Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

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).

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 7 as Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 6 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Why Are Her alleged Multiple Factually Incorrect Quotes Not In This Page?

If people are going to cite Cortez's positions on medicare, campaign spending, military, immigration, etc, then her quotes that are factually incorrect need to be included also. Her own quotes directly show that she does not have the slightest clue about many of the platform positions she holds. This includes most glaringly her false statements regarding economics, considering that she has a degree in economics from Boston University but makes statements that even a high schooler with a rudimentary understanding of economics would never say. There are dozens of reputable sources, including videos of her making statements that are simply nonsense, why aren't they included on this page? I will add them if need be, but why do I have a sneaking suspicion that they will be immediately removed? RTShadow (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There’s this thing called... neutrality. If you believe her quotes are incorrect then provide reliable sources for that. Trillfendi (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I generally regard Politifact as a reliable source (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#PolitiFact), but it is not used in this article at all, except for External links. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources characterizing Ms. OC's statements as false, can we see them? Pendragon0 (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's file at Politifact Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that the consensus of editors of this page is supportive of AOC's positions and have a high bar for what she has said that can be labelled "incorrect" as fact and not opinion, and also a very high bar for what constitutes "improvement" of the article. NPOV is not giving equal weight between her critics and his supporters. patsw (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

What you presume to be the viewpoints of editors are beside the point. If she has made factually incorrect statements, please provide the Reliable Sources pointing them out. Factcheckers make that determination, not editors here. Simply claiming, without evidence, that she has made statements that are "simply nonsense" does nothing to add to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

To the question raised by RTShadow, it is precisely the point. The editors of this article are the people who show up to edit it, not unicorn-riding "factcheckers". patsw (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Where do you want me to start? She's on 60 Minutes stating that people shouldn't be concerned about her being "factually correct", as long as she's "morally right". If you are not being correct in your presentation, then you are either lying, or woefully ignorant and ill prepared for your position. You can't be "morally right" in either regard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3IKbar_Q3I A 21 trillion dollar mistake is not a "simple miscalculation". Cortez did not know the three branches of government, quoted as stating "If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House". Really?

I'd also like to ask, why is this article quoting her comment about the 3 billion dollar tax break offered to Amazon and not calling her out on the fact that there is NOT 3 billion existing dollars, that was 3 billion dollars in SUBSIDIES? CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin explained the actual situation "“[The state] would have effectively been paying out $3 billion in incentives for what would have likely been the equivalent of $27 billion over 25 years. You can play with the math, and you can tell me that there were going to be additional costs, and there likely would have been, but if I handed you $3 billion and you gave me $25 billion back, or you gave me $15 billion back, or $10 billion back, that could have been used for roads, schools, police, and subways, I think that’s a good deal" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_jz-Pi-510 Basically Cortez's position is like stating that someone walks into a pizza joint with a "$10 off" coupon, and is turned away by a worker who then says "Yep, we can use that 10 dollars to buy more tomato paste for our pizzas now". It isn't like people are just fabricating the false statements she is making.RTShadow (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

According to Politifact, "fact-checkers, including those at the Washington Post, have challenged her. As of March 25, PolitiFact has fact-checked seven of the congresswoman’s statements. Four received a False rating, and one was Pants on Fire." The number of wild statements falsely attributed to AOC is much larger, see also Snopes. The invented false statements are, of course, very colorful and very false. Since the reason for including topics in the article is their importance/relevance to AOC's career, I think we should mention any false statements that rise to that level of notability. Is there an example of one such falsehood we missed? HouseOfChange (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That politifact link is about the ridiculous Facebook memes with equally ridiculous fictional statements on them that she’s obviously never said.... That Snopes link is just any story that’s ever mentioned her. Trillfendi (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but not this one: [1]. HouseOfChange's link also mentions actual mistatements of facts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander: [2] I think we've wasted spent about enough time with this. Gandydancer (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Mike Pence: [3] Gandydancer (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

And your point is "If you're not the only clown in the circus you're not a clown"??? That's all I can get out of your comment. Want to elaborate on it?--TMCk (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Mi gente are are we really going this route? Do I have to make the article? Trillfendi (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean you want to make a Veracity of statements by Donald Trump about AOC? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway If it rises to that level, though I don’t foresee her blatantly lying 10,000 times like the other guy, then I would endorse creation of a similar article. But for a freshman Congress member who has only been there less than twice as long as a Kardashian marriage, it’s an absurd idea in this timeline. The thing is, we have talking heads on networks claiming to be “fair and balanced” calling a grown woman a “dumb kid” because they just don’t like what she has to say; so while she’s a controversial figure, I don’t trust that necessity for someone frankly so irrelevant in the bigger pond. The “I just don’t like her” crowd don’t have much skin in the game there. If someone-without bias that is—wants to create an section for alleged lies, all they have to do is find a reasonable number of reliable sources, such as .... therefore it’s not an anomaly. Trillfendi (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For someone who has only been in Congress for *counts fingers* 140 days she really does live in “some people’s” heads rent free. I ever why that could be. 🍵 Trillfendi (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC) My guess is the tons of media-coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I agree, it is probably the daily coverage more than anything. PackMecEng (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I get that she’s young, outspoken, the “Latina thing”, but let’s be honest, a lot of the venom spewed at her isn’t really about her. If you get my drift. 🌬 Trillfendi (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I mean the sources listed above and around the news certainly seem to be about her and the things she says. What do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I’m talking about projection.... Exhibit A. Trillfendi (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Yes many news organisations talk about her. So what? PackMecEng (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC) You’re not understanding what I’m saying so I won’t explain further. Trillfendi (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Lumping together a bunch of politifact articles to make a broad implication about her is WP:SYNTH. To use Donald Trump as an example (since he was used as a comparison above), we have a lot of neutral, reliable sources discussing the broad fact that he makes a lot of false statements. That isn't true about AOC; the coverage of this as a topic is relatively sparse and mostly from a few op-eds. So trying to eg. collect a bunch of politifact articles to try and encourage readers to take that conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We could cite individual politifact articles in places where they're relevant, but we can't eg. create a section saying "RTShadow thinks AOC says a lot of stuff that isn't true" and then use the Politifact articles to back that up, because that's not what they say. --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree there is no place for a dedicated section at this point. She has made several blatantly false statements but I agree, if they are notable they should be in the relevant sections of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. For example (not quite sure what is the relevant section of the article, could be chronological, media-coverage or political positions), the Unemployment thing has enough coverage for a sentence or two per WP:PROPORTION, WaPo, WaPo, WaPo, CBS, Newsweek, WSJ

That was me, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course there's no mention - yet - of the many lies, false statements, easily disproved nonsense, gaffes, etc. But sure, there's no bias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4C01:4CBB:491:F1F:6F12:4745 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Content suggesting that AOC is lying about her background + other faux right-wing scandals

The editor SunCrow added a bunch of faux controversies to this page[4]:

LOL. SunCrow (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• text that suggests that AOC is lying about being from the "hood" (a bizarre rightwing conspiracy theory)
• a bizarre Fox News story that suggests that Democrats literally believe that the world will cease to exist in 12 yrs time (when the poll in question did not ask respondents that) and that AOC is saying that these Democrats are idiots for believing it (which they don't)[5]

This Wikipedia article currently reads as follows:

Ocasio-Cortez has called for "more environmental hardliners in Congress", describing climate change as "the single biggest national security threat for the United States and the single biggest threat to worldwide industrialized civilization" and stating that the world will end in 12 years unless the problem is addressed.

That establishes the notability of her underlying remarks.

Ocasio-Cortez didn't call anyone an idiot. Her exact words were: "You’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge" to think her 12-year prognostication was literal. SunCrow (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• The following text is in the article: "In February 2019, Ocasio-Cortez made the following comments regarding climate change: “‘There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?’”" This is some vague comment she made during a livestream.

The "vague comment she made during a livestream" wasn't vague. It was quite clear. It also received national media attention. SunCrow (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• a bizarre criticism from the NY Post that AOC is being a hypocrite for proposing actions to deal with climate change but is unwilling to live like a hermit[6]

Not sure what was bizarre about it. The content I added didn't say anything about living like a hermit, but merely pointed out the contradiction between AOC's alarmist climate rhetoric and her campaign's extensive (and questionable--who needs an airplane to get from one side of the Bronx to the other?) use of planes and automobiles. SunCrow (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

These changes were then restored by Rusf10.[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I just reverted it and reminded Rusf10 of BRD. The material is questionable at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to start a RS noticeboard discussion, so I did here[8]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph about her website being updated to say "transit" etc instead of "commute" etc is like, so what? I doubt it's given enough weight in enough RS to be WP:DUE.
The added verbiage about the "12 years" comment also seems unnecessary. And if the quote about having children is notable (in the lay sense of the word), I expect more sources could be provided and something could be written about it rather than just quoting it, no? The NYPost criticism re cars seems like the bit that might be most likely to have received enough coverage to be appropriate to include in some format, but has it? -sche (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, with the possible exception of the comment from Nancy Pelosi (which may not have been notable enough for inclusion), I stand by my edits. The information I included is information that received a good deal of media attention. Your arguments against my edits are laughable. Faux controversies? Really? What makes them "faux"? Are they "faux" because you said so? In your edit summaries, you described the New York Post as a "bad faith actor" and Fox News as a "rubbish source". Wikipedia disagrees with you; as per [9], Fox News is regarded as reliable and there is no consensus regarding the Post. Muboshgu has joined you in using the word "rubbish"; apparently, that is the word of the day. You are now in the process of arguing that Fox News should be regarded as unreliable on certain issues. (This makes perfect sense if your purpose is to make the encyclopedia reflect your POV; by manipulating the definition of "reliable" so that it only includes perspectives you like, you can exercise greater control over what is included in the encyclopedia.) Then, you accused Fox News of offering "misleading content" on AOC. You have gotten smacked down for that one at [10]. Nice try.

I will bring the edits you deleted to the talk page with additional sources. Once you don't have the "unreliable sources" fig leaf to cover your POV with, what will you do instead? SunCrow (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you SunCrow. As I said in the edit summary, just because you don't like something doesn't make it rubbish. Fox News is a reliable source (and there have been multiple discussions on this). If you're going to oppose this content, please come up with a better reason than that.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Going over these edits... the bio thing seems clearly WP:UNDUE (the source is fairly marginal and doesn't describe it as particularly important.) As far as the reliability of sources goes, remember that it is contextual; Fox News is a WP:PARTISAN source on both AOC and climate change. On another page, they could potentially be used with in-line attribution making it clear the interpretation was just their opinion... but for negative material on a WP:BLP that falls squarely into two of the issues they're most biased about, I would say that Fox alone is never sufficient as a source. BLP requires sourcing of the highest quality for things like that, and Fox, while it might sometimes be usable for uncontroversial statements elsewhere, does not come anywhere near the high bar that WP:BLP requires in a situation like this. The same is obviously true of the New York Post. If you want to add negative material to a WP:BLP, you need better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia recognizes Fox News as a reliable news source. I respect your opinion, but you can't randomly decide that Fox is not reliable on certain subjects, like AOC. Using that standard, ultra-left sources like MSNBC should not be considered reliable for anything about President Trump or any other Republican.-12.71.77.11 (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Bronx roots

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a strong consensus to exclude the content as proposed. Editors seemed inclined to find the incident entirely unworthy of inclusion, but the consensus was much muddier on this point. If an editor still thinks this content belongs, I would suggest he or she write a much briefer version (one or two sentences max.) to gain a clearer consensus on whether the incident garnered enough news coverage to be worth mentioning at all. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the following text concerning Bronx roots be included at Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#General_election? SunCrow (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

In July 2018, there was controversy over Ocasio-Cortez’s purported Bronx roots. Regarding her upbringing, her campaign website said: “‘The state of Bronx public schools in the late 80s and early 90s sent her parents on a search for a solution. She ended up attending public school 40 minutes north in Yorktown, and much of her life was defined by the 40 minute commute between school and her family in the Bronx.’” Ocasio-Cortez moved with her family to Yorktown Heights when she was five years of age, and she did not move back to the Bronx until after she graduated from college. After questions were raised about her residency, the campaign website was edited to read, “‘She ended up attending public school in Yorktown, 40 minutes north of her birthplace... As a result, much of her early life was spent in transit between her tight-knit extended family in the Bronx & her daily student life.’”

A prior version of this material has been challenged and removed as being a violation of WP:UNDUE. Concerns have been expressed regarding sourcing, so I have added sources. SunCrow (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I think this sounds like something a staffer wrote from 3rd party sourcing. If AOC herself had said something this spurious herself, then I think it would be worth covering (cf: Pocahontasgate). Bogger (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - But how can you be sure, Bogger> SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude as written. The subject matter deserves mention, as there's ample news coverage of it, but this is not the way to summarize it. I'd re-write it from scratch. As proposed it's confusing, too deep in the weeds, and doesn't convey the relevance of the subject matter. A proper summary would include that this was an effort by conservatives to discredit AOC. R2 (bleep) 23:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you, R2. SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude as written Agree with R2 that it's written poorly, though I'm not sure it belongs at all. I would consider a better written copy. Any sentence that begins with "there was controversy..." is not a well written sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude; the text / proposed content seems too trivial, even aside from the issues with the presentation that the two editors above have highlighted, to be due a mention AFAICT. -sche (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - -sche, please see my comment below. SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - The text is a faux right-wing controversy that suggests that she's lying about her origins. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Snooganssnoogans, the text is highly relevant and well-sourced. There is nothing false about it. You just don't like it, which is why you're trying to whitewash it out of the article. SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude, grossly WP:UNDUE, little overall relevance to the subject. This is trivia. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Aquillion, in what way is a residency controversy that makes national news undue or irrelevant? SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Weight has to be judged relative to the amount of coverage the topic gets overall, with an eye towards what controversies are lasting and which are just blips. This one is clearly a blip; it had no long-term impact or legs as a story, so it's not a useful thing to add to her biography. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude – I agree with the editors above about how the comment is written in the article. It is written poorly and is not clear regarding the "controversy" of her Bronx origins. CookieMonster755✉ 21:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include- She made her Bronx roots a centerpiece of her campaign. It should matter where she actually lived.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude This is poorly written. I'd ask if it was a joke but the rfc suggests a serious effort. If you want to stick in a sourced but manufactured controversy then write it better.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Perhaps I should have provided greater context above. AOC ran for Congress from the Bronx, New York. She ran as a "Bronx girl" with working-class roots. However, she actually grew up in suburban Yorktown Heights from age five.(see https://dailyvoice.com/new-york/pelham/politics/love-her-hate-her-bronx-girl-from-westchester-is-rising-political-force/740428/ and https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-07-03/rising-star-democrat-ocasio-cortez-defends-bronx-roots) Her campaign website was (to put it charitably) initially unclear on this point, and was edited after being challenged. Based on 2010 data, Westchester County had the second-highest per capita income in the state. In contrast, the Bronx had the lowest per capita income of New York's 62 counties (see List of New York locations by per capita income). Rusf10 is correct. The distinction between growing up in the Bronx and growing up in suburban Westchester County was by no means a minute, insignificant one in this race. Those editors who are attempting to brush off this proposal as unserious either may not understand New York City politics or may be falling victim to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. SunCrow (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

But, again, most of that is just your opinions and feelings about why this is important. We have to go based on coverage, which has been fairly low relative to the massive amount of coverage about her in general. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2019 (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.

RFC: Sea sponge

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Very strong consensus to exclude. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the following text concerning Sea sponge be included at the end of the first paragraph at Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Environment? SunCrow (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

In May 2019, Ocasio-Cortez contended that her statements were sarcastic and not intended to be taken literally; she added that “you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think” that the comment was literal.

This sentence is a portion of a larger sentence that was objected to because of its sources, and for other reasons. Hopefully, the addition of more reliable sources and the deletion of a controversial clause will render this material non-objectionable. I will revisit the controversial clause once the interminable discussion at [11] ends. SunCrow (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

References

• Exclude I think this RfC shows you completely missed her point. You shouldn't take the "sea sponge" comment literally, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include along with other stuff. This received coverage from several reliable sources, not just the ones listed in the RfC. However in most cases it's quoted alongside the relevant subject matter, namely the "10 people" and "Dwight from the Office" quotes. All are noteworthy, and should be included together. R2 (bleep) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

!Vote switched to exclude. Never mind. This stuff has no lasting significance. WP:NOTNEWS. R2 (bleep) 23:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude; too trivial (with, as Ahrtoodeetoo says, no lasting significance) to be due a mention, AFAICT ("Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events"). -sche (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - We're not a repository for whatever trivial gaffes people have said, and per Muboshgu. This RFC is premature and a complete waste of time of editors attracted here. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - Adds nothing of value. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude, WP:UNDUE. As with the others being discussed, coverage is relatively light and there's no particular indication of what this is being included for; we should avoid turning articles into collections of random quotations. --Aquillion (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude – it does not contribute any useful information to this encyclopedic biography. Guidelines are clear about excluding trivial information. CookieMonster755✉ 21:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The article currently contains content about AOC's assertions that the world will end in 12 years if climate change is not addressed. It seems only fair that the article should mention her walkback of those remarks. If the sea sponge comment is removed, can we agree that the rest of the sentence should be included? SunCrow (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, I don't, no. And I'm not sure what the article currently says about the "12 year" thing, but that should probably be discussed in it's own section, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

– Muboshgu , may I invite you to check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Environment? If you look at the section where my proposed edits would go, you will gain more context. SunCrow (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The amount we have on it is already excessive; I don't think we could really justify adding more. Coverage was fairly brief and has already essentially evaporated. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude and given that no editor, save SunCrow, seems to think inclusion is important, we have a clear consensus for doing so. I would hope we could close this discussion and remove the tag. Activist (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2019 (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.

RFC: Children

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to exclude. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the following text concerning Children be included at Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Environment? SunCrow (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

In February 2019, Ocasio-Cortez said of climate change, “There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?”

This material was removed by another editor and dismissed as a "vague comment [AOC] made during a livestream". SunCrow (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include. This quote was mentioned not just by the cited sources but also by CBS News and Fox News. Definitely noteworthy. R2 (bleep) 23:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude Not every single statement she makes should be added to the article. I don't see any rationale for why we should include this. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude. This is a comment made during a livestream. It's unclear what exactly she's referring to, and there's nothing approximating a political position in there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Think it's clear that's personal belief and is musing how young people digest that. It also gives context and explanation why she thinks climate change is pressing issue, possibly putting our species in danger.Sourcerery (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Also mentioned by Vox . Climate change is probably the number 1 or 2 issue she cares about so its wholly relevant. Dy3o2 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

References

• Exclude Of course right-wing media took the comment illogically out of context and even tried to compare it to Asia’s divergent population problems because it’s their reason to rag on the young Latina girl who they don’t “like” without actually dissecting what was said (many Millennials worry about having kids in a world whose climate is on the brink of destruction and they’ll be swimming to school but anyone with common sense knows this isn’t even in the prime of reasons the birth rate is down), but it’s just not relevant. This wasn’t said on the floor of Congress. Why is every quote worth cluttering this article? Why are there 3 RfCs going at once? Trillfendi (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude, WP:UNDUE. Coverage is relatively light and there's no particular indication of what this is being included for. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude – this is a comment made on a personal Instagram live stream and has no significant contribution to the article. It is not clear that this was a political position or personal belief, and due to the ambiguity, should not be included. CookieMonster755✉ 21:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude The coverage of the AOC gaffe-du-jour is never going to pass the high bar set here for WP:NOTNEWS, WP:IINFO, and WP:UNDUE by the supportive-to-the-subject editor consensus here. patsw (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude per Patsw etc. Not gonna happen. - DoubleCross (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• Include Gives context and depth to her climate change positions and policies, seems important.Sourcerery (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2019

Can two links be added to the lead section please:

• in the second paragraph, Republican Party (United States), piped as "She beat Republican opponent Anthony Pappas...*
• in the third paragraph, Progressivism in the United States, piped as "She advocates for a progressive platform..."

Thanks, 82.132.212.229 (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable.  Done. -sche (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2019

What

At Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Other_issues I suggest to either modify or remove the last sentence on Amazon HQ2. The sentence states

Ocasio-Cortez was unfairly criticized by far-right commentators for not understanding that "New York does not have $3 billion in cash"

Why

As the article states, she proposed to use the $3 billion in the district. The problem is that the $3 billion mainly come from tax-breaks. Moreover, the New York mayor also criticized her https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-fires-back-at-critics-of-her-amazon-opposition-004802491.html https://nypost.com/2019/02/17/de-blasio-says-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-didnt-understand-amazon-deal/

Additionally, the link for the last sentence is to a Washington post article, where you need a subscription, and it seems a bit biased to use the word "far-right", when the New York Mayor himself disagrees with her statement regarding the availability of the money.

How Change from

Ocasio-Cortez was unfairly criticized by far-right commentators for not understanding that "New York does not have $3 billion in cash"

to

Ocasio-Cortez was later criticized for claiming that the $3 billion represented money available in cash. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio remarked that the proposed $3 billion in tax incentives would go into effects "only after we were getting the jobs and getting the revenue".

He is cited in the following article. https://news.yahoo.com/ocasio-cortez-fires-back-at-critics-of-her-amazon-opposition-004802491.html

AToftegaard (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in that citation could be construed as a criticism of AOC by Deblasio. Pendragon0 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Atoftegard wants us to say, in Wikipedia's voice, is that AOC claimed "$3 billion represented money available in cash." What she said was that 3B could be better invested. Later AOC clarified (from article cited above): "$500+ million of the deal was *capital grants. $2.5 billion in tax breaks. It’s fair to ask why we don’t invest the capital for public use, + why we don’t give working people a tax break." The paragraph could use improvement, but the change proposed makes the article worse. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I see HouseOfChange added a big section on the 3 billion dollars thing. I have not made any edits to Wikipedia before but maybe when I have some time in the future I could try to improve this section. My main gripe with the section is the use of "unfairly criticized" follow by "far-right". She was criticized by other people, Joe Scarboroug from MSNBC and Andrew Ross Sorkin from CNBC https://ijr.com/morning-joe-aoc-economics-shocking/ As far as I understand they would not be considered "far-right", but I am not from the US. If we say "unfairly criticized" I think we need to say why this criticism was unfair (taken out of context etc.), instead of just linking to the article of the commentator. The remainder of that sentence just feels wrong for Wikipedia. AToftegaard (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @AToftegaard: that both "far-right" and "unfairly criticized" were inappropriate. My edits were meant to add clarity and accuracy while removing POV. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"3 billion dollars"

The source of the "3 billion dollars" quote is a hallway interview, soon after Amazon pulled out of the deal, which you can see on video thanks to NBC news. In response to a question about 25,000 jobs, she replies, "We were subsidizing those jobs...The city was paying for those jobs." Then she continues (this part transcribed by NBC in the text) "If we’re willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district ourselves if we wanted to. We could hire out more teachers, we can fix our subways. We can put a lot of people to work for that money if we wanted to." From the context, she is talking about 3B in city resources, past and future, tax revenues as well as capital investment -- not claiming the city has 3B cash to play with. Even former Bush-speechwriter Marc Thiessen, whose editorial is linked from the article, did not go further than claiming "Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to realize that New York does not have $3 billion in cash sitting around waiting to be spent on her socialist dreams." AOC herself has clarified, as cited here, "$500+ million of the deal was capital grants. $2.5 billion in tax breaks. It’s fair to ask why we don’t invest the capital for public use, + why we don’t give working people a tax break." I think the article needs to be clearer that AOC did not mistakenly believe what apparently many people now think she literally said. She did not say NYC had 3B in cash, and Wikipedia has no reason to claim she believed that. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The entire thing seems like trivia to me. We don't need to cover every single reaction to or back-and-forth over every single statement she makes, and this one doesn't seem to have gone anywhere or attracted any long-term attention. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019

Add "U.K-based" to "charity for trans children" Hypedtrace (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Hypedtrace:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Reliable News Sources

Dear Snooganssnoogans, C.J. Griffin, and others on this site: Wikipedia recognizes Fox News as a reliable news source, whether you do or not. You can't revert an edit simply because the cite is to Fox News.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Where did Wikipedia declare Fox is generally reliable? This very recent discussion suggests it is spotty at best, with some accurate stories and many misleading spin efforst. Controversy and "scandals" that never get covered by anyone but Fox News can't be very notable anyway. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. SunCrow (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

While you link, let's quote here for the folks who will not click:

Editors show consensus that news reports from Fox News are generally reliable. The 2010 RfC concluded: "Consensus is that while Fox may not always be reliable it is a Reliable Source", and pointed to the WP:NEWSORG guideline. Most editors consider Fox News a partisan news organization, and defer to the respective guidelines for these types of sources. Editors are advised to exercise caution when using Fox News as a source for political topics, and to attribute statements of opinion.

We are basing our declaration of it being reliable on a 2010 RfC and still it carries numerous caveats. Everybody, including Fox viewers and supporters understands it is partisan, meaning biased. Editors are advised to used caution when used for political topics. Almost everything related to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is political. Her personal attributes are under attack for political reasons, not because she has a scandalous background and Fox News is a major perpetrator of those attacks, either in initiating or disseminating them. On this page in particular, we should take that into account. Trackinfo (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I am not sure what you are referring to regarding AOC's "personal attributes" being "under attack", or regarding Fox News being a "major perpetrator" of those attacks. Nevertheless, you are correct that we should use caution and attribute statements of opinion. I believe that my proposed edits (see next section) strike that balance appropriately. What do you think? SunCrow (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Try to persuade me here, what news reporting on AOC has been retracted by Fox News for being incorrect or incomplete? patsw (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Detention facilities

The following material added by JohnTopShelf has been reverted twice, supposedly on the grounds that its source is unreliable:

A group of Hispanic pastors who visited the same facilities also stated that what they had seen at the facilities was very different than what Ms. Ocasio-Cortez reported, and that she was misinforming the public.

Fox News is regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). So that is not the real issue here. Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who is heavily quoted in the article, is a national figure; he "serves as president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, the world's largest Hispanic Christian organization." So I don't see a notability problem, either. Could this be a simple case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

I would recommend that the sentence be reinserted with some changes. The source does not assert that the pastors specifically accused AOC of misinforming the public. I would go with this:

A group of Hispanic pastors who visited the same detention facility found "'no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions and no lack of basic necessities'"; one pastor stated that he was "'shocked at the misinformation'" he had received about the facility from politicians and the media.

SunCrow (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10 has added an additional sentence on this topic:

Former ICE director Tom Homan also accused Ocasio-Cortez of "intentionally misinforming the American public" and suggested that she may have been refering to an "apparatus" that has an attached toilet and sink that use seperate water lines.

SunCrow (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight:

• (1) AOC and other members of Congress (though of course, Fox couldn't care less about them, given their obsession with AOC) highlight decrepit conditions at this facility and bring national attention to it.
• (2) Several days later, a group of pastors tour a different part of said facility and find that kids are not walking around with soiled diapers and lacking necessities.
• (3) Fox runs a story falsely claiming that the pastors attacked AOC and accused her of lying.

This is a perfect example of why Fox News is not a RS, and how they're actively making shit up to smear AOC. And embarrassingly enough, the same editors who edit-warred to insert that fake climate change story into the AOC article are now back here to edit-war more Fox News garbage into this article. Furthermore, at no point does it occur to Fox that these pastors walked through a facility that had been cleaned up after national attention was given to it. Also, the pastors literally say they walked through different parts of the facility than those who provided "negative coverage" of it did - it does not occur to Fox that other parts of the facility had greater problems than the part these pastors visited. Also, who gives a crap what these pastors are saying about the facilities - they literally admit to not going through the same parts of the facility - so why are they being used her to fact-check AOC? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Homan is not knowledgable about the issue in question and is a partisan. His views on the issue, sourced to Fox, do not belong in this article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I am beginning to think we need a Wikipedia policy on temper tantrums if we don't already have one. Snooganssnoogans, aside from your overt and frequently-expressed POV (i.e. hatred and contempt for all things Republican or conservative), is there any basis for your assertion that the Fox story "falsely [claimed] that the pastors attacked AOC and accused her of lying"? That isn't what the Fox story says. Also, any basis for the contention that the facility "had been cleaned up after national attention was given to it"? I mean, it's certainly possible--and it's also possible that AOC overdramatized her reports about the conditions for political reasons, correct? Let's not get into original research or assumptions here. As to your point about the pastors visiting a different part of the facility than AOC visited, I have no objection to that fact being mentioned. SunCrow (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Fox piece clearly indicates that the pastors are directly rebutting AOC's assertions about the facility, when they are not at all. The editors who are edit-warring this trash into the article (JohnTopShelf and Rusf10, who also edit-warred the fake climate change story into this article) interpreted that Fox News story that way, as Fox News intended. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, according to the article, the pastors stated that they were "shocked at the misinformation" they had seen from politicians and in the media. The article does NOT say that the pastors "directly rebutted" AOC, nor does it say that they even mentioned her. SunCrow (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The Fox piece clearly indicates that the pastors are directly rebutting AOC, and that's how it was understood by Rusf10 and the other editor who are edit-warring this smear into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I've added negative things to the AOC article,[12][13] despite your suggestion that I approach Wikipedia with nothing but "hatred and contempt for all things Republican or conservative" (i.e. sticking to what reliable sources say and doing things, like I don't know, describing the scientific consensus on climate change accurately). However, unlike the content that you try to add to this article, my additions are strongly sourced and due. I don't sift through trash and add blatantly false smears to her bio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, settle down and take a breath. I strongly disagree with the way you edit the encyclopedia, but I don't want you to get too overheated and stroke out or something. SunCrow (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Tom Homan is a former ICE director. He's not knowledgeable about ICE detention facilities? Prove it. SunCrow (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is strange that numerous current government officials can't seem to be able to state what is going on inside these facilities, or even what facilities are being used, but a former official can categorically know everything going on now.Trackinfo (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not persuasive. SunCrow (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I have again removed the info re the visit by pastors. If this is something that we need to put in her bio we must wait for wider news coverage per WP guidelines. Gandydancer (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I respect your position (so long as it is applied consistently). However, if wider coverage becomes available, I fear that others will insist on excluding this material anyway. SunCrow (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

He's a partisan who supports hardline immigration policies, including the separation of children from their parents (a policy known to inflict physical and mental harm on children), and who now earns a life spewing bile on Fox defending the Trump administration's policies. He has zero direct knowledge of what goes on at that specific facility, but of course does not hesitate to offer his uninformed speculation and Fox does not hesitate to run with it as an authoritative assertion. And least surprising of all, the same editors who tried to insert fake climate change content into this article now also try to insert this nonsense into the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That was the Wikipedia equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I"? SunCrow (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a bio of AOC, not a battleground to fight over detention center point and counterpoint. The pastor's own observations are 100% not applicable to this article, in my opinion. Look, Samuel Rodriguez has his own article right there. Perhaps interested parties can go flesh out his opinions there. Zaathras (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We could listen to hardline anti-immigration partisan political appointees like Tom Homan, or we could listen to the DHS Inspector General which just called the camps dangerous and a "ticking time bomb." I wonder who is more credible? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is completely ridiculous. @Snooganssnoogans:, you have made it beyond clear what your personal opinion of Fox News is. Nobody cares. We don't choose sources based on whether you like them or not. Sure you could go to WP:RSN and start the 1000th "ban Fox News" thread if you want, but otherwise you're going to have to accept that the community has decided multiple times that Fox News is reliable. The attacks on Tom Homan are uncalled for. He was the former ICE director, therefore I'm sure he knows what goes on in ICE facilities. You cannot assert without proof that he is not knowledgeable. And you also called him partisan, presumably because of the fact he served under President Trump. The pastor, Samuel Rodriguez is highly respected and has worked with both presidents Obama and Trump. He actually calls out both Republicans and Democrats in the story for failing to address immigration. He is quoted in the article as saying "I saw something drastically different from the stories I’ve been hearing in our national discourse." Whether he directly called out AOC isn't the point. The point is he toured the same facility (even if he toured different parts, which I have no objection to being mentioned) and didn't see the same problems. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Of course the fact that he didn't mention AOC is the point. What you're doing is called WP:SYNTH and it's not allowed. What Rodriguez said and saw is certainly relevant for his biography, or another article about the camps in general. But this biography of AOC isn't the place for a back-and-forth argument about the camps, which is what you're trying to create. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10, you are right.

NorthBySouthBaranof, let me make sure I understand your position: If a BLP discusses a living person's public statements on an issue, and there are reliably sourced statements from other persons that draw those statements into question, it is WP:SYNTH to include the statements from the other parties in the BLP. Do I have that right? SunCrow (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Unless those statements directly address the subject of the BLP, yes. Again, this article isn't a place to hash and rehash general arguments about the camps. The place for that would be... an article about the camps? If there is a quote from someone who says "AOC is wrong because XYZ," then that's an opinion which could be included in AOC's biography if we deem it relevant. But if all you have is someone generally saying "Here's my opinion about the camps," well... why is that person's opinion relevant to AOC's biography? Lots of people have lots of opinions, they don't all belong in a politician's biography. We wouldn't insert a random quote from someone saying "Illegal immigration is great!" into the biography of Donald Trump, even though that opinion clearly disagrees with Trump's.

Thus, as nowhere in the cited FOX News article do the pastors so much as say AOC's name, we can't use it here. If there's a general article about the camps, it could certainly include Rodriguez's opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

As for Homan's opinion which directly addresses AOC, it could be included if there is a consensus that it is relevant; of course, we would need to make clear the source of the opinion (a former Trump political appointee known for his hardline views on immigration) and we would need to balance it with opposing opinions supportive of AOC, based on their prevalence in reliable sources. We couldn't just put a bunch of people slagging AOC and not note that others have differing opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(restart indents) As per WP:BALASP, recent statements by Trump supporters that AOC is wrong don't belong in her bio unless one or more of those statements attracts widespread attention. The US Inspector General's Office, whose officials visited multiple detention camps, strongly confirms the report of squalid conditions. (The photos in the official IG report are also interesting.) But this is an article about AOC, and per Wikipedia policy, items included should be clearly relevant to her biography. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Let me understand the editorial policy regarding the AOC article. 1) If AOC makes any statement, it can be included here because this article is about AOC. 2) If anyone makes a statement supporting AOC's position, that is OK and can be included here as long as they mention AOC or mention whatever AOC was talking about or generally agree with her or otherwise make a statement that most editors here agree with. 3) A statement criticizing AOC's statements or positions must be by a person who specifically states her name or it cannot be included here. 4) Even if a statement criticizing AOC's statements or positions includes her name, it cannot be included here if it includes a cite to Fox News because Snooganssnoogans (talk) doesn't like Fox News, and the edit can be removed with no justification other than Fox News was cited. Do I have the policy about right?-JohnTopShelf (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

You added the opinion of a former Trump political appointee and Fox News contributor who is, according to reliable sources, "known for his enthusiasm for the president’s attempts to impose harsher border measures" without disclosing those facts, and then removed those facts when I added them.

You also added several partisan opinion sources which, in effect, called the article subject a liar, and then have the temerity to complain when I add other sources which corroborate the article subject's views and statements and present the opposing point of view (that she's not a liar). Sorry, but that's not really a good-faith effort at compromise and consensus, is it? You don't get to put in a bunch of people saying "AOC's lying!!!!!!" without presenting the other side of the argument. That is not how this works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

What I did was to re-insert language from another editor's previous edit, that had been removed without cause simply because it cited to Fox News. I later removed superfluous opinion language about Homan's supposed enthusiasm for harsh treatment of migrants. Of course, my edits were reverted. So what we have left in the article is just what the "no criticism of AOC policy" mandates - AOC's statement about horrifying conditions (without a citation), supporting statements, and no statements at all refuting or even critical of AOC's statements.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, did you see the new Inspector General report on Border Patrol Facilities? [14] [15] It obviously proved AOC was lying, to back up your claim. Oh, I'm sorry. It says the opposite. Essentially government officials have been lying to us for a week and probably longer about this specific issue. You bought into the lies and repeatedly tried to place it into an unrelated BLP in order to discredit AOC. Do you feel proud to do that? Trackinfo (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not "superfluous opinion language" to clearly state the political affiliation and relevant viewpoint of someone whose uncorroborated personal opinion you insist on including in this article. You disingenuously include his former job in an apparent attempt to establish his "credibility" while intentionally removing factual statements about who appointed him to that job and why. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Let's focus on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez' statements about the conditions of the detention facilities. She stated that conditions are "horrifying". Yet there are contrary statements from a highly respected pastor who toured the same facilities, cited to a reliable source. The pastor's statements should be included as well.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not include - for the simple reason that the pastors didn't tour at the same time as Ocasio-Cortez. [16] The situation could have changed in the meantime. The information can however be included in his own article, and articles on immigration. starship.paint (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuit

AOC is reportedly being sued for blocking Joseph Saladino and Dov Hikind on Twitter. I was going to add this but figured I'd mention it here first since there's no specific section this would fit into. Source Terrorist96 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Has WaPo disabled free reading completely? I get a "try for a $" offer I can't click away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

First WaPo paragraph is "Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is facing two federal lawsuits for blocking Twitter users who were critical of her or her policies. Republican congressional candidate Joseph Saladino and former New York assemblyman Dov Hikind sued the freshman congresswoman Tuesday, shortly after a New York appellate court upheld an earlier decision affirming that President Trump violated the First Amendment for doing the same." I don't see anything on a response by AOC. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Ocasio-Cortez declined to comment on pending litigation." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, managed to read it. Considering WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION, What text would you add? I note it's in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Easier to read: [17][18][19][20]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I would just note the existence of the lawsuit.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

DSA "has a long-term goal of ending capitalism."

The editor JohnTopShelf continues to edit-war text into the article that states DSA "has a long-term goal of ending capitalism." The cited source does not substantiate this at all. Furthermore, this has already been pointed out to this user. Additionally, this user now has a record of adding false and unsubstantiated text to this article.[21] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If I may record a passing observation, this user (JohnTopshelf) is very carefully skirting the one-revert per 24 hours rule.

12:11, 10 July 2019‎ (number 1) 12:24, 11 July 2019 (number two) 12:35, 12 July 2019 (number three)

violating the spirit if not the letter of the restriction. Also the second part mandates discussion of a reversion, which this person has not done on the 10th, 11th, or 12th either. Pendragon0 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I dont know about that exact wording or even if it should be in this article. But I will say it looks like the source is making that claim. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people.[22] Certainly reads like their long term goal is ending capitalism. PackMecEng (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, that does not read like the long term goal is ending capitalism. This is not difficult. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hell look at the Democratic Socialists of America#Policy and ideology it is long standing content on that article. I mean yes it spells it out directly. Also consider they are a socialist organization, why would they not want to replace capitalism with socialism? PackMecEng (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear PackMecEng (talk), Snooganssnoogans (talk) just cannot accept the fact that the Democratic Socialists of America, on their own web site, state that their long term goal is ending capitalism and replacing it with socialism. The Wikipedia article on the organization states the same thing. This is not "false and unsubstantiated text", but rather a substantiated fact. The real problem is that Snooganssnoogans simply reverts any edits to this and other articles that include content he does not like, regardless of whether the information in the edit is factual or properly cited to a reliable source. Further, Pendragon0 (talk) accuses me of "skirting" a rule and "violating the spirit" of a rule - in other words admitting I complied with the rule.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)