know, to answer your question, the definition of democratic socialism to me, again, is the fact that in a modern, moral and wealthy society, no American should be too poor to live. And to me, that means every working class American in this country should have access to dignified health care. Should actually be able to see a doctor without going broke. It means you should be able to send your kids to college and trade school if they so choose. And no person should feel precarious or unstable in their access to housing as our economy develops. Gandydancer (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if pagesix.com is a reliable source but I'll post it here just in case

https://pagesix.com/2018/07/01/ex-co-worker-no-fan-of-democrat-darling-alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

... one waitress has a bad memory of working with Ocasio-Cortez, 28, as Ocasio-Cortez tended bar during the very busy Cinco de Mayo celebration in 2017.

At the end of the night, when it came time to split the $560 in tips she had gotten at the bar, Ocasio-Cortez gave the waitress only $50. After the waitress complained to her manager, her take was doubled to $100, a source said.

“It says so much about her character,” said my source. “From that point on, I wouldn’t talk to her. I couldn’t look at her.”

Ocasio-Cortez couldn’t be reached for comment.

Veralenya Sarconyacov (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

One random accusation from the gossip section of a gossip newspaper does not meet WP:WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

OMG SOMEONE WAS BEING ACCUSED OF BEING A BAD TIPPER STOP THE PRESS

A random gossip accusation from a tabloid newspaper doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if it did, even it was a New York Times headline reading "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez only tipped $50 to the waitress on Cinco de Mayo in 2017", that's such a random and insignificant event that it doesn't belong anywhere in the article summarizing her. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Exactly, BrendonTheWizard--and that's what's called editorial judgment. I'm happy to see the concept still has some life in it. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ocasio campaign and identity politics

Numerous politicos have said that Ocasio won due to the racial demographics of her district, with Dana Milbank writing "Crowley lost because of the changing demographics in his district, which had been redrawn considerably after 2010 and is now only 18 percent white" , Nancy Pelosi seemed to downplay Ocasio's win as due to demographics , and Ocasio herself placed her Latina identity at the forefront of her campaign .

However, Crowley held his own against Ocasio in majority black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and Ocasio only wiped him out with votes from majority white, wealthy, recently gentrified neighborhoods. She also held her own against Crowley in neighborhoods with ethnic whites, like Malba and College Point.

Ultimately, her deployment of identity politics peeled away some of Crowley's base, but progressive whites gave her a winning coalition.

Wondering if this was worth including on her page in the primary election section. I apologize if I've made any formatting errors here, haven't been active on wikimedia for years. 11bkway11 (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I heard her say exactly the opposite; that she had seen the demographic breakdown and that she had essentially won across the board. I realize we can't use her statement as such a source, but if there are such statistics, then we should be able to find them (though I looked and I couldn't in a simple search). So when we find such sources either 1) the idea her success was based in identity politics is dispelled; or 2) she was lying. Either of those points should make it into the article when sources are found. Of course there is a third possibility that I misheard the statement. Trackinfo (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

First results released to CUNY show Crowley sweeping in East Elmhurt, which is 85% black and Hispanic, and Ocasio sweeping in gentrified East Queens district, with close results in other districts.11bkway11 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the nominator's "sources" contained /opinions/ in the url means we can immediately reject this proposal. Nothing more needs to be said here. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 05:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The role identity politics played in the campaign, and media coverage of the results, is still worthy of consideration. 11bkway11 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't citing it as a source of fact, I was citing it as an opinion piece penned in The Washington Post by an influential editorialist.11bkway11 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ocasio also used her Twitter to levy charges against Crowley that he had told fundraisers "it wasn't his fault that he was born white," citing an article in TheIntercept, which Crowley steadfastly denied.She also said in an interview the election was about race and gender.11bkway11 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia more often than not does not support editorializing; editorial opinions are not due. Ocasio-Cortez herself, and many commentators and other politicians that share her views, counter the accusations of identity politics by citing that she spoke more of class issues and economic struggles than just identity politics, and she spoke in an Al Jazeera interview about how she is against reductionism, saying that you can't talk about race without talking about class, and you can't talk about class without talking about race. Her strategy was a mix of identity politics with left-wing economic populism; these two things are strongly in line with political progressivism, which we already talk about. Making a section attributing her victory to identity politics is an undue opinion, and the reductionism of "they're mostly minorities and she's a female minority so they picked her" is a view point that, no matter what outlet says it in an opinion piece editorial, is honestly such an oversimplification that it's insulting. I know you weren't trying to say that this is your own personal opinion of how she won (at least I don't think you are), but Wikipedia articles shouldn't give undue weight to opinion pieces, even if we aren't using Wikipedia's voice to do so. What we should (and do) focus on is who she is, what she did, and why she's notable; the armchair theories of why her district voted for her are best left to television talk show hosts. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

References

"Progressive" is an imprecise term

According to an editorial in Columbia Journalism Review, which is a WP:RS for matters of style and meaning, "progressive" is a disputed term:

https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/mainstream-media-grapples-with-a-left-wing-wave.php

Mainstream media grapples with a left-wing wave

By Jon Allsop, CJR

July 2, 2018

Large sections of the US press lack the language to discuss left-wing candidates and issues: Having spent years carefully parsing distinct ideological currents on the right (like “white supremacy” and “white nationalism”), much coverage of the left still leans on disputed labels like “liberal,” “progressive,” and “the Resistance.” Thanks to thoughtful reporting, Americans generally have a substantive understanding of what divides mainstream Republicans and more radical groups like the Tea Party. The divisions between the left and mainstream liberals are just as sharp—and just as consequential—but are not as well understood.

In other words, it's not sufficient to refer to Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters as "progressive," in order for our readers to understand her politics and what she stands for. We have to be more specific.

That's why I think it's so important to refer to her as a "democratic socialist." --Nbauman (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

We already say "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a self-described democratic socialist. She supports progressive policies such as ... (list of policies that thse self-described progressive wing advocates for)". This proposal would be massively inaccurate because none of her policies are democratic socialist policies, they're what every 21st century US progressive speaks of. Compare that in-text link to Democratic socialism and tell me which one includes her policies. Progressivism includes healthcare reform and Wall Street regulation, democratic socialism includes seizing the means of production. The editorial you cited is exactly that: it's an editorial. Opinion pieces are, by default, not WP:RS. However, I will put that aside and assume that it's a source of objective fact, and quote the entire thing:

"This failure, however, goes significantly beyond the latest horse race, and isn’t just about reporters showing up. Large sections of the US press lack the language to discuss left-wing candidates and issues: Having spent years carefully parsing distinct ideological currents on the right (like “white supremacy” and “white nationalism”), much coverage of the left still leans on disputed labels like “liberal,” “progressive,” and “the Resistance.” Thanks to thoughtful reporting, Americans generally have a substantive understanding of what divides mainstream Republicans and more radical groups like the Tea Party. The divisions between the left and mainstream liberals are just as sharp—and just as consequential—but are not as well understood.

This weekend’s mass mobilization against Trump’s border policies was the latest proof that animated, angry left movements are now common in America. While the issues they’re raising do get covered, the policy solutions they prescribe—like abolishing ICE, which Ocasio-Cortez and others advocate—have too often been ignored as unrealistic or naive, even as equivalently radical ideas on the right have had a mainstream hearing. As Gaby Del Valle, who’s written for The Outline, Vice, and The Daily Beast, told me on Thursday, “It’s so easy to dismiss young leftists as angry and useless, which I think is what so many big media people did, instead of taking their criticisms of the establishment seriously.”"

In what way does that suggest that calling her a progressive is inaccurate? In what way does that suggest calling her a socialist better describes how she supports everything embodied by the progressive wing of the party? If anything, that opinion piece simply noted that there is a divide between the Liberal wing and the Progressive wing, but they go onto say that the progressives are being misunderstood by people that think they're just angry radical left wingers, which if anything is embodied by the suggestion that we just stop calling her a progressive and say she's a socialist. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Progressive" is a broad term, and "democratic socialist" is a specific term. Calling her a "progressive" is imprecise because "progressive" has a wide range of meanings, including the Progressive Policy Institute, which is a conservative wing of the Democratic party. Calling her a "socialist" is also imprecise, because it also has a wide range of meanings. She calls herself a "democratic socialist," many WP:RS call her a "democratic socialist", and she is a member of the DSA. There aren't too many politicians that meet those criteria. Most (or all) standard writing stylebooks, such as Strunk & White, tell you to use specific rather than vague words. Wikipedia should follow standard, accepted styles, rather than the personal opinions of editors. --Nbauman (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Position on Puerto Rico?

Given that her mother is Puerto Rican, I think it would improve the quality of the article if her position on the issue of statehood for Puerto Rico (if she's made one) be included in the article.2605:6000:6947:AB00:9931:7105:C547:F980 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

If she has spoken about this, and an article exists including her thoughts on the matter, we can add it. It would be helpful if you find this information (and whether or not she's made a statement at all) before making a request, though. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure these are good sources, but this is what I found [10] [11]. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That is an interesting find; Ocasio-Cortez's responses to an AMA should likely be considered reliable enough for us to cite puertoricoerport.com. There does seem to be at least some content worth noting from there; it appears that Ocasio-Cortez has neither endorsed nor rejected statehood, so we cannot add a statement that implies what she does or does not believe on the subject. She has, however, advocated for further rights being given regardless of what legal classification Puerto Rico is under, and advocates for both voting rights and disaster relief. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

She has spoken out about the financial sector's abuse of Puerto Rico. Namely, she has called for eliminating the financial board in reality controlling the island, popularly called by the act creating it PROMESA, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act. She also favors undoing the Jones–Shafroth Act, usually referred to as the Jones Act. This article has Twitter posts by her, on these issues. http://www.latinorebels.com/2018/06/27/alexandriaocasiocortezpuertorican/ Dogru144 (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Scare quotes issue

User:KalHolmann has claimed that this sentence in the article: "She said many constituents, including Jewish Americans, 'thanked' her for comparing the Gaza events to U.S. civil-rights protests like the Ferguson unrest" has scare quotes, though I don't see that being the case.

Here is the quote from the cited article: “Especially in New York people say this is political suicide,” Ocasio-Cortez also said. “But I had a lot of my constituents thanking me for taking that position. I had a lot of Jewish Americans who thanked me." (from [https://forward.com/news/national/404213/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-israel-democrat-future/).

As is plain to see, there are is no intention to apply "scare quotes", especially since the origin of the quote is from Ocasio-Cortez herself. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Disagreed with David O. Johnson that we need a set of quotes there. Adding additional quotations to specifically the word "thanked" looks unusual and is redundant in a sentence that already starts with "She said ..." and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, casts needless doubt about whether or not she really received thanks, despite how the sentence was using her voice rather than Wikipedia's to begin with. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Brendon the Wizard, you clearly misunderstood David O. Johnson's statement. After Devgirl removed the scare quotes, saying "unnecessary here," David O. Johnson restored them, arguing "it's not a scare quote." I then reverted his restoration, noting, "That's silly. Unless you provide context for this lone word, it's in effect a scare quote." If you believe we don't need a set of quotes there, you are not agreeing with David O. Johnson; you're disagreeing with him. KalHolmann (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

My mistake; I messed up the first word of the sentence, contradicting everything I followed it with. I've fixed my comment and I maintain that quotes should not be added around specifically the word thanked. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann, I appreciate the clarification of my position. Although I personally don't think that the "thanked" in question is using scare quotes, I can see why it can be construed that way. Would using more of the quote be an effective compromise? David O. Johnson (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a compromise. Scrap the scare quotes. End of unnecessary discussion. KalHolmann (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment - I did not intend to remove comments by David O. Johnson, nor did I manually do that; we appeared to submit our edits at the same time. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I meant no ill will towards you. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The phrasing in the sentence "She said many constituents, including Jewish Americans, thanked her for comparing the events in the Gaza Strip to U.S. civil-rights protests like the Ferguson unrest" is known as reported speech. The use of quote marks of any kind around the single word "thanked" would be the very definition of "scare" quotes. — Hugh (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Leaving the section as it is (without quotes) works for me then.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Stress and syllabification wrong in IPA of her name

Syllabification is [ek.sa], and she calls herself [a.lek.ˈsan.dri.a], not [a.lek.san.ˈdri.a]. Not a bad idea to show secondary stress, thus [ˌa.lek.ˈsan.dri.a].--47.32.20.133 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't understand why this name needs a pronunciation assist at all. A pretty fair amount of our people are Latino and millions more have a basic understanding of the language. I can't think of a similar article/name with a pronunciation guide. Can anyone? Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, with Gandydancer. Alexandria is a common name as is Cortez. In my opinion, Ocasio doesn't seem to be a very complicated name either. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. The IPA should be accurate if it's there (the present version has vowels wrong, too -- appropriate for phonemic transcription, but not phonetic), but there doesn't seem to be much need for it.--47.32.20.133 (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a US-centric encyclopaedia. Wouldn't it be a form of WP:BIAS to think that the guide isn't needed? I'm from New Zealand, and while I _sort of_ understand how to pronounce her name, the guide is still helpful. It should be removed if it's incorrect, of course. — Hugh (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No I don't see it as biased at all. If any bias exists it is against her since I note when looking at the first 20 on this list [12] only one has a quide, Nanette Barragán, though in this case it seems to be a way to get a link to her youtube introduction right off the bat since it certainly is not hard to pronounce her name. Gandydancer (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

In Barragán's case the phonemic representation /ˈbɛərəɡən/ is useful because -- assuming that it's genuine -- her actual pronunciation of the name is nothing like what would be expected from the spelling, i.e. /barraˈgan/ or, phonetically, [barːaˈɣan]. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(Note, this is off-topic and if an editor finds it not appropriate for our talk page please hat it) Well that's interesting since it is exactly how I, an English speaker (only) would say it without a guide. To my ears, and my experience, it is exactly like the Irish Berrigan, as in the very well known Berrigan brothers. (This is not meant to be argumentative but I feel that as editors we all work so hard and are entitled to a little discussion that is enjoyable but perhaps not exactly on topic.) Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. We all need to lighten up just a tad from time to time. And also realize that talk pages are for talking things though and that topics therein are flexible and discussion can be useful. For example this excursus into Barragán's name raises questions of interest. Barragán's family name is pronounced nothing like the Spanish spelling would suggest; in cases such as that is it useful to offer a pronunciation guide? For me it is; it's surprising, given her background and her membership in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Sounds as though it's helpful for you, too, for a completely different reason. Good. Then what about Ocasio-Cortez and other Spanish names that are pronounced more or less as the spelling suggests? Be helpful by supplying an accurate transcription, such as for Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric Macron ​[ɛmanɥɛl makʁɔ̃] and any number of other non-English names? Etc. Cheers. We're all editors. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

tweet

Women in Red tweet here Victuallers (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You tweet triumphantly, "See what we did!" Strangely, I found 0 edits by Victuallers on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (0.0% of the total edits made to the page). KalHolmann (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

AGF...Victuallers is not the only WIR participant. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a very strange tweet; it says that on Monday she had no Wikipedia article and on Tuesday she won a historic primary and goes on to say "look what we did!" If that's to attribute her primary win to Wikipedia informing readers about her before the primary, that would be nonsensical because it took her winning the primary to convince enough people that she's a noteworthy politician (which is understandable, the media paid no attention to her until after she won, even though "Who is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?" articles should have came out during the primary campaign). We (Wikipedia) didn't really do anything. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 07:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If I say "We did this", "We won the war", "We are human" can I specifically exclude any editors who opt out of membership of the group that I'm referring too. If I wasn't busy representing the work of Women in Red then I'd look for our members in the edit history of this article. And can I apologise to anyone who thought that one wiki bio influenced an American election result (fakenews?) or that anyone who thinks that it might even be credible. That would be a strange tweet. Victuallers (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The WIR #1day1woman initiative includes articles that were created or improved through the project. I am a participant and have worked on improving this article. I think by "we," Victuallers is referring to how Wikipedia editors, as a whole, created a biography on Ocasio-Cortez, thereby changing a potential red link into blue. Thsmi002 (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"we need English IPA for this, she's American" Wow. Is this a joke?

Good grief. Even if her family had never left Puerto Rico, she'd still be American. There's youtube video of her pronouncing her name. She definitely does not say /oʊˌkɑːsioʊ kɔːrˈtɛz/. She decides the pronunciation of her name, not you or me or anyone else. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary "we need English IPA for this, she's American" is very problematic. The correct way to pronounce Ocasio-Cortez's name is the way she pronounces it. As someone with a Germanic last name with an Americanized pronunciation, I know well that the expected English pronunciation and the correct pronunciation are not always the same. We should go with what Alexandria says on this. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, if someone both comes from a country where the majority speak a specific language and is known primarily for their work in that language, then giving the transcription of their name only in that language is usually pretty reasonable, regardless of the name's origin, provided that the person uses a pronunciation assimilated to the phonology of the said language. But this case doesn't seem to fall into that category as she seems to adopt a deliberately unanglicized pronunciation of her name, or an idiosyncratically/partially anglicized one (as she code-switches) at best. In her campaign video, where she says her name twice, at first (~0:19) she says Alexandria in an almost completely English way, with a voiced [z] and an approximant [ɹ], but quickly switches to Spanish for the rest of the name, with a trilled [r] in Cortez, and in the sign-off (~2:01) she uses a completely Spanish pronunciation, with a voiceless [s] and a tapped [ɾ] in Alexandria. So I agree with the two above that an English transcription need not be provided, as there seems to be no preferred, official, or authoritative pronunciation assimilated to English phonology. In this case, it would be kind of culturally insensitive too. Nardog (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

...and in neither version does she use [oʊ] in either /o/ of Ocasio.--47.32.20.133 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is completely beside the point. /oʊ/ that we use for English words is not only phonemic but diaphonemic. Whether it's pronounced [oʊ], [əʊ], [o], [oː], [ɔə], or what have you, so long as it corresponds to the GOAT lexical set in the variety of English sampled, we transcribe it as /oʊ/. The only thing that matters here is that she doesn't use her English tongue to pronounce her name. Nardog (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. Hers is not an English name. She could totally anglicize it, but in the recordings I've heard she doesn't, and does not use a phone interpretable as projected from phoneme /oʊ/ that "we" use for English in her pronunciation of Ocasio, even when her English phonology does seep in a bit. To claim that she does, as one transcriber implicitly did, is a falsification. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

That is false. Spanish /o/ is very regularly mapped to English /oʊ/, especially in stressed syllables - see General American#Vowels. A sound close to Spanish /o/ may even be used for English /oʊ/ by speakers of Chicano English, a native accent of English used by some Mexican Americans.

In the YT recording I used as a source, I hear a short rounded vowel that can be still identified as /oʊ/. However, /əˈkɑːsioʊ/ is just as plausible a transcription. But even if we drop Cortez per WP:PRON, the first part should still be transcribed /əˌkɑːsioʊ-/ as Ocasio-Cortez would be typically treated as a compound noun, with the second element bearing more stress. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Plus, there's literally no other way to anglicize the last vowel in Ocasio. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the common U.S. anglophone pronunciation of final unstressed vowel as [ə] is applied (tomat[ə], potat[ə], mosquit[ə], Colorad[ə], Port[ə] Ric[ə], Lared[ə], etc.) as the old fellow near Tucson did when he told me he lived on (what sounded like) Cally Dora. Cally I assumed must've been Calle, but it took me a couple of seconds to guess that Dora was... de Oro? Bingo: final /o/ → [ə]. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

English is the de-facto official language of the US and most people in the US are monolingual. Is any of these statements wrong? So no wonder I made an honest mistake and just simplified the matter in my mind to English is the official language of the US. So the joke's on you, because I had to explain it. Ha. (Just kidding.)

AFAICS, much like Nick Vujicic (an Australian of Serbian descent), Ocasio-Cortez (an American of Puerto Rican descent) has little to no connection to Puerto Rico besides ethnicity. Because of what I explained above, it made sense to transcribe the name in English rather than Spanish. However, if you have a problem with any of the IPA's or feel that the pronunciation of her surname is too intuitive to warrant inclusion of the IPA (which I disagree with, the OP of the discussion below presents a US-centric POV and he sounds pretty condescending himself - just my two cents) then I guess it's best to remove it, perhaps per WP:PRON. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"an American of Puerto Rican descent" - uh, is that like "a American of Mississippian descent"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"has little to no connection to Puerto Rico" - you do realize that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. Puerto Rico isn't a part of the US in the same manner Mississippi is. It's not a state and it has official languages, one of which is Spanish.

Please don't respond to these message anymore. I'm done stating the obvious. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, and perhaps thank people for not wasting time responding to other things you've gotten wrong. (However, I'm guessing Marek will respond if s/he feels like it.) --47.32.20.133 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Let the condescension begin

So here are Wikipedia, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has attracted a mass media buzz, but you people think your readers are morons, so you include another of your many condescending sound spellings. Delete it, you have no idea how insulting that is. Ya wanna know how you people go to far, you had a sound spelling included for of all people, Paul Ryan.--2601:5C0:4280:3D40:A9C3:B3C3:24CC:78DA (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. While George Stephanopoulos, and countless similar wikipedia articles, need no help to understand how to pronounce their names somehow this Latina woman does. I have so far gone through only 20 of the Latina connected women and have found only one with this pronunciation assistance. As time permits I will look through the next 20. Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be no policy sorted out for this. One strategy that would make sense may have been the motivation for giving the pronunciation of former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's family name. He uses a totally anglicized spelling pronunciation [ˈtæɡliəbuː], rather than the Italian [ˌtaʎʎaˈbuːe] or an anglicized version of that – which could very well have become the norm for his family... but just didn't. A different approach would be to assume anglicized spelling pronunciation in all such cases, thus don't bother to give [ˈtæɡliəbuː], but do give [ˌtaʎʎaˈbuːe] for others named Tagliabue who use that pronunciation. Either of those leaves some names in limbo, though: I don't recall hearing Christina Aguilera say her name, but most anglophones use something like [ˌægjəˈlɛːɹə], with [jə] not all that predictable from the spelling ui. Seems that a reasonable strategy might be called the John Maynard Keynes principle: if there's any doubt, include IPA — in his case phonemic /keɪnz/ or phonetic [kʰeˑɪnz] (and then somehow come to a decision of whether the transcription should be uniformly phonemic or phonetic, both of which are used for names in Wikipedia articles, in what seems to be random distribution).--47.32.20.133 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There are policies (or at least guidelines): Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. The choice between phonemic and phonetic is not random—for English we use a dialect-neutral transcription system (to which dialect-specific transcriptions may be employed in addition if desired), and for other languages we use broad phonetic transcriptions (yes, phonetic transcriptions can be broader or narrower than others) with each segment defined at the key they link to such as Help:IPA/Spanish. And it is one of our guidelines that common words such as Paul and Ryan need not be transcribed. Nardog (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the confusion over phonetic/phonemic is encouraged by the guidelines themselves. In the bit regarding broad vs. narrow transcription, for example, it appears, and is almost stated outright, that "broad" is taken to mean phonemic, and "narrow" is taken to mean phonetic. Presumably, whoever wrote the piece knows better and was trying to address a general audience without getting overly technical, but the confusion may be a major contributor to what appears to be random use of the two, as well as entirely inappropriate phonetic detail in phonemic transcriptions. All that, in a sense, is minor, and easily solved. The larger question at issue, first step before choosing phonemic or phonetic, is when to help readers by offering a transcription of any sort for names.--47.32.20.133 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the right thing. I think after a person who has garnered this much media attention is way too famous to warrant a sound spelling. I was floored when I saw it included in Paul Ryan's page. You also have done it for Dave Brat, I mean seriously, does anybody ever have a problem saying Brat?--2601:5C0:4280:3D40:A9C3:B3C3:24CC:78DA (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent example. Not everyone who reads English-language Wikipedia pays close attention to minor U.S. politicians. There's no way to know from the spelling if his family name is pronounced like brat 'spoiled child' or like brat 'Wisconsin pork sausage', and both are good guesses. A transcription would clarify immediately (i.e. do what an encyclopedia is meant to do: inform). --47.32.20.133 (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll repeat what I said higher up this page: I'm from New Zealand and would find a (correct) pronunciation guide useful. I don't know how information presented neutrally can be perceived as condescending. — Hugh (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

AOC's disputes with Jewish groups

Hello, everybody. I recently had an edit of mine reverted. The argument against this edit was that it was "POV pushing" and "non-neutral". However, I argue against these points because all I'm doing is summarizing reputable sources and citing them. The edit is below:

Throughout her tenure, Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly refused to meet with Jewish community leaders in her state, and ignored a request to comment by Jewish Insider . In November 2020, the National Catholic Reporter repeatedly contacted Ocasio-Cortez's office for clarification after she invoked a narrative used for centuries to justify persecution of Jews, but she declined to comment .

The Israeli Holocaust museum condemned Ocasio-Cortez when she compared US migrant detention faculities to Nazi concentration camps. She refused to apologize. .

In 2019, Ocasio-Cortez's House friend and co-member of the squad Ilhan Omar made comments widely condemned by Jewish groups as anti-Semitic . Jewish organizations called for a House resolution condemning Omar , but Ocasio-Cortex successfully lead an effort to alter the resolution so it wouldn't specifically condemn her colleague .

Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If reputable mainstream sources cover this issue (which seems like a personal affront where there is none) then I would understand its inclusion, until now we'd have to count it as gossip. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit was not neutral. It's selective content, all negative, put together in the style of a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. What do you mean by "Jewish equality", anyway? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Insider source makes it clear that she does meet regularly with Jewish groups on the left. The stuff about Ilhan Omar does not belong in this biography. The whole thing comes off as a non-neutral attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Just as examples: "Refused" and "ignored" are value-judgment-laden words that inherently reflect a non-WP:NPOV. Let's say my next-door neighbor calls out to me from his driveway as I'm dashing to my car to go to work, and I tell him, "Sorry, Don! I'm almost late for work!" and get in my car and drive away. One could characterize that as "Julietdeltalima refused to talk to her pleasant elderly neighbor Don," which is the tone that your addition reflects—what a jerk Julietdeltalima obviously is! Or, one could more neutrally, but perfectly accurately, say, "Julietdeltalima told Don she was almost late for work and drove away without further comment." The first version indicates that the writer was trying to portray my not talking to Don as a deliberate, calculated snub. Without knowing the state of mind of the purported "refuser," it's not appropriate to use that loaded word. All of this content appears very strongly to reflect value judgments in the mind of the writer; every verb choice and adjective reflects a desire to criticize.

Also: never use contractions in encyclopedia articles or any other formal writing. It's fine on talk pages but overly colloquial in article space. See MOS:CONTRACTION. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Agree with your point about how "refused" can be improperly used. I used it in that case because she declined repeated requests for comment from a news organization. That said, how would we feel about using "declined" instead of "refused"? I agree about contractions. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(I fixed your indentation; you always want to use one more indentation mark than the prior commenter so folks can parse who's "speaking.") Did she literally decline or just not make any acknowledgement at all? Those are two different things. To invoke another of my neighbors in an example: I'm leisurely going to my car on a weekend afternoon and my neighbor Carlos is in his front yard trimming his palm tree (which, if you haven't had the pleasure, is like giving a pedicure to an agitated bobcat), and I wave in his general direction and say, "Howdy, Carlos!" and he doesn't even turn his head in my direction. "Carlos declined to talk to JDL" implies that Carlos shut off his tree trimmer and said, "I can't talk to you right now; I'm in mortal peril." "Carlos did not respond" is the more accurate depiction of what happened. Not returning a phone call isn't "declining" to return the phone call; it's just not returning the phone call unless and until your press person issues a statement that says, "Pretzel butterfly does not have any comment on these issues."

This stuff is hard to recognize at first! There are times and places for advocacy in writing; lawyers, for example, choose (or should be choosing, if they're competent) every word to maximize the benefit (in however tiny an increment) to their clients. The thing about an encyclopedia is that this isn't the time or place for advocacy: the "client", if you will, is objectivity. "Prime Minister Ardern has yet to comment" and "Prime Minister Ardern has not commented" might actually look to many people as utterly synonymous, but they're not. The first version implies that she had a duty to comment and hasn't gotten around to it yet; the second version simply says that she hasn't commented. We need to be aiming for the second version unless we have a reliable source to support the premise of the first. It's hard! But having this mindset will help you in ways going far beyond Wikipedia! Take care - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC) (Oh, and I thought the "shouldn't" was yours. If not, my apologies.)

We would need to show that these claims have received substantial coverage before including them, per weight. In that case we would expect that she would reply. She might say for example that she meets with progressive Jewish groups but not conservative ones. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to tell people stuff that they won't find out from reading major news sources, but are supposed to summarize what they say.

What Ilhan Omar says is irrelevant to the article.

The narrative AOC used was the story of the money changers in the temple in the New Testament, which is read by Christians, including Catholics. I have not seen any other source call it anti-Semitic, although I see how it could be interpreted that way, as have many of the events in the New Testament. I note that Joey and Toby Tanenbaum, who are widely respected in the Jewish community,[13] donated the painting "The Expulsion of the Money-Changers" to the Art Gallery of Ontario.[14]

TFD (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful! Agreed that what Omar says is irrelvant. The passage about the House resolution was meant to highlight not what Omar said, but AOC's opposition to the Congressional resolution, which did get a lot of attention in mainstream sources. Were we to add more references for that passage, would that satisfy concerns? If so, what types of references would we need (ie. would a reference from the New York Times or similar be sufficient?) Pretzel butterfly (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal piece by Micha Danzig is an advocacy opinion piece by an attorney/activist, not by a professional journalist reporting the news. Sources like this are unacceptable for contentious material in a biography of a living person. As for opposition to a resolution, it is as unsurprising that a progressive would oppose a conservative resolution as that a conservative would oppose a progressive resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sorry! I think we still have a misunderstanding which is my fault, I should have explained better. The resolution was put forth by other Democrats. Does that change your perspective? I hear you loud and clear on the Danzig source, and agree. We add in some mainstream news sources as substitutes. For example, here's one from the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The party affiliation of the various members of Congress involved in this is of no interest to me. What I care about is that the highest quality reliable sources are used, and that your writing neutrally summarizes the sources, without any slanting or advocacy, Pretzel butterfly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Danzig says that Harris, Sanders and Warren also defended AOC. Pelosi defended the wording of the revised resolution, which the Democrats and most Republicans supported. It's misleading to single out what AOC did. You should familiarize yourself with rules for contributing to articles by following the links I posted to your page. If you want to contribute to biographies of living persons, you should not begin by looking for bad things said about them and putting them into articles but review what mainstream sources say about them and summarize the information. TFD (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment! Yes, totally agree that Sanders, Harris, and Warren supported the revised wording. Good point. We're definitely in agreement that a number of people supported the change. That said and agreed on, I reread but think the references make clear that AOC initiated the effort which others later joined - would you agree, and if so, would that change your point of view? Check out the last paragraph of the Danzig reference. The NYT reference gives further support for this. I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia's policies but if there is any policy in particular that you think I may have forgotten about, let me know and I'd be happy to refresh! Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Once the full context of AOC's actions are explained, as in the NYT article, it loses the bite it had in right-wing editorials and hence becomes unimportant. Notice too that the article is about Omar, not AOC. We would like to see articles about AOC discussing her actions. Again, it looks like you have found something you think should be in the article and are searching for reliable sources to add it. What you should do is ensure that the article accurately and concisely summarizes the body of articles written about AOC in reliable sources. I would point out that there are liberal editors who mine for smears against conservative politicians, but that's not the way articles should be developed. TFD (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again very much for your feedback! Most definitely agree that we should be summarizing sources only. And definitely agree we should be looking for the mainstream news sources and not editorials as I initially suggested since we aspire to neutrality. However, I think you might be misjudging my intent (understandable, since you don't know me very well yet!) The sequence of events was that I saw articles like these, and then thought that the events narrated therein were notable and merited inclusion, just as other events and actions involving AOC were reported in both mainstream media and in the present article. I thought that the article did indeed report that AOC was a leader in this effort, check out the below quote and see if you agree. Note that I'm not making the case that what AOC did was improper (which would be POV pushing), just that Jewish organizations believe it to be so. The overall narrative of this passage is reporting how she is clashing with these groups, just as other parts of the article reports she is clashing with other interest groups.

“ On the other side are younger members like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, and liberal groups like Justice Democrats and IfNotNow, a movement of young Jews dedicated to ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. They accuse Democratic leaders of singling out a woman of color while letting slide comments from Republicans that they deem racist, anti-Semitic or bigoted, including many from President Trump. “One of the things that is hurtful about the extent to which reprimand is sought of Ilhan is that no one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latinx + other communities,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter, mentioning a Republican House member who shouted, “Go back to Puerto Rico” on the House floor. ”

Pretzel butterfly (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You wrote, "I saw articles like these, and then thought that the events narrated therein were notable and merited inclusion." But where you saw these articles was in minor or unreliable sources, and some of them were editorials, or mentioned AOC in passing. You are going about this backwards. A google news search shows almost 2 million articles that mention AOC. As editors, we have to determine the most important points based on weight. Our personal judgment that something is important and readers need to know about it isn't a valid reason for inclusion. Here is the relevant section of the policy:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

TFD (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jewish groups is a bit misleading given they are Zionist groups and should be called as such.PailSimon (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for clarifying, this is helpful! PailSimon, I totally agree that that if we were discussing Zionist groups, than that would go in a different heading. Check out the article for Anti-Defamation League - that article currently classifies it as a Jewish group and I think justifies it as such. TFD, I agree with you too that we need to make sure we only include notable information. What are your concerns about the notability of the resolution controversy? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The term in Wikipedia is noteworthy not notable. Noteworthiness is determined entirely by weight, which depends on the relative degree of coverage in mainstream sources. Mainstream sources may provide excessive coverage to unimportant aspects of a person's life and they may also give minimal coverage to important aspects of a person's life. It is not the role of editors to correct that.

Again, you are going about editing the wrong way around. Instead of reading something somewhere and adding it to the article, you should research the body of literature about AOC and determine what the most widely reported points are and ensure that the article includes them and excludes the points that they ignore. And when you do that, ignore articles in obscure publications and opinion pieces. If everyone did that, we wouldn't be having these lengthy discussions on talk pages.

TFD (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The ADL is a Zionist group as well. All the organisations here are Zionist and saying that AOC has "repeatedly refused to meet Jewish groups" is misleading given that I'm sure if a non-zionist Jewish grouping like Jewish Voice for Peace were to ask to meet with ere she would (maybe she already has). PailSimon (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Zionist can mean anything from belief that Israel has a right to exist to far right Israeli nationalism as in the Jewish Defense League. It was anyway the ADL CEO, not the ADL itself, that made the criticism. The problem is that his comments had limited coverage and AOC did not reply. If major media had covered it she would have replied, experts would have weighed in and we could report the incident in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your proposal to first research in significant depth all facets about this person and then trying to contribute in all relevant ways. I like this suggestion in some ways actually, it's analogous to how in academia people are required to get a broad background before they have the credentials to make narrower contributions. I don't think this is currently Wikipedia policy, I'm seeing a lot of examples of people making smaller contributions to articles based on their available knowledge.

I concede your point about editorials. I won't use editorials as references in the future. Your argument is accepted! Also definitely agree that even though AOC is notable, not everything that we could say about her is noteworthy enough to belong in the article. We wouldn't comment on her corrective lens prescription, whether her car has one of those pine tree air fresheners, or whether she prefers Coke or Pepsi. Regarding the noteworthiness of the House resolution controversy, at the time it was headline news, and the headline of the New York Times article clearly refers to AOC ("Generational Fight"). That would seem to satisfy the criteria, no? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It didn't receive on-going media attention. It made the news 5 March 2019 and was quickly forgotten. The articles were mostly about Omar and the resolution, not AOC. AOC's support of the revised resolution was probably considered unimportant by mainstream media because all Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans voted in favor. A BBC article on the squad published several months after the resolution fails to mention the resolution at all, although it mentions allegations of anti-Semitism against Omar. Note that policy says weight "is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Again, we don't develop articles by adding information we find important but by reflecting the body of information in reliable sources according to its weight.

TFD (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thank you again. Everything you're saying is very reasonable, but since I don't know you very well yet, I'm most interested in Wikipedia's policies even if they are narrower than your personal preferences. For due weight, that should be WP:DUE, right? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. And the relevant section for reporting facts is "Balancing aspects." The selection of which facts to report or omit, or to emphasize or minimize, greatly affect the overall presentation of individuals and events. That's why a policy is necessary. There are of course different possible policies for due weight that attempt to correct the perceived bias of mainstream media and scholarship, for example Conservapedia.

BTW last year a story about a foot that was falsely claimed to belong to AOC was reported in The Independent, Vice, The Guardian, The New York Post, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Scottish Sun and other sources. It's not in this article, although it received more attention than her defense of Omar. A lot of stuff gets published and quickly forgotten.

TFD (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is helpful! So it looks like we're mostly on the same page - we agree that this material should only be included if it is noteworthy. Note that the policy does not give any explicit criteria for what is noteworthy, although it does say some caution is needed with items in the news to make sure that they have enduring importance - as you relayed. I agree with you that we should try to frame that discussion as objectively and impartially as possible.

Let's discuss two possible inclusion criteria you mentioned, neither of which are in policy, but both of which are well thought-out and worth considering! One proposal is to use whether the BBC profile you mentioned (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48994931) refers to content as a litmus test as inclusion. But the article has a lot of content that isn't included in that profile. We also discussed using as a litmus test whether the events are discussed by media long after - here's an example: https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/06/21/cancel-culture-should-include-antisemitism-as-well-as-racism/. Again, while I believe they are met, neither of these criteria are part of policy.

I'll put forth an additional argument for why this material is noteworthy. First, I argue that antisemitism in the US is noteworthy because hate crimes per capita against American Jews are more than for any other group . Second, I argue that politicians refusing to condemn other politicians for alleged antisemitic behavior is noteworthy because in the history of Western democracies this has historically lead to escalations (ex. the 1930s Weimar Republic or present-day Hungary). I would expect this to be particularly so in the United States where politicians have a lot of influence on everyday discourse. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I quoted the policy for what is noteworthy at 20:50, 19 December 2020. It's based on the degree of coverage in reliable sources, not our subjective judgment. TFD (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I hear you! I thought I had addressed that as well, did you see my penultimate paragraph? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's another reference in which news media refers to the incident many months after it happened, as you requested: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/why-concentration-camps-are-still-with-us Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Two of your sources are editorials, hence do not meet rs, while the third (BBC) doesn't say anything about AOC and anti-Semitism. As I pointed out above, "Again, you are going about editing the wrong way around. Instead of reading something somewhere and adding it to the article, you should research the body of literature about AOC and determine what the most widely reported points are and ensure that the article includes them and excludes the points that they ignore. And when you do that, ignore articles in obscure publications and opinion pieces. If everyone did that, we wouldn't be having these lengthy discussions on talk pages." [23:57, 19 December 2020] TFD (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, the Guardian source doesn't appear to be an editorial. I have read and appreciate your "wrong way around" comment, but while it might make a good policy proposal, it isn't current Wikipedia policy or guideline. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's an opinion piece. Read the subtitle: "Mass internment camps did not begin or end with the Nazis – today they are everywhere from China to Europe to the US. How can we stop their spread?"

An explanatory supplement says, "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Common sense tells us that in order to create a "neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic," we should "research the body of literature about AOC and determine what the most widely reported points are and ensure that the article includes them and excludes the points that they ignore." Common sense also tells us not to drink water out of toilet bowls, but it's not posted in public restrooms.

TFD (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've enjoyed this dialog, thank you for your additional thoughts! I dispute two points. First, you've proposed several rules that aren't covered by policy, but say they should be followed anyway because they're common sense. I don't agree that these rules are common sense and I've given my counterarguments above immediately after their introduction. More to the point, if there isn't ready consensus on a rule, it probably isn't common sense! (Wikipedia's article on common sense is in the category "consensus reality"). What's self-evident to one person might not be to another, but if you think your proposals would get widespread backing, you are welcome to propose them as policies.

With regards to whether saying mass internment camps exist post World War II, check out this reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/leak-chinas-internment-camps.html. This isn't a controversial point in mainstream media, and therefore I continue to assert that the Guardian article isn't an editorial. I'm not sure whether it's relevant whether the article is an editorial or not given that's it is being used for the WP:DUE test rather than directly included in the article, but since it isn't an editorial, no need to address a moot point at this time.

Good to talk to you as always, happy to hear any additional thoughts you might have. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not mass internment camps exist is irrelevant to whether or not Trilling's article is a reliable source. Of course you don't have to follow my advice on approaching articles but if you don't it will be hit and miss whether what you find represents the body of literature on the topic. Also see Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." An article that mentions AOC in passing is not the best source. You might find the explanatory supplement on "Righting great wrongs" helpful: "You might think that [Wikipedia] is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that's not the case." TFD (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you again for the pointers! You don't know my well, and it's hard to convey tone in an Internet post between strangers, and as a result, I cannot think of a way to address your critique of my motivations without risk of creating misunderstandings that take this conversation in a less constructive direction. So instead of talking about each other's motivations, let's continue to focus attention on whether Wikipedia's policies support inclusion of the material.

Let's summarize where we stand. You and others have made a bunch of helpful critiques that I agree with and have incorporated. Beyond that, we agree that policy says that the material should only be included if it is substantiated by reliable sources. We agree that the provided citations substantiate the material - it was headline news at the time. We further agree that policy says that the statements must not only be substantiated but also be noteworthy. We agree that the relevant criterion in WP:DUE is that the article must "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject".

And so at this juncture, the sole point of disagreement is whether this threshold has been met. In particular, we disagree on whether the coverage these incidents have received in material published long after they occurred is sufficient for the criterion to be met. Have I captured your position correctly? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

See what I posted above:

We would need to show that these claims have received substantial coverage before including them, per weight. In that case we would expect that she would reply. She might say for example that she meets with progressive Jewish groups but not conservative ones. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to tell people stuff that they won't find out from reading major news sources, but are supposed to summarize what they say. [19:59, 18 December 2020]

A google news search shows almost 2 million articles that mention AOC. As editors, we have to determine the most important points based on weight. [20:50, 19 December 2020]

Noteworthiness is determined entirely by weight. [23:57, 19 December 2020]

It didn't receive on-going media attention. It made the news 5 March 2019 and was quickly forgotten. The articles were mostly about Omar and the resolution, not AOC....Again, we don't develop articles by adding information we find important but by reflecting the body of information in reliable sources according to its weight. 01:10, 20 December 2020

I quoted the policy for what is noteworthy at 20:50, 19 December 2020. It's based on the degree of coverage in reliable sources, not our subjective judgment. [03:06, 26 December 2020]

TFD (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that coverage in mainstream sources and not subjective judgment is what's important for noteworthiness. Beyond that, is your main hesitation is whether the incidents received attention long after they were in the news, correct? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To respond to each of the points by my esteemed colleague:

• These events were headline news in mainstream media at the time.
• Because it's not an important point to me, I'm conceding the point about mentioning that she isn't responding to requests for comment, we can take that sentence fragment out.
• We agree that noteworthiness is determined by coverage in sources not subjective arguments, per Wikipedia policy.
• These events did, in fact, receive ongoing media attention well beyond when they first made the news: [15][16][17][18][19][20]

Please let me know if you have any other arguments for why Wikipedia's policies do not support inclusion of the material, or if you disagree with any of my bullets above. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You are just re-hashing the same arguments so I refer you to what I already posted. I note that your first example of ongoing media attention is a commentary in the Washington Examiner. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources and the reliability of the publication is disputed per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There's no doubt that right-wing media pay a lot of unhealthy attention to AOC from wearing a jacket to dancing on a roof to pictures of a foot of someone who looks like her. But this is an encyclopedic article, not tabloid journalism. TFD (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have to ask, what is the foot thing? I must of missed that one! PackMecEng (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Note that this user has copied the main article without attribution to User:Pretzel butterfly/AOC, where they are writing their own potentially BLP-violating (accusations of antisemitism made by fringe media and opposing politicians) version of it. ValarianB (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everybody, thanks for chiming in! TFD, most of the six references I provided are not editorials or from conservative media. With regards of the fork in my sandbox (and I believe having such sandboxes is encouraged and standard), the only section I'm editing is Disputes with Jewish Organizations, I'm not working on anything that I'm not discussing with colleagues here. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I do believe I have addressed all outstanding objections with those references, but let me know if otherwise. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If all you are editing/creating is a single section, then you should have simply created that section in your sandbox, there is zero reason to have the other 200k+ of article around it. As for the text itself, it is a middling, fleeting criticism. All you're saying is "she didn't meet with a Jewish group" followed by a completely non sequitur swipe at Rep. Omar. Until or unless there are new developments, a pattern of sustained coverage, an indication that this has become a notable criticism of her, I will oppose inclusion. ValarianB (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, there are other points in the section other than how she didn't meet with many of Jewish groups. I note your point that you'd like to see coverage of these incidents revisited, not just see headline news at the time from reputable mainstream media sources. And so I provide! See the six external links in my bullet points above for evidence of sustained coverage. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"New" as in "from this point on". What you have provided right now is woefully insufficient for inclusion, giving undue weight to a trivial criticism. I hope this point is now clear. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just to note that the NYC Board of Rabbis, among others, is not a right wing organization. She has refused to meet with any NYC based Jewish organizations. To what extent it should be mentioned is up for debate, but it was reported in RS and we shouldn't avoid putting it in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If the first source you Pretzel butterfly provides fails rs, don't expect me to read any further. Anyway, theythey keep repeating the same arguments and ignoring my replies. TFD (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that I addressed each of your points with the bullet-points above. I of course very much do want to address what you are saying, and I'm sorry you felt ignored! My understanding of where we are in the discussion is that the only outstanding point is whether there was enough follow-on attention after the incidents, and I tried to clarify that with you several times. I actually don't agree with you that the Washington Examiner source is useless as it's not being used as a direct citation but that's moot given the other references. My intention wasn't to be disrespectful of your valuable time. Rather, I provided references of a heterogeneous nature so that even if you objected to some of them on one grounds or another, there were others that would still hold. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • The Four Deuces, Here's the NY Post, [21] and here's the New York Jewish Insider, [22] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics..."WP:RSP

"Jewishinsider.com" is interesting to track down, as Jewish Insider redirects to The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and New York Jewish Insider does not search on Wikipedia. The only wikipedia listing at all is on the other page which says "In 2015, Tribe Media Corp. acquired Jewish Insider, a daily news service based in Washington, D.C., started by Max Neuberger."

Reading through the "Jewish Insider" article itself, it doesn't seem to be all that notable, or even internally consistent. Mostly it's a repetition of moaning by some groups that they don't get directly pandered to by AOC, which I think merits a big shrug but not encyclopedic coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading all this and it boils down to "someone wants to insert clear WP:BLP-violating language insinuating AOC's an anti-semite based on dubious opinion columns from even more dubious sources like the Washington Examiner or National Catholic Reporter". This is the kind of thing that makes people take up day drinking. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion! However, I feel like my argument is being inadvertently mischaracterized, so let me add some context. You named two of the sources, but other sources include the New York Times, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, and ABC News. People keep challenging whether a particular source is good or not, so at this point I've included so many references from so many diverse sources that the material has ironclad support. Please let me know if you still object given this clarification. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pretzel butterfly: Ok this is really problematic. There's an 8-source list above, and it took quite a bit of hunting to find your claimed "New York Times, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, and ABC News" sources. When I did find the edit, your "USA Today" source is an article titled "Who is 'the Squad?'" that does not mention Jewish groups in any way, and that mentions anti-semitism in the context that Omar and Tlaib were accused of it (which is a rather common and unconvincing accusation that gets tossed against Muslim individuals in the USA by islamophobic groups). Likewise, your ABC News article mentions AOC only once in a throwaway line that is attributed to Washington Examiner commenter Seth Mandel as a pundit, and is not an actual claim of fact by ABC News. These sources simply don't support the claims you're trying to make, certainly not any claim that "New York Times, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, and ABC News" made ANY coverage whatsoever of the ridiculous claims that AOC has some kind of feud with, or is ignoring, Jewish interest-groups. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's true that not every source supports every sentence! That's why each claim has different sources. Nevertheless, each claim is supported by mainstream sources, including the ones I mentioned. For example, the New York Times source (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html) talks about how AOC fought against the House resolution condemning Omar specifically, but doesn't talk about her controversial comments about concentration camps. This source from CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-migrants-detention/index.html) talks about her controversial comments on concentration camps, but not about the House resolution. If there's a particular claim that you worry is unsupported, let me know and we can discuss. I hope that clarifies things, but let me know if you still have objections. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP pretty heavily I think. Nothing of what you're pushing here justifies the clear BLP-violating insinuations you're making that AOC is some kind of anti-semite or somehow feuding with specific Jewish interest groups. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying! To recap, I asked you if there was a specific claim that you were concerned was unsupported. You said you are worried that the claim that AOC is feuding with Jewish interest groups is unsupported. Here are some references that support that claim: https://www.adl.org/news/letters/letter-to-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-regarding-recent-anti-semitic-comments-by-rep, https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/300284/yad-vashem-calls-out-aoc-over-concentration-camp-remarks/. Hopefully that assuages your concerns, but if you have any other objections, please let me know. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This material will not appear in the AOC article, due to objections by several editors who have explained themselves at length. It cannot be stated more plainly than that. ValarianB (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, I do appreciate you chiming in. I have carefully read all responses and at this point I do believe that I have refuted every argument against inclusion of the material. The material is well-sourced, there are plenty of references showing that these incidents got lots of attention well after they were headline news, and there are so many references of such a heterogeneous nature that even if you object to some categories of references there are other categories that are still valid even if those objections were to be considered valid. Nobody has put forth any arguments against the preceding. If you disagree and still have objections, please let me know. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Pretzel butterfly: regarding the links you provided:

1. https://www.adl.org/news/letters/letter-to-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-regarding-recent-anti-semitic-comments-by-rep - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned in this ADL letter
2. https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/300284/yad-vashem-calls-out-aoc-over-concentration-camp-remarks/ - This does not support any claim that "AOC is feuding with Jewish interest groups."

Please stop trying to push blatantly false, WP:BLP-violating claims. Especially please stop posting links that clearly do not support your claims and hoping that people won't fact-check you, that's just uncivil. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please know that I am engaging in this discussion with full sincerity, but I do appreciate you voicing your concerns about the references. I can help clarify if you'd like. The ADL letter is referring to the resolution that AOC helped block (see the NYTimes source [23]). Yad Vashem is the Israeli Holocaust Museum, often considered a Jewish group because it focuses on the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. I hope that corrects the misunderstanding and assuages your concerns, but if you still have concerns, please let me know and I'd be happy to discuss further. Cheers and have an excellent day, Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide ACTUAL sources that support the wording and claims you are making, and stop trying to engage in illegitimate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the edits you have proposed are even remotely valid, all of them have violated WP:BLP in an incredibly blatant way. Yad Vashem's particular objections to the use of the term "Concentration Camps" - and they have done this to many individuals, even survivors of American concentration camps during World War II - does not mean "AOC is feuding with Jewish interest groups" or that AOC is somehow anti-semitic, any other permutation of the WP:BLP-violating insinuations you are trying to make here. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following your reasoning. The sources show that she had a dispute with ADL - they supported a resolution regarding Omar and alleged anti-Semitism that she was a key opponent of. The sources show how she had a dispute with Vad Yasham - they objected to her usage of the term concentration camps. Jewish organizations in her home state asked to meet with her and she declined, and they made a lot of complaints to the press. She had multiple disputes with multiple Jewish organizations, so I argue that it's proper to say that she had disputes with Jewish organizations. I hope that you accept my argument, but if you have any other concerns, don't hesitate to reach out. Cheers, Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You can be as cheery in your delivery as you like. But what this boils down to is you are taking minor incidents, e.g. not meeting with a specific religious group, and her support of something related to Ilhan Omar, and trying to paint AOC with a broad brush of antisemitism. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your encouragement of my stylistic style is much appreciated, thank you kindly. It's not meant as a mask, I genuinely wish to have a polite, civil, and constructive conversation with you. But anyhow, as I understand it, your stated concern above is that the incidents are minor. I already discussed that extensively above, but I'm happy to reiterate here: because they were headline news at the time, and have received significant attention since, they are in fact, major. Nothing I wrote suggests an anti-Semitism charge and I haven't mentioned that at all, you're the one who brought that up. If you believe that these incidents suggest anti-Semtism, you're of course welcome to harbor that as your private opinion, but I don't think we should include that in the article because of WP:BLP. I think that addressed all of your concerns, and I hope you accept my arguments, but if you're still hesitant I'm happy to discuss further. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pretzel butterfly: "The sources show that she had a dispute with ADL" - No, they literally fucking don't. That's the thing going on here. You're crossing into WP:SEALION territory with incredibly overly-flowery language pretending at civility while blatantly misrepresenting sources and trying to cobble together disconnected tidbits with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in order to try to accuse/insinuate anti-semitism, and that's absolutely a violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I take great umbridge at this attack. Yes, I'm being civil and polite, but I'm not POV-pushing - these are facts well-supported by the data. There was a headline-news dispute in which ADL and a bunch of others supported the resolution condemning Omar and AOC was a prominent voice opposed. This isn't a POV, it's what the references say. Hopefully that argument convinces you, but please let me know if you still disagree. If you want a more direct tone, here you go: I have throughout this conversation been arguing in terms of Wikipedia policies and been appropriately respectful, whereas those who argue for censoring this well-referenced material have ignored my references, repeatedly launched personal attacks against my motivations and character, and just used the F word at me. And I am not alone in advocating for the inclusion of this material. Please refocus your attention on discussing whether Wikipedia's policies supports inclusion of the material and refrain from further personal attacks on me or foul language. I reject your argument that I should be less polite and more like you, and will continue to treat you with courtesy and respect. Best wishes, Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"these are facts well-supported by the data" - No, they're not. You're trying to string together WP:OR and WP:SYNTH tidbits to add up to an absolutely false accusation/insinuation of anti-semitism, and it's a blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy. And I don't really care if you take "Umbridge", you need to follow wikipedia policies. This isn't "well referenced material" in any way shape or form, you're clearly misrepresenting sources and blatantly violating wikipedia policies. And that fact doesn't change no matter how much overly flowery and falsely "civil" language you load into your comments. As for my use of the "F word"? Yes, that's the natural reaction when someone engages in sealioning long enough. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll forgive you the use of foul language, I understand it can be hard when you're angry. Just please try to be more civil with me in the future when you can, pretty please? And don't worry, I'm not secretly a supervillain from Harry Potter.

Before I respond, I want to make sure that I understand the point that you're trying to make, your last post left me a little confused. If I understand you correctly, you want to make sure that we're fully in compliance with WP:SYNTH. In particular, that policy says that we should not synthesize sources to state or imply a conclusion not made explicitly by mainstream sources. Is that correct? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If so, I think we're good. Each of the references denotes a specific Jewish group that AOC is having a dispute with and the section is about AOC's disputes with Jewish groups. Please do let me know if you object to that reasoning. But anyhow, I know you were very worked up about the possibility of Wikipedia's policies being violated (and who can blame you), but thankfully, it looks like you can rest easy. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Each of the references denotes a specific Jewish group that AOC is having a dispute with and the section is about AOC's disputes with Jewish groups." - Weapons Grade Bolognium, to quote one Hubert Farnsworth. You were already caught claiming as "sources" articles that don't even mention AOC. You don't get to misrepresent sources, violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, especially in a bald-faced attempt to violate WP:BLP. You keep trying to justify accusing/insinuating anti-semitism, and you were already told, "This material will not appear in the AOC article, due to objections by several editors who have explained themselves at length. It cannot be stated more plainly than that." Continuing to engage in sealioning behavior and ignoring the very comprehensive answers you've been given isn't going to change the facts. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your position. If I understand you correctly, you want to make sure that we're fully in compliance with WP:SYNTH. In particular, that policy says that we should not synthesize sources to state or imply a conclusion not made explicitly by mainstream sources. Is that correct? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine I'll be ultra-plain. Stop trying to violate WP:BLP, which is precisely what you're doing when you dishonestly misrepresent sources trying to paint the subject of this article as some kind of anti-semite. This has been explained repeatedly. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much for the clarification. The proposed addition summarizes the sources, nothing is in the proposal that isn't true and well-supported by the references. If that truth supported by reliable sources makes AOC look good or bad, that's not a reason to censor the material. I never said that the sources show that AOC is an anti-Semite, you're the one who brought that up. If it is your opinion that these incidents implicate AOC as anti-Semitic, you're welcome to have that as your private opinion, but I don't think we should include that in the article since it would violate WP:BLP. To my knowledge the current suggested text doesn't do so, but let me know if there's anything in the draft that concerns you. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

1. No, the proposed addition does not "summarize the sources", it engages in illegitimate violation of WP:SYNTH and bald-facedly misrepresents sources that do not even mention AOC by name. None of this is appropriate.
2. No, nothing in your proposal is "true and well-supported by the references", see above.
3. No, you don't get to make a section out of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to try to smear a living person by falsely implying anti-semitism, which is precisely what your disruptive and highly inappropriate proposals do.
4. sealioning, pretending to not understand these points and repeating nonsensical claims over and over again, is also inappropriate and uncivil behavior.

Your proposals are violations of WP:BLP policy, plain and simple. They have no business being on wikipedia and you've violated the WP:BLP policy with your sandbox WP:POVFORK page[24] as well. If you continue violating the WP:BLP policy and fail to delete that page, I will ask one of the other editors here to report you to the appropriate venue. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little bit confused by some of your comments. It might be helpful to narrow the scope of the discussion and take things point by point. Your first point is that the sentences in the proposal don't summarize the sources. Would you mind taking a second look at this? For example, consider this sentence from the proposal: "The Israeli Holocaust museum condemned Ocasio-Cortez when she compared US migrant detention faculities to Nazi concentration camps, but she refused to apologize." And here's the source: [25]. Nothing in that sentence isn't in the source, the proposal sentence is merely summarizing something that happened as reported in the source. I hope that mollifies you, but let me know if you're still worried about a policy violation. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I see no need to repeat myself further. Your attempts to violate WP:BLP policy remain inappropriate. Sealioning about it, demanding that people repeatedly re-explain what has already been repeatedly and fully explained, is inappropriate and uncivil behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, let the record show that you declined to engage in discussion and dialog, and instead resorted to further personal attacks (but I hope you change your mind!). The record also shows that I have in fact paid very careful attention to the objections put forth by others and have supplied arguments and references to satisfy concerns about Wikipedia policy being violated. With regards to your numbered concerns,

• See my defence above about how my sentences summarize the sources.
• Because the proposal sentences summarize the sources, they are supported by the sources.
• I did indeed see your concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and tried to clarify with you what you meant twice, and you ignored my questions both times. If you're concerned that I'm not addressing your points, I'm happy to re-engage in dialog with you about this at this time, just please address my request for clarification. I've speculated on what you might be driving and and offered a rebuttal, which you didn't respond to.
• Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Treating others with courtesy and respect is a virtue, not a fault.

I am very happy to engage with dialog with you. I have carefully read and responded to every point being made in the past and am happy to continue to do so in the future. I believe that I have defended the proposal against each of your objections, and hopefully you agree that your concerns are now satisfied. If that is not the case, you can feel free to one of my bullet-point rebuttals above and we can discuss further. Cheers and have a good day. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I have not "declined to engage in discussion and dialog"; to the contrary, I have spent an amount of time far above the minimum time investment required for answering you. You have engaged in sealioning behavior of the type noted at WP:SEALION. The "points", such as they are, that you offered have all been thoroughly answered by multiple editors, and continuing to sealion will not change things. I do not "agree", because the facts remain: you haven't defended anything, and your proposed edits absolutely violate WP:BLP policy and have no place on wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for your response! I'm not sure if I agree with your narrative though. You made some points, I refuted those points, and you are now declining to address these refutations because you felt you've spent too much time on the discussion. That's your decision to make, but it's still the case that all of your points have been countered, and you're doing the equivalent of saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, but I don't have time to explain why." Other editors have indeed chimed in on this discussion, both in support of including this material and opposed, and me and others have addressed all objections to inclusion of the proposal. At this point, to my understanding, all outstanding objections have been addressed, but if there is a specific point you still disagree with, feel free to provide your rationale. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your claims have already been answered and the clear violations of policy your proposed edits contain, explained, multiple times and in great detail by multiple users. Your sealioning is still inappropriate behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback, but I dispute it! All objections have been addressed. Instead of being responded to, my refutations and references in support of inclusion are being ignored. But please let me know whenever you'd like to participate in reasoned discussion based on evidence. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple users, over the 20 days since your initial post, have explained to you in great detail the problems with your WP:BLP-violating proposals. You have not been "ignored" in any way, shape, or form. That you choose to ignore the responses and engage in sealioning demands that people re-explain over and over again, hoping to provoke angry reactions, is inappropriate and disruptive behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to find some common ground. We agree that people have voiced objections (and also support). You say that I'm ignoring people, but my recollection is that I've responded in detail to every comment. Anything you think I missed? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just now wasted several minutes re-reading the thread and not one user has supported your WP:BLP-violating proposals. That you continually try the same tactics, that you repeatedly try to draw people in by pretending you did not understand the answers and then repeating the same questions that were already answered over and over, is definitionally sealioning. Stop. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for making a concrete objection. If you search through the page, Sir Joseph has supported aspects of the proposal, as has someone on my talk page. You say I am repeating the same questions that have already been answered before but I don't recall this. Can you give an example? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

How many hoops is IHateAccounts going to have to jump through anyway? I think it is clear by now that Pretzel has not gained support for his/her suggested edit. It's time to move on. Gandydancer (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not posing that question as a hoop. I'm posing the question to point out that instead of arguments being addressed, I am being subject to a serious of ad-hominem attacks that have no basis in reality. IHateAccounts makes an attack against me that isn't true instead of actually addressing whether Wikipedia's policies support inclusion of the material. Gandydancer, you're mischaracterizing the situation: there is no consensus either way at this point and I have gained some support. I would encourage those who wish to censor this proposal to engage in discussion based on Wikipedia policy instead of personal attacks. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

So are we all agreed to close the discussion now? TFD (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I just gave a counterexample to your latest point on our talk page discussion. It's contrary to Wikipedia policy to shut down discussion if your argument doesn't hold water. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has been long, so here's a recap of the discussion so far:

• There were concerns about the sources for the material, which have been addressed.
• There were concerns about whether the material received sufficient coverage at the time, but references showed it was headline news at the time.
• There were concerns about whether the material received sufficient coverage after the fact, but these references show that it did [26][27][28][29][30][31][32]
• There were concerns about whether there was a violation of WP:NOR. However, the proposal only summarizes the sources without arguing for any new conclusions.

At this point I believe we have enough justification to include the proposal in the article. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your re-cap. I suggest we now close the discussion. TFD (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with @The Four Deuces: that the discussion should be closed. Consensus is clearly against the severely WP:BLP-violating proposals Pretzel butterfly has offered, and the sealioning has gone on long enough. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm okay closing the discussion so long as we are also including the material. Any objections to this? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The material violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy and is absolutely not to be added to the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, unfortunately I think this means that we have failed to reach a consensus. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, there is a clear consensus. The consensus is that your proposals are highly inappropriate and violate a host of wikipedia policies, most importantly Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons constraints. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple people supporting the inclusion of the material, and I have addressed your policy concerns in my recap above. As we're at a standstill, I've requested additional feedback from the community in an RfC. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about AOC's disputes with Jewish organizations

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

---

Should this section [33] be included in the article? We had a talk page discussion amongst ourselves above. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• No That's a clear violation of several policies and essays, such as NPOV. It appears cherry picked from criticism. Bringing up Ilhan Omar is a WP:COATRACK. Omar is not AOC. You should have listened to the consensus at #AOC's disputes with Jewish groups rather than start this RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Absolutely No for reasons explained over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum above in #AOC's disputes with Jewish groups. Violates numerous policies, the most important of which is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and in an extremely blatant manner showing massive disrespect for wikipedia. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is relevant, well-sourced information. This is not "selective content, all negative, put together in the style of a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION", as has been asserted, at least not more than this entire article is. And no, I'm not suggesting we remove anything from Racial views of Donald Trump, because that is also relevant, well-sourced information. GrammarDamner how are things? 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  GrammarDamner, I was right when I said that on December 18 and the content barely changed since then. Don't WP:OTHERSTUFF, the Trump article is written neutrally. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION says, "Avoid sections...focusing on criticisms or controversies." TFD (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes As the person who wrote the material, I'm clearly biased, but I thought it would be helpful to summarize my case here. The material was headline news at the time, and has received substantial coverage since then. AOC's role in the Omar resolution controversy was prominently featured in a number of places including this New York Times article [34] ("House’s Anti-Semitism Resolution Exposes Generational Fight Over Ilhan Omar"). The articles cited are mainstream news stories and summarized neutrally. These are news stories summarizing true events that happened, we shouldn't be censoring material based on whether it makes the subject look good or bad. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• You've lost the argument when the crying about "CENSORSHIP!!!" kicks in. ValarianB (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• No or exclude whatever verbiage people would like. This has been a strange, strange little fixation on trying to make a story about about a negative, i.e. the absence of a meeting with Jewish groups. Not being content with that, the OP feels the need to loop in criticism by some Jewish groups of Rep. Ilhan Omar, just because of the close working relationship between Omar and the article subject. What this appears to be is an attempt to stick a few different stories together to make Rep. AOC look antisemitic, which is a damaging thing to write about in a Wikipedia article when it is not backed by solid sourcing. ValarianB (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No Per weight, has received minimal coverage for inclusion. Also it's written in a clearly biased way. TFD (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude The proposed section relies partly on sources, such as The New York Post, that previous centralized discussions have concluded to be unreliable for use on Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 01:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Each sentence has redundant sources, so the New York Post source could be removed. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Violation of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH; includes unreliable and unsuitable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No Selective use and misusing sources to portray article subject in the worst possible light and bludgeoning the discussion when editors tried to respond. Also, kind of a bizarre choice of WikiProjects to inform about this RfC including Jewish WikiProjects and Donald Trump WikiProjects that seems less than neutral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. Weak sourcing (a combination of WP:BIASed sources and low-quality ones like the Post); what's left is largely WP:SYNTH. Most of the usable sourcing here doesn't mention disputes with Jewish organizations specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No coatracky shite, politically motivated nonsense, axe grindy shit stirring etc. etc. Acousmana (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• No. Non-notable political POV. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Yet again

It appears that Pretzel butterfly tried to re-insert this WP:BLP-violating material yet again with the same level of [[WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and source-misrepresentation problems, despite the results of the RFC demonstrating firm consensus that it was not to be added. [35] I have reverted this, because it was highly inappropriate. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

See this discussion for context User_talk:HAL333#AOC_RfC. I'm about to go on wikibreak so am letting the matter drop for now. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read all the good sources you listed. I detect a high degree of political bias from these sources. Your Guardian source mentions Cortez exactly once and her statement had nothing to do with Jewish people. Your New York Times source mentions Cortez exactly once and her statement had nothing to do with Jewish people. Your CNN article does not even mention the word 'jewish' or similar. That's about it for the reliable sources, let's look at the others:

Your Jewish Journal source from what I can tell is based on the premise that Cortez used a questionable word. Some jewish people condemned her, other groups assumed good faith and noted she was only trying to criticise immigrant detention centres. This is hardly enough of a story for a full edit.

Your New York Post source is the most pathetic, it categorises a declined meeting as a 'dispute with jewish groups'. It also has this quote: "Miller stressed that Ocasio-Cortez “hasn’t completely distanced herself” from the Jewish community, praising her for participating in the January march over the Brooklyn Bridge to protest anti-Semitism." and this "AOC spokeswoman Lauren Hitt tells the Post: “We receive an overwhelming number of worthy requests from national and citywide leaders for meetings with the Representative, and unfortunately, we cannot accommodate most of them, as we prioritize meetings with leaders and communities within her district of NY-14." Both of which contradicts your reasoning for wanting to make this edit.

You should read your own sources. At this point I argue it's fair to say you are pushing for this inclusion far too hard and should extend your wikibreak to a much longer period, possibly indefinitely.Will Heisenberg (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Image manual of style

This image under political positions should not be forced to the left since she is facing away from the text. It should also be inserted before the paragraph above so it doesn't shift the following subsection header over. 2601:601:CE80:8640:8593:D900:CD47:8861 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Caught

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AOC was caught partying hard at a bar in Florida while maskless. Is this something that can be added on her page or is it too much?? Lostfan333 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC) So far, based on the unreliable sources I'm seeing, no. We'll see what happens next. Firefangledfeathers 18:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC) If you mean the picture of her (vaccinated) and her companion (vaccinated) seated outside, socially-distanced, while sitting and consuming beverages (something you kinda sorta need to remove a mask to do), there is nothing at all wrong with that. Do not come to the Wikipedia to regurgitate far-right gossip tales, please. ValarianB (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC) This is the sort of content I really think we should avoid in articles about politicians (or anyone else). It comes across as a dirty laundry list rather than a summary of the subject. Springee (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Why is this notable? Although a brief search returns confusing results on the current status of mask mandates in Miami, the only way I could see this being notable is if: A) an outdoor mask law was in effect and B) the subject was directed to wear a mask, and then refused. - Headphase (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC) This is a good example of why one needs to provide sources in talk page discussions. This isn't about dining outside with her partner, this is about going into a bar. And mind neutrality: caught partying hard at a bar isn't neutral. What exactly did she do wrong? I believe she is vaccinated and boosted. Assuming she didn't violate a mask mandate at that bar because there is none for Miami, what's the point of adding this WP:RECENTISM to this article? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Since coverage in reliable sources is required for inclusion, there's nothing to consider here. The right-wing echo chamber has a false analysis of Democrats and often find hypocrisy where none exists. TFD (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC) And she has now tested positive for Covid-19. Lostfan333 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC) And? Since Re. Ocasio-Cortez is sane, i.e. 2 initial vaccination shots + a booster, the symptoms and duration will be at most, mild. Also, as the omnicron variant is less lethal but more contagious, the point of infection could have come from anywhere. Unreliable, right-wing media will no doubt have a field day with this, but at the end of the day none of this is suitable for an encyclopedia. Zaathras (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Calm down, Zaathras. I'm simply stating the fact that she got Covid-19, which has been added to the article. After multiple replies, I know adding her "partying hard" is not necessary. Again, calm down. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Ah AOC and I have something in common; we both let our guard down just a little bit over Christmas break and got sick. Let this be a lesson to us all to keep masking up even if vaccinated. It doesn't seem so important to add her COVID diagnosis to her article. Unfortunately COVID diagnoses are mostly run-of-the-mill events. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Dear sir, I am quite calm, but that's really none of your business. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is pro-mask mandate, a candid paparazzo photo showed her in a moment of non-mask wearing, then she unfortunately contracts the cornavirus. You were not "simply stating" anything, you, like most of the right-wing media, are playing the "gotcha!" game. That is not what an encyclopedia is for. Zaathras (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry to hear that, Muboshgu. I hope you're doing much better now. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC) I don't think there is much harm in mentioning it. The sourced we have cited says she was seen not wearing a mask in several venues while in Florida. Not really a "gotcha", but more of a "she returned from a vacation in Florida and tested positive for COVID-19". While we don't have to mention her partying without a mask, we can at least mention her going to Florida before contracting the virus. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Some Dude From North Carolina, seeing this as hyprocrisy is caused by misunderstanding what AOC said and did. She never told people to wear masks when it was not legally required. Florida in fact has no mask laws. Furthermore, no where requires people to wear masks when they are eating and drinking, which would be difficult. And, in case you were not aware, masks do not prevent wearers from getting covid, but reduce the risk they will spread it to others. Hypocrisy would be telling people to wear masks and not doing so oneself. TFD (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC) That's not what I said? I said we should add that she returned from a vacation in Florida before testing positive. That is reliably sourced here. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC) We absolutely should not have any content that suggests some sort of hypocritical gotcha. That sort of content has no place in Wikipedia regardless of who the subject happens to be (and yes, I'm sure there are many examples were it is in Wiki articles). Personally, I don't think it's encyclopedic that she even got COVID. That makes her one in what 60,000,000... or part of the ~1 in 5 people in the US who have had it. Unless it evolves into something more than "she had it" I would say this content isn't DUE in the article. Springee (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC) That's just the people who have been diagnosed. I agree it's not worth mentioning unless it has received ongoing coverage which only happens if the circumstances merit it. On the same day, it was announced that four Republican members of Congress also tested for covid, but it has not been added to their articles. TFD (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC) I removed it, but the covid-enthusiasts are back reverting. May need to hold an RfC. ValarianB (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC) RfC would probably be good if there hasn't been one already. There should be one easy rule that can be applied to ALL living persons (and easily referenced on talk pages) to shut down edit wars. Headphase (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Here's a list of every Congressperson that has had COVID-19, that we know of. How many of these infections are really important enough to note in their bios? I'd say only two, the fatal cases: Ron Wright and Luke Letlow, who wasn't a member yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Well that is certainly helpful. Thanks. It should make it obvious that unless one wants to look through all of these lawmaker's bios and attempt to enter it we need not enter it here either. Sectionworker (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2023

Please Change "also known by her initials AOC, is an American politician and activist.." To "also known by her initials AOC, is a far left American politician and activist.." 65.209.27.118 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Which reliable sources call her "far left"? Cullen328 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)