Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Publishing Venture

I've modified the description of her publishing venture (Brook Avenue Press) in "Early career" to limit it to what the source actually states. While she had some vague involvement with the government-funded enterprise and reportedly "launched" Brook Avenue Press, there is no indication in the source that Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator provided financial funding to Brook Avenue Press, or that Brook Avenue Press ever actually published anything. An ISBN search turns up nothing for Brook Avenue Press. Especially given those circumstances, I think it's wise to stick with precisely the narrow description provided by the source and not impose any additional assumptions. John2510 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I question whether the references to Brook Avenue Press and GAGEis, Inc. should be included at all.

There seems to be virtually no documentation of what her involvement consisted of, and certainly no source to suggest that it constitutes any real part of her career. One solitary article[1] says that she "launched" Brook Avenue Press, but what did "launching" it consist of? Were there ever writers working on projects? I can find no source to support that. ISBN lists no publications for that entity. Does anyone know anything at all about this supposed entity? Apparently, it was an idea for a student project once upon a time (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pFAayEMqDM), but how did it materialize (if it did at all)?

GAGEis, Inc. is similarly shrouded in mystery. Her title indicating association with that entity (to the degree it actually is an entity) has one solitary source [2]. What is the company? When did she work there? Was she an employee, or volunteer? What did her work consist of?

I'm kind of shocked these questions didn't get explored when she was running for office. John2510 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

These are one-sentence mentions, hardly things she hung her hat on or that this article pins as significant. She opened a printing company. It failed. Hardly news, but doesn't mean she did not "launch" it. It's also discussed on other pieces, such as Inc.com where there is a brief interview with someone else who was at the same incubator as Brook Avenue at the time. His venture also is no longer in business, because, gasp, some very number of startups fail. Big woop. The fact that there are no ISBNs for it is not a rationale to say she did not "do" it, but is holding an 18-word sentence to the N standard of being its own article, which I don't recall anyone trying to do. JesseRafe (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Every sentence should be accurate, or omitted. The source linked in Inc.com states "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, has shelled out $1,000 since April simply to rent space while she researches her business idea — a children’s book publishing company devoted to telling positive stories set in The Bronx." Simply researching the idea seems to be as far as it ever got (unless there's a source to the contrary). That would be better description, rather than padding the bio with misleading statements (one-sentence or otherwise). There is no indication that it "started up," "opened" or "failed." It simply never really existed. It was an idea. John2510 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

She founded it; it failed. What's there to litigate? There is every indication that she launched the venture and it fizzled and presumably shuttered.

• http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2018/10021221.pdf
• https://www.c-span.org/organization/?127758/Brook-Avenue-Press
• https://twitter.com/brookavepress?lang=en
• http://brookavenuepress.com/?reqp=1&reqr=Ml5jLt==

Are all indicative of it existing and the first link is her financial disclosure listing her as its founder. Jeez, you people are exhausting. "She failed at business, lol!" or "She's a liar, her business didn't exist because she's a failure, lol!". JesseRafe (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which, "you people" you're talking about. I didn't say those things about her and (as far as I know), she never said that she ran a publishing company. I'm trying to get this article accurate. She rented some space and researched the idea of publishing, and that seems to be an accurate representation, as far as any sources show. A parked domain for sale on GoDaddy is hardly evidence of the existence of a business. Nor is a Twitter account with one tweet. She didn't fail at publishing, she simply didn't actually engage in it. As far as publishing (versus researching or talking about the idea of publishing), is there any evidence that she embarked on it? John2510 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"extremely remote" ancestry

@Hyjukilo: Regarding these three edits: the current "have ancestry" summary is an adequately weighted summary. It is quite a tautology to say an ancestry is "extremely remote", it is also a dubious summary that potentially undermines the subject, as extremely remote can refer to a range from a thousand to a quadrillion years. Yes she did say that it's generations ago, sth like 500 years, but we also observe guidelines like WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH here. Discuss here, and less reverts would be more helpful for the improvement of the article. Tsumikiria (T/C) 12:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sephardic ancestry could for example be recent cultural or ethnical hertige from one or all four grandparents. In contrast, Alexandria has extremely remote Sephardic ancestry from 500 years ago. Politicans want to claim a belonging to different groups for different reasons. If there is room for the public to get a more nuanced picture, then that's always something positive to contribute with Hyjukilo (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC).

Depending on more detailed information 'extremely remote' could be arguably changed to just 'remote' ancestry, but not such information is at hand at the moment. Hyjukilo (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur. I would say that it's a matter of definition, but given that we have her assertion about her family trees, and furthermore given the history of Spain and Puerto Rico and the number of generations involved, I'm fine with extremely remote. (Elizabeth Warren probably has more indigenous ancestry, genomically speaking. Shorter time-frame.) kencf0618 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've always felt that this added information is trivia and does nothing to improve the article. I'd remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Extremely remote" reads like editorializing to me (which is generally unencyclopedic.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Extremely remote" is both editorializing and unencyclopedic. It's ancestry, the plain meaning of the word means it's remote and "extremely" is OR. Neither word belongs in the sentence if the sentence is even to stay. JesseRafe (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

'Remote' is commonly used in geneaology to distinguish recent ancestry (a Jewish grandfather) from remote ancestry (a Jewish great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather). Hyjukilo (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Another way of phrasing it is that say the her Sephardic ancestry is not remote (even though it is), but miniscule or microscopic. Hyjukilo (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to write off an ancestry as miniscule or microscopic is some interesting editorializing that would suggest a certain POV on your part. Consensus is not in your favor in this case. Of course you can escalate, but you might not get what you want. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case it is trivial. It is her word she made as a politician to score brownie points. It's certainly not noteworthy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's important to uphold a neutral and objective point of view. Suggestion: We remove the sentence all together. Out of all people here on the talk page, 2/6 favor extremely remote, 1/6 favor removing the sentene, 2/6 question the sentence and 1/6 favor the current version. All opinions lack consesus, therefore, we should remove the sentence. Hyjukilo (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The new edit is correct JesseRafe. Hyjukilo (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hyjukilo: Your reading of consensus does not appear to be accurate. Could you name which editors you believe support what? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth see above: 2/6 favor extremely remote (Hyj + Kencf), 1/6 favor removing the sentene (Gandy), 2/6 question the sentence (Aquill + Jesse) and 1/6 favor the current version (Tsumik). Now more people has entered the discussion, with Sir Joseph also arguing against Tsumikiria.

I support the current version, quotes are good. Hyjukilo (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You've proved Peter's point by showing yourself incapable of reading other editors' comments accurately. I was one of many who said "extremely remote" does not belong in the encyclopedia -- a grouping you failed to even include. JesseRafe (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We usually paraphrase banal quotes like that, which is why we used ancestry to summarize it in the first place. Go make a RfC, instead of misreading intent of other editors to support your editorializing. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings to the public, happy to give you my input Hyjukilo (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"Claims Jewish ancestry." NOT POV

There is nothing inherently POV about the use of the word "claims" here -- she is making a claim, one that, like any other claim, may or may not be backed up with evidence. The inclusion of what she said at the party without the context of why she is saying it is essentially a basic kind of poor writing -- the introduction of evidence without a sense of what claim tht evidence is meant to support. PaulCHebert (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit, used paraphrase and made the quote inside the references. Hopefully this will settle everything. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The word "claim" is actually viewed as problematic on Wikipedia; it even has its own section link, WP:CLAIM. The issue is that it casts doubt on the veracity of the statement, as a claim is something that is not necessarily true. It's probably best to use that word only to precede statements are demonstrably false based on WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Dual major v. major/minor

I removed "minor" in economics (as a stop gap) because the sources cited do not say that, nor can I find any other source saying that. I note the discussion a few threads up in the "educator" thread. I believe the sources establish that it was a double major and she earned a dual degree in Economics and International Relations:

• NBC News: Ambitious and driven, Ocasio-Cortez graduated from Boston University in 2011 with a dual degree in Economics and International Relations.
• The New Yorker: She changed majors, from biochemistry to economics and international relations, and worked part time in Senator Edward Kennedy’s Boston office, dealing with constituent concerns, including immigrant issues.
• Newsmax, that bastion of the liberal left :-) has a great way of phrasing it: For someone who graduated from Boston University with a double major, she is remarkably ignorant.
• Her Campus, which I'm not familiar with, but appears to be a reliable Boston-based media company (About Us): She graduated from Boston University with a major in economics and international relations.
• BU: Ocasio-Cortez, who graduated from Boston University with degrees in international relations and economics, is a former organizer for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and a former staffer for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. To me, "degrees," plural, means dual-major, not a major-minor (as that would be one degree not two).
• AOC's website: Alexandria went on to study at Boston University, where she earned degrees in Economics and International Relations. Again, "degrees," plural.

Based on the above, I think the article should say she earned "a degree, double-majoring in Economics and International Relations" or "a dual degree in Economics and International Relations" or "a degree in Economics and International Relations". Because I don't think it matters whether it's a "dual degree" or "degrees" or "double major", the third example above is my preference. Any objections to making that change, and citing the sentence to NBCNews and New Yorker (instead of the cites there now, which don't go into enough detail)? Levivich (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We should cite what the sources say not make up own guesses unless one say is clearly more accurate and precise than the others. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

How about avoiding the whole degree/degrees distinction, since sources are not in agreement? I suggest something like "she attended (or graduated from) Boston University, majoring in Economics and International Relations." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This should be changed as it was not a dual degree or double major. I called the economics department and they don't it available online, but she is not listed as an alumni of that department. I searched a bit and read the exact articles which stated she studied economics, and it appears this is the degree she actually got (It is an international relations degree with a focus on the "international economics" track -- which includes 3 courses on international economics.) I can see how it could be interpreted as a "minor", but it's not a dual degree by any means and cannot be called a degree in economics: https://www.bu.edu/academics/cas/programs/international-relations/ba/ CharlesBluth (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

CharlesBluth, we should not be using WP:OR as our sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Background: The difference between a "dual degree", "double major", and "major/minor" is major significant. Not sure if it's the same at all universities, but at Boston University (BU):

• BU is a "university", made up of a number of schools or "colleges", each of which can issue a degree. All sources agree that AOC was issued a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree by the BU College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) in 2011. No source AFAIK says she went to some other college within BU, such as the College of Engineering.
• A dual degree is two degrees issued by two separate colleges. BU policy, CAS policy, BU dual degree application form
• A major is a program of study in a single subject area. The major appears on the diploma; a minor, which has fewer requirements, does not appear on a diploma. BU definitions, BU major/minor policy CAS policy Both economics and international relations are offered as majors or minors for a BA from CAS. A double major means declaring two majors, both of which would appear on the diploma. CAS major declaration form allows up to three majors and three minors to be declared.
• Because AOC graduated with a BA from CAS, she can't have a "dual degree", because you can't get a dual BA from the same college, by definition. The sources that say dual degree appear to just be incorrect about that. Other sources say "double major" or "major in economics and international relations", no sources say "minor" in anything (that I've seen). But this is all just my own WP:OR, so it can't be the basis of a content choice in the article.
• Proposal: Based on MelanieN's observation/suggestion above about sources disagreeing and how to harmonize, I propose:

1. Add "majoring" to the current sentence in the body (addition in bold) and remove "with a bachelor's degree" (strikethrough): She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, with a bachelor's degree majoring in international relations and economics.
2. Add this sentence to the lead: She majored in international relations and economics at Boston University, graduating cum laude in 2011. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Note: I have struck out some of my initial comments in this thread based on subsequent comments/research. ^Leviv_ich? ! 21:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we have confirmation for cum laude? I've noticed that politicians always claim they were cum laude or magna cum laude or some equivalent title, so I have become very skeptical on that point. I've even seen people claim it from Stanford, which does not award those titles! Unless we have it from BU itself I would leave that out. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Examining this further: We provide three sources for the sentence that says “cum laude”. None of them support it. NHI says “fourth in her class” and does not look like a particularly authoritative source. Iohud doesn’t mention it. The Intercept doesn’t mention it; the article is an interview with her, which we generally do not regard as a neutral reliable source, and the intro just says “after earning her degree from Boston University”. In a quick search I did not find any neutral reliable source - although some sources mention it, it is clearly just something they heard - and I think we should leave it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a chart explaining how BU awards those titles. They award a Latin title to the top 30% of graduates;[3] doing the math, cum laude means in the 70th to 85th percentile. So it's quite plausible that she was in that range, but I would still leave it out without specific sourcing. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: The second source currently cited, Ref #26, is to BU's official Commencement Book for 2011 (the "Redbook"), which on p. 21 (bottom of middle column) lists AOC as Cum Laude. Also, though none of these are great, I found City News Service via NBC LA [4], Fox News, and conservative Boston newspaper Boston Herald. What do you think? (By the by, if she was cum laude, then she definitely wasn't 4th in her class, as that would make her summa cum laude; I'm not sure how big her graduating class was, but it was definitely well over 1,000–1,773 in 2018 per the chart you linked to–so 4th in the class would be the top 1%.) ^Leviv_ich? ! 23:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I looked at the wrong references. You are right, that is a valid - in fact THE valid - source for cum laude and we should keep it in the article. (And I agree about fourth in her class; I had the same thought.) -- MelanieN (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No objections? - If no one objections to my making the proposed changes above re: education, I'll do so in the next day or so. Thanks. ^Leviv_ich? ! 04:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ^Leviv_ich? ! 07:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Education

WP:DENY

This article claims she attended a college but does not indicate whether she graduated or not, and whether she has any academic degree or not. Whether she did or did not get an academic degree is relevant and important to the biography and should be included, even if she did not obtain a degree (as it appears for the lack of mention in the text of the article). this needs to be clarified, not covered up! the time that she completed in college is lacking, how many academic credits she accumulated is lacking, how many years of a four or five year program she completed is missing and what she studied is missing. If she never graduated college then this should be clearly stated. Again, this information is relevant to the biography and should not be covered up. The article borders on being a puff piece and that cannot be tolerated on a Wiki. Please restore credibility to this article by completing the missing information. 99.42.89.21 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC) She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011 with a bachelor's degree majoring in international relations and economics. Levivich? ! 07:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Thanks, though, for reminding me to make that change per the above talk thread. Levivich? ! 07:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: This is just plain trolling without any disguise. It needs to be served with WP:DENY. I'd just remove it. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 16:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, indeed! And pretty poor trolling, too, complaining about an omission that isn't even omitted. Anyway, to clarify, I didn't make any changes in response to this troll; the message just reminded me about this discussion above, so I made the changes per that discussion. Thanks for the tip, though, I'll hat it like you did next time I see something like this. ^Leviv_ich? ! 17:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding her religious beliefs

Ocasio-Cortez wrote an Op-Ed on how her Catholicism shapes her political views in American Magazine. Several other news organizations corroborate that she's Catholic. This should be added to the infobox because of its notability. Tastybaldeagle (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, the link is here. No opinion as to whether it's notable or not. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to see a strong non-primary source reporting this to establish that it's notable enough for the article. Not disputing its factual nature, but WP:UNDUE comes into play if there's only one source. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That's the interesting thing about AOC--there's really not a lot of strong secondary sourcing about her, in contrast to the plethora of sources about what she's said or done. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
      • It's already in the body of the article, and a person's beliefs or personal belief system is always a notable subject for their biography. An ABOUTSELF source is the best source for a person's beliefs. I'm not seeing the argument that we shouldn't say she's Catholic until other people besides AOC say she's Catholic, or until other people besides AOC say her Catholic beliefs are important to her. For me, because this is an article about a human being, and not an article about a political campaign, party, policy or ideology, there is no problem with putting Catholic into the infobox. Levivich (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It isn't an "argument", per se; it's a Wikipedia policy spelled out pretty clearly in WP:WEIGHT. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in WEIGHT where it says that if a BLP's religion is in the body of the article, sourced by a WP:SELFPUB source, we should not put it in the infobox. Nor do I see anything in WEIGHT or the NPOV policy in general saying we cannot source a BLP's religion to a SELFPUB source. I'm not sure what the objection is: that it's not true, that it's disputed, that it's not important enough to mention, that we're going into too much detail, or that characterizing her as "Catholic" is inappropriate because she has "Catholic beliefs" but isn't a "practicing" Catholic? Perhaps instead of a bluelinked capitalized shortcut, those who object to including Catholic in the infobox could state the reason for their objection, specifically? Levivich (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If Ms. O-C is a practising Catholic, that is, she attends Church regularly in the present, I would say you could put in the box. Zaathras (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about WP making an editorial decision about who is and who is not Catholic, and whether or not attending Church is required (and how often), etc. I think we should follow the RSes; if they say she's Catholic, WP should say she's Catholic:

• The New York Times: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has identified as Catholic...Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, 29, who danced and helped light the menorah on Sunday, has in her own life identified as Catholic. [5]
• The Washington Post: Ocasio-Cortez, who has identified as Catholic... [6]
• Pew Research Center's report on the religious composition of the 116th Congress [7] categorizes AOC as "Catholic" (listed at page 8 of this table [8]), other options included "Unaffiliated", "Don't know", etc. This report has been covered in other sources, e.g., CNA below.
• NBC News: The Sunday revelation was not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has discussed her religion. In the Jesuit publication America Magazine, Ocasio-Cortez wrote earlier this year that the ultimate goal of reforming the criminal justice system ties "directly to the heart of our" Catholic faith. [9]
• Catholic News Agency: Another notable Catholic in Congress is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [10], reprinted in the National Catholic Register [11]
• America (magazine): Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is one of 28 new Catholic members of Congress. [12] (same place where she published her op-ed about her faith [13])

Levivich? ! 23:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: If no one objects, I will work in "identifies as Catholic" into the body citing to NYTimes, WaPo and Pew above, and add "Catholic" to the infobox. ^Leviv_ich? ! 04:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with putting her religion in the body but I do not believe it should go in the info box. I do remember that Elizabeth Warren had her's listed, Methodist if I remember correctly, and it was removed since it was agreed that it was not a good thing. Gandydancer (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Half done I added "identifies as Catholic" to the body with Pew, NYT, WaPo, NBC News sources. I did not add "Catholic" to the infobox. There doesn't seem to be consensus for that addition, and after some spot-checking, I couldn't find any other members of Congress who had religion in their infobox.

Washington Post Op-Ed

This should be in the article. Truthsort (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-very-bad-defense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.6dc848cabf1b

Well, maybe. That's quite a broad statement. In what context, phrasing, and location does it belong? ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece, is it not? Ergo, no.--Jorm (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I've seen this user go to various talk pages of Democrats (specifically remembering Andrew Gillum before the election), drop a link to an article that casts the subject in a negative light, and say something along the lines of "this should be in the article" without providing any context. If it's an opinion piece (haven't clicked on it, don't want to waste my free WaPo views for the month on it), then hard pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Question, how does this not violate Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I changed the section heading, this is low threshhold trolling and should be removed. It's clear foruming, with barely the words needed to say it's a "suggestion" when it clear isn't and isn't intended to be. JesseRafe (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This section should be removed on sight. The sole purpose for it was to attract the eyesight of any passerby of this talk page and disparage the subject or fellow editors. No entertaining value. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If the user is doing something in a systemic way so as to be intentionally disruptive, then take them to ANI or AN and sort it out. If you don't want to do so, then it's probably best to save blatant personal accusations and whole sale removal of threads in which multiple editors have already commented. GMG^talk 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• The article is listed in the analysis section of WAPO. It is not an OP-ED. Truthsort (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• This source is no worse than the ones cited in the Trump lead for his record/unprecedented number of false (or "misleading") statements. There's no reason not to mention AOC's false statements in the body. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• If this is even to include, in what place, what context, and what phrasing of the article shall it deserve to be an appendage? By not providing any of those you are certainly not expecting any of us to fulfill your order, so this this trolling without any subtlety. One source cannot overturn the rest. Unlike the human orange hellscape there isn't multiple sourced, fair, proportionate, and bias-less coverage on her alleged falsehoods, and ripples and echoes from conservative blogs celebrating this thinly veiled opinion piece certainly doesn't count. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  Now you seem to be the one trolling. See these in-depth reliable sources: Mother Jones, CNN, Fox News and Vox. Furthermore, FactCheck.org highlighted AOC in their feature article about the whoppers of 2018 [14], and AOC's comments about the media and fact checkers have been compared to those by Trump [15] [16]. Finally, Glen Kessler HIMSELF shared the WaPo article on Twitter [17]. wumbolo ^^^ 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree about including in the body mention of the media commentary criticizing her for getting facts wrong, including the RSes listed above. I don't think it should be a separate criticism section, I think it should probably go in the media coverage section, and be merged into the prose chronologically, e.g., "In January 2019, AOC was criticized by A, B, C and others for saying in an interview X, when in fact Y" or "...for misstating X" or something along those lines; whatever the sources say about it. Levivich (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's relevant context to contrast with wealth taxes in other Western democracies

It would identify to readers just how extreme (or not) the policy is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We can consider many alternatives. Should we? We can consider how tax avoidance reduces tax receipts [18] in the real world that makes the $72 billion per year less likely. The $72 billion per year, which less than 10% of the deficit, doesn’t even help pay for current bills or come close to paying for Medicare for all. Tyler Cowen considers the AOC rate for incomes starting from $500k [19] There’s many other articles that consider her proposal among other alternatives. This can become a full blown Wiki article. I suggest we limit commentary to her proposal. It’s her opening gambit. Let’s not consider hypothetical moves or guess her end-game. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We are not a policy comparison tool, but an encyclopedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is confusing and borderline dishonest for us to discuss proposals that she did not make, in a sentence about a proposal that she did make. Leave it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Conflating her proposals with other, unrelated ones to highlight how extreme hers supposedly are is WP:SYNTH, which has no place in an article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd also argue that the 1st two lines on Krugman's article is sufficient to establish that AOC's tax rate proposal is respectable. Giving Krugman 3 times the copy as AOC is WP:UNDUE. Towards the end it ventures into the polemical. The criticism of hypothetical Republican ideas just begs for a rebuttal such as Alan Greenspan's [20]. I've chosen not to take that route and make our article more appropriate to an Encyclopedia instead of a partisan slug-fest. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Modern Monetary Theory

It’s not clear why well-sourced information was removed. CNN [21] says “She believes in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)], which holds that federal deficits aren’t all that bad.” Bloomberg says [22] “She adheres to a doctrine called Modern Monetary Theory … deficits don’t matter if you borrow in your own currency, just as long as they don’t cause inflation.” Thus, reliable sources state that she’s an adherent. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

New York Magazine [23] and Business Insider [24] quote her statement regarding the desirability of using debt to finance her agenda. It needs to be “a larger part of our conversation.” Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

That debt is a part of the financing of her proposals, and not a failure to raise revenue, is clear early on from her interview in June: [25] In terms of what I want to propose in Congress, we talk a lot about a Green New Deal. We talk a lot about very aggressively switching to 100 percent renewable energy as quickly as possible. We need a Marshall Plan for renewable energy in the United States. … I really wonder how many members of the Democratic Party actually have a degree in economics like I do. The Pay-Go plan is so indicative of a lack of understanding of how we need to grow. I’m advocating for the ideas because I have an understanding of how the economy works. If we did Pay-Go during the Great Depression, we would still be a developing nation. We need a New Deal.

That people still don’t get it is clear two weeks ago: [26] You can pay for it by saving costs on expenditures that we're already doing ... We can do it by saving money on military spending. We can pay for it by raising taxes on the very rich. We can pay for it with a transaction tax. We can pay for it with deficit spending. You recognize that people still ask the question as though I didn't just answer it, ... Because it's not an interest in the actual answer. It's an interest in the attack and it's an interest in debasing the agenda.

Debt financing is a feature of her ambitious proposal, discusses by dozens of articles, and warrants inclusion in her Policy section. I'll reword and reinsert. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't looked at great length at this content but I don't see a problem with it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

From my reading Jason is correct and this content should be included. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Geraldine Ferraro ?

I question this original research: The district, which was once represented by 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro ...

Where's the source? Districts change over time. It appears that Ferraro's district was completely in Queens [27]. Now Herman Badillo, the first Puerto Rican elected to Congress represented a district that included the South Bronx and Astoria [28]. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Ferraro seems like a WP:COATRACK to me. Who cares if she did represent a similar enough area 30 years ago? Are sources talking about her? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like no. I'm taking it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

New York City is losing districts. The unusual configuration of a district that spans Queens and the Bronx is a consequence of decades of Democratic gerrymandering - For the historical context lets start in the 1960's James J. Delaney didn't move but he was elected to the 6th, 7th, and 8th districts. After more redistricting, Geraldine Ferraro was elected to the same part of Queens after Delaney's retirement, and in 1979 became the 9th district. Ferraro resigned to run as Walter Mondale's VP candidate. Thomas J. Manton won in contested primary, and later the district moved slightly north and becomes the 7th district. That southern part became a Hispanic-dominated district to assure the election of Nydia Velázquez. Details here in the New York Times (but not in Wikipedia) https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/02/nyregion/hispanic-district-s-makeup-is-challenged.html

But in the 12th District, which is nicknamed the "Bullwinkle" district because its lines resemble a moose head, residents have offered statistics showing that the district, however oddly shaped to include Hispanic neighborhoods, is far from exclusively made up of Hispanics. According to data compiled by the Institute for Puerto Rican Policy, almost 30 percent of the registered voters in the 12th District are white and 48.8 percent are Hispanic.

In 1998, Manton retired and selected Joe Crowley for the 7th district. After the 2010 census, which after redistricting moved so far north that it now straddled the East River and was renumbered again. New York's 14th congressional district was far more Hispanic in composition as a result. This made a Hispanic candidate to oppose Crowley viable and ultimately successful. patsw (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Patsw, and? That all seems relevant to New York's 14th congressional district, but not at all to AOC. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I never stated it was relevant to the article. It's relevant to editors here who may be wonder if there's any connection at all to Ferraro. There is, as I explain above, but too remote to mention. There would be over a dozen representatives to mention if you wanted to be inclusive for all the historical districts that comprise today's 14th in Queens and the Bronx since 1979. I also corrected a district number in my text above. patsw (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez

I feel like this article is overly positive for someone who has encountered so much criticism. She's been accused of not being ready or knowledgable enough for office, as well as too sensational. She was very campaign focused, and struggled with what to do or how to make it even in between winning the election and taking office. She also has made her way onto a number of 'bad economics' forms, and has been criticized heavily for some of her policies. Lastly she is an extreme left (socialist) politician, and her article reads like she's very middle of the road. I came to this article to learn about her, and I feel like if someone just read this wikipedia article they'd have a very distorted picture of what she stands for and what types of opposition she's faced. I'm not sure if this would take the best form as a separate section about her or if it'd make more sense to add more accurate details throughout the article, I'd be interested to hear what you all have to say though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxonek (talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me like your point of view was already established before you came here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that discuss criticisms of her, that can be added to the article and summarized neutrally? If so, post links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Haxonek: It describes her as a socialist at the beginning of political positions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've explained to this new editor that socialism is not extreme left (by which I assume he means "far left". Doug Weller talk 12:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"accused" and "criticized" by who exactly? Trump? Alex Jones? Fox News? and why? because she's not a plutocrat? provide source and we can review them. Acousmana (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Acousmana: I'm sorry if my initial talk came off too strong, I haven't used the talk pages/wikipedia edit much and I'm still getting used to it. Additionally I'm very liberal myself, however Cortez has come under fire a number of times for getting basic facts wrong. She claimed unemployment was low because everyone was working two jobs, she's accused the upper middle class of disappearing (when it's been growing considerably), and a number of other things from the defense budget to suggesting the US population was ~500 million people (here's the washington post criticizing her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2q4cHONB6I, politifact: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/statements/?list=speaker, etc). I'm not suggesting we bash her here, however the opposition to her cites her frequent misrepresentation of facts, and unlike most politician pages there is no criticism section for Cortez. Haxonek (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Comment) That WaPo video didn't present any substance to back their criticism, plus it's a Youtube video. Her politifact page, a primary source, only has four entries. Per WP:BLP, criticism can be included only if reliable secondary sources present them "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". All those accusations would fail these requirements. Inclusion of criticism would be disproportionate at this point, and a dedicated criticism section is actually not a good solution. "Bad economics" is subjective, socialism is nowhere near far left and conservative media painting her as a socialist demon or sth is already noted in article.

If we're going to write something, here is one from Jacobin: [29]. In case this is ever useful. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Inclusion of criticism would be disproportionate at this point"! No criticisms allowed! 2604:2000:1580:440E:E961:51F9:B9BD:3714 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Taking quotations out of context does not help your argument. Do you have a specific reliably-source substantive criticism of her published in a significant third-party site to add? JesseRafe (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

She was widely criticized for labeling Israel as an occupying force, and it should be mentioned. She was also criticized for her response when asked to clarify her statements. Regardless of the accuracy of her statements, they may have gotten enough attention to merit a mention. RadPaper (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Widely? The first link is an Op-Ed and the second one quotes two random people on Twitter. Don't judge articles' content by their headlines, they are often written by other people. JesseRafe (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The consensus of editors here on the subject of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is very supportive of her and her political advocacy. Not that's there anything wrong with that, it's just a fact that her supporters are just more motivated than anyone to scrutinize anything added into or removed from the article. Expect that there's a lot of the thumbs on the scale to tip a critical edit out of the article for valid Wikipedia reasons at the the discretion of the editors' consensus, especially for "significance" and "reliability of sources" (i.e. "scrubbuing") by a Wikipedian examination of the motives that a secondary source cited is using. Likewise expect thumbs on the scale for inclusion of material that presents her in a best possible way (i.e. "buffing"). In the end, if everyone is editing according to the guidelines, critical material can get into this article, and the halo effect material doesn't. It just may exhaust you to try. patsw (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Environment criticism

"but, according to Timothy Cama of The Hill, does not provide details about how the US would move away from non-renewable power sources"

Why do we report one commentator questioning the success of a policy that will come out of a committee she is only currently proposing to start? The tone is WP:CRYSTAL predicting the impossibility of success before it has begun. Trackinfo (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that removal. I would go further and remove "Forty-three Democrats in the new Congress have supported this resolution, according to the Sunrise Movement.[117] But Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, opposes the resolution." There is a who article on Green New Deal where the prospects and details of various proposals are or can be discussed. The resolution in question is "is mostly a draft resolution for the House to create a special committee to work out the specifics" according to the source. The success or failure in legislative matters belongs in the section on "116th Congress" as it will be part of her record in office. This is a policy section which is more general in tone. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is a guideline for Wikipedia editors, not authors or columnists publishing in reliable sources. The material is relevant to her legislative career and whether it belongs on the page for the 116th Congress is questionable and probably a discussion best had on that talk page. The line should stay where it is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: also, 116th United States Congress is not meant to be a catalog for the actions of the 435 individual members. Legislative actions and proposals by the subject should be placed on their page under the relevant subsection of Career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. This BLP has a section labeled "116th Congress." Move it there to start? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. However, since it is environmentally related, I'd still say it probably belongs under that policy section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

To add to this, I think that any achievements/prominent memberships or legislation should go under the 116th congress section, if that makes sense. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This is clear-cut WP:UNDUE. One non-notable critic writes a line and the "let's make AOC look bad at as much as possible" crowd jumps in with an addition to the article. Ridiculous. If there were multiple reliable sources stating this opinion (and it's certainly that, just opinion), then maybe you'd have the justifiable due weight. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: As it stands now the second paragraph is from the Sunrise Movement website of which AOC is a member. We need a secondary source for this work. I still think it goes in the other section as Congressional work but that's a judgment call. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake. That last source is meant for the whole paragraph. Still it would me useful to have a few more: [30] Jason from nyc (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Here's another [31] from Cama of The Hill who is following up on the story we quote. He basically says AOC's proposal is dead and she sees the compromise as worthless. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources and explanation, Jason from nyc. That seems like a worthy secondary analysis from the Hill, and I'd say it's worth including. @Ewen Douglas: WP:WEIGHT is not accorded based on whether or not you agree with the criticism or think it's legitimate, it's based on the reliability of the source, and the The Hill is a reliable source for DC politics. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT (the very section you linked to): "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." One opinion piece in one op-ed written by one man, does, I think, qualify as the view of a "tiny minority." It doesn't get much tinier than "1". Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is established by sources, and you are misinterpreting what a "tiny minority" refers to. The view that the world is flat is held by a "tiny minority." The opinion of a columnist published in a respected publication is granted weight. The above column was published by the Hill, a reliable source. WP:WEIGHT falls under WP:NPOV, which states: Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. These policies support inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

NYS fines

Tsumikiria do you have a basis for this revert other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and your concern that it reveals "hypocrisy?" That's probably why it received attention in the first place; we don't omit noteworthy, information because we don't like how it reflects on the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

The sources that I've read so far (AP, UT, WT, CBS, FOX) are no more than mirror images of the initial New York Daily News short report, with nothing newer or in-depth coverage save for some differing conservative mockeries. And per WP:RSP, NYDN is a tabloid rag to begin with, therefore unsuitable for BLPs. Taken that this is true, her campaign, rather that herself, was fined for missing worker's compensations for some reason for a month, so that somehow makes her a big hypocrite worthy of a exposé here? This isn't something we should do. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The citation was the Associated Press. And by the way, the NYDN is considered reliable by many for NY-based reporting, even though WP:RSP indicates "no consensus." Your objection to its inclusion, according to your edit summary, was not because it was inaccurate, but solely because it reflects negatively on the subject, which is totally inconsistent with WP:NPOV, one of the five pillars. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

And the entirety of the AP piece have nothing new to offer. Being newsworthy does not guarantee inclusion. Of course this incident can be included, but right now we only we have something that resemble mere parroting among sources, without response or explanation from the subject, or anything more to solidify that she somehow is, as conservative sources has been trying to paint for a long time, a hypocrite. Documenting all instances of questionable things a individual or their organization reportedly do without question is not something we are obliged to do. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a trivial factoid which belongs in the campaign article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The other sources you cited were a re-print of the AP story, except for the NYDN. A "response or explanation from the subject" isn't required for including noteworthy information about them ("trivial factoid" is the weakest argument for information that's been reported in WP:RS). Our obligation is to follow WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, not write a promotional article about the subject that omits negative or controversial information. None of these "conservative sources" that you're concerned about were cited or even referenced, so, again, your only objection seems to be that you find the information personally distasteful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a trivial piece of information, and there's no indication that AOC is even responsible, or that it had any impact on her life (these are typical requirements for inclusion in a biography). Including this in order to "expose hypocrisy" makes us no better than the State Republicans "chortling" over the fine, and constitutes original research. Bradv🍁 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I never said it should be included because it "exposes hypocrisy," I said that perception was likely why it received coverage. The NYDN described it as such: The campaign for new Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has made helping the working class and poor her top priority, was fined by the state for not carrying workers’ compensation coverage for a month last year. And by the way, I didn't even include that bit of editorializing in my edit, which mentioned only the fine and the reason it was imposed, with the AP as a source. A simple, sourced statement of fact can't be WP:OR, and I don't think we should be applying some sort of partisan ideological test on material that has nothing to do with WP policy. These descriptions of "trivial" and "unencyclopedic," especially when we have multiple sources supporting this single line about her campaign under the relevant section sound more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than being based on an actual policy that would support exclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Note the first line of the story: the campaign for new Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It doesn't say Ocasio-Cortez was fined, it doesn't say she was personally responsible, it doesn't say she knew of the problem. These are all reasons that it's problematic, at best, to include this factoid in a short encyclopedic biography, as opposed to an article about the campaign itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to call it a factoid, and the length of the page will be determined by the amount of material that can be added and supported by WP:RS (and, of course, for which there is consensus). And I'm puzzled by your point: the line I added accurately noted that distinction. Besides, who else is responsible for her campaign? There's no separate page for the campaign itself, there's a section, and that's where the line was inserted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the others that it's a trivial factoid, and those aren't empty words. It has nothing to do with the length of the page, it has nothing to do with reliable sources, it's about weight, or importance. Reliable sources are covering every minute of every day of AOC; they have a 24-hour news cycle to fill. 90% of the stuff RS write about AOC will never make it into her encyclopedia article, because it's not the most important stuff about her, and the encyclopedia article should only be for the most important stuff about her, not for everything about her. So the only question is: is it important that her campaign was fined $1,500 for lacking insurance? Well, sure, it's her campaign and she's in charge. But is every mistake made by her campaign an "important" thing about AOC? No, of course not. People make mistakes every day; I'm sure her campaign made many mistakes. This is one that was reported because it was publicly announced by the government; other mistakes may never be noticed by the media. Nevertheless, why is this campaign mistake important enough to include in her article? Did she run on a platform of always paying insurance bills? Did she accuse her opponent of not having insurance? Was she personally responsible for making sure they had insurance? Is $1,500 a lot of money for a fine against an organization? Did anybody go to jail? Did anybody get fired? Did anybody vote or not vote for her because of this? Was she disqualified or personally punished in any way? If the answer to all of these (and all similar) questions is "no," then it's not important, and doesn't need to be in the article. Levivich (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: This is all utterly irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with WP policy. "Trivial factoid" is a derogatory term that only tells us the editor using it resents mentioning the material itself. The question is: Has it received coverage from WP:RS? The answer is yes. The type of analysis you are engaging in is exactly the kind of WP:OR that does not belong in an article or a discussion over content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the proposed edit is against policy, but it is definitely against consensus. At this point you may want to read 1AM. Bradv🍁 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Saying it is a "trivial factoid" is not derogatory; it's saying that inclusion isn't proportionate, as in WP:PROPORTION: 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. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like CNN got into it as well.[32] PackMecEng (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made my point on this, and as Bradv noted, consensus isn't there yet. However, I'll just add that WP:PROPORTION does not create some highly subjective, make-it-up-as-you-go-along criteria for inclusion—it's largely dependent on sources. Beyond that, I think the NYDN piece I quoted earlier sums it up pretty well. And thanks for the additional source, PackMecEng. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's entirely about whether it's in proportion or not per the RSes. So we have NYDN which ran a story on the 10th, two days ago. Immediately, there were edits to add this to the article. That was too soon. Now there's CNN on the 12th. Still too soon. That's two stories over three days. A month from now, we can look with perspective and see how this story played in all RSes, as compared to all the other stories about AOC that will be run by the media in January. Some stories get so big so fast that they're obviously notable and proportional; this is not one of them. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Too soon according to what? Sounds to me like WP:STONEWALLING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Too soon according to the calendar, my friend. There is almost never a reason to add to an article information from a media report about current events on the same day it’s published. If for no other reason, because media are primary sources when reporting on current events (as opposed to retrospective analysis). Levivich (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

On a separate note, I don't believe this to be correct. A report being contemporaneous with a story does not necessarily make it a WP:PRIMARY. WP:BNS are primary sources by default when it's part of a developing story, but that's not the case here. The CNN and NYDN pieces are each WP:SECONDARY and contain commentary and analysis that distinguishes them from simple news reports. The AP source is shorter, but still contains brief commentary and shouldn't be considered a WP:PRIMARY. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Boyfriend

@The lorax: This guy is completely unnotable. This has been deleted before. We're WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE. Please establish a consensus here for is inclusion, or self-revert. I'm out of my revert ration of the day. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, he's not notable, which is why he doesn't have his own biography. However, AOC's relationship status is relevant to her biography, so there's no problem with one line describing her boyfriend. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd lean towards excluding it; the fact that they were dating during the campaign doesn't mean they are dating now. An article at "Heavy.com" [33] says "Ocasio-Cortez Is Extremely Private About Her Relationship, & Never Posts About Roberts on Social Media". It's only because AOC is tabloid fodder that anyone cares, we should probably handle this similarly to how we handle other celebrities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, there's legit, non-tabloid coverage of their relationship, though I agree not much. All the content says is they lived together in Parkchester during the campaign. Someone took out that they met at BU. She made a reference to her boyfriend on Twitter last night.[34] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Fradio71, stop edit warring, or you'll be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For a BLP, we need a better source than tabloids and the gossip press, such as Vogue. Twitter is out of the question. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder, I wasn't suggesting adding that tweet as a source. I was presenting it here for the discussion. The Vogue link is what I had added to the article to include mention of her boyfriend, limited to attending BU together, living together during the 2018 campaign, and his job. I'd be fine keeping his job out of it, but the rest I believe belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that "living with her boyfriend during the campaign" is irrelevant in the context of the campaign. Pure tabloid fodder. As this is a BLP, it should stay out, unless a convincing consensus is reached that it belongs. Clearly, that is not the case as of now. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas, how is her relationship status "tabloid fodder", as opposed to biographically relevant? Better go through the articles of every other U.S. Representative to take out mentions of their non-notable partners and spouses? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I would point you to WP:OSE, and also would say, yes, if you are aware of a similar entry on another politician's page, American or British, I would gladly go review it. If you know of ten of those, I would review all ten. In the meantime, this is a BLP, and I believe your reversion of that removal was completely out of bounds, given Wikipedia policy, unless you have consensus, which, given the amount of argument here, you clearly do not (as of yet). Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas, you're allowed to revert edits of editors who have been blocked for that edit. It's not OSE, as that's a policy for deletion discussions, which this is not. Let's look at Joe Crowley's page, chosen just because she beat him. His page says he's married to Kasey, a registered nurse, and they have three children together. Why would we include that and not include a comparable sentence in AOC's bio? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are making the argument that a long-term marriage that has produced children is the same thing as a short-term cohabitation with a boy/girl-friend, I think you would find yourself in a very small crowd staking out that opinion. It's ridiculous on its face. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas, who said it's short-term? I'm saying that relationship status is relationship status. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I believe that in the absence of a reliable source stating that it's a long-term relationship in which the pair are co-habitating, it's a trivial mention, not on par with someone's marriage. We're not allowed to guess at whether it's short-term or long-term, and you seem to be putting forth the view that since we don't know if it's short or long-term, then we default to automatically including the information in the article. Again, that is ridiculous. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas, if you read the Vogue article, you'll see that they met at BU. She graduated from BU in 2011, so I'd call that a long-term relationship. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a solid source calling them long-term partners, or is that an inference on your part? Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair point. The source says they met at BU. It doesn't say they've dated since they met at BU. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem adding a brief mention of her partner, as we might for any other member of Congress, iff there is a reliable source that isn't a gossip magazine or tabloid. Jonathunder (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

See my comment immediately preceding this one. Do we have mentions of any boyfriends and girlfriends for any members of Congress? I don't think so. There's a reason for that. It's tabloid trivia. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Barney Frank's article names his former boyfriend, but he received spousal benefits and there were good references of such, so that's probably a special case. Other than that, I'm not aware of any. Jonathunder (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas, the source provided isn't a tabloid and what's being proposed is including basic information about her personal life that's been reported on in WP:RS under the relevant section. Calling it "trivia" is ridiculous; it's clearly relevant to the section and the bio in general. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to a source other than Vogue? Surely if it's notable, there must be more. Jonathunder (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't particularly care about her boyfriend, and don't particularly know why anyone else would either. Find me an article on someone from the 1800s where we cover their boyfriend, and we can talk. We cover major affairs between notable people that are widely reported, but we're not a tabloid and we're not here to give details about someone's love life. GMG^talk 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Then the Personal life section is obviously of little interest to you, but that doesn't mean it's "unencylopedic." And again, the source is not a tabloid; I don't think mentioning that she lives in an apartment with a partner is the sort of salacious, invasive level of detail that you are implying. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Vogue piece also says she won a science fair in high school. Why should Wikipedia care about that any more or less that who she dates? GMG^talk 00:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The article already mentions the science fair thing, because it led to an asteroid being named after her. I agree that belongs. I think that biographies should include properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children. In the vast majority of cases, I do not think that boyfriends and girlfriends should be mentioned, unless such relationships receive significant press attention from multiple reliable sources. My recommendation is to keep the boyfriend's name out for now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 hit the nail on the head. Basic personal details—family, partner, children, residence—are typical for BLPs and there's nothing "unencyclopedic" or "trivial" about it, particularly when we have multiple sources reporting on it (also including Business Insider). I agree that we don't need to name the boyfriend. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's your source? That clickbait grab bag of bits from other places says she's "subletting a DC apartment with her boyfriend for a few months before finding a permanent place." No mention of his name or how long they've been together. So we're going to pass that on to the article just to say she has a boyfriend? Be serious, please. This is a BLP. Jonathunder (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So now we're not providing enough detail about the relationship? Nonsense. Business Insider is a WP:RS and a perfectly appropriate one to use for BLPs. The article is titled "Meet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," and as one would expect, it reports on basic, non-controversial aspects of her personal life. I don't understand your objection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 (talk) - "Basic personal details—family, partner, children, residence—" no. Cullen328 said "properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children." You've added your own spin to his comment to make it seem as though he's agreeing with you. He's not. In any case, there's enough controversy around this that, in a BLP, there's no way it can be added without consensus on this page. And that's the right course to take. There's not even a reliable source to establish that the boyfriend is a "partner" (which is a dubious criteria for inclusion to begin with!). Articles include "properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children." That's it. Not "partners". And certainly not "boyfriends", unless you have a very good reason for it, and well-sourced. None of that exists. It's fairly open-and-shut. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use words like "spin," and try making WP:AGF a habit. I agree with part of what Cullen328 said, the parts that I indicated. Furthermore, you're misunderstanding my argument: the criteria isn't whether's he's a "partner" or "boyfriend," it's whether or not the material received coverage in multiple WP:RS. It has, and there is no WP:BLP violation in including it, so I don't understand your argument. Creating a lot of smoke by making much ado about nothing doesn't mean there's fire. The question is whether it's relevant to mention these details of her personal life in the Personal life section, and given the sources provided and the subject's own commentary to the press, I don't see a compelling reason not to mention it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith when you outright lie, twice. You said "I agree with part of what Cullen328 said, the parts that I indicated." - but you didn't indicate what he said that you agreed with, you made up your own phrasing that was similar to his (but not the same). It's very reminiscent of politics in general lately. Fortunately, most editors, I'm sure, can see through this type of double-speak. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, consider trying harder, and don't make unsupported accusations of "lying" that could be construed as a personal attack. I agree that a) personal/family life details are of encyclopedic value when they are properly sourced and b) we should not necessarily call non-notable family members by name. Where I disagree with Cullen328, and with you, apparently, is whether the relationship is worth mentioning in the article, and I'm asserting that it is based on the level of reporting in WP:RS, including commentary by the subject herself. By the way, I don't think we need to go beyond the single clause of 4–5 words that were in the article previously. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Gee fizz. I go give my kid a bath and there's 50 comments. I don't care. Really, I don't care about Cortez as either a person or a politician. We don't list people's boyfriends in articles. That's not a thing we do. If you find a pattern among articles from people in the 1800s where we list their boyfriends and girlfriends, then feel free to ping me. But for however long this conversation goes, consider my !vote to be no. GMG^talk 01:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No one's proposing to "list her boyfriends." I don't even think anyone's even advocating that he be mentioned by name. The line in the article before the edit-warring broke out was a brief mention of the fact that she lived in an apartment in Parkchester, Bronx, with her boyfriend, derived from the following paragraph from Vogue:

Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Parkchester neighborhood of the Bronx, and it’s where she lives now, in a one-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, an easygoing redhead who works in web development. Her mother, an Evangelical Christian born in Puerto Rico, cleaned houses. Her father, who was born in the borough and became an architect, died of lung cancer at 48.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

It is disconcerting to see my clearly stated argument against mentioning the boyfriend being used as an argument in favor of mentioning the boyfriend. Also disconcerting is seeing Business Insider praised as a reliable source. It isn't. Their senior editor is Henry Blodget who was banned for life from the securities industry. Other senior staffers worked at the notorious gossip site Gawker before it was driven into bankruptcy. Business Insider is a clickbait driven news aggregator that takes snippets of reporting from other news sources of widely varying reliability, and then mashes all that up into a pathetic imitation of actual journalism. I stand on my previous recommendation to keep this relationship out until multiple reliable sources devote more than a trivial passing mention to the boyfriend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

You said the following: I think that biographies should include properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children. In the vast majority of cases, I do not think that boyfriends and girlfriends should be mentioned, unless such relationships receive significant press attention from multiple reliable sources. The sources available include the the Guardian, CBS, Vogue, and others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That sums it up for me as well. And many thanks for affirming that Wikieditor19920 was doing exactly what I stated he was doing. It isn't a personal attack when you're just stating facts, Mr. 19920, but well done on trying to turn that one around. Perhaps next time! Ewen Douglas (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas check your talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 (talk), "check yourself", as the young people say. If you feel you've been personally attacked, I suggest you take your grievance to an administrator. I will be eagerly munching on popcorn. Ewen Douglas (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Ewen, Cullen, and GMG in this case. The criteria for inclusion on a BLP isn't about getting merely passing mention in some (reliable?) sources. Unless we have in-depth coverage on AOC's relationship or love life or whatever, then we can include it in the form of one- or two-liner summary. Else, no. Relationships are by default unstable. I don't think as an encyclopedia we need to update a BLP every time someone dumps someone else. Let's end this discussion before it waste any more of our time. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion either way, but we definitely shouldn't be name-dropping the boyfriend who has been harassed by the media [35] as per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I for one would not proclaim him a victim of harassment based on one tweet from AOC that calls out one Daily Mail reporter for approaching the boyfriend's family. That's why the Daily Mail is a rag, because they routinely do that sort of thing. If we avoided naming everybody who was harassed by paparazzi, we wouldn't name anyone. Anyway, AOC and the boyfriend posed for photographs for the Vogue interview (he didn't appear in the picture by accident, that was intentional on AOC's part, obviously); he talked to Vogue and Post reporters; his name was published in the those reports and elsewhere (see links below and above). He is not some kind of secret that we need to protect. The Congresswoman has revealed him publicly and talked about him to the media. I'm not sure if naming him is DUE or not, but I don't see him as a victim of anything, and I don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies here. Levivich (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Reading it again now, I want to apologize for the tone of my reply above. I don't know if I was cranky earlier or what, but there was no need for me to be so argumentative. Sorry about that. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to mention the boyfriend by name. The argument for inclusion with the sources already provided, which is solidly based on policy (IMHO), becomes much weaker when we start pushing for that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• The Vogue article's lead photograph is a photograph of AOC and Riley Roberts, with the caption: Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic candidate for New York’s Fourteenth District, in a Victor Glemaud sweater, at her Bronx apartment, which she shares with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts (left). The article is a lengthy interview with AOC: Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Parkchester neighborhood of the Bronx, and it’s where she lives now, in a one-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, an easygoing redhead who works in web development...Then there’s Roberts, whom Ocasio-Cortez met—"in true nerdy fashion," she says—at a weekly Friday-afternoon conversation hosted by the dean at BU. He later moved from Arizona to be with her. When I first met him backstage at The Daily Show, he was casually citing tax rates in the 1950s... In August, she and Roberts took a vacation to Acadia National Park in Maine, where she posted a photo of a sunset on Twitter.
• The New York Times refers to her "partner", but not by name: She said she saved money before leaving her job at the restaurant, and planned accordingly with her partner. "We’re kind of just dealing with the logistics of it day by day, but I’ve really been just kind of squirreling away and then hoping that gets me to January."
• USA Today's lohud has a photograph of AOC and Roberts: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, center, the winner of the June 26 Democratic primary victory in New York's 14th Congressional District, hugs campaign volunteer Riley Roberts the day after her upset against U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley
• The New York Post quoted Roberts: Among Ocasio-Cortez’s group was her partner, Riley Roberts. "A really incredible day, really special," he told The Post, adding that he liked Washington thus far. "It’s great."
• Insider in a lengthy interview with AOC: "She still needs to find an apartment in Washington. For the next few months, she'll be subletting a place while her boyfriend, a web developer with whom she shares her one-bedroom in the Bronx, finds them a more permanent spot."
• Vanity Fair (Spanish): En Estados Unidos hay un caso reciente ilustrativo: cuando Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ganó la semana pasada el asiento en el Congreso apareció sin su pareja, Riley Roberts. which translates to In the United States there is a recent illustrative case: when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a Congressional seat last week she appeared without her partner, Riley Roberts.
• Vanity Fair (Italian): Ocasio-Cortez è nata nel quartiere di Parkchester, nel Bronx, ed è lì che attualmente vive in un bilocale con il fidanzato, Riley Roberts, un giovane flemmatico dai capelli rossi che lavora come sviluppatore web. I don't speak Italian, but it looks like the Vogue article language. Google translates that to: Ocasio-Cortez was born in the district of Parkchester, in the Bronx, and that's where she currently lives in a two-room apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a young red-haired phlegmatic who works as a web developer. ..."flemmatico" = "easygoing" or "phlegmatic"? :-)
• The above are aggregated with attribution by Heavy.com (Over 1,000 WP cites but see this 2017 RSN re: Heavy.com as a source for BLP), Heavy.com again, and Cheatsheet.com (93 WP cites).
• Incidentally, in 2011, Roberts gave a TEDx talk at Boston University [36]. If he gets a sentence, maybe it should mention this.

AOC and Roberts have spoken to multiple media outlets (AOC: NYTimes, Insider, Vogue; Roberts: Post, Vogue). This isn't a passing boyfriend; per her own words, they met in college, have lived together for an unspecified amount of time in New York, and moved together to DC. The word "partner" is used by the New York Times, Post, and Vanity Fair to describe him. Photos of them together have been run by Vogue and lohud (part of USA Today). In my view, he's a significant part of her life, they've talked to the media about it, the media has taken notice, and the reader will be interested. I think a sentence is due. Levivich (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of those may be good sources, unlike the clickbait and gossip rag stuff mentioned before. (BTW, "flemmatico" literally means "phlegmatic" but something like "laid back" is probably more idiomatic.) Jonathunder (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: Would you (and any other editors who care to chime in) agree with this: For example, Vogue is a fashion/lifestyle magazine, and is not, in and of itself, a reliable source. Meaning, if Vogue says "so and so is dating so and so," we wouldn't include that statement sourced to the Vogue article. But an interview in Vogue is reliable, because it's an interview. Meaning, there is no reason to think that the information conveyed in the Vogue interview is untruthful or made up–obviously, in an interview with a Congresswomen, they're going to get the transcription right, and if they got it seriously wrong, we would hear about it (presumably from the Congresswoman). Nevertheless, even if a Vogue interview is reliable, there is still the question of weight (WP:DUE). So, just because Vogue publishes a story about something, doesn't mean that something is actually notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article, because Vogue will focus on things ("fluff" for lack of a better word) that other, more serious reliable sources, like newspapers and scholarly journals, would not focus on. So, analyzing a source isn't just about sorting sources into one bucket (reliable) or another (unreliable), but actually looking at who is doing the writing (the source), what kind of writing they're doing (is it an interview? is it a gossip column?), and what topic they're writing about (is it independently notable, per other sources?), before deciding whether it can or cannot be included in a WP article. For example, a gossip column in the The New York Times might not make a suitable source for the factual claims made in the column, whereas an interview with the U.S. President in Cosmopolitan might be used as a reliable source. Just curious if I'm understanding the general gist of RS. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's a good analysis. Jonathunder (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's important to note that interviews are always considered a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used to establish notability or for statements of fact. They should generally be avoided in favor of reliable, WP:SECONDARY coverage. I also don't agree with you that Vogue is an unreliable source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe most of these sources are what's known as human-interest stories, i.e. "creative, sometimes subjective article[s] designed primarily to entertain and only secondarily to inform ... What distinguishes a human-interest story ... is an emphasis on the human elements of the story rather than on its intrinsic importance." Per WP:NEWSORG, such sources are usually not considered as reliable as regular news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This categorization is probably accurate, but these sources are not the Daily Mail; Vogue is generally considered to be reliable and accurate for such information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

References

State of the discussion

I didn't really see whether discussion came to any conclusion or faded out without consent. The original poster is correct in pointing out out that AOC's (longtime) boyfriend is not notable by WP standards, but he is wrong assuming that this implies he should not be mentioned. This notability however just concerns the question whether person can get its own article in WP. Whether she is "notable" enough to mentioned in AOC's article however is determined primarily by usual/standard content for biographical articles in WP and they do of course normally features some information to their personal life including longtime/longterm partners, spouses, family, kids and in general persons and background of importance to the article's subject. Now if a particular spartner, spouse or otherwise important person is not particular notable, then in the case of living people one might consider not to mention his/her name, but the article should still mention his/her existence. In short if AOC has a longtime boyfriend, that factoid should indeed be mentioned in in the personal life section - in the same fashion we would do it in other biographies (of living people).

This leaves only the qiestion about the sourcing. While I agree that not every single source mentioned above is necessarily sufficient, they all together and their individual content seem to be sufficient to establish the boyfriend with encyclopedic certainty and clearly show that he is not some made up gossip story by the yellow press.

So imho the overall coclusion is that the BF should be shortly mentioned in the personal life section (something along the line of "AOC is in a relationship with longtime college boyfriend" would be sufficient. Optionally his name and profession might be mentioned as well).--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think a sentence or two is due, cited to the sources above, mentioning: (1) longtime (2) partner; (3) moved from NY to DC together; (4) he volunteered on her campaign; (5) they met at BU; (6) they both gave speeches at a BU TEDx conference. I'm not wedded to all of that and I'm ambivalent about stating his name or occupation. I think the Vogue quote should be worked in, too. Something like: She moved from NY to DC with her longtime partner, described by the media as "an easygoing redhead who works in web development", whom she met at Boston University (where they both spoke at a TEDx conference) and who volunteered on her campaign. Levivich 01:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Satirical/fake video

I changed fake to satirical for the video as a comprimise. It was reverted here by Zaathras stating But "fake" is literally part of the source's URL and title. First off we generally do not go off headlines but the body of the story and second the source also says satire in the URL and title as well. So I am not sure why that would be a rational for one or the other. Which should be used and does the story in general have weight to be in the article at all? PackMecEng (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Adding pings for those also involved. @N1ghtshade3: & @NickCT:. If I missed anyone let me know. PackMecEng (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In my mind the difference between "fake" and "satire" is that a person producing "fake" content intends that content to be perceived or mistaken for being real. Satire on the other hand is not produced with the intent that it be mistaken for real. Glancing at the video, I don't see how any reasonable person could be mistaken into thinking it was a real video; therefore, it definitely strikes me as being more satirical than fake.

Reviewing the sources, it does appear as though there's backing to call the video "fake", "satire" or "doctored". Frankly, I think I'd just avoid describing it with any adjective in a narrative voice, then go on to explain there's some controversy about it. I'm going to be bold and take a stab at doing this. NickCT (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• There's nothing controversial about fake interviews. There's a lot of them, e.g. [37], and we shouldn't judge whether they are funny or not. wumbolo ^^^ 13:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• @N1ghtshade3: & @NickCT: My main issue (and the reason I deleted mention of it) is that I'm not sure a video posted to Facebook by a no-name conservative "news" outlet really qualifies as "media coverage". The average PewDiePie video gets more views than that video got before it was deleted so to me it just seems like an odd thing to specifically call out, especially with the barrage of negative coverage conservative outlets have been directing at Ocasio-Cortez. To me it would make more sense to include mention of the video within a larger point, rather than focus specifically on what I as a politically liberal person still think is clear satire. As it stands, the paragraph opens with the claim that she has been "the subject of negative press coverage" but leaves this example (which I'm not sure is even technically press coverage) as one of only two examples. N1ghtshade3 (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why we are even mentioning some satirical cut and paste video. Does our biography of Richard Nixon mention all the Nixon satire from MAD Magazine or The Realist or the National Lampoon? High visibility national figures get parodied. Are such factoids really encyclopedic? I don't think so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@N1ghtshade3: - I take your point. On the other hand, Conservative Review does have a WP article. I'd never heard of em before, but I guess they're notable? NickCT (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: - I'm neutral on just deleting the content. It doesn't seem super relevant to me, but on the other hand, it does appear to be verifiable, which, as I understand it, is the standard for inclusion. NickCT (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• If the barrage of negative coverage from left-wing outlets directed at Trump during his campaign is called free media coverage in his lead, then this from right-wing outlets should also be called free media coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 10:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The only reason I could see it being in the article is because she responded to the video specifically.[38] Otherwise it appears to have no impact or significance (same with the "free coverage" Trump got btw). PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not worth including in a bio, by a long shot to say the least. Every once and a while this sort of current event may be included because it is clearly of lasting significance. This is NOT one of those times. It should be deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• The current wording consists of 60 words. The article Conservative Review contains just one sentence about it, and in my opinion this article should contain less than that. The current text is largely redundant. wumbolo ^^^ 14:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

My reverted edits

My eight edits, from (→‎Tenure: mastery of social media, imitation of and informal style of Instagram chats) to (→‎top: typo), have been reverted for being too extensive. I apologize and open discussion on my edits here.

My edits primarily used two articles from The New York Times as sources, and they concern Ocasio-Cortez's social media and public influence as a Congresswoman, as characterized by The New York Times. One of the articles is an opinion piece, which I have only used as a secondary source, and it is not relied on by any of the text I added. I have taken care to cite the sources carefully, with quotes of the relevant supporting passages.

There is no rule for multiple sources being needed to support a passage in a Wikipedia article, unless the source article is challenged as false, in which case the passage can be verified by citing a second independent source. If the article is not challenged by this time tomorrow, I would like to reinstate my edits as unchallenged. Thank you, and again I apologize. KinkyLipids (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

No reason to apologize KL, there is nothing wrong with your edits except that they indeed are "too extensive". It seems to me that we mention her social media popularity at least once, or perhaps twice?, in the article already. Gandydancer (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Now with Elizabeth Warren proposing an "ultra-millionaire" tax on the "tippy tops" (echoing Julian Castro's approval of an Ocasio tax proposal that got extensive analysis in national media) and Kirsten Gillibrand signing on to the Green New Deal (already backed by Warren and Booker) after previously supporting Ocasio's call for the dismantling of ICE (also receiving extensive national discussion), it continues to be obvious that Ocasio-Cortez's influence is a significant part of her notability and is one of the reasons why this article exists. My edits added about 6 sentences to the article. They only appear to be extensive because of the quotations I added in the citations to ease verification, which significantly hiked up the byte count in the edit history, and because they were consecutive. Three of my edits were just for grammar and typo fixes. Please reconsider. I look forward to your reply. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No, actually she has very little influence at this point as far as setting new more progressive policies. It was Sanders who started the changes which Clinton then took up when she saw how well he was doing. As for Warren, she's been campaigning for increases in taxes on the rich for many years. That is not to say that those running for the 2020 race won't be looking for her endorsement seeing as how she has such a huge, active following she would be a big plus. Gandydancer (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My previous paragraph is backed by a New York Times source. I am not here for soapboxing of opinions about Ocasio-Cortez or speculation about her future influence through possible 2020 endorsements. I am here to discuss Wikipedia article content that is sourced, and if the source is challenged only by opinion, then its inclusion can no longer be justly evaded. Please just let this sourced material be included. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The article should document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. I look forward to interested discussion. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

KinkyLipids, the problem, in my view, is that those six sentences were sourced entirely to the New York Times, and in each case, it seemed we were just repeating what NYTimes said, but in Wikipedia's voice. I don't think this is appropriate. The NYTimes is a great newspaper, but just because it's printed in the NYTimes doesn't mean we should automatically put it in the article, especially not in WP's voice. ^Leviv_ich 01:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. With multiple editors sharing doubts about the additions, I think one source is not enough to support inclusion. KinkyLipids (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

KinkyLipids, I think a "media reaction" or "influence" or "impact" subsection would be merited, so long as it drew from multiple RSes (preferably with a variety of POVs), but I think "she's a social media titan" and "she's a de facto leader of the Democratic Party" are well-sourced at this point. It's just a matter of somebody collecting the sources and writing the section (in the body), which could then be summarized appropriately in the lead. ^Leviv_ich 01:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)