Jump to content

Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sir Joseph (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 15 September 2023 (→If these sources are reliable, she's married.: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Image Okay?

Is the image with the description "Ocasio-Cortez with Kerri Evelyn Harris" okay for everyone else? On my screen, the image appears bugged. Everything else appears fine. I have uploaded what I see on my screen here. Cable10291 (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cable10291, it looks fine to me. You could try a WP:BYPASS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make AOC point here

There is a proposal to move AOC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to AOC (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) so that AOC can redirect here as 90% of readers click-through to this article from the current AOC dab-page. If you'd like to weigh in, there's a very short time left here: Talk:AOC#Requested_move_10_December_2022. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note: The discussion was closed with the move being performed, the discussion is now archived here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any criticism?

So we can’t add the ethics issue? Do editors understand how biased this looks. Tentemp (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until actual details are released, there's really nothing to report. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2023

I want to request the addition of adding the topic of how AOC is a symbol of the battle against misogyny and sexism in the work force in America. She has battled the traditional, and sexist views of many of her older, male peers in Congress boldly and has taken a stance to not only help the world become a better place, but also help young women realize that they deserve to be treated with respect.

Source: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/25/21337375/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-speech-misogyny-sexism-congress Saisathish912 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also see WP:NPOV Cannolis (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Foundation / LOTT complaint

Another editor reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&curid=54885332&diff=1147966463&oldid=1147962350&diffmode=source this change claiming non-notability. This is in contrast to multiple WP:RS reporting on the story and gaining national coverage. Reverting editor may have also violated WP:BRD guidelines, specifically An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version., leading us here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like The Independent and The Advocate are covering the interaction and are incidentally mentioning the ethics complaint. If we're going to have content on this (not sold), we should keep that framing. I'd be more likely to support a short mention in §LGBTQ equality than a long one in §Other issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of WP:DUE I could rewrite the prose to include the counter-arguments to the claims Raichek is alleging. However, I'd want to wait until there is clear consensus to include it in the first place. Perhaps we could wait for additional coverage, such as Ocasio-Cortez's office responding? Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of this matter in relation to the overall notability of the topic lacks significance. AOC is a frequent target of right-wing media and little if any of their complaints receive wider media attention. If you read through the archived discussions, there have been many of these incidents: AOC's foot in the bathtub, AOC dancing on the roof, etc. TFD (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited meet WP:RS. Is there something in particular about them that you're concerned with? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interaction between AOC and Raichek is WP:UNDUE for this biography. So is the complaint, unless it goes anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, what makes this particular interaction and complaint unsuitable for inclusion compared to the Jan 6th committee issuing a complaint against McCarthy (which hasn't gone anywhere, yet)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_McCarthy#cite_ref-125.
Even the mention of the subpeona was introduced to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_McCarthy&oldid=1126635823#cite_note-114 long before he decided to ignore it. I'm sure there are other examples of this type of coverage making it onto members of congress BLPs. These are all notable events that gain national coverage from WP:RS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the talk page for AOC's article, not Kevin McCarthy's article. Discussion of content on Kevin McCarthy's article belongs at that talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a sec I just clicked over to McCarthy and you are trying to compare McCarthy getting subpoenaed by a Congressional committee to an outside complaint? Apples and oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two events, one is the subpoena, the other is the ethics complaint for failing to show up. Both could be argued as WP:UNDUE, but what do I know? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Significance is needed based on the events themselves and the depth of coverage. AOC/Libs of TikTok doesn't demonstrate either. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an issue with the particular sources I used, specifically, which ones fail to show significance or depth? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is not the sole criterion for inclusion and no one questions there are rs that the Heritage Foundation has made this complaint. The issue is WP:DUE. Is this information significant enough about the topic in proportion to the body of reliable sources that have written about her? The fact is that a complaint by a thinktank that has received little media attention is UNDUE. A complaint by the Heritage Foundation about a progressive politician is like a story about an airplane that didn't crash. It lacks significance. TFD (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources have covered this? I tend to think it should stay out unless more becomes of it. I do suspect if the facts were reversed (left leaning person doing this to a right wing candidate) it might get more political coverage and people would suggest it's white washing to leave it out. However, when we zoom out and give it some time, I don't see complaints meaning much unless something becomes of them after the complaint is filed. With stuff like this we should err on the side of exclusion. Springee (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that are unlikely to get 86'd at RS/N:
(*may not be reliable, but should be considered in light of the other WP:RS in this list.)
There are several other sources which probably aren't suitable to bring up here, but they did publish stories about this. Hope this helps. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For someone of AOC's notability, I would expect to see coverage in all the network news channels and leading U.S. broadsheet newspapers before considering whether it had any significance. What can we say anyway? AOC accuses a right-wing activist of spreading incorrect information, Politifact confirms it's incorrect and the woman complains that she was defamed. The Wikipedia article says, "Libs of TikTok is a far-right and anti-LGBT Twitter account owned by Chaya Raichik." There's nothing AOC said that has already been reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you honestly say that everything in AOC's BLP is as well-sourced as this incident? I very much doubt it, but I'm not going to take the time to look, honestly. I will defer to the community. and stop responding here because I've already made my arguments. Cheers. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, and other editors have made similar comments, the issue is not WP:RS, it's WP:DUE. If we put everything about AOC that was reliably sourced, the article would be thousands of pages long. We therefore have to decide what is significant for inclusion and we do that by the extent of coverage in reliable sources relative to other aspects of the topic. TFD (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing WP:RS in my last response. I was pontificating on whether or not there is information in this BLP that isn't as widely covered as this incident (slash) complaint. I'm guessing there is, but I'm not going to bother figuring that out, so I'm just asking for some intellectual honesty from other editors. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF about other editors, rather than questioning our intellectual honesty. If a left-wing think tank filed an ethics complaint against, say, Jim Jordan, I would oppose adding anything about it unless there was a noteworthy result. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My intent was not to insult anyone, so I'll agree to stay on topic. So what is this dispute about? Whether there are enough sources to include the material or the material itself is controversial (or both)? If that's the case, what's the threshold for inclusion, and are we being consistent? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a combination of breadth/depth of sources and significance, considering WP:LASTING. If we included everything that was verified by sources, this article would be excessively bloated. An ethics complaint that goes nowhere isn't passing the WP:10YT, while one that has repercussions could. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING notes that, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Also, WP:10YT is more directed at full articles, but even the parts which could apply here seem to suggest that rewrites in the future are a valid approach. I'm sorry, but adequate sourcing exists and the policy you just cited seems to suggest that we should include this event and remove it later if there seems to be consensus for it's exclusion. I'm still interested in hearing what you and other editors have to say though. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree WP:LASTING is the wrong policy because it applies to whether or not articles should be created not what their content should be. However, Balancing aspects says, "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."
While we may not know the lasting impact of this story, people aren't glued to CNN to see what happens next.
Of course most articles have material that is UNDUE and the solution is to remove it, not add more UNDUE material. In fact it is inevitable for people in the news. TFD (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Poverty

Is anyone actually pro-poverty? It might be worthwhile to remove the "anti" in the subheader, given that the topic under consideration is poverty and being in favor of poverty is not a position that anyone seems to assume outright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.40.199 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me, none of the other headings are used to define a position either, just stating the topic. - Odin (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's a person out there who would be described as "pro-poverty", no. But there are certainly politicians, e.g. the bulk of the Republican Party, that are indifferent to the plight of impoverished Americans. So yes, "anti-poverty" is a valid political stance to note here. Zaathras (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read the proposed change here as making any change to the text under the "Anti-poverty" sub-header, I would agree that's relevant info and of course is a valid political position. But when other section sub-headers read "Banking", "Labor rights", and "Tax policy", it seems like these are describing policy areas, and the text describes the position that AOC has taken. However, "Anti-Poverty" to me describes a position, while "Poverty" describes a policy area. - Odin (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ideologically one may be antipoverty and declare him/herself as such, while at the same time some people may argue others are (ideologically) pro-poverty, but doubtfully these may recognize themselves as such. Bedivere (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:RS describe her as "anti-poverty" then we should use that. We aren't suppose to dictate what politicians are for or against, just what the reliable sources say, otherwise we breach WP:OR. Eruditess (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OR, original research is material "for which no reliable, published source exists". So, changing the section heading to "Poverty" is not original research. We would only be making the heading consistent with the other headings like "Banking" or "Tax Policy". JonSnow64 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"AoC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect AoC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 13 § AoC until a consensus is reached. Randi Moth TalkContribs 19:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defense spending edit

@AlsoWukai: you had removed a part of the Defense spending section of this article in a recent edit citing neutrality. The part you removed had reliable sources and was phrased in a neutral manner. More importantly, it was about what Ocasio-Cortez had said herself, so what was the reason behind the removal? JonSnow64 (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are opinion and analysis, hence not relaible sources for facts, per WP:NEWSORG. In order to support the inclusion of these opinions, you would have to show that her comments had received attention in reliable sources, per WP:BALASPS.
In this case, we don't know if AOC meant her comments to be taken literally or rhetorically. The fact it was in a tweet rather than a policy paper would tend to indicate it was meant rhetorically. She could have meant for example that the cost of universal health care was small in terms of what Congress considered material. Had her comments received major news coverage, we no doubt would have received a response from her and various interpretations of what she said. We could then apply weight to determine which response enjoyed greater support. TFD (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. Thanks. JonSnow64 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If these sources are reliable, she's married.

Note the use of the word "spouse" in each case:

https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/gtimages/MT/2023/500026961.pdf

https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/gtimages/MT/2023/500025932.pdf

https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2022/10052480.pdf

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the issues with interpreting primary documents, you would have to demonstrate that "Spouse" is explicitly used for married people and not for common law or other dating partners. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPRIMARY may apply here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term spouse is often used for couples who are not married. TFD (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except the House Ethics form clearly direct when to use spouse. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&oldid=1175428964"