Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Add twitch streamer.

Come on guys Dpasten (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 00:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez heritage

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has made the claim of having Jewish ancestry. I think this odd statement is significant as she expressed many time her interest in antisemitsm.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/nyregion/ocasio-cortez-jewish.amp.html New York Times]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/12/10/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-reveals-jewish-ancestry-hanukkah-celebration/%3foutputType=amp washingtonpost]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna946041 NBC news]

One of the things that we discovered about ourselves is that a very, very long time ago, generations and generations ago, my family consisted of Sephardic Jews,” --Vanlister (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean that she has expressed interest in anti-Semitism. In any case the article already refers to her Sephardic Jewish ancestry. Such ancestry is fairly common among Hispanics because many Spanish Jews converted to Christianity and assimilated. TFD (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Spanish name

@Jjj1238 and MelanieN: Hi, I recently came across the February 2019 discussion on whether AOC's name uses Spanish naming customs. AOC herself has attributed her surname "Ocasio-Cortez" to "Latinx culture"; see her tweet on this. Several news articles have also discussed this issue: see NBC News, DiversityInc. If AOC herself describes her surname as Latine, I believe that using {{Spanish name}} on this article is accurate. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 07:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. That heading is usually added when the person uses the two surnames without a hyphen, or uses the second name rather than the third for everyday use - to explain why a person named Gabriel García Márquez might use "García Márquez" as their last name, or a person named "Vicente Fox Quesada" might choose to be known as Vicente Fox. Presumably she is hyphenating her last name so that everybody will know exactly what she wants her name to be; if she wanted it to be "Ocasio Cortez" lots of people would get it wrong. In any case, I think she is using a variant of Spanish naming customs and the heading is appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Two debates with Crowley before 2018 primary, not one

Hi! I have no wiki expierence and have to get right back to work; but just noticed what seems to be a (slight) error in the section about the 2018 primaries. I have the sources currently open in tabs, didn't want to let that go to waste and hope if I leave them and this message here, somebody who actually knows what they are doing might find and like to work it in.

The section "2018 campaign" states:

"On June 15, the candidates' only face-to-face encounter during the campaign occurred on a local political talk show, Inside City Hall. The format was a joint interview conducted by Errol Louis, which NY1 characterized as a debate."

According to the following articles, there was a second encounter between the two on June 21, 2018, in a place called "Jewish Center Jackson Heights". This seems to be the debate that was shown (well, excerpts of it) in the Netflix-Doku "Knock down the house"; which looks distinctly different from the NY1-interview/debate; and where Crowley tried to publicly tie AOC to Hiram Monserrate (didn't go down well for him, IMHO...)

"Knock down the house", timestamped to start at the debate:

Article containing quotes from that scene:

2003:E3:C736:6A48:A05A:5E41:92D0:7F23 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Verbal Assault

Under the main page is a paragraph titled "Verbal assault". This is labeled incorrectly as there is no actual offense in law called Verbal Assault. There can be no assault that occurs from the use of words. These incidents can be untoward, impolite, ignorant or rude. However there is no actual thing as a Verbal Assault. It is an improper socially constructed idiom created by conflating the act of speaking with a physical act of assault. Even though it has become a phrase in common use and even has some dictionary references it actually has no legal meaning. It is often used by persons when confronted by a strong difference of opinion of which they disagree but would rather not debate. It is ironic that in many cases, as with this one, females who otherwise consider themselves strong independent equals to their male peers. Will take up this mantle of victimization that they would not if the other party was a female. An accusation almost never leveled between two males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.119.101.98 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

AOC's disputes with Jewish groups

Hello, everybody. I recently had an edit of mine reverted. The argument against this edit was that it was "POV pushing" and "non-neutral". However, I argue against these points because all I'm doing is summarizing reputable sources and citing them. The edit is below:

Throughout her tenure, Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly refused to meet with Jewish community leaders in her state, and ignored a request to comment by Jewish Insider . In November 2020, the National Catholic Reporter repeatedly contacted Ocasio-Cortez's office for clarification after she invoked a narrative used for centuries to justify persecution of Jews, but she declined to comment .

The Israeli Holocaust museum condemned Ocasio-Cortez when she compared US migrant detention faculities to Nazi concentration camps. She refused to apologize. .

In 2019, Ocasio-Cortez's House friend and co-member of the squad Ilhan Omar made comments widely condemned by Jewish groups as anti-Semitic . Jewish organizations called for a House resolution condemning Omar , but Ocasio-Cortex successfully lead an effort to alter the resolution so it wouldn't specifically condemn her colleague .

Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

If reputable mainstream sources cover this issue (which seems like a personal affront where there is none) then I would understand its inclusion, until now we'd have to count it as gossip. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit was not neutral. It's selective content, all negative, put together in the style of a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. What do you mean by "Jewish equality", anyway? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Insider source makes it clear that she does meet regularly with Jewish groups on the left. The stuff about Ilhan Omar does not belong in this biography. The whole thing comes off as a non-neutral attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Just as examples: "Refused" and "ignored" are value-judgment-laden words that inherently reflect a non-WP:NPOV. Let's say my next-door neighbor calls out to me from his driveway as I'm dashing to my car to go to work, and I tell him, "Sorry, Don! I'm almost late for work!" and get in my car and drive away. One could characterize that as "Julietdeltalima refused to talk to her pleasant elderly neighbor Don," which is the tone that your addition reflects—what a jerk Julietdeltalima obviously is! Or, one could more neutrally, but perfectly accurately, say, "Julietdeltalima told Don she was almost late for work and drove away without further comment." The first version indicates that the writer was trying to portray my not talking to Don as a deliberate, calculated snub. Without knowing the state of mind of the purported "refuser," it's not appropriate to use that loaded word. All of this content appears very strongly to reflect value judgments in the mind of the writer; every verb choice and adjective reflects a desire to criticize.

Also: never use contractions in encyclopedia articles or any other formal writing. It's fine on talk pages but overly colloquial in article space. See MOS:CONTRACTION. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Agree with your point about how "refused" can be improperly used. I used it in that case because she declined repeated requests for comment from a news organization. That said, how would we feel about using "declined" instead of "refused"? I agree about contractions. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(I fixed your indentation; you always want to use one more indentation mark than the prior commenter so folks can parse who's "speaking.") Did she literally decline or just not make any acknowledgement at all? Those are two different things. To invoke another of my neighbors in an example: I'm leisurely going to my car on a weekend afternoon and my neighbor Carlos is in his front yard trimming his palm tree (which, if you haven't had the pleasure, is like giving a pedicure to an agitated bobcat), and I wave in his general direction and say, "Howdy, Carlos!" and he doesn't even turn his head in my direction. "Carlos declined to talk to JDL" implies that Carlos shut off his tree trimmer and said, "I can't talk to you right now; I'm in mortal peril." "Carlos did not respond" is the more accurate depiction of what happened. Not returning a phone call isn't "declining" to return the phone call; it's just not returning the phone call unless and until your press person issues a statement that says, "Pretzel butterfly does not have any comment on these issues."

This stuff is hard to recognize at first! There are times and places for advocacy in writing; lawyers, for example, choose (or should be choosing, if they're competent) every word to maximize the benefit (in however tiny an increment) to their clients. The thing about an encyclopedia is that this isn't the time or place for advocacy: the "client", if you will, is objectivity. "Prime Minister Ardern has yet to comment" and "Prime Minister Ardern has not commented" might actually look to many people as utterly synonymous, but they're not. The first version implies that she had a duty to comment and hasn't gotten around to it yet; the second version simply says that she hasn't commented. We need to be aiming for the second version unless we have a reliable source to support the premise of the first. It's hard! But having this mindset will help you in ways going far beyond Wikipedia! Take care - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC) (Oh, and I thought the "shouldn't" was yours. If not, my apologies.)

We would need to show that these claims have received substantial coverage before including them, per weight. In that case we would expect that she would reply. She might say for example that she meets with progressive Jewish groups but not conservative ones. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to tell people stuff that they won't find out from reading major news sources, but are supposed to summarize what they say.

What Ilhan Omar says is irrelevant to the article.

The narrative AOC used was the story of the money changers in the temple in the New Testament, which is read by Christians, including Catholics. I have not seen any other source call it anti-Semitic, although I see how it could be interpreted that way, as have many of the events in the New Testament. I note that Joey and Toby Tanenbaum, who are widely respected in the Jewish community,[1] donated the painting "The Expulsion of the Money-Changers" to the Art Gallery of Ontario.[2]

TFD (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is helpful! Agreed that what Omar says is irrelvant. The passage about the House resolution was meant to highlight not what Omar said, but AOC's opposition to the Congressional resolution, which did get a lot of attention in mainstream sources. Were we to add more references for that passage, would that satisfy concerns? If so, what types of references would we need (ie. would a reference from the New York Times or similar be sufficient?) Pretzel butterfly (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal piece by Micha Danzig is an advocacy opinion piece by an attorney/activist, not by a professional journalist reporting the news. Sources like this are unacceptable for contentious material in a biography of a living person. As for opposition to a resolution, it is as unsurprising that a progressive would oppose a conservative resolution as that a conservative would oppose a progressive resolution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm really sorry! I think we still have a misunderstanding which is my fault, I should have explained better. The resolution was put forth by other Democrats. Does that change your perspective? I hear you loud and clear on the Danzig source, and agree. We add in some mainstream news sources as substitutes. For example, here's one from the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The party affiliation of the various members of Congress involved in this is of no interest to me. What I care about is that the highest quality reliable sources are used, and that your writing neutrally summarizes the sources, without any slanting or advocacy, Pretzel butterfly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Danzig says that Harris, Sanders and Warren also defended AOC. Pelosi defended the wording of the revised resolution, which the Democrats and most Republicans supported. It's misleading to single out what AOC did. You should familiarize yourself with rules for contributing to articles by following the links I posted to your page. If you want to contribute to biographies of living persons, you should not begin by looking for bad things said about them and putting them into articles but review what mainstream sources say about them and summarize the information. TFD (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello again! Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment! Yes, totally agree that Sanders, Harris, and Warren supported the revised wording. Good point. We're definitely in agreement that a number of people supported the change. That said and agreed on, I reread but think the references make clear that AOC initiated the effort which others later joined - would you agree, and if so, would that change your point of view? Check out the last paragraph of the Danzig reference. The NYT reference gives further support for this. I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia's policies but if there is any policy in particular that you think I may have forgotten about, let me know and I'd be happy to refresh! Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Once the full context of AOC's actions are explained, as in the NYT article, it loses the bite it had in right-wing editorials and hence becomes unimportant. Notice too that the article is about Omar, not AOC. We would like to see articles about AOC discussing her actions. Again, it looks like you have found something you think should be in the article and are searching for reliable sources to add it. What you should do is ensure that the article accurately and concisely summarizes the body of articles written about AOC in reliable sources. I would point out that there are liberal editors who mine for smears against conservative politicians, but that's not the way articles should be developed. TFD (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again very much for your feedback! Most definitely agree that we should be summarizing sources only. And definitely agree we should be looking for the mainstream news sources and not editorials as I initially suggested since we aspire to neutrality. However, I think you might be misjudging my intent (understandable, since you don't know me very well yet!) The sequence of events was that I saw articles like these, and then thought that the events narrated therein were notable and merited inclusion, just as other events and actions involving AOC were reported in both mainstream media and in the present article. I thought that the article did indeed report that AOC was a leader in this effort, check out the below quote and see if you agree. Note that I'm not making the case that what AOC did was improper (which would be POV pushing), just that Jewish organizations believe it to be so. The overall narrative of this passage is reporting how she is clashing with these groups, just as other parts of the article reports she is clashing with other interest groups.

“ On the other side are younger members like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, and liberal groups like Justice Democrats and IfNotNow, a movement of young Jews dedicated to ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. They accuse Democratic leaders of singling out a woman of color while letting slide comments from Republicans that they deem racist, anti-Semitic or bigoted, including many from President Trump. “One of the things that is hurtful about the extent to which reprimand is sought of Ilhan is that no one seeks this level of reprimand when members make statements about Latinx + other communities,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter, mentioning a Republican House member who shouted, “Go back to Puerto Rico” on the House floor. ”

Pretzel butterfly (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You wrote, "I saw articles like these, and then thought that the events narrated therein were notable and merited inclusion." But where you saw these articles was in minor or unreliable sources, and some of them were editorials, or mentioned AOC in passing. You are going about this backwards. A google news search shows almost 2 million articles that mention AOC. As editors, we have to determine the most important points based on weight. Our personal judgment that something is important and readers need to know about it isn't a valid reason for inclusion. Here is the relevant section of the policy:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

TFD (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jewish groups is a bit misleading given they are Zionist groups and should be called as such.PailSimon (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for clarifying, this is helpful! PailSimon, I totally agree that that if we were discussing Zionist groups, than that would go in a different heading. Check out the article for Anti-Defamation League - that article currently classifies it as a Jewish group and I think justifies it as such. TFD, I agree with you too that we need to make sure we only include notable information. What are your concerns about the notability of the resolution controversy? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The term in Wikipedia is noteworthy not notable. Noteworthiness is determined entirely by weight, which depends on the relative degree of coverage in mainstream sources. Mainstream sources may provide excessive coverage to unimportant aspects of a person's life and they may also give minimal coverage to important aspects of a person's life. It is not the role of editors to correct that.

Again, you are going about editing the wrong way around. Instead of reading something somewhere and adding it to the article, you should research the body of literature about AOC and determine what the most widely reported points are and ensure that the article includes them and excludes the points that they ignore. And when you do that, ignore articles in obscure publications and opinion pieces. If everyone did that, we wouldn't be having these lengthy discussions on talk pages.

TFD (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The ADL is a Zionist group as well. All the organisations here are Zionist and saying that AOC has "repeatedly refused to meet Jewish groups" is misleading given that I'm sure if a non-zionist Jewish grouping like Jewish Voice for Peace were to ask to meet with ere she would (maybe she already has). PailSimon (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Zionist can mean anything from belief that Israel has a right to exist to far right Israeli nationalism as in the Jewish Defense League. It was anyway the ADL CEO, not the ADL itself, that made the criticism. The problem is that his comments had limited coverage and AOC did not reply. If major media had covered it she would have replied, experts would have weighed in and we could report the incident in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your proposal to first research in significant depth all facets about this person and then trying to contribute in all relevant ways. I like this suggestion in some ways actually, it's analogous to how in academia people are required to get a broad background before they have the credentials to make narrower contributions. I don't think this is currently Wikipedia policy, I'm seeing a lot of examples of people making smaller contributions to articles based on their available knowledge.

I concede your point about editorials. I won't use editorials as references in the future. Your argument is accepted! Also definitely agree that even though AOC is notable, not everything that we could say about her is noteworthy enough to belong in the article. We wouldn't comment on her corrective lens prescription, whether her car has one of those pine tree air fresheners, or whether she prefers Coke or Pepsi. Regarding the noteworthiness of the House resolution controversy, at the time it was headline news, and the headline of the New York Times article clearly refers to AOC ("Generational Fight"). That would seem to satisfy the criteria, no? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It didn't receive on-going media attention. It made the news 5 March 2019 and was quickly forgotten. The articles were mostly about Omar and the resolution, not AOC. AOC's support of the revised resolution was probably considered unimportant by mainstream media because all Democrats and the vast majority of Republicans voted in favor. A BBC article on the squad published several months after the resolution fails to mention the resolution at all, although it mentions allegations of anti-Semitism against Omar. Note that policy says weight "is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

Again, we don't develop articles by adding information we find important but by reflecting the body of information in reliable sources according to its weight.

TFD (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood, thank you again. Everything you're saying is very reasonable, but since I don't know you very well yet, I'm most interested in Wikipedia's policies even if they are narrower than your personal preferences. For due weight, that should be WP:DUE, right? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. And the relevant section for reporting facts is "Balancing aspects." The selection of which facts to report or omit, or to emphasize or minimize, greatly affect the overall presentation of individuals and events. That's why a policy is necessary. There are of course different possible policies for due weight that attempt to correct the perceived bias of mainstream media and scholarship, for example Conservapedia.

BTW last year a story about a foot that was falsely claimed to belong to AOC was reported in The Independent, Vice, The Guardian, The New York Post, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Scottish Sun and other sources. It's not in this article, although it received more attention than her defense of Omar. A lot of stuff gets published and quickly forgotten.

TFD (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is helpful! So it looks like we're mostly on the same page - we agree that this material should only be included if it is noteworthy. Note that the policy does not give any explicit criteria for what is noteworthy, although it does say some caution is needed with items in the news to make sure that they have enduring importance - as you relayed. I agree with you that we should try to frame that discussion as objectively and impartially as possible.

Let's discuss two possible inclusion criteria you mentioned, neither of which are in policy, but both of which are well thought-out and worth considering! One proposal is to use whether the BBC profile you mentioned (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48994931) refers to content as a litmus test as inclusion. But the article has a lot of content that isn't included in that profile. We also discussed using as a litmus test whether the events are discussed by media long after - here's an example: https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/06/21/cancel-culture-should-include-antisemitism-as-well-as-racism/. Again, while I believe they are met, neither of these criteria are part of policy.

I'll put forth an additional argument for why this material is noteworthy. First, I argue that antisemitism in the US is noteworthy because hate crimes per capita against American Jews are more than for any other group . Second, I argue that politicians refusing to condemn other politicians for alleged antisemitic behavior is noteworthy because in the history of Western democracies this has historically lead to escalations (ex. the 1930s Weimar Republic or present-day Hungary). I would expect this to be particularly so in the United States where politicians have a lot of influence on everyday discourse. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I quoted the policy for what is noteworthy at 20:50, 19 December 2020. It's based on the degree of coverage in reliable sources, not our subjective judgment. TFD (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I hear you! I thought I had addressed that as well, did you see my penultimate paragraph? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's another reference in which news media refers to the incident many months after it happened, as you requested: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/02/why-concentration-camps-are-still-with-us Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Two of your sources are editorials, hence do not meet rs, while the third (BBC) doesn't say anything about AOC and anti-Semitism. As I pointed out above, "Again, you are going about editing the wrong way around. Instead of reading something somewhere and adding it to the article, you should research the body of literature about AOC and determine what the most widely reported points are and ensure that the article includes them and excludes the points that they ignore. And when you do that, ignore articles in obscure publications and opinion pieces. If everyone did that, we wouldn't be having these lengthy discussions on talk pages." [23:57, 19 December 2020] TFD (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, the Guardian source doesn't appear to be an editorial. I have read and appreciate your "wrong way around" comment, but while it might make a good policy proposal, it isn't current Wikipedia policy or guideline. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's an opinion piece. Read the subtitle: "Mass internment camps did not begin or end with the Nazis – today they are everywhere from China to Europe to the US. How can we stop their spread?"

An explanatory supplement says, "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Common sense tells us that in order to create a "neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic," we should "research the body of literature about AOC and determine what the most widely reported points are and ensure that the article includes them and excludes the points that they ignore." Common sense also tells us not to drink water out of toilet bowls, but it's not posted in public restrooms.

TFD (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I've enjoyed this dialog, thank you for your additional thoughts! I dispute two points. First, you've proposed several rules that aren't covered by policy, but say they should be followed anyway because they're common sense. I don't agree that these rules are common sense and I've given my counterarguments above immediately after their introduction. More to the point, if there isn't ready consensus on a rule, it probably isn't common sense! (Wikipedia's article on common sense is in the category "consensus reality"). What's self-evident to one person might not be to another, but if you think your proposals would get widespread backing, you are welcome to propose them as policies.

With regards to whether saying mass internment camps exist post World War II, check out this reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/world/asia/leak-chinas-internment-camps.html. This isn't a controversial point in mainstream media, and therefore I continue to assert that the Guardian article isn't an editorial. I'm not sure whether it's relevant whether the article is an editorial or not given that's it is being used for the WP:DUE test rather than directly included in the article, but since it isn't an editorial, no need to address a moot point at this time.

Good to talk to you as always, happy to hear any additional thoughts you might have. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not mass internment camps exist is irrelevant to whether or not Trilling's article is a reliable source. Of course you don't have to follow my advice on approaching articles but if you don't it will be hit and miss whether what you find represents the body of literature on the topic. Also see Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." An article that mentions AOC in passing is not the best source. You might find the explanatory supplement on "Righting great wrongs" helpful: "You might think that [Wikipedia] is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that's not the case." TFD (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Fantastic, thank you again for the pointers! You don't know my well, and it's hard to convey tone in an Internet post between strangers, and as a result, I cannot think of a way to address your critique of my motivations without risk of creating misunderstandings that take this conversation in a less constructive direction. So instead of talking about each other's motivations, let's continue to focus attention on whether Wikipedia's policies support inclusion of the material.

Let's summarize where we stand. You and others have made a bunch of helpful critiques that I agree with and have incorporated. Beyond that, we agree that policy says that the material should only be included if it is substantiated by reliable sources. We agree that the provided citations substantiate the material - it was headline news at the time. We further agree that policy says that the statements must not only be substantiated but also be noteworthy. We agree that the relevant criterion in WP:DUE is that the article must "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject".

And so at this juncture, the sole point of disagreement is whether this threshold has been met. In particular, we disagree on whether the coverage these incidents have received in material published long after they occurred is sufficient for the criterion to be met. Have I captured your position correctly? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

See what I posted above:

We would need to show that these claims have received substantial coverage before including them, per weight. In that case we would expect that she would reply. She might say for example that she meets with progressive Jewish groups but not conservative ones. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to tell people stuff that they won't find out from reading major news sources, but are supposed to summarize what they say. [19:59, 18 December 2020]

A google news search shows almost 2 million articles that mention AOC. As editors, we have to determine the most important points based on weight. [20:50, 19 December 2020]

Noteworthiness is determined entirely by weight. [23:57, 19 December 2020]

It didn't receive on-going media attention. It made the news 5 March 2019 and was quickly forgotten. The articles were mostly about Omar and the resolution, not AOC....Again, we don't develop articles by adding information we find important but by reflecting the body of information in reliable sources according to its weight. 01:10, 20 December 2020

I quoted the policy for what is noteworthy at 20:50, 19 December 2020. It's based on the degree of coverage in reliable sources, not our subjective judgment. [03:06, 26 December 2020]

TFD (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that coverage in mainstream sources and not subjective judgment is what's important for noteworthiness. Beyond that, is your main hesitation is whether the incidents received attention long after they were in the news, correct? Pretzel butterfly (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To respond to each of the points by my esteemed colleague:

• These events were headline news in mainstream media at the time.
• Because it's not an important point to me, I'm conceding the point about mentioning that she isn't responding to requests for comment, we can take that sentence fragment out.
• We agree that noteworthiness is determined by coverage in sources not subjective arguments, per Wikipedia policy.
• These events did, in fact, receive ongoing media attention well beyond when they first made the news: [3][4][5][6][7][8]

Please let me know if you have any other arguments for why Wikipedia's policies do not support inclusion of the material, or if you disagree with any of my bullets above. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You are just re-hashing the same arguments so I refer you to what I already posted. I note that your first example of ongoing media attention is a commentary in the Washington Examiner. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources and the reliability of the publication is disputed per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There's no doubt that right-wing media pay a lot of unhealthy attention to AOC from wearing a jacket to dancing on a roof to pictures of a foot of someone who looks like her. But this is an encyclopedic article, not tabloid journalism. TFD (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have to ask, what is the foot thing? I must of missed that one! PackMecEng (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Note that this user has copied the main article without attribution to User:Pretzel butterfly/AOC, where they are writing their own potentially BLP-violating (accusations of antisemitism made by fringe media and opposing politicians) version of it. ValarianB (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello everybody, thanks for chiming in! TFD, most of the six references I provided are not editorials or from conservative media. With regards of the fork in my sandbox (and I believe having such sandboxes is encouraged and standard), the only section I'm editing is Disputes with Jewish Organizations, I'm not working on anything that I'm not discussing with colleagues here. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I do believe I have addressed all outstanding objections with those references, but let me know if otherwise. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If all you are editing/creating is a single section, then you should have simply created that section in your sandbox, there is zero reason to have the other 200k+ of article around it. As for the text itself, it is a middling, fleeting criticism. All you're saying is "she didn't meet with a Jewish group" followed by a completely non sequitur swipe at Rep. Omar. Until or unless there are new developments, a pattern of sustained coverage, an indication that this has become a notable criticism of her, I will oppose inclusion. ValarianB (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, there are other points in the section other than how she didn't meet with many of Jewish groups. I note your point that you'd like to see coverage of these incidents revisited, not just see headline news at the time from reputable mainstream media sources. And so I provide! See the six external links in my bullet points above for evidence of sustained coverage. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"New" as in "from this point on". What you have provided right now is woefully insufficient for inclusion, giving undue weight to a trivial criticism. I hope this point is now clear. ValarianB (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just to note that the NYC Board of Rabbis, among others, is not a right wing organization. She has refused to meet with any NYC based Jewish organizations. To what extent it should be mentioned is up for debate, but it was reported in RS and we shouldn't avoid putting it in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If the first source you Pretzel butterfly provides fails rs, don't expect me to read any further. Anyway, theythey keep repeating the same arguments and ignoring my replies. TFD (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that I addressed each of your points with the bullet-points above. I of course very much do want to address what you are saying, and I'm sorry you felt ignored! My understanding of where we are in the discussion is that the only outstanding point is whether there was enough follow-on attention after the incidents, and I tried to clarify that with you several times. I actually don't agree with you that the Washington Examiner source is useless as it's not being used as a direct citation but that's moot given the other references. My intention wasn't to be disrespectful of your valuable time. Rather, I provided references of a heterogeneous nature so that even if you objected to some of them on one grounds or another, there were others that would still hold. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• • The Four Deuces, Here's the NY Post, [9] and here's the New York Jewish Insider, [10] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics..."WP:RSP

"Jewishinsider.com" is interesting to track down, as Jewish Insider redirects to The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and New York Jewish Insider does not search on Wikipedia. The only wikipedia listing at all is on the other page which says "In 2015, Tribe Media Corp. acquired Jewish Insider, a daily news service based in Washington, D.C., started by Max Neuberger."

Reading through the "Jewish Insider" article itself, it doesn't seem to be all that notable, or even internally consistent. Mostly it's a repetition of moaning by some groups that they don't get directly pandered to by AOC, which I think merits a big shrug but not encyclopedic coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading all this and it boils down to "someone wants to insert clear WP:BLP-violating language insinuating AOC's an anti-semite based on dubious opinion columns from even more dubious sources like the Washington Examiner or National Catholic Reporter". This is the kind of thing that makes people take up day drinking. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion! However, I feel like my argument is being inadvertently mischaracterized, so let me add some context. You named two of the sources, but other sources include the New York Times, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, and ABC News. People keep challenging whether a particular source is good or not, so at this point I've included so many references from so many diverse sources that the material has ironclad support. Please let me know if you still object given this clarification. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pretzel butterfly: Ok this is really problematic. There's an 8-source list above, and it took quite a bit of hunting to find your claimed "New York Times, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, and ABC News" sources. When I did find the edit, your "USA Today" source is an article titled "Who is 'the Squad?'" that does not mention Jewish groups in any way, and that mentions anti-semitism in the context that Omar and Tlaib were accused of it (which is a rather common and unconvincing accusation that gets tossed against Muslim individuals in the USA by islamophobic groups). Likewise, your ABC News article mentions AOC only once in a throwaway line that is attributed to Washington Examiner commenter Seth Mandel as a pundit, and is not an actual claim of fact by ABC News. These sources simply don't support the claims you're trying to make, certainly not any claim that "New York Times, CNN, USA Today, The Guardian, and ABC News" made ANY coverage whatsoever of the ridiculous claims that AOC has some kind of feud with, or is ignoring, Jewish interest-groups. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's true that not every source supports every sentence! That's why each claim has different sources. Nevertheless, each claim is supported by mainstream sources, including the ones I mentioned. For example, the New York Times source (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/us/politics/ilhan-omar-israel.html) talks about how AOC fought against the House resolution condemning Omar specifically, but doesn't talk about her controversial comments about concentration camps. This source from CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/18/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-concentration-camps-migrants-detention/index.html) talks about her controversial comments on concentration camps, but not about the House resolution. If there's a particular claim that you worry is unsupported, let me know and we can discuss. I hope that clarifies things, but let me know if you still have objections. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP pretty heavily I think. Nothing of what you're pushing here justifies the clear BLP-violating insinuations you're making that AOC is some kind of anti-semite or somehow feuding with specific Jewish interest groups. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying! To recap, I asked you if there was a specific claim that you were concerned was unsupported. You said you are worried that the claim that AOC is feuding with Jewish interest groups is unsupported. Here are some references that support that claim: https://www.adl.org/news/letters/letter-to-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-regarding-recent-anti-semitic-comments-by-rep, https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/300284/yad-vashem-calls-out-aoc-over-concentration-camp-remarks/. Hopefully that assuages your concerns, but if you have any other objections, please let me know. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This material will not appear in the AOC article, due to objections by several editors who have explained themselves at length. It cannot be stated more plainly than that. ValarianB (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, I do appreciate you chiming in. I have carefully read all responses and at this point I do believe that I have refuted every argument against inclusion of the material. The material is well-sourced, there are plenty of references showing that these incidents got lots of attention well after they were headline news, and there are so many references of such a heterogeneous nature that even if you object to some categories of references there are other categories that are still valid even if those objections were to be considered valid. Nobody has put forth any arguments against the preceding. If you disagree and still have objections, please let me know. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Pretzel butterfly: regarding the links you provided:

1. https://www.adl.org/news/letters/letter-to-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-regarding-recent-anti-semitic-comments-by-rep - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned in this ADL letter
2. https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/300284/yad-vashem-calls-out-aoc-over-concentration-camp-remarks/ - This does not support any claim that "AOC is feuding with Jewish interest groups."

Please stop trying to push blatantly false, WP:BLP-violating claims. Especially please stop posting links that clearly do not support your claims and hoping that people won't fact-check you, that's just uncivil. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please know that I am engaging in this discussion with full sincerity, but I do appreciate you voicing your concerns about the references. I can help clarify if you'd like. The ADL letter is referring to the resolution that AOC helped block (see the NYTimes source [11]). Yad Vashem is the Israeli Holocaust Museum, often considered a Jewish group because it focuses on the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. I hope that corrects the misunderstanding and assuages your concerns, but if you still have concerns, please let me know and I'd be happy to discuss further. Cheers and have an excellent day, Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You need to provide ACTUAL sources that support the wording and claims you are making, and stop trying to engage in illegitimate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. None of the edits you have proposed are even remotely valid, all of them have violated WP:BLP in an incredibly blatant way. Yad Vashem's particular objections to the use of the term "Concentration Camps" - and they have done this to many individuals, even survivors of American concentration camps during World War II - does not mean "AOC is feuding with Jewish interest groups" or that AOC is somehow anti-semitic, any other permutation of the WP:BLP-violating insinuations you are trying to make here. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following your reasoning. The sources show that she had a dispute with ADL - they supported a resolution regarding Omar and alleged anti-Semitism that she was a key opponent of. The sources show how she had a dispute with Vad Yasham - they objected to her usage of the term concentration camps. Jewish organizations in her home state asked to meet with her and she declined, and they made a lot of complaints to the press. She had multiple disputes with multiple Jewish organizations, so I argue that it's proper to say that she had disputes with Jewish organizations. I hope that you accept my argument, but if you have any other concerns, don't hesitate to reach out. Cheers, Pretzel butterfly (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You can be as cheery in your delivery as you like. But what this boils down to is you are taking minor incidents, e.g. not meeting with a specific religious group, and her support of something related to Ilhan Omar, and trying to paint AOC with a broad brush of antisemitism. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your encouragement of my stylistic style is much appreciated, thank you kindly. It's not meant as a mask, I genuinely wish to have a polite, civil, and constructive conversation with you. But anyhow, as I understand it, your stated concern above is that the incidents are minor. I already discussed that extensively above, but I'm happy to reiterate here: because they were headline news at the time, and have received significant attention since, they are in fact, major. Nothing I wrote suggests an anti-Semitism charge and I haven't mentioned that at all, you're the one who brought that up. If you believe that these incidents suggest anti-Semtism, you're of course welcome to harbor that as your private opinion, but I don't think we should include that in the article because of WP:BLP. I think that addressed all of your concerns, and I hope you accept my arguments, but if you're still hesitant I'm happy to discuss further. Pretzel butterfly (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pretzel butterfly: "The sources show that she had a dispute with ADL" - No, they literally fucking don't. That's the thing going on here. You're crossing into WP:SEALION territory with incredibly overly-flowery language pretending at civility while blatantly misrepresenting sources and trying to cobble together disconnected tidbits with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in order to try to accuse/insinuate anti-semitism, and that's absolutely a violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I take great umbridge at this attack. Yes, I'm being civil and polite, but I'm not POV-pushing - these are facts well-supported by the data. There was a headline-news dispute in which ADL and a bunch of others supported the resolution condemning Omar and AOC was a prominent voice opposed. This isn't a POV, it's what the references say. Hopefully that argument convinces you, but please let me know if you still disagree. If you want a more direct tone, here you go: I have throughout this conversation been arguing in terms of Wikipedia policies and been appropriately respectful, whereas those who argue for censoring this well-referenced material have ignored my references, repeatedly launched personal attacks against my motivations and character, and just used the F word at me. And I am not alone in advocating for the inclusion of this material. Please refocus your attention on discussing whether Wikipedia's policies supports inclusion of the material and refrain from further personal attacks on me or foul language. I reject your argument that I should be less polite and more like you, and will continue to treat you with courtesy and respect. Best wishes, Pretzel butterfly (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"these are facts well-supported by the data" - No, they're not. You're trying to string together WP:OR and WP:SYNTH tidbits to add up to an absolutely false accusation/insinuation of anti-semitism, and it's a blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy. And I don't really care if you take "Umbridge", you need to follow wikipedia policies. This isn't "well referenced material" in any way shape or form, you're clearly misrepresenting sources and blatantly violating wikipedia policies. And that fact doesn't change no matter how much overly flowery and falsely "civil" language you load into your comments. As for my use of the "F word"? Yes, that's the natural reaction when someone engages in sealioning long enough. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Page overhaul needed

I believe that there are many issues with this page as is and should be edited to a more compact and straight to the point version. An example of this is the entire subsection of "Verbal Assault". It provides no substance to the article and would not be included in standard biography pages. Nothing WP:NOTEWORTHY becomes of this story. This section does not provide the reader with additional details and pretty much leaves it off at a cliff hanger. Just because something has been published in a reliable source does not require its inclusion in any given Wikipedia article. If we included everything ever published, it would become quickly become massively unbalanced and unwieldly. I call on WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. This biography, in general, seems to be overly saturated with much of the information coming from the past few years. If we compare this biography to that of Abraham Lincoln we will find that it is of almost the same length. In addition, this page seems to be WP:PROMO or even WP:ADVOCACY with many section dedicated to campaigning and links to websites that directly contribute. Please let me know what you think. Yesornooridk (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC) — Yesornooridk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

But hey, when I said this page wasn’t at all prepared for its Good Article nomination I was reverted. Trillfendi (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 06:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments

Going to be reviewing this article, thanks for nominating it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The endorsements for Crowley should have a better source than his campaign page - this isn't likely to be a major issue - and including sources for all the individual endorsements would be ridiculous here, maybe include them in the main article on the election (which also currently only uses this source)?

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The only issue is the reference for the Crowley endorsements, if that's fixed it passes. If the issue isn't addressed within seven days, I'll fail it. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Elliot321: The issue has been fixed. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Some Dude From North Carolina: "people for bernie" on Twitter isn't really a RS either, though the rest of the additions are significant improvements. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Elliot321: I have replaced the reference. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 20:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

   @Some Dude From North Carolina: not sure if People's World is really considered reliable, but I haven't seen evidence that it isn't (while they obviously have a political lean, these are statements of fact). Passing the article. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The C of E (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

• ... that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) has become one of the most talked-about politicians in the United States? [12]
  • ALT1:... that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) is the youngest woman ever to serve in the United States Congress? [13]
  • ALT2:... that in 2019, Elizabeth Warren wrote the entry on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) for that year's Time 100? [14]
  • ALT3:... that in 2020, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) hosted a Twitch stream to play the game Among Us with fellow congresswoman Ilhan Omar, along with many established gamers such as Pokimane, DrLupo, and Jacksepticeye? [15][16]
  • ALT4:... that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn't have a Wikipedia article until she won her first primary in 2018? [17]

Improved to Good Article status by Some Dude From North Carolina (talk). Self-nominated at 16:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC).

• Substantial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. This is nominator's forth DYK, so they are QPQ exempt. Approved for ALT1 and ALT3 as the most interesting hooks; ALT0 is a bit MOS:WEASEL, and ALT2 doesn't seem especially compelling or interesting. Editor who promotes the hook could potentially use File:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, official portrait, 116th Congress.jpg as an image, but it's not necessary. Morgan695 (talk)

• The image you mentioned isn't used in the article, but I added a very similar one that is, which has the same licensing. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Morgan695: My opinion won't matter either way but I'm just saying this from a semi-frequent DYK contributor perspective: ALT1 would've been a hook when the article was first created^ but now it's like saying Barack Obama is the first black president of the United States, it's an afterthought to their careers by now and the novelty kinda wore off. ALT3 is more interesting or maybe there should be an ALT about how the media noticed Wikipedia ^didn't have an article about Ocasio-Cortez until after she won her primary in 2018. (This is a more in-depth look into that subject of women politicians not getting Wikipedia articles and the gender bias. The hook is actually right there in the sentence that mentions her.) It's meta, but in a good way. Just my $0.02 Trillfendi (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: You're hook is so meta and cool that I would be crazy not to include it. That being said, it has been added. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this. ALT3 is over 200 characters (without the "(pictured)"). ALT4 is not approved. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• ALT4 looks good. An option for a rephrased ALT3 is below, but I think ALT4 is the strongest of the bunch. Morgan695 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• ALT3a:... that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) hosted a Twitch stream to play the game Among Us with fellow congresswoman Ilhan Omar and streamers Pokimane, DrLupo, Jacksepticeye, and others? [18][19] Morgan695 (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• ALT3b:... that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) hosted a Twitch stream to play the game Among Us with fellow congresswoman Ilhan Omar along with streamers such as Pokimane, DrLupo, and Jacksepticeye? [20][21]

Multiple mentions on Page and in Talk that assert... "that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) is the youngest woman ever to serve in the United States Congress?"

The link next to it clearly shows she's the 116th youngest member of congress at the time of her swearing in and that Elise Stefanik is younger.

This site is becoming a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2203:cf90:1cc6:4644:653d:e315 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

AOC age at first inauguration: 29 years, 2 months, 21 days

Elise Stefanik age at first inauguration 30 years, 6 months, 1 day

What seems to be the problem? ValarianB (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)