:Because contrary to your edit, the House resolution does not mention BDS or Israel.[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text] It merely affirms that boycotting is a protected right as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's probably why mainstream media ignored it, which means it fails weight for inclusion. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
:Because contrary to your edit, the House resolution does not mention BDS or Israel.[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/496/text] It merely affirms that boycotting is a protected right as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's probably why mainstream media ignored it, which means it fails weight for inclusion. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
::The mainstream media source I cited refers to the resolution as "a document that is widely understood as a specific show of support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel" given the timing [https://forward.com/fast-forward/428638/ocasio-cortez-aoc-omar-bds-israel/]. And that Omar said right before filing that it was an "opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement." However, while I still think the sentence should go in, if BDS isn't in the resolution text itself, it's not worth my time to continue to push it if there's disagreement. Thanks for pointing that out! [[User:Benevolent human|Benevolent human]] ([[User talk:Benevolent human|talk]]) 13:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): QuinnCraig2075 (article contribs).
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2019, when it received 11,167,197 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report8 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Last 30 days (linear scale)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
A fact from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to request that "In February 2021, Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she is a sexual assault survivor, comparing it with her experience during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.[272]" be reworded to "On February 5, 2021, Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she is a sexual assault survivor, comparing it with her experience during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol.[272]" since it sounds more professional to me. Bruiser O5 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be covered in an encyclopedia, we do not need to exhaustively cover every tit-for-tat "yes you lied, no I didn't, yes you did" conspiracy that bubbles up from the QAnon realm. ValarianB (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is complete nonsense. Everyone knows that if that mob got their hands on her, she probably would have been murdered. The same goes for Nancy Pelosi and Ilhan Omar. Cullen328Let's discuss it20:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article as is seems to imply that her office is in the Capitol. her experience during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Specifically, Ocasio-Cortez claimed she had hid in her office bathroom. We should clarify that it is not so. starship.paint (exalt)03:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe that? What news sources do you use? About our coverage, I think the entire paragraph needs to be rewritten. To start off with her previous assault experience is not the way to go. Ilhan Omar also thought she might not make it. Both of these women have had numerous death threats and it's quite normal that the violence that was going on would be extremely traumatizing to them. I think that we need to stress how AOC was almost immediately called a liar by some outlets, FOX, for example. Melanie, you are a good writer; what do you suggest? Gandydancer (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer Sorry I originally misinterpreted Why do you believe that? What news sources do you use?, not gonna lie it was news to me though lol. Imho it should be included considering how far from common knowledge it is OgamD218 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There should not be a sec "AOC Lied", bc POV/the simple fact she didn't. Some outlets may have assumed she was in the capitol at the time but she never corroborated that and the main story was the attack itself-which is no minor issue. A congresswoman's experience/response to the most open and violent assault on congress since The War of 1812 should not be minimized in detail as it currently is. More should be added, incl the widely made accusation that she distorted her experience. This claim went well beyond the Quanon fringe to the point several outlets felt a need to clarify the record. Not all attacks on AOC or any politician belong here, this particular one is related to a major event in her career and has received a very high level of coverage, an encyclopedia should note and record what happened.OgamD218 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrasing makes sense. She was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress and the youngest member when she arrived in Congress. The men had been elected at younger age, but were not members of Congress when AOC assumed office. TFD (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She was born October 13th, 1989 and sworn in on January 3rd, 2019, making her 29 years and about three months old. Jed Johnson Jr. was born on December 27th, 1939 and sworn in January 3rd, 1965 making him 25 years and 7 days old.MoreIraFord (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Jed Johnson Jr. wasn't a member of Congress when AOC entered and even if he had been, AOC would have been the youngest member, since she was younger than every other sitting member of congress. By then Johnson would have been 79 years old. TFD (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed Spy-cicle - if this statement includes the specifics of the 116th Congress at the time, then the following statement of being the youngest until Madison Cawthorn is a moot point because he is incoming for the 117th Congress. I think this sentence as a whole just needs to be re-worked. MoreIraFord (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to translate her name into Spanish in the first sentence of the article. A consensus about this has been reached at various places:
MOS:LEADLANG - "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses." AOC was born in the Bronx, and her father was born in the Bronx. How does she have a "close association" with Spanish?
MOS:NICKCRUFT - "Foreign language details can make the lead sentence difficult to understand".
MOS:FIRST - "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere."
Except for the fact she can speak Spanish and has a Spanish name, there is nothing in the article indicating a need to translate her name into Spanish in the first sentence of the article, and Wikipedia policy does not support it. The input of others is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The population of The Bronx is 56% Hispanic or Latino. Whether one parent is Nuyorican and the other was born on the island, it doesn’t matter, being Hispanic is her heritage regardless. What’s not clicking? Trillfendi (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would question the utility of including a Spanish pronunciation. Including relevant alternative language names is important when the names are very different from each other. A minor difference in articulation is a) very obvious to anyone with even minimal proficiency in Spanish, and b) next to useless to the 99% of readership that can't easily parse IPA. The cross section of readers who would both be able to parse the transcription and learn something from it seems vanishingly small and doesn't seem like it justifies further cluttering the lead. signed, Rosguilltalk17:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my personal opinion only, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish one...if you want to see her name in Spanish, see the Spanish Wikipedia....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the Spanish pronunciation come from? Does the subject actually pronounce her name in two different ways, depending upon which language she's speaking at the time? (Some people do.) Or did some editor ignore the subject's own pronunciation and decide that the "correct" (according to the editor) pronunciation in English is one thing and the "correct" pronunciation in Spanish is another way? What we want is "the subject's own pronunciation(s)", not some editor looking at a high school Spanish textbook and deciding that there 'should' be two different correct ways to pronounce her name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that for a fact but yes, I believe she always pronounces her name in "a Spanish sounding sort of way...". Until only recently most Spanish names were said without the Spanish sounding accent, the way a native Spanish speaker pronounces them. But recently one is starting to hear names pronounced with the Spanish accent by Spanish speaking news men/women. Miguel Almaguer is an example. I believe that this is a deliberate attempt to accept that Hispanics have a right to keep their native language--to learn English but not give up their own language. (Native tribes in America are also making an effort to teach native languages in schools where the languages are dying.) Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's just because if you pronounce "Jean" as something closer to "John" than to "blue jeans", you're probably not going to recognize the latter as actually referring to you.
@Pigsonthewing, this has reminded me of the Wikipedia:Voice intro project. When there's a dispute about the pronunciation of living people's names, it's really nice to have a recording of them saying their own names. I don't suppose there is anyone watching this page who could beg a friend to ask for a voice recording? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're better off keeping it the way it is with both pronunciations. I found one youtube site that had quite a few news, etc., commentators saying her name and they all said it with an English accent. Here is a site with it said with both an English accent and a Spanish accent and I doubt most native English speakers could say it. I sure couldn't. [1]Gandydancer (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal assault/harassment section
Is the verbal harassment section still due? It seems like something that was a so and so early on but no longer seen as important. Basically boiling down to a high school spat. Should we remove the section or at least trim it considerably? PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then coverage almost immediately died. So something like WP:NOTNEWS comes into play since it has had no long term impact on her life. The issue is not coverage by RS, the issue is WP:DUE weight. PackMecEng (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the due weight link, I'm still learning. Due weight is largely determined by prevalence in reliable sources: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" — WP:DUE. For what it's worth, I suspect many readers may be inclined to agree with you regarding the relative triviality of the verbal altercation compared with more serious issues like crime. But from what I can surmise, the length of the section is appropriate. Best, — Ix-holtzman (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a notable event for Yoho to be covered on Yoho's page, as he resigned from a board over it. As for AOC's page.... I'm not sure. It drew a lot of attention at the time, and could be seen as worth keeping. But there's so much else to cover for her as well.... A trim would not be amiss. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recently made this revision[2] but it was reverted. I wasn't sure why (it's notable and well-sourced), so I thought I would bring it up for a discussion. My user pages discloses this, but I want to be clear here as well that this is my new account after losing access to my old account Pretzel butterfly per WP:VALIDALT. Benevolent human (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because contrary to your edit, the House resolution does not mention BDS or Israel.[3] It merely affirms that boycotting is a protected right as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's probably why mainstream media ignored it, which means it fails weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream media source I cited refers to the resolution as "a document that is widely understood as a specific show of support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel" given the timing [4]. And that Omar said right before filing that it was an "opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement." However, while I still think the sentence should go in, if BDS isn't in the resolution text itself, it's not worth my time to continue to push it if there's disagreement. Thanks for pointing that out! Benevolent human (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EN-Jungwon 01:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Garret Miller. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Garret Miller until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)