Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Infobox picture

I removed the info box picture of Ocasio-Cortez (this one [1]) earlier as I think it's too blurry to be included in this article, but Hl removed it, claiming it was "deleted w/out concensus" [sic]. I wanted to start a discussion on whether to keep it. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Blurriness may be the least of the problems with this image. Wikimedia Commons advises, "This media file is missing evidence of permission. It may have an author and a source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit release under a free license or by sending a declaration of consent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this tag was added and the uploader was notified (27 June 2018)." KalHolmann (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Then this is the right way to start that discussion and gain concensus; WP:BOLD doesn't apply if you simply don't like something that is otherwise perfectly valid. Personally I think the photo is fine, but given that people keep trying to upload (or even just link to) non-free images, it would be good if someone would get in touch with Ocasio-Cortez's campaign; perhaps they would be able to donate a "nicer", suitable image. — Hugh (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I emailed a photo request to press@ocasio2018.com along with a link to Wikimedia Commons upload wizard. KalHolmann (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate KalHomnann reaching out to the Ocasio-Cortez campaign; our first priority when choosing an image must be that it's an image that won't get deleted. No use in switching a blurry image for a high-resolution image if we'll be left with no image at all in a few hours when it gets speedily deleted for insufficient copyright. After we have images to choose from, then we can select which one looks best. As of right now, any high-resolution image would obviously be better, but we just need to have sufficient permission. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, if we must we can do without until there is (at least) something properly licensed. If she is elected the US government will provide. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I replaced image in Infobox. KalHolmann (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 Comment:, I first introduced File:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez during an interview with Julia Cumming at an "Anger Can Be Power" Event (cropped).jpg in the article because it was the only free image available, and the lack of permission template in it was meritless. I thank KalHolmann for reaching out to the campaign, but it is not clear they are the copyright holders of that image (see metadata). This is more properly a discussion for Commons (and OTRS) but I wanted to explain why I choose to use the low quality image. Chico Venancio (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It need not be that previous, high-quality image. Any freely licensed, high quality portrait image would be fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the email sent to Wikimedia Commons to provide evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (official, high-resolution).jpg was not sufficient. The sticking point seems to be that the campaign volunteer's email address does not match the file's metadata, which identifies the copyright holder as JESSEJESSEKORMAN.COM. If a valid permission is not provided within 30 days, Wikimedia will delete the file. Meanwhile, I have emailed Jesse Korman, asking him to directly upload this or another of his similar posed photos of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for use on Wikipedia. If Mr. Korman agrees, we'll be able to replace the existing high-resolution image with one of equal quality. I'll let you know what I hear. KalHolmann (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

OTRS agent here. That's correct, we need the permission to come from the copyright holder, which in most cases is the photographer. Therefore, we assume that the photographer is the copyright holder until evidence is provided to show that that is not the case. Even if Mr. Korman was to create an account, we would still likely need a release email from him or the process at WP:DONATEIMAGE to be followed to keep this image. If there are questions about this process, feel free to ask me or ask at c:COM:ON. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

What a nightmare. I'm sorry I ever got involved in this whole bloody process. KalHolmann (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the image identifies a copyright holder does not mean it's not a free image. According to copyright lawyers I've talked to, everything in the US is automatically copyrighted by the creator (unless the creator has transferred the rights in writing to somebody else, commonly to an employer in work for hire). The copyright holder can then release the image into the public domain, or use a Creative Commons license. It would be nice to ask the Ocasio-Cortez campaign to post a photo with a Creative Commons license. You can also do a Google image search for images in the public domain. --Nbauman (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Update on Jesse Korman photo. In reply to my email, Mr. Korman indicates he does not have a Wikimedia Commons account and thus cannot access the upload wizard. I apologized and hereby bow out of the pursuit for a suitable photo of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Since Wikimedia Commons will in 30 days delete the image now in our Infobox, I encourage other editors to follow up. KalHolmann (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You should tell him that the Wikipedia editor with (I'm pretty sure) the most lacking computer abilities here says that she figured out how to enter a photo and she said it's easy. Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As the OTRS agent explains in this thread, uploading is only the first gauntlet to run. "Even if Mr. Korman was to create an account," writes AntiCompositeNumber, "we would still likely need a release email from him or the process at WP:DONATEIMAGE to be followed to keep this image." Wikimedia Commons makes this procedure as daunting as possible. I'm not telling Mr. Korman or anyone else a damn thing, ever again, about contributing an image to Wikipedia. KalHolmann (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh OK, I thought that my problems at Commons were only due to my lack of abilities, though I'm sure that is part of it. I never was able to get the picture of my one-room school that I took with my Brownie box in because ***THEY*** did not believe anyone could be that old and still edit Wikipedia. And if things go wrong they snip at you and are not helpful in the least, at least that has been my experience. Actually I can well understand your frustration. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The process of uploading a photo is not difficult if the photographer does it, and the photo is previously unpublished. I have done it many times without difficulty. Any Wikipedia editor in or near New York City can attend one of her campaign events and take a photo with a digital camera or even a smart phone. The photo can be uploaded using the wizard at Wikimedia Commons, and added to this article within minutes. Complications arise only if someone other than the photographer tries the uploading, or if the photo has been previously published on a copyrighted website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Not true Cullen. In my case it was easy enough with digital photos I had taken myself, for instance my home-grown, home-made, canned Saurkraut, or even one of the many cakes decorated by my daughter (check out any cake site and look for the best one), but when it came to the ones that I or others, my dad for example, had taken in pre-digital days it was hopeless. Plus, it seemed to be understood that I understood?, for lack of a better way to put it-though I certainly did not understand. I felt that I was treated as though I must be some sort of relic with a very small brain, which is only partly true since my IQ puts me in the top 5% of the population. But at any rate Cullen, expect me to see you at your talk page just as soon as I find the time to help me to upload a few Brownie photos. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone, me again. Just a quick update on the image. It will be deleted from Commons shortly because we have not received a free license for the image from the copyright holder, and that license now appears unlikely. Unfortunately, a quick Google Images search turns up no new freely-licensed images. As always, please let me know if you have questions. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Privileged Background?

According to the Wikipedia article Ocasio-Cortez claims a working class background but individual elements within the article itself contradict this. Working class primarily means manual labor occupations and industrial work yet her father was an architect, a professional\white collar background. While she states she was born in the Bronx, she spent her first five years in Parkchester, which the article does note is a planned community, however this is a fairly meaningless term IMHO. The median income for the Bronx in 2015 was $34,299 whilst the median income for Parkchester is given as $41,075 - roughly 20% more. By contrast the median income for Yorktown Heights, which is more than 30 miles from the Bronx and where she resided until college, is given as $108,648, or more than 3x the Bronx median income. The racial composition is also distinct - more than 90% White, as compared to the Bronx's roughly 43% Black, 35% (white) Hispanic, 10% White, and 5% Asian. English is also a minority language in the Bronx with Spanish the most common language spoken at home. While no Paris Hilton, the "Bronx Battler" skew seems to be contradicted by the facts. Thoughts? 人族 (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• "Claims" is different from "has". Readers can draw their own conclusions. Deb (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

She may be working class or she may be professional, but that's not a matter for us to decide. All we can do is report what WP:RSs say. If most of them say she's working class, we say she's working class. If most of them say she's professional, we say she's professional. If they're mixed, we can say that. And we can only use those statistics if you can find a WP:RS that uses them in discussing Ocasio-Cortez. That's the requirement of WP:OR. --Nbauman (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Deb and Nbauman. Just because the median or average income of a given location may be well-off doesn't mean that lower-income people don't exist within these communities. Averages and medians are found from data sets that consist of both highs and lows. Her father was an architect, but that doesn't mean that all architects are paid well; even in jobs typically considered white-collar, whether management positions or STEM jobs, the pay range is so vast that some people may be considered rich while others in these same professions may just make enough to pay their rent and keep the lights on. In short, the editor seems to be doing original research by assuming that Ocasio-Cortez couldn't possibly come from a poorer background because her district overall does okay and her father had a nice job. This assessment was problematic from the first sentence, because working class does not mean physical labour. In economic theory, the working class is the class that does not extract profit from the exploitation of other labourers. In short, unlike the owner class, they're the ones that do the work - hence "working class" - but I digress per WP:NOTFORUM. We do have an abundance of sources on her personal background, which reiterate her background. Claim is not the same as has, as said by Deb. The most important point I want to make is that the basis of WP:NPOV is never draw conclusions for the reader. We include information based on accuracy and objectivity, excluding what is subject to opinion. If we add a sentence such as "Ocasio-Cortez claims to come from a working-class background, but she grew up in an area where the median income is $x" that would be highly problematic. What we can do is say that Ocasio-Cortez claims to come from a working-class background, because we have an abundance of sources to do this and that statement is completely true. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia page ran and owned and operated by Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign people lol Jrk1024 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)\] — Jrk1024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Run." Not to my knowledge. kencf0618 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember being contacted by the Ocasio-Cortez campaign. It might have something to do with how I don't even live near New York. I can't tell if this comment is more of a WP:NPA or WP:AGF problem (both probably), but Wikipedia isn't "ran" by anyone other than volunteers, articles aren't "owned" by anyone (WP:OWN), and I don't know what it even means to operate an article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jrk1024: If you feel very strongly the article has issues of bias, please be bold and fix the problem or discuss the issues here. It is a policy of Wikipedia that its articles must be written neutrally, so if you feel that Ocasio-Cortez's article is not, please allow your fellow editors to address any and all of your concerns. --Zingarese talk · contribs 06:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Crowley on ballot removed, cited as speculation

I added a section about Joe Crowley being on the ballot (despite being defeated in the primary). It was removed, cited as speculation. I disagree with this categorization. The criteria for speculation is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I think it's both of those things:

1. notable — she defeated him in the primary, and yet this defeated candidate will be on the ballot again.
2. almost certain — New York law requires Crowley to be on the ballot unless he dies, moves, or runs for another office. Crowley has stated he has no intent of doing any of those things.

I would like to reinstitute this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&type=revision&diff=850806485&oldid=850794184

--TrentonLipscomb (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I am not against this content, but it should probably go on the article about the election itself rather than the article about Ocasio-Cortez. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman

How can Joe Lieberman "endorse" Joe Crowley? who has endorsed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the New York's 14th congressional district? It's more of a suggestion. I'm not sure it's relevant. patsw (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

A few days later and this is getting discussed in a lot of places. I edited the article to reflect the content of the WSJ op-ed by Lieberman. patsw (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

When I started the General Election section, I didn't expect it to become so wordy with the Dan Cantor op-ed, and how the district is so heavily Demcoratic. Let's keep the section simple- there are (R) running and a (WFP) on the ballot. Nothing more, nothing less. Queens Historian (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Biased Article?

This articles fails to balance the coverage of her historic win with her embarrassing gaffes made since securing the Democratic nomination. Here are some of the numerous fuck ups in the last couple of months she has made.

Flip this seat red - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/21/in-apparent-gaffe-ocasio-cortez-calls-for-democrats-to-flip-this-seat-red.html

Lack of knowledge about Israel - https://nypost.com/2018/07/17/ocasio-cortez-ignites-controversy-with-comments-on-israeli-occupation/

Ignorance of the employment rate - https://slate.com/business/2018/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-gaffe-about-the-unemployment-rate-and-working-two-jobs-is-no-big-deal.html

Lack of knowledge about the Founding Fathers - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/surprise-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-bad-at-history-too

I'm not supporting or disapproving her candidacy, rather saying the article covering her should not be all positive about her campaign when in reality there are many notable negative things which should be included. 204.9.7.77 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

If you think the article is biased, fold in the gaffes. It might be WP:UndueWeight, though. kencf0618 (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

3/4ths of what you posted are cherry-picked nonsense from right-wing propaganda outlets that can't find anything else wrong with her. She said "red" instead of "blue" in one second out of hundreds of hours of interviews and speeches? Wow, such a big gaffe. Ottoshade (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Red is the color of the Democratic Socialists of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Every political page has negative coverage of the individual as well as positive. Also, what about discussing her anti-feminist, pro-capitalism past. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/03/socialist-candidate-ocasio-cortez-once-saw-herself-as-smithian-capitalist-viewed-feminism-as-relic.html

Also, she has lied about her upbringing. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905247/Girl-Bronx-Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-actually-grew-wealthy-Westchester-County.html

These are very notable points about her that should be included in the article. Someone needs to add them. I have already provided reputable sources.

WP:DAILYMAIL. It's a garbage source that we do not use. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

All of the proposals here are WP:UNDUE and the editor describing them as "fuck-ups" makes it easy to believe that the items being suggested violate WP:NPOV. It should be obvious what she meant by "flip this seat red." It's the color of DSA, socialism, and in basically every country other than the United States, the left itself. However, let's humor this by assuming for a moment that she really did accidentally suggest flipping the seat to the republican party. Is that really one of the most important things to include in an article summarizing her? Of course not. That's why it's not due. Furthermore, calling out the Israeli occupation of Palestine is not "lack of knowledge about Israel" and acknowledging that the unemployment rate, unlike wages, is not a good indicator of how the average person is doing in an economy is not "ignorance about the unemployment rate." Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that all of these are undue, and the only one of any substance is her erroneous statement about the unemployment rate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there should be another section added to her political positions. I noticed we don't have anything for her positions on the economy. As a socialist, she certainly has views on the economy and should have a section dedicated to that. You could have a sentence mentioning criticism that she doesn't understand the unemployment rate.AnonymousEditor101 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I had that feeling too so I did something about it. I've posted the "controversy" section. Feel free to contribute to it at any moment, preferably with left-wing sources like CNN seeing as that's how the political side of Wikipedia works. No doubt that my section will be deleted within hours, whereas my negative posts about Trump have stayed and Kellyanne Conway's grandfather-in-the-mob stayed onto Wikipedia for several months.. (oops it's still there) :) ThePlane11 (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

In what universe is CNN a left-wing source? Devgirl (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you actually expect me to answer that one? You would honestly consider CNN as a representative of President Trump and the right wing?? I think the more appropriate question is - what universe are you in? ThePlane11 (talk) 10:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

CNN isn't partisan either way. It's corporate.

Adding that bit about ride sharing from right wing sources is adding bias to this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@ThePlane11: You want to know "Where is the political bias?" with this edit? Let's look at the "investors.com" source you used:

Socialism: Self-described social democratic congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the gift that keeps on giving. The youthful socialist can hardly go a day without saying something that undescores the hypocrisy of her beliefs.

That's pretty biased. Also, you cited National Review and Washington Examiner, which are two right-wing sources. So, very biased. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So what are you implying is my goal? are right-wing sources excluded from Wikipedia? you define them as sources yet you are showing bias because they are "right wing" apparently. ThePlane11 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Right wing partisan sources are no more acceptable on Wikipedia than left wing partisan sources. From your edit history, it appears your goal is to add "criticism" of Ocasio-Cortez in order to discredit her. Your edit summary on this one makes it pretty hard to deny. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Debate-catcalling comparison

Is anyone going to address her comments comparing someone asking to debate her to catcalling? With heavy criticisms from both sides including the New Your Times? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/nyregion/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-debate-catcalling-ben-shapiro.html73.61.23.252 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this would be undue unless there are further mainstream sources covering it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Absolutelypuremilk. Gandydancer (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Not everything that outrages the Right belongs in this article. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (official, high-resolution) (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization : "The Bronx" versus "the Bronx"

Hey guys, looking a this edit;

@Muboshgu: I don't think it's common to capitalize "the", right? NickCT (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the article title is capitalized is just a MOS thing (like The Hamptons). But in a normal English sentence, you wouldn't capitalize the article (e.g. "I'm going to the Haptoms", not "I'm going to The Hamptons). NickCT (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capitalization_of_"The" would appear to be the policy.... NickCT (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue for this debate. The important thing is that it be used in a consistent manner. See The Bronx#Use of definite article and approximately a gigabyte of archived conversation on Talk:The Bronx. The Hamptons is a poor example because it's not an actual place, but a grouping like the Carolinas or the Dakotas. But when used to denote an official entity, it's "The" but just in passing it's "the". JesseRafe (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Notice the "exceptions" in the MOS link you provide? I believe "The Bronx" is one of those exceptions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to check the talk page discussion to see what it says. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: - Re "exceptions" - The policy says we should follow "common usage". If you take 2 minutes to google this, I think you'll find the large majority of sources do not capitalize in this case. I can give you a simple Wikipedia:Search engine test if you like... NickCT (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: - Joy! A gigabyte of debate over capitalization. Can't wait to get into that.

Isn't the Hamptoms a place? I've been there. Felt like a place to me.

But seriously, we might want to ponder WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. Perhaps we can add "the Bronx" or "The Bronx" to that policy page, so that folks won't need to recycle this debate. Currently The Bronx page does not capitalize "the" in its prose. We shouldn't here. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu and JesseRafe: - Wow! Just read The Bronx#Use of definite article. That is pretty funny. Apparently, we wrote a MOS into article space. I'm chuckling out loud. Anyway, that would seem to settle it, no? We should use lower case. NickCT (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

" the Great and Glorious Grand Army of The Bronx" - <chortle>...... <sigh>.... NickCT (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you've been to Easthampton or Northhampton or Bridgehampton or something like that. There's no geopolitical entity called t/The Hamptons, just a cultural designation. The Bronx exists, has political representation on multiple levels, has borders, etc. The Hamptons is just shorthand, thus not a strong example of use of t/The, as opposed to The Yukon, Ukraine, Netherlands etc, which all exist in the same sense as The Bronx and the Talk pages of which also contain multitudes of this same discussion. JesseRafe (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: - Well..... If your definition of "a place" is an area with a distinct geopolitical entity, then fair enough. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: - Have we reached consensus on this? NickCT (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the talk page discussion yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT: Okay, I've read some stuff. And I can acknowledge that capitalizing "The" in the middle of a sentence is not grammatical. But, the definite article is definitely part of the term, so I don't like the way you've done it. I'm making a compromise edit I think we should all be okay with. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And now I notice it was already done that way in the body... – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Responding to NickCT: it's not unheard of to capitalize it, but it's not very common, either, compared to the much more common uncapitalized version as this ngram shows . And in this Google books search, 8 of the top 10 results were lower case, one occurred at the beginning of a sentence, and one was part of The Bronx Zoo, which is a proper name. For those cases where you do have capital T, it's much more likely to be at the beginning of a sentence than in the middle, but there are cases where it is used internally, often after preopositions or conjunctions. Mathglot (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2018

I would like to add demographic information regarding the subject's Father. Following the second sentence of 'early life and eduation.':

Her father was a partner and co-founder of a successful New York architecture firm.

Source: https://www.manta.com/c/mmn082v/kirschenbaum-ocasio-roman-architects-pc 96.232.34.133 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a primary source that gives no context for how notable or successful the firm was. The article mentions he was an architect, which is a standard description of biographies to just give an occupation for a non-notable relative. JesseRafe (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done As JesseRafe says, we would need an independent, reliable source to back up the term 'successful'. Fish+Karate 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

query 17 September 2018

It seems that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was not an Intel ISEF semi-finalist for Westchester County; perhaps she came in second place for the county, but it is a bit disingenuous to say she won second place. She had a group project for "District 4" cf. http://westchesterlegislators.com/media-center/887-county-legislature-honors-science-fair-winners.html

(anonymous, 19:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.64 (talk)

OK... JesseRafe (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Infobox Image - Image A or Image B?

File:Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (crop).jpg

Image A

Image B

Hey guys, can we do a quick straw poll on which of these images would be better in the infobox? I understand that B gives a "closer up" view of Alexandria's face, but it's also lower resolution and lower quality. I think I'd prefer the higher-res, higher quality A, even though it doesn't provide an ideal perspective. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• B - As editor who moved the photos. In my opinion A is too washed out and there's too many other things going on. We can find a better picture for the infobox, I'm sure, but until then, I think the guidelines suggest using one like B as she's the clear focus of the foreground and her face is very clearly presented. Thanks for doing this poll. JesseRafe (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: most of the highlighted issues with A could be solved by cropping it further. (If B is used, I would suggest also cropping it to remove the mostly-empty, filled-with-someone-else's-name space at the bottom.) -sche (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, unless you've cropped it a different way, but in trying that out on MSPaint it's still washed out and still has the very busy background. Chainlink fence isn't very friendly. JesseRafe (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised over the wash out concern. The background is purposely overexposed for artistic effect. The subject isn't overexposed. NickCT (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, and a fence and some trees (crop out the other two people) is hardly a "busier" background than a crowd full of other faces. -sche (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• B I strongly prefer the photo that we are presently using. Gandydancer (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• A I agree with -sche that any problems posed by the background can be solved by cropping the photo. With that in mind, it's a much clearer image of the subject's face, and provides a higher resolution than Image B, which appears to be taken by a mobile phone camera or cropped from a wider shot. Devgirl (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• B I think A has a sinister expression to it and its not in a political setting, but an "inner city" basketball court. Of all the coverage she has gotten, I am surprised there isn't a higher resolution, favorable looking photo of her. Until one comes along, this will serve the purpose. Trackinfo (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• A Between the two, I prefer A, as its generally bad form to use photographs of a person while they are talking as your "main photo." We already sort of see this with right-wing outlets using pictures of her talking to make her seem crazy. Although there are plenty of photos other than A that would fit the purpose. Something like this - facing straight at the camera, without a strong expression. And once she actually wins, the official portrait will probably work. Minpen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

J Street

The inclusion of the nonsensical statement by the far-left anti-Israel J Street fringe organization in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#Israeli–Palestinian conflict violates WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, WP:Fringe, and WP:Undue and should thus be removed. Not every bit of slander by the far left belongs in this article. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.184.86.2 (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is concerned about facts and legit sources, which the statement in question is and has, not words-no-longer-mean-things raving. JesseRafe (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing the debate announcement and cancellation out of the article

I don't think the claim here is that the debate was not announced, although I now wish I had photographed the publicity flyers put out by QueensLatino to publicize it. I'm not sure what sort of additional sourcing is required - there's plenty of web sites who picked up on the initial announcement from QueensLatino and ran with the story. There was no denial that this debate was scheduled. It is also obvious that the debate was cancelled. Absent any other explanation being made for the cancellation, why doubt the statement on the Pappas web site? By the way, the article has sourced content directly from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, so I don't understand the reluctance to accept the general election opponent's comment on the reason. Would it be acceptable to merely state that the scheduled debate "didn't occur" - and leave it as a mystery to Wikipedia reader the reason why it didn't occur?

Here's the text, with the three references unpacked:

The only scheduled debate between Ocasio-Cortez and Pappas was to be held on October 17, 2018, at Public School 69 in Queens. The organizer of the debate was QueensLatino, which had sponsored an earlier debate of local candidates. The Ocasio-Cortez campaign canceled the debate on the grounds that Joe Crowley declined to participate. Crowley is on the ballot as the Working Families Party nominee but since his defeat in the Democratic primary has not participated in the campaign.

"Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez agrees to debate her Republican opponent". Fox & Friends, Fox News Channel, Facebook. September 25, 2018. Retrieved 2018-10-21.

Mendoza, Danny (August 31, 2018). "Latino politicians attack in historical debate in Queens". QueensLatino. Retrieved 2018-10-21.

"Ocasio-Cortez cancels debate". Anthony Pappas For Congress. October 18, 2018. Retrieved 2018-10-21.

QueensLatino is a Queens community newspaper/web site serving the Latino community. I have no affiliation with them, or any political campaign. I invite interested people to look for better sources. patsw (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it's on the border between relevant and NOTNEWS. It's also worth taking it in stride that this election season almost no one is debating. There's issues with broadcasting and IBEW locals on strike for common cable providers and lots of reasons beyond the scope of this article. https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/campaigns-elections/no-new-york-gubernatorial-debate.html But as written, the addition to the article felt a little over long, and heavy on the "gotcha!" aspect of her team canceling, versus the plain statement of fact. JesseRafe (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree a case where the two candidates could not agree on a debate is not news but this cancellation after 21 days of publicity for it where the time and place was arranged by a third party, and agreed to by the candidates is something else. The venue was a school which had hosted similar events before, and not a studio where a picket line would potentially need to be crossed. A strange turn of events - where something is definitely real - the announcement and cancellation of this debate - but it's held hostage by the bias, indifference or laziness of the media to cover it, at least for the moment. Of course, the 6.5 to 1 ratio is Democrats to Republicans in NY 14 is part of the explanation. I invite interested people to look for better sources. patsw (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you might have misinterpreted one detail, the strike concern is not about where the debate would be held, but about how it would be broadcast. Also, despite your sources, I wouldn't call it "21 days of publicity" as a little weasely. It wasn't covered extensively in local media, which is surprising for a candidate of her national attention. I also think you're on to something and even the hyper-local Queens and Bronx press don't consider Pappas significant, as I recall in June, her (or whoever were to win's) ascendance to the House was considered a fait accompli already... JesseRafe (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would have expected coverage in at least one of these.

• http://www.qchron.com/
• https://www.timesledger.com/
• https://qns.com/
• http://queenstribune.com/
• http://www.qgazette.com/
• http://queenslatino.com/buscar/?q=ocasio-cortez

So I am disappointed. Once Crowley announced he was not attempting to contest Ocasio-Cortez on the WFP line, it was over as far as the Queens media were concerned. patsw (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

So a story was published but the reporters did not contact Queens Latino or the Ocasio-Cortez campaign to verify Pappas' "claim". No progress. patsw (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"Pappas speaks to the Chronicle". Queens Chronicle. October 25, 2018. Retrieved 2018-10-25.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Personal Opinion

The section on the subject's views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict contains the following:

Ignoring the violent nature of the protests[107] as well as the large numbers of protesters who were armed members of Hamas (considered a terrorist group by the US and the EU) - some of whom were shot attempting to breach the Israeli border,[108] Ocasio-Cortez compared the situation to the peaceful teachers' strike taking place in West Virginia at the time, asking what would happen if 60 people had been shot at the latter event.

The citations (107 and 108) link to this article: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/12/middleeast/gaza-protests-palestinians-killed/index.html

That article provides general information on the protests, and not the subject's quote, or an opinion on the subject's views. As such, it seems that the phrase "Ignoring the violent nature ... border," colors the article with the personal opinion of the author. Can we edit this to a more neutral statement of the subject's views? Even just striking out the personal opinion phrase.

Anotheranshu (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be an attempt of WP:LIBEL. I've reverted it and issued a final warning considering the editor has done this before. How come does such an edit survive for an hour and half? Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor ICE statement removed

Re including the ICE fact check, I find:

Ocasio-Cortez claimed that "ICE is required to fill 34,000 beds with detainees every single night and that number has only been increasing since 2009."

(The article replies) The language in the congressional appropriations bills from 2009 through 2016 only mandates that ICE keep at least 33,400 (later 34,000) beds available. The bills don’t state that those beds need to be filled. Under different DHS secretaries, the government’s interpretation of the law has varied as to whether the beds need to be filled or not.

It seems that she was incorrect, but I can't see that this minor mistake is so important as to include it in her bio. I have deleted it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

She was not preceded by Elise Stefanik referenced at the bottom of the page. Elise Stefanik is a Republican who is still in Congress. DeputyDawgH20 (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done You may be misreading the intent. She replaced Stefanik as the youngest member of the House. JesseRafe (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Better main photo needed

The main photo for Ocasio-Cortez has poor coloration, low resolution, and shows the subject with an odd expression. Wikimedia Commons doesn't have anything better yet, but once there is something it should be replaced. - Sdkb (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• There's nothing good on commons right now. This is actually the best one we have. I recommend waiting for an official portrait in the coming months or encourage users to upload NON-COPYVIO (FREE-USE) images to commons. There's already a copyvio in commons as we speak. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The United States House of Representatives will provide one sooner or later. If a better one (non-copyvio etc) pops up before that, ok, but the present one is not horrible as these things go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded a screen grab from a Creative Commons video that might be good for the near future. Let me know if it works!The lorax (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've looked a couple times for something better. The screen grab isn't really flattering either honestly. It looks like she's having violent stomach pain. GMG^talk 23:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

Remove educator from the opening sentence describing who she is. An educator is someone who teaches. She is a politician and has never held a position as a teacher or professor. 174.205.12.226 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The "early career" section explains her history as an educator. She is not a teacher, and is not listed as one, but she is an educator. DannyS712 (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

From the lede paragraph: "who is an intern for New York's 14th congressional district, having been selected on November 6, 2018." I think you mean "representative-elect", rather than "intern." 96.38.156.2 (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed.The lorax (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2018

This page reeks of fans having written it. I came looking for information on a politician I knew nothing about and now I know only that she's surrounded by a ton of spin. Under "Primary election" it specifies someone not possessing the subject's phone number as proof of "outsider status", which is an unsubstantiated correlation. The lack of a phone number is irrelevant to her biography and the line beginning "In a sign of.." should be removed altogether. At a minimum the first phrase, "In a sign of her outsider status," presuming causation, should be removed. Other issues: in personal info it says she moved to The Bronx, at the end of the article it says she moved to FL. There's repetition about an irrelevant award she won in high school. The article makes a lot of her positive media coverage, so why not more detail about relevant things like this: "Ocasio-Cortez received backlash after barring members of the media from attending her "listening tour" on August 8 in the Bronx and August 12 in Corona, Queens.[76][77][78]". Where are the details about her journey between sitting in on the pipeline demonstration and becoming convinced she was the best person to represent her district two years later? Where is her actual bio? Listen, I'm a liberal reader from VT but the article makes me think that this person is all spin and no substance. 65.96.48.39 (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Major Vandalism!!!!

I just found this nugget: "When she takes office on January 3, 2019, at 29, Ocasio-Cortez will be the dumbest woman to serve in Congress in the history of the United States.[9] That distinction was previously held by Democrat Maxine Waters.[10] Ocasio-Cortez believes she will be ‘inaugurated’. Wrong.

Currently, Ocasio-Cortez can’t afford an apartment in D.C. She announced this just weeks after announcing that federally funded Medicare for All, free college tuition, and free housing, aren’t “pie in the sky” proposals. These policies would actually cost roughly $42.5 trillion. Her tax proposals to fund this only cover $2 trillion. She has no explanation for the remaining $40.5 trillion. At least we now understand why she believes free housing should be federally funded. If anyone is renting a room in the D.C. area, please contact her via Twitter. We’re not sure where her office is as she probably can’t afford that either."

I don't know how to fix this. Is there a special report option available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.166.62 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed by reverting the most recent edit. Pending Changes protected as well. Courcelles (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we at least use IPA?

I know American people may be more familiar with respelling, but IPA is nevertheless the standard. However my knowledge of IPA is slipping from me, can anyone help verify the following? Thanks.

US: /oʊˈkɑːsioʊ/ Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we can definitely include IPA. But, any spelling featuring prominently in the lead needs to be based on US-English, whether respelling or IPA. This is en-wiki, and a Spanish pronunciation is not appropriate in an article about an American, regardless of their heritage, unless reliable sources in English primarily use a foreign pronunciation; this is very rarely the case. Mathglot (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, the Youtube video where she says her name in a campaign ad should be removed as a source and replaced with a better one, because right where you need to hear it clearly, the sound is obscured, and makes it sound like she's mispronouncing her own name. Either her video is right, or this one is; they can't both be right. Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As I've learned as a Wiktionarian, "How To Pronounce" channel videos are sadly unreliable (often wrong), and that one gets her first name wrong. I think the "Courage to Change" ad, in which she says her name twice, is clear enough to use, and our transcription is good. It's fine to also include how she pronounces her name in Spanish, which she also speaks (pronunciation, by an interviewer, here). Other articles on Americans who speak Spanish do often include the Spanish pronunciation, as far as I have seen, sometimes to the exclusion of the pronunciation commonly used in English (e.g., Cesar Chavez's article)! -sche (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we can put the English pronunciation first, though. -sche (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The HuffPost article has "Alexandria Oh-CAH-see-oh Cortez" in small text below the picture. There has been some discussion off-wiki about the pronunciation of her name, so I feel Template:Respell is warranted as a supplement (not replacement) to IPA. I'd think the better long-term solution is IPA + audio recording, once we have a reliable source, like on Zbigniew Brzezinski.-Ich (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The Huffpost-style respell is accurate for how her name is pronounced in English (American diphthongs, final -z sound), and the ny1noticias interviewer pronounces it accurately in proper, Latin-American Spanish (monophthongs, final -s sound). (Btw, good spot on the Cesar Chavez article, but not few English news readers would pronounce it that way, and the first line should be changed.) As far as her own video, what I hear her saying is "Cor-TAHS" which I think is where the audio must be screwing up. Given her background, surname, and more to the point, the fact that her home country has multiple, major, hispanic television networks that say her name, it makes sense to include the Spanish pronunciation, albeit second. Mathglot (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Especially the first time she says her name at the 0:20 second mark of the ad, she doesn't voice the final sibilant very strongly (possibly under Spanish influence?), you're right, but the vowel does sound like /ɛ/ to me, and the final consonant does sound like a (weakly-voiced) /z/ especially the second time she says it (at 2:01). The /ɛz/ is clearer in e.g. [2]. (Some interviewers also voice the -cas-, i.e. /kɑz/, e.g. [3].) As an aside, I'm surprised to see the pronunciation that Sonia Sotomayor's article leads with, after all the hoopla in the news when she was nominated about how "weird" it was [for white people] that her name was stressed on the last syllable; did she change the pronunciation after that? (Edit: I see someone has pointed out on that talk page that it's unsourced. I'll just remove it, with apologies for the digression here.) -sche (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia article

It is an advertisement, with commissars at the ready to delete anything other than worshipful fan letters. 2604:2000:1580:440E:E961:51F9:B9BD:3714 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Then by all means make a constructive edit suggestion, such as "add abc" or "change x to y" rather than vague pronouncements and remember to discuss the edits, not the editors. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate info in Early life and Personal life

There seems to be conflicting/repeated information between the "early life" section and "personal life" section. Both mention her father dying, but only the "personal life" section mentions her family moving to Florida after. Also, both sections mention her Catholic faith inspiring her to pursue criminal justice reform. This should somehow be condensed into one of the sections. Sk5893 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I deleted the Catholic faith info from the early life section. Please do more editing if you feel it needed. Gandydancer (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is her LinkedIn a reliable source?

I'm just wondering, since it's used to support the fact that AOC was in Yorktown HS from 2003-2007. I think there should be other sources for that. Or if not, we can just say she graduated in 2007. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's just say she graduated in 2007, I found a local newspaper article saying that.The lorax (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead photo

I have returned the photo that most closely resembles photos used for our other political articles. I assume she will soon have an "official photo" that we can use. Gandydancer (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer the "speaking" one seen here [4], but I assume the same so it's a minor issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually I like that one as well but went with the one with the lesser amount of background stuff. Anything rather than the chain-link fence background... Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

+1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018

Remove reference to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as an "educator" in the first section of her entry. She is not, nor has she ever held a position as a licensed instructor, teacher, professor or any other form of educational professional. 24.233.220.130 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please read the article or this talk page. She was an educator by profession and the fact she was not a "teacher" in the limited use is irrelevant. JesseRafe (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Israeli Palestinian conflict

Is this article just written to flatter her? She openly admitted she has no idea what she's talking about. INCLUDE THAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.61.12 (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What sources, usable for a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, do you have to offer? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an editor named Tsumikiria, who has indicated that he has anti-Semitic bias, pouncing on top of and removing any legitimate mention of AOC's foreign policy flubs. See this page's edit history, including some very recent examples. Vcuttolo (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

You are surely aware that this isn't the best course of action immediately following your recent sanctions on the subject matter, yes? Either Arab-Israeli conflict or BLPs. Also, please investigate the actual term "Antisemitism" and how it's properly used. JesseRafe (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to Tsumikiria's reason - HIS reason - for reverting my edit. It read in part, "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel" (sic)

Make of it what you will. It doesn't sound good to me. At an absolute minimum, it is clearly inaccurate. In my most recent attempt at finding a way of including the relevant content in a way acceptable to all, I used "Ha'aretz" as a source. Ha'aretz has long-standing left-wing credentials, and is well-known as a Netanyahu foe. Vcuttolo (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Position on ICE

In this article, which is used as a source for Ocasio-Cortez's position on immigration, the writer talks about "her support of the movement to dissolve Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as #AbolishICE shortly before she won. She said that she would stop short of fully disbanding the agency, and would rather create a pathway to citizenship for more immigrants through decriminalization."

I adjusted the text of the Wikipedia article to reflect this position. I'm not sure how anyone could misinterpret that, but it's created a conflict with at least one other editor. I invite more people to weigh in as to how that paragraph could be worded better to please everyone. Thank you. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I searched through relevant keywords and found no other articles mentioning this, and WP:RSN doesn't even have a discussion on this source. This source sounds sketchy and I would refrain from using this unless we have more source support. And I guess she can have her own interpretations on "abolishing" something, so that still doesn't count as explicitly denouncing her previous position. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"the source sounds sketchy" is not a valid reason for removing sourced info and even less a valid reason for inserting your own opinions into the paragraph, both of which you have done here. Unless you have a definitive Wikipedia policy that says that source isn't usable, your changes are completely invalid and you should seek a third opinion before attempting to add them again here. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't be this polemic, I followed WP:BLP in that any unsourced or poorly sourced material must be removed immediately. I wasn't even inserting my own opinion, but restoring content to a previous consensus. And I believe I told you before that we should seek consensus with other editors on this page before making or restoring a challengeable change. Multiple sources would help verify on a BLP, but we now have only one. I hope we can resolve this together with other editors, and make no edit until a consensus is reached. I'm sorry that my DS alerts was seen as a "subtle threat". It was a standard procedure suggesting that we all needs to be extra careful on related topics. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This article needs a serious rewrite for NPOV. It completely omits everything remotely controversial or not favorable to Ocasio-Cortez, and promotes that which supports her. Vermont (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example of a sentence that needs to be rewritten or removed? I'd be happy to discuss it here with you, but "This article needs a serious rewrite for NPOV" doesn't really help anyone, or the article. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

AOC, Israel, and turning Wikipedia into Hagiography

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

---

I have now made another attempt at including relevant information about Ocasio-Cortez. AOC made several comments that were seen as anti-Israel, and which called into question her basic knowledge of the Middle East. Various previous attempts by myself and others to include the aforementioned information have been immediately reverted, and for reasons that seem less than fair and open. Let us all strive for a better Wikipedia. No one is above criticism for a mistake, AOC included. Before reverting such information, please give a detailed and reasonable explanation as to why the information should not be included. Thank you. Vcuttolo (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, unfortunately you ran into the reality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is biased and there is no way around it. You can try to edit RS that is factual, but if the numbers on the other side don't like it, it won't end up in this article. This article, to me at least, certainly reads with a heavy tilt in favor of AOC as if it were written by her publicist. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples of text that you would like included or struck? I could discuss it here with you, but general statements like the one above don't really give us a place to start. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I would most certainly add about her threat to subpoena Trump Jr. and how that most likely violated ethics rules according to Congressional ethics groups. I would also add a section on her many gaffes/misstatements, but I won't go further because I'm not getting into the meat of the article because I've been here long enough to not get too involved in politics in Wikipedia on a superstar article, I'll wait for her to implode when she gets to Congress and realizes that her fans on Twitter won't get her anywhere when she suddenly needs to get things done once "inaugurated" and she can't "sign bills" into law. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a wise choice, as "I'll wait for her to implode" might suggest a certain bias in one direction on your part. Probably best to leave the article to more neutral editors. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it's just being pragmatic. You have the article all to yourself to make it all AOC for now, then once the party is over, the real encyclopedia can be written. Right now it reads as was pointed out like a press release or hagiography. You're not a neutral editor, why is only pro-AOC edits allowed? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I take issue with the statement "You're not a neutral editor", as neutrality is what I'd like to see in every Wikipedia article. Again, as you've made your "anti-AOC" position clear, I think it's best you let neutral editors handle the page. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit. It's not up to you to decide who gets to edit, that is the whole point of the OP, that this page reeks of bias and POV. That you can't see it shows that you aren't a neutral editor. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That you haven't pointed to anything specific suggests that you can't. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave specifics further up. That I don't have to entertain you doesn't take away that this article is biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: She did not threaten to subpoena Don Jr. She pointed out he's likely to be subpoenad. You have to provide proof she "most likely violated ethics rules." What "Congressional ethics groups"? Not the House Ethics Committee, the group that decides it. Gaffes and misstatements... all the garbage the right wing has to try to discredit her. Heaven forbid a politician ever misspeak in any way. You're not bringing any real suggestions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

At the very least to be honest you would have admitted the gaffes and misstatements. That you don't even do that, just solidifies that you don't see a bias in this article. And the right wing doesn't have to do much to discredit her, she does it to herself. That I don't want to edit this article is because I've been around the block a few times and know that Wikipedia has a bias and I'm not in the mood for it at this time. That doesn't mean it's proper. I read the article and was surprised by the tone of the article and the extreme weight. I called it out, that does not mean I am required to edit it myself. There is much criticism of her out there but the editors here apparently from what I see won't allow it, which is a shame because balance is what I thought is what we should strive for. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

She has misspoken a couple of times and has quickly corrected herself. She's human, it happens. Why should this article include every time she has misspoken? Provide some good sourcing on the gaffes to suggest why they should be included, and it can be considered. And remember, Fox News, Infowars, and Breitbart are hot garbage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That you compare FoxNews, Infowars and Breitbart is proof you shouldn't be editing political articles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No, not really. Right wing bias comes in different forms of extremity. Fox News has been going hardcore to try to smear AOC, and are as unreliable as the other two. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So we should only use left wing sources in this article? No wonder why this article is such crap. That is not how things work. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why the right conflates sites like the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, etc. with left-wing sources like Daily Kos, Common Cause, etc. That's not how things work. We use neutral, mainstream sources. Lack of right wing bias does not mean left wing bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

That you don't consider CNN left wing reiterates my concern for you editing this article. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you think CNN is non-biased? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) CNN is opportunitist centrism and nowhere left wing. That is conservative bias on your part. Refuting a mere posulation of another editor's input and debasing the collaborative effort is nowhere helpful in the consensus building process. this revert is unhelpful either. We can discuss and add additional content right after that paragraph, not restating that paragraph again and append unreliable sources. Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The first part of collaborative editing is admitting bias. Calling CNN non-biased is not something someone who edits a political article should be doing. And additonally, someone who calls CNN "opportunitist centrism" really misses the mark. You guys really need to get out of your bubbles. Regardless, I don't need to remind you that Foxnews is indeed a RS for inclusion, even if it reports negatively on your wonderful AOC, which I'm sure will continue once she gets into Congress and starts to screw up even more. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You're really not doing a good job of arguing for neutrality, or yourself as a bastion thereof. You should tread lightly in how you characterize RSs and other editors. JesseRafe (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I never said I'm neutral, I just said edits have to be neutral and the article has to be balanced. Aw, look, I offer an opinion and you threaten me because you don't like it? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

"Balance" does not mean neutral reporting and fringe lunacy in equal parts, it means neutral reporting. That's it. I don't give anything close to a fuck about your opinion, nor do I make threats -- but your constant whining about not including Fox News and calling CNN "left-wing" without having anything constructive to add is making my watchlist very boring. Get some new material, but this talk page is not a forum for it either. If you can't offer a substantive critique of the article's contents then you shouldn't be here wasting everyone's time. JesseRafe (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate who gets to be here, and that you don't consider CNN to be left wing is to most people cause for you to not be here wasting people's time. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in an above section, the consensus of editors for this article is advocacy of Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez and her political philosophy. Consistent with what can be included in an article by Wikipedia policy, that means the article is "buffed" with information that presents the subject in the best possible light. Likewise, consistent with what can be excluded in an article by Wikipedia policy, that means the article is "scrubbed" to exclude information critical of the subject. An example of an "buff", that's easy here to point out that a quote of what she actually said was replaced with a paraphrase. Why do that? "I would support impeachment. I think that, you know, we have the grounds to do it." CNN transcript Her actual word choice looks tentative and shallow to me, but it's her words. A Wikipedia editor can come along and say "Hey, I'm copyediting, not adding bias." And I could go revert the editor's eloquent paraphrase to the actual quote, but I would never prevail. Why? Because both quote and paraphrase work within Wikipedia policy and the majority Cortez advocacy editing consensus would keep the paraphrase and lose the quote. That's simply how Wikipedia works. patsw (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We usually paraphrase from banal quotes like that. Why should we include the exact quote? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am giving this as an example of a successful "buff": Why should we replace the former text with an actual exact quote with new text being an eloquent Wikipedian's paraphrase in the first place? I am not making the case for using the quote over the eloquent Wikipedian's paraphrase, merely demonstrating how the editing consensus operates in this article. patsw (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Seen in a fair light, this article is the definition of "buffed". You could look up George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Gandhi, or God himself - all of those folks have Wikipedia articles, and none of them are as one-sided as this one is. AOC has made numerous comments in public that deserve mention here, but which are immediately scrubbed by one of her ardent fans. Take her embarassing mis-statements regarding Israel: Comparing the violent Gaza protests to the peaceful West Virginia teachers' strike, and asking what people would think if 60 protesters had been killed in West Virginia, after 60 Gazans were killed on May 14 during the riot there. Nearly every Gazan killed was a Hamas member (as per Hamas), numerous Gazans were armed with guns and molotov cocktails, and Israel was repelling an attempted armed invasion of their country. In West Virginia, teachers walked around in a circle holding signs. No comparison, really. Or when AOC mentioned - in two different interviews! - "Israel-occupied Palestine", which is Hamas-speak as the justification for wiping out Israel. When one interviewer, Margaret Hoover, asked her what she meant by "Israel-occupied Palestine", AOC had a long pause before admitting she is "not the expert" on the Middle East.

On which planet is this not worth a mention? Yet when I added that, the redoubtable Tsumikiria was there to immediately revert it, using the remarkable claim that, and I quote,

 "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel" (sic)  

He also accused me of "disruptive editing" for my "defamatory" comments, and threatened a block. (I notice that his Talk Page contains comments by numerous editors pointing out Tsumikiria's habit of threatening other editors like he did me.)

Suffice it to say, anyone who thinks that an opinion piece in the Independent that as its thesis supports as "truth" AOC's comments on the Israeli-Arab situation is RS, but that any Israeli newspaper's news story about the Israeli-Arab situation is not RS, has absolutely no idea what a reliable source is, or is biased to the point that he shouldn't be here. (Check up, for example, the WP articles on left-wing Ha'Aretz, centrist Jerusalem Post, or centrist Times of Israel, the latter of which has an Arab-language edition.)

As to AOC's comment at a private event - right into the camera - about being "inaugurated" on January 3, and "signing" legislation on Jan 4, if that is not worth a mention, then would we agree that Romney's "47%" comment isn't either? Show me where one person in the last 6 years removed the Romney gaffe from his page because 'hey, politicians make mistakes, who cares?' Or how about Cindy Hyde-Smith's comment at a private event about her dedication to the host to where she would go to a "lynching" if the host invited her? Let me know when that will be removed from her page. Cindy Hyde-Smith was not advocating lynching, obviously, yet the connection to Mississippi's past was made by, well, everyone. And there it is on her page. Yet when AOC uses the language of a terrorist group in Hamas, whether or not it was intended to be in sympathy with their position, and repeats the comment later, after comparing Hamas and their brutality (in a way) to West Virginia teachers - that information doesn't belong in the article?

It is situations like these that cause WP to get a reputation as having a noticeable leftward slant (as mentioned on WP's own WP page, under "criticism"). I could just give up, a la Sir Joseph, but I would still like to think that a fair - or at least fairer - Wikipedia is still a possibility.

Vcuttolo (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You really went full bore there. We treat AOC with more reverence than God? Anyway, trying to find substance in this rant, I'm struggling. AOC saying "inaugurated" instead of "sworn in" and suggesting legislation on Day 2 is somehow the equivalent of Mitt Romney's BS statement that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes? Or Cindy Hyde Smith's celebration of lynching and the Confederacy? In what universe? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We're here to discuss content, not editors. Vermont (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, our Lord Cthulhu Alex Cortez. If by ranting your idiosyncratic "repelling an attempted armed invasion" and "Hamas-speak as the justification for wiping out Israel" you still cannot understand why you cannot get your desired content onto the page, you need to pay more time reading our policies, especially regarding original research and novel synthesis. But I guess by continuously trying to characterize and hint her support or supposed ignorance for "violent Hamas terrorists", once, twice, warned, thrice, getting sanctioned, yet still doing it fourice and frice, and labeling her supporting organization "Anti-Israel", it doesn't appear to me that genuinely improving the article was your objective. Making this a personal vendetta and telling everyone that I'm an "antisemite" isn't helping your argument either. This isn't a platform for your personal justice, which could be seen as some finely grained libel. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Addressing Muboshgu: Gaffes by candidates make news when they feed a narrative. When President George HW Bush somehow got the wrong date for Pearl Harbor, it came and went, because George HW Bush was a WWII war hero. Romney's "47% comment" (technically true but wildly misleading) became news becasue it aligned with a view held relatively widely, and especially among Democrats, that Romney was a very aloof rich guy. Cindy Hyde-Smith's comment was certainly less news-worthy than AOC's gaffes, because it was abundantly obvious that she was in no way referencing the racially problematic history of Mississippi. Yet the Democrats, and then the mainstream media, ran with it, because it aligned with the narrative being pushed that assumes all Republicans to be racists. (The picture of Hyde-Smith in the Confederate uniform only emerged later.) AOC had already become a butt of humor on the right because she has made a long list of comments that make her sound ignorant on the basic issues. So yes, her not knowing the difference between a representative and the POTUS is certainly worth a mention.

As to your continued slandering of me, Tsumikiria, all I did was quote YOU. If you think your own quote means I accused you of being an anti-Semite, that would be very telling, now wouldn't it?

Vcuttolo (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me add a couple of points I omitted. Muboshgu, yes, God gets more criticism on his Wikipedia page than AOC does on hers. Look it up. Your mischaracterization of AOC's comments about HER being inaugurated and HER signing legislation on Day 2 suggests you are addressing a comment you have neither read nor heard. Read it first, then comment. Again, Romney's "47%" comment was technically true, therefore not "BS", as you mislabeled it. Your comment about "Cindy Hyde-Smith's celebration of lynching" - now that's total BS. I would appreciate if you knew the facts before you commented on them. Furthermore, if Cindy Hyde-Smith's use of the term "lynching" in a context entirely unrelated to racial history is worth headlines everywhere and an obvious Wikipedia mention, then yes, AOC's in-context using the same terminology as Hamas, considering that she made false accusations against Israel, undoubtedly belongs on her Wikipedia page. As to your repeated and false attacks against me, it is clever of you to accuse me of doing to you what in fact you have been doing to me for some time, and which, based upon your own Talk Page, numerous others say you have been doing to them as well. But I am sticking to the facts, not making false, anti-Semitic claims.

Vcuttolo (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

As to Tsumikiria, yes, Israel "repelled an armed invasion", not by an organized military, but by organized Hamas members. If you don't know that, perhaos you should read centrist news sources, not just leftist ones. (How about starting with Wikipedia's own article 2018 Gaza border protests? Yes, "Israel-occupied Palestine" is standard Hamas-speak as they continue to call for the destruction of Israel. Again, you should know that, and certainly before you try to dismiss what I accurate wrote.

Whoops - sorry, Muboshgu, I somehow inserted part of the previous comment in the wrong place. The part that starts with "As to your repeated and false attacks against me", that was supposed to be at the bottom, part of the response to Tsumikiria, not to you. Vcuttolo (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Article talk pages are not discussion forums

Please read WP:FORUM which asks all editors to "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". This talk page is not for decrying someone's perception that a liberal cabal controls this article or to hash out precisely how bad Hamas is, or to discuss claims of bias against Netanyahu who is not the subject of this article. There are other places to discuss such things, but such conversations must be based on solid evidence not speculation. Discussions on this article talk page must be in the form of "I propose to add the following text to the article based on the following independent, reliable sources", or "I propose to remove the following content from the article because the cited sources do not verify that content". All arguments must be based on policies and guidelines. If people continue making forum style posts to this talk page, I will remove them. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 10:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"and said that many of her constituents, including Jewish Americans, had thanked her for taking that position"

Pinging Tsumikiria. I don't see why this statement should remain in the article. She did say it, but it has nothing to do with her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and simply acts as a sentence that promotes her, as the tone of that section implies she is correct in her statement (which, being a primary source, is unreliable). If, for example, another politician said "many people from [insert minority here] thanked me for my stance on [issue].", it would not be included in the Wikipedia article. It's an NPOV issue. Vermont (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Known as AOC?

The article states that Ocasio-Cortez also goes by the name AOC with three refs. The first is a CNN opinion written by two guys that is supposedly a conversation between them (that's supposed to be funny, which it is not) and one of them says, "I have SO many questions about what AOC's win (and, yes, I'm referring to her as AOC occasionally because it's too long a name to write out over and over..." The second one, Daily Kos, does not include her name at all as far as I can see. The third ref, The Nation, uses her initials only in the heading and then uses her full last name throughout (more than 20 times). Please keep in mind that this is her bio and the least we can do is to get her name correct. Without rock-solid proof that she is often called AOC we should not say that she is. I will again remove that wording from the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don’t believe it warrants mention. Vermont (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't seem like she's known by initials any more often than anyone else (DJT, BHO, HRC...); in the absence of references showing otherwise, it doesn't seem to have reached the level of LBJ (whose article does mention the initials); the pointer at AOC seems sufficient for anyone sees the initials somewhere and looks them up on Wikipedia. -sche (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with all, though I think she is a lot more known by her initials than DJT and BHO and probably a bit more than HRC, I think a lot of that is national media being offput by the "length" of her name and the less familiarity with how to spell/pronounce it, which would probably dissipate over time. JesseRafe (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I placed that mention because of the commonality of the use of her initials to cover the otherwise triple name. If you are going to insist on stacking more references, I'll go ahead. Trackinfo (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

VOX, New York Times, Weekly Standard, plus critics and supporters all using the initials in reference to her. Quoting the Newsweek source

"AOC, as the New York politician is known to supporters,"

Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: Since you are going to introduce reverting sourced content; here are the sources I was previously quoting: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11], [12], [13]. There are plenty more. It constantly confounds me that some people develop source nearsightedness when they wish to achieve a result. Are you serious that experienced wikipedia editors couldn't find these on the first couple of pages of google? Trackinfo (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doubting whether they were previously or currently sourced, but whether it needs be mentioned as anything more than an obvious abbreviation of her name, not a nickname or alternate billing, like say The Rock vs Dwayne Johnson, or to a level of initials being used almost more than their name themselves such as LBJ or JFK. JesseRafe (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure, keep littering everyone's watchlist by adding these one at a time. That's productive and an excellent policy-focused argument. JesseRafe (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I happen to keep looking . . . And the major reason this is important is because AOC is a social media phenomenon, sourced in the article. Facebook, twitter, youtube etc are not reliable sources but THAT is where the AOC abbreviation is used almost exclusively and where wikipedia can serve the less knowledgeable public . . . remember, what we are here for. Trackinfo (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Could we make the "sometimes abbreviated to AOC" bit a footnote? Is that a decent compromise? We already have the pronunciation as a footnote. -sche (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand the motivation to diminish or essentially, hide this piece of information from the public. Trackinfo (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Conversely, I don't see the need to prominently emphasize that she is not an exception to the general phenomenon than anyone's name can be abbreviated to initials. -sche (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

!vote to include/exclude her initials in lede

• Include AOC as the initials are used often enough in liberal and conservative reliable sources to establish it as notable. Also searching Twitter for her initials indicates that is commonly used as a substitute for her name in political discourse by both sides of the aisle. Political pundits are almost as likely now to say AOC rather than her full name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include AOC per the numerous, varying sources I have presented above. Trackinfo (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include, probably as a footnote - This is an acronym. thoroughly used by the media, although factors such as reporters being unfamiliar with her long, Hispanic name should be noted. She has yet to earn a historic significance and become cemented by their initialism as someone like FDR so a more concise lead in the form of a footnote explaining the acro. would be a decent compromise. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)See my comment and update below Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Include, less prominently than FDR. This is a proxy question to listing her at AOC (disambiguation), and she should be listed because Vox, CNN and others have called her AOC. However, FDR is commonly referred to as FDR, while Ocasio-Cortez is not. wumbolo ^^^ 16:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include as a footnote - agree with Tsumikiria's points. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude or include as a footnote per -sche's reasoning above. It's self-evident and the sourcing is tediously long. JesseRafe (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing is only tediously long, meaning extensive, because some people, including YOU, made it an issue. Trackinfo (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Make it a footnote, per my comments above. -sche (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include as per common use by media and pols. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• (Comment) She just changed her Twitter handle to @AOC. This settles then. Inclusion in prose seems viable, if she recognized the acronym herself. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include AOC, settled per the source provided by Tsumikiria. Airbornemihir (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that we have a general consensus to include the acronym AOC in the lead, and my comment quoting AOC herself seems to have settled the argument, as three days have passed and we do not have any objection. Per request by Trackinfo, motion to close? We will have the acronym AOC directly in prose, and referenced directly by this AOC tweet, so as to avoid WP:CITEKILL clunkiness. Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like while there's consensus to include, almost half the voters agree that it should be as a footnote. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I fear that my initial recommendation to make it a footnote may have swayed some people, and now that I changed my mind after seeing AOC herself embraces the acronym AOC, I guess it's possible for others to reconsider as well. So, ummm… People, shall we do this again? Tsumikiria (T/C) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:,@-sche:,@JesseRafe:, @Grammarxxx: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talk • contribs)

• Include in the lead. It's her Twitter handle, and would have to be listed here prominently to keep it on AOC (disambiguation). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Is that a fact? Then someone should tell the people editing Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, which doesn't mention "AOC" even once on the entire page, despite being on AOC (disambiguation). Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ewen Douglas, I can't speak to WP:OTHERSTUFF. If he goes by "AOC", then that page should include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that "It's her Twitter handle" and "would have to be listed here prominently to keep it on AOC (disambiguation)" are opinions, and not actually based on any Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a particular case. I thought herself recognizing the initialism, on top of being sufficiently reported as AOC was enough for it to be included in prose. I'll re-add the bit just to reactivate this discussion. Any objections? Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:DABACRONYM, AOC would need to be included somewhere in this article to be listed on the dab page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Include in lead. Frequent usage in RS.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Include in the lead -- commonly used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we declare a consensus to Include AOC in the lede and close this discussion? Aside from the initial three, all new commenters, particularly since Tsumikiria's announcement of her Twitter account have all concurred. AOC is the new rock star in congress, getting the 60 Minutes interview last weekend and 300,000 new followers since. That means the traffic to this article is high. [Popular Wikipedia Articles of the Week (December 30, 2018 to January 5, 2019)|Number 11 on all of Wikipedia this week]. Yes, a lot of social media users have figured out who "AOC" is talking about but for those who haven't (like me initially), we should be providing the informative service of explaining it. Trackinfo (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Motion to close? - We seem to have other (trivial?) issues to worry about on this article. This doesn't appear to need someone filing a formal request to close. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Question I agree with the consensus to include AOC in the lead, but two questions: (1) does it need to be cited? Will anyone challenge that she's known by AOC? Isn't that bluesky obvious by now? (Or maybe I only think that because I'm American?) (2) Why is Twitter the source? I thought we don't use Twitter as a source generally? I know her changing the Twitter handle to AOC helped solidify consensus, but aren't we interpreting a primary source by citing to a Twitter handle change to support "known by AOC"? There are lots of other sources that refer to her as AOC... like the NYT, perhaps we should use one of those? I didn't want to change it without discussing it here. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  The Washington Times, [14], has a discussion directly about the initials, if that helps any. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I didn't want to flood the lead with 5 or seven references to support the inclusion of three mere letters, as this happened before and is messed up. We could either append it with one or two finest source for the establishment on such initialism, or remove them altogether and leave a inline hidden text. Whichever works. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Footnote is fine, not in the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
• Include it. It's like JFK, AMLO, or LBJ. HAL333 01:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Political Party

Cortez is a self-described socialist-Democrat and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. To my knowledge, she is not a member of the Democratic party and yet according to Wikipedia - her political party is the Democrats which she is not a member of. This article is riddled with bias, propaganda and over-positive information. This has been addressed more than TWICE and yet it's deafening somehow. ThePlane11 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

She's a registered Democrat. The first term is an ideology, the second one is membership in a group which is not a political party. Your OR for declaring she is not a Democrat can be taken only in as much good faith as if you had pointed out she is a self-described chocoholic and a member of the Girl Scouts of America. Irrelevant. JesseRafe (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point Jesse. The Democratic Socialists of America organization, which Cortez is a member of, is not a political party. Thank you for assisting me and clearing that up. I'm glad that it is now mentioned in the introduction. Bipartisanship. ThePlane11 (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

"Sandy"?

I noticed in the full 4'20" Boston U dance video, that Alexandra is listed as "Sandy Ocasio-Cortez". [15]. If she still uses that name informally, it should be in the WP article. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Bellagio99, "Sandy" is a hypocorism of "Alexandria", so we shouldn't include it in the first sentence per MOS:NICKNAME. Barack Obama used to go by "Barry", but there is significance behind this that makes it biogaphically relevant. If that's the case with AOC, we can mention "Sandy" in a similar way. If it's not, maybe we don't mention it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Both for being a common hypocorism and neither being a name she uses or is referred to in the media, we don't need to include. Agree with the above, just without any "maybe". JesseRafe (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"Other political affiliation" in infobox?

I believe that her affiliation with DSA should be mentioned in the infobox, as it is very notable. --Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead, but I agree it should probably be mentioned in the info box as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Very widely reported. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It certainly merits a infobox inclusion. Whoever added that comment on the line"|otherparty" that DSA isn't a party so we shouldn't include it - I don't see relevant rules on the Template:Infobox officeholder. Political affiliation certainly doesn't have to be a party. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done: It renders as "other political affiliation", even though the parameter is "otherparty=", so it's not a problem that DSA isn't a party. Levivich (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Dirt

@Lpouer4832xs: Wikipedia isn't about finding all the WP:DIRT or alleged evidences of hypocrisy on your disliked politicians. Doug Weller already warned you before. Please find something else to contribute, not breaching 1RR. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Boston University Mashup video

As of January 2019, news media was been covering short snippets of a music video from Boston University in 2010. An WP:EL was added linking to the original publication from 2010^{Special:Diff/876773872}, thusly:

• Boston University Mashup. Boston University. 2010.

This was subsequently removed,^{Special:Diff/876790597, by JesseRafe} with the edit summary "uncyclopedic content, if a reader is already on this page then it's a good bet they have the internet". —Sladen (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a plain declaration of fact. Is there a call to action about what could be done to improve the article embedded somewhere in there? Or do we need more YT links everywhere? JesseRafe (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The BU dancing video that went viral on Twitter yesterday is insignificant in the grand scheme of her entire life biography. It's WP:RECENTISM to believe it belongs here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not an educator

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a Bachelor of Arts degree in International Relations with a minor in economics. The line in her profile that states she is an educator is incorrect. She has no teaching certificate, taken no public education courses, is not qualified to teach in public education, and has never taught any classes what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas WTN (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The body of the article states "She worked as lead educational strategist at GAGEis, Inc. Ocasio-Cortez was also an educator at the nonprofit National Hispanic Institute, in which role she served as the Educational Director of the 2017 Northeast Collegiate World Series, where she participated in a panel on Latino leadership." The references verify that information. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the cited sources on this wiki page, I can't find anything that states she has a minor in economics. A quick Google search turned up conflicting sources about whether it was a double major between international relations and economics, or a major in international relations and a minor in economics. If someone has more information, I'd appreciate getting a solid source to clear that issue up. Thanks! ChemEDave (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thomas - welcome to Wikipedia. I think by the level of POSITIVE input on this article, and seeing has Cortez has no flaws or failures WHATSOEVER - make your own judgment in the world of politics. ThePlane11 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, not everyone who works for educational organizations is an "educator." The source does not indicate that her role or title was "educator" and that term should be removed, absent a reliable source. Is there one? John2510 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

AOC has never (to my knowledge) claimed or implied that she is, or has ever been an educator. No editor in this page has provided a source that suggests she has ever served in this role. If the subject themself doesn't claim it, and the available source material doesn't demonstrate it, on what basis do we include this in an encyclopedia? Unless other editors are able to provide sources or offer justification for its inclusion, I move to remove this assertion from the article. 2601:18F:4101:4830:C0E4:400D:A473:BF56 (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You may want to do some more effort, or a simple search query. Per this source:'“I’m an educator, an organizer, a working-class New Yorker,” she says in her campaign ad, “It’s time for one of us.”' And please read the input by Cullen328 just above. Tsumikiria (T/C) 09:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, we don't do self-descriptions when it comes to jobs and positions. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, User:JesseRafe, I am not convinced. Being a "educational director" doesn't make one an educator, it makes one an administrator. The other thing, the BU position, that's really similar: a "Lead Educational Strategist" is a strategist (again, that's administration, if it's a full-time position and if "GAGEis" is a college or school or school system--but who knows what it is?), not an educator. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

NHI in their own publication specifically to her as an educator in two different articles, note this was before she took on the role of Educational Director at that org, and were published a year before the primary. JesseRafe (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This tweet could be hyperbole or oversimplification, but seems more than what an admin would do in the role. Primary source and all that, though. JesseRafe (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not arguing that "educator" is the best word for describing her in this article as I am unsure what the precise definition is for that word, or if it even has one. Perhaps someone can propose some alternate language that better describes what the sources say about her education related work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, JesseRafe had a few more hits, but there's nothing specific about her as an educator in it, and they're way too primary, and I'm not even talking about the tweet. The text in the article is one thing, and I tweaked that some already, but to give that to her as a job description is not warranted. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the obvious situation here is that this is a politically-motivated attempt at delegitimizing her one chip at a time, this Wikipedia article included. For instance, I have never in my life heard that in order to be an "educator" one had to have a teaching license and decades in a class room which all these yahoos are claiming is the meaning of the word with their 7th ever (or "ever") edits to the encyclopedia. Being a teacher and an educator are different things, always have been. Probably a substantial reason why both this page and her own campaign have never called her a "teacher". Nonetheless she's called an educator in numerous other outlets:

• The New Yorker profile: "she previously worked as a community organizer and educator in the Bronx"
• Fortune 40 under 40: "Politician, educator, community activist"
• Vox profile: "after graduating from college and has since worked in community organizing and education."
• Our Revolution profile: Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez is a third-generation Bronxite, educator, and organizer"

So short of her CV listing a position into a single easily-digested noun, it seems to me any interpolation of these claims as something else would be synthesis, not a plain reporting of what the sources are calling her. JesseRafe (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here on JesseRafe's comment about delegitimizing. I am not commenting on calling her an educator. There is an organized process of attacking American figures on the left that repeatedly focuses on wikipedia. Somewhere is a place on the internet that repeatedly sends out trolls (usually IPs) to insert a comment here, remove a phrase there. They will keep coming back, new IPs, new users insistent on the same point. We are going to get pounded by various new accounts trying to remove this phrase. It will go on for years, perhaps well after there is any relevance. I don't know who is sending out these marching orders, I can't identify the source, but as an experienced wikipedia editor with over a decade of service, I have seen it happen time and time again. Trackinfo (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As an experienced wikipedia editor with over a decade of service, you should know that's a wholly-inappropriate comment for this article's talk page. I'll leave it at that.John2510

(talk) 19:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is quite appropriate and relevant. THIS IS one of the leading articles to attract this sort of attack, this looks like exactly that sort of situation and we must be vigilant. Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: Any thoughts on the above sources explicitly referring to her as an educator before you removed the word from the page? JesseRafe (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No objection, the New Yorker source covers that nicely. I was only going off the source given in the article for that section.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Further thoughts? It was pretty ecumenical in her early coverage as a description of her career to that point. JesseRafe (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please respond as one of the two admins in this convo who have removed her previous occupation description. This was the neutral description mainstream press used for her and it has only been chipped away at by those with a discernible bias. JesseRafe (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

JesseRafe, I'd love for you to tell me what my "discernible bias" is. Please, enlighten me. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm partaking in "a politically-motivated attempt at delegitimizing her"? Cullen328, do you know if this editor has been informed of discretionary sanctions for this area, which should also cover a lack of AGF, making unwarranted assumptions, and playing the man rather than the ball? Asking for a friend. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? When did I accuse you of doing that? Is Thomas WTN your sock? Why are you being so aggressive and making leaps and bounds to read bad faith? The plain reading of my comments was the crusaders removing it, not you who had succumbed to their whims. I provided you sources and you didn't respond so I pinged you after two days of no response. Read what I wrote and tell me how that was an accusation of bias on you. Then go back and read this the main page and this talk page's history on the number of brand new editors and IPs who have done nothing but campaign to remove "educator" under flimsy arguments. Please. JesseRafe (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is a. me removing that term; b. me commenting on it; c. you following my comment immediately with this claim of a "politically-motivated attempt". That was just a coincidence that you said that to me, who had just removed the term you want in this article? Oh, wait, I'm just succumbing to someone's whims--ha, sure. I'm either a partisan hack or a gull.

As for your "sources", they merely parrot each other and the resume; none of them speak in any depth about her having educated people. And I think you still don't get the point that "working in education", which is what one of your sources has, doesn't make one an educator. How difficult is that? Drmies (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me there's a lot of potential that these sources were "bootstrapped" from somewhere. Where is the origin of her being described as as "educator?" Did the original reliable source identify what that description was based upon (i.e., is there any indication, anywhere, that she actually did anything that would make that label appropriate)? Why is her title with the organization not an adequate description? BTW, we all come here with our own social/political biases, but there seems to be a marked lack of "assuming good faith" in the editing of this article. I think it's fair for editors, regardless of their political persuasions, to want to ensure the descriptions are accurate.John2510 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)