Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Criticisms of Ocasio-Cortez[edit]

I feel like this article is overly positive for someone who has encountered so much criticism. She's been accused of not being ready or knowledgable enough for office, as well as too sensational. She was very campaign focused, and struggled with what to do or how to make it even in between winning the election and taking office. She also has made her way onto a number of 'bad economics' forms, and has been criticized heavily for some of her policies. Lastly she is an extreme left (socialist) politician, and her article reads like she's very middle of the road. I came to this article to learn about her, and I feel like if someone just read this wikipedia article they'd have a very distorted picture of what she stands for and what types of opposition she's faced. I'm not sure if this would take the best form as a separate section about her or if it'd make more sense to add more accurate details throughout the article, I'd be interested to hear what you all have to say though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxonek (talkcontribs) 23:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me like your point of view was already established before you came here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that discuss criticisms of her, that can be added to the article and summarized neutrally? If so, post links. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Haxonek: It describes her as a socialist at the beginning of political positions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I've explained to this new editor that socialism is not extreme left (by which I assume he means "far left". Doug Weller talk 12:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
"accused" and "criticized" by who exactly? Trump? Alex Jones? Fox News? and why? because she's not a plutocrat? provide source and we can review them. Acousmana (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Acousmana: I'm sorry if my initial talk came off too strong, I haven't used the talk pages/wikipedia edit much and I'm still getting used to it. Additionally I'm very liberal myself, however Cortez has come under fire a number of times for getting basic facts wrong. She claimed unemployment was low because everyone was working two jobs, she's accused the upper middle class of disappearing (when it's been growing considerably), and a number of other things from the defense budget to suggesting the US population was ~500 million people (here's the washington post criticizing her:, politifact:, etc). I'm not suggesting we bash her here, however the opposition to her cites her frequent misrepresentation of facts, and unlike most politician pages there is no criticism section for Cortez. Haxonek (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
(Comment) That WaPo video didn't present any substance to back their criticism, plus it's a Youtube video. Her politifact page, a primary source, only has four entries. Per WP:BLP, criticism can be included only if reliable secondary sources present them "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". All those accusations would fail these requirements. Inclusion of criticism would be disproportionate at this point, and a dedicated criticism section is actually not a good solution. "Bad economics" is subjective, socialism is nowhere near far left and conservative media painting her as a socialist demon or sth is already noted in article.
If we're going to write something, here is one from Jacobin: [1]. In case this is ever useful. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Inclusion of criticism would be disproportionate at this point"! No criticisms allowed! 2604:2000:1580:440E:E961:51F9:B9BD:3714 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Taking quotations out of context does not help your argument. Do you have a specific reliably-source substantive criticism of her published in a significant third-party site to add? JesseRafe (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
She was widely criticized for labeling Israel as an occupying force, and it should be mentioned. She was also criticized for her response when asked to clarify her statements. Regardless of the accuracy of her statements, they may have gotten enough attention to merit a mention.[1] [2] RadPaper (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Widely? The first link is an Op-Ed and the second one quotes two random people on Twitter. Don't judge articles' content by their headlines, they are often written by other people. JesseRafe (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The consensus of editors here on the subject of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is very supportive of her and her political advocacy. Not that's there anything wrong with that, it's just a fact that her supporters are just more motivated than anyone to scrutinize anything added into or removed from the article. Expect that there's a lot of the thumbs on the scale to tip a critical edit out of the article for valid Wikipedia reasons at the the discretion of the editors' consensus, especially for "significance" and "reliability of sources" (i.e. "scrubbuing") by a Wikipedian examination of the motives that a secondary source cited is using. Likewise expect thumbs on the scale for inclusion of material that presents her in a best possible way (i.e. "buffing"). In the end, if everyone is editing according to the guidelines, critical material can get into this article, and the halo effect material doesn't. It just may exhaust you to try. patsw (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


Environment criticism[edit]

"but, according to Timothy Cama of The Hill, does not provide details about how the US would move away from non-renewable power sources"

Why do we report one commentator questioning the success of a policy that will come out of a committee she is only currently proposing to start? The tone is WP:CRYSTAL predicting the impossibility of success before it has begun. Trackinfo (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that removal. I would go further and remove "Forty-three Democrats in the new Congress have supported this resolution, according to the Sunrise Movement.[117] But Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, opposes the resolution." There is a who article on Green New Deal where the prospects and details of various proposals are or can be discussed. The resolution in question is "is mostly a draft resolution for the House to create a special committee to work out the specifics" according to the source. The success or failure in legislative matters belongs in the section on "116th Congress" as it will be part of her record in office. This is a policy section which is more general in tone. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is a guideline for Wikipedia editors, not authors or columnists publishing in reliable sources. The material is relevant to her legislative career and whether it belongs on the page for the 116th Congress is questionable and probably a discussion best had on that talk page. The line should stay where it is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jason from nyc: also, 116th United States Congress is not meant to be a catalog for the actions of the 435 individual members. Legislative actions and proposals by the subject should be placed on their page under the relevant subsection of Career. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. This BLP has a section labeled "116th Congress." Move it there to start? Jason from nyc (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake. However, since it is environmentally related, I'd still say it probably belongs under that policy section. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
To add to this, I think that any achievements/prominent memberships or legislation should go under the 116th congress section, if that makes sense. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
This is clear-cut WP:UNDUE. One non-notable critic writes a line and the "let's make AOC look bad at as much as possible" crowd jumps in with an addition to the article. Ridiculous. If there were multiple reliable sources stating this opinion (and it's certainly that, just opinion), then maybe you'd have the justifiable due weight. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: As it stands now the second paragraph is from the Sunrise Movement website of which AOC is a member. We need a secondary source for this work. I still think it goes in the other section as Congressional work but that's a judgment call. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry, my mistake. That last source is meant for the whole paragraph. Still it would me useful to have a few more: [2] Jason from nyc (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Here's another [3] from Cama of The Hill who is following up on the story we quote. He basically says AOC's proposal is dead and she sees the compromise as worthless. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Thanks for the sources and explanation, Jason from nyc. That seems like a worthy secondary analysis from the Hill, and I'd say it's worth including. @Ewen Douglas: WP:WEIGHT is not accorded based on whether or not you agree with the criticism or think it's legitimate, it's based on the reliability of the source, and the The Hill is a reliable source for DC politics. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

From WP:WEIGHT (the very section you linked to): "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." One opinion piece in one op-ed written by one man, does, I think, qualify as the view of a "tiny minority." It doesn't get much tinier than "1". Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

NYS fines[edit]

Tsumikiria do you have a basis for this revert other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and your concern that it reveals "hypocrisy?" That's probably why it received attention in the first place; we don't omit noteworthy, information because we don't like how it reflects on the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

The sources that I've read so far (AP, UT, WT, CBS, FOX) are no more than mirror images of the initial New York Daily News short report, with nothing newer or in-depth coverage save for some differing conservative mockeries. And per WP:RSP, NYDN is a tabloid rag to begin with, therefore unsuitable for BLPs. Taken that this is true, her campaign, rather that herself, was fined for missing worker's compensations for some reason for a month, so that somehow makes her a big hypocrite worthy of a exposé here? This isn't something we should do. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The citation was the Associated Press. And by the way, the NYDN is considered reliable by many for NY-based reporting, even though WP:RSP indicates "no consensus." Your objection to its inclusion, according to your edit summary, was not because it was inaccurate, but solely because it reflects negatively on the subject, which is totally inconsistent with WP:NPOV, one of the five pillars. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
And the entirety of the AP piece have nothing new to offer. Being newsworthy does not guarantee inclusion. Of course this incident can be included, but right now we only we have something that resemble mere parroting among sources, without response or explanation from the subject, or anything more to solidify that she somehow is, as conservative sources has been trying to paint for a long time, a hypocrite. Documenting all instances of questionable things a individual or their organization reportedly do without question is not something we are obliged to do. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a trivial factoid which belongs in the campaign article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The other sources you cited were a re-print of the AP story, except for the NYDN. A "response or explanation from the subject" isn't required for including noteworthy information about them ("trivial factoid" is the weakest argument for information that's been reported in WP:RS). Our obligation is to follow WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, not write a promotional article about the subject that omits negative or controversial information. None of these "conservative sources" that you're concerned about were cited or even referenced, so, again, your only objection seems to be that you find the information personally distasteful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It's a trivial piece of information, and there's no indication that AOC is even responsible, or that it had any impact on her life (these are typical requirements for inclusion in a biography). Including this in order to "expose hypocrisy" makes us no better than the State Republicans "chortling" over the fine, and constitutes original research. Bradv🍁 17:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I never said it should be included because it "exposes hypocrisy," I said that perception was likely why it received coverage. The NYDN described it as such: The campaign for new Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has made helping the working class and poor her top priority, was fined by the state for not carrying workers’ compensation coverage for a month last year. [1] And by the way, I didn't even include that bit of editorializing in my edit, which mentioned only the fine and the reason it was imposed, with the AP as a source. A simple, sourced statement of fact can't be WP:OR, and I don't think we should be applying some sort of partisan ideological test on material that has nothing to do with WP policy. These descriptions of "trivial" and "unencyclopedic," especially when we have multiple sources supporting this single line about her campaign under the relevant section sound more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than being based on an actual policy that would support exclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Note the first line of the story: the campaign for new Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It doesn't say Ocasio-Cortez was fined, it doesn't say she was personally responsible, it doesn't say she knew of the problem. These are all reasons that it's problematic, at best, to include this factoid in a short encyclopedic biography, as opposed to an article about the campaign itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's helpful to call it a factoid, and the length of the page will be determined by the amount of material that can be added and supported by WP:RS (and, of course, for which there is consensus). And I'm puzzled by your point: the line I added accurately noted that distinction. Besides, who else is responsible for her campaign? There's no separate page for the campaign itself, there's a section, and that's where the line was inserted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the others that it's a trivial factoid, and those aren't empty words. It has nothing to do with the length of the page, it has nothing to do with reliable sources, it's about weight, or importance. Reliable sources are covering every minute of every day of AOC; they have a 24-hour news cycle to fill. 90% of the stuff RS write about AOC will never make it into her encyclopedia article, because it's not the most important stuff about her, and the encyclopedia article should only be for the most important stuff about her, not for everything about her. So the only question is: is it important that her campaign was fined $1,500 for lacking insurance? Well, sure, it's her campaign and she's in charge. But is every mistake made by her campaign an "important" thing about AOC? No, of course not. People make mistakes every day; I'm sure her campaign made many mistakes. This is one that was reported because it was publicly announced by the government; other mistakes may never be noticed by the media. Nevertheless, why is this campaign mistake important enough to include in her article? Did she run on a platform of always paying insurance bills? Did she accuse her opponent of not having insurance? Was she personally responsible for making sure they had insurance? Is $1,500 a lot of money for a fine against an organization? Did anybody go to jail? Did anybody get fired? Did anybody vote or not vote for her because of this? Was she disqualified or personally punished in any way? If the answer to all of these (and all similar) questions is "no," then it's not important, and doesn't need to be in the article. Levivich (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Levivich: This is all utterly irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with WP policy. "Trivial factoid" is a derogatory term that only tells us the editor using it resents mentioning the material itself. The question is: Has it received coverage from WP:RS? The answer is yes. The type of analysis you are engaging in is exactly the kind of WP:OR that does not belong in an article or a discussion over content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the proposed edit is against policy, but it is definitely against consensus. At this point you may want to read 1AM. Bradv🍁 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Saying it is a "trivial factoid" is not derogatory; it's saying that inclusion isn't proportionate, as in WP:PROPORTION: 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. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like CNN got into it as well.[4] PackMecEng (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made my point on this, and as Bradv noted, consensus isn't there yet. However, I'll just add that WP:PROPORTION does not create some highly subjective, make-it-up-as-you-go-along criteria for inclusion—it's largely dependent on sources. Beyond that, I think the NYDN piece I quoted earlier sums it up pretty well. And thanks for the additional source, PackMecEng. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it's entirely about whether it's in proportion or not per the RSes. So we have NYDN which ran a story on the 10th, two days ago. Immediately, there were edits to add this to the article. That was too soon. Now there's CNN on the 12th. Still too soon. That's two stories over three days. A month from now, we can look with perspective and see how this story played in all RSes, as compared to all the other stories about AOC that will be run by the media in January. Some stories get so big so fast that they're obviously notable and proportional; this is not one of them. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Too soon according to what? Sounds to me like WP:STONEWALLING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Too soon according to the calendar, my friend. There is almost never a reason to add to an article information from a media report about current events on the same day it’s published. If for no other reason, because media are primary sources when reporting on current events (as opposed to retrospective analysis). Levivich (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
On a separate note, I don't believe this to be correct. A report being contemporaneous with a story does not necessarily make it a WP:PRIMARY. WP:BNS are primary sources by default when it's part of a developing story, but that's not the case here. The CNN and NYDN pieces are each WP:SECONDARY and contain commentary and analysis that distinguishes them from simple news reports. The AP source is shorter, but still contains brief commentary and shouldn't be considered a WP:PRIMARY. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Not an educator[edit]

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

The body of the article states "She worked as lead educational strategist at GAGEis, Inc. Ocasio-Cortez was also an educator at the nonprofit National Hispanic Institute, in which role she served as the Educational Director of the 2017 Northeast Collegiate World Series, where she participated in a panel on Latino leadership." The references verify that information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking through the cited sources on this wiki page, I can't find anything that states she has a minor in economics. A quick Google search turned up conflicting sources about whether it was a double major between international relations and economics, or a major in international relations and a minor in economics. If someone has more information, I'd appreciate getting a solid source to clear that issue up. Thanks! ChemEDave (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

You may want to do some more effort, or a simple search query. Per this source:'“I’m an educator, an organizer, a working-class New Yorker,” she says in her campaign ad, “It’s time for one of us.”' And please read the input by Cullen328 just above. Tsumikiria (T/C) 09:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Tsumikiria, we don't do self-descriptions when it comes to jobs and positions. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
User:Cullen328, User:JesseRafe, I am not convinced. Being a "educational director" doesn't make one an educator, it makes one an administrator. The other thing, the BU position, that's really similar: a "Lead Educational Strategist" is a strategist (again, that's administration, if it's a full-time position and if "GAGEis" is a college or school or school system--but who knows what it is?), not an educator. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
NHI in their own publication specifically to her as an educator in two different articles, note this was before she took on the role of Educational Director at that org, and were published a year before the primary. JesseRafe (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
This tweet could be hyperbole or oversimplification, but seems more than what an admin would do in the role. Primary source and all that, though. JesseRafe (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not arguing that "educator" is the best word for describing her in this article as I am unsure what the precise definition is for that word, or if it even has one. Perhaps someone can propose some alternate language that better describes what the sources say about her education related work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, JesseRafe had a few more hits, but there's nothing specific about her as an educator in it, and they're way too primary, and I'm not even talking about the tweet. The text in the article is one thing, and I tweaked that some already, but to give that to her as a job description is not warranted. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the obvious situation here is that this is a politically-motivated attempt at delegitimizing her one chip at a time, this Wikipedia article included. For instance, I have never in my life heard that in order to be an "educator" one had to have a teaching license and decades in a class room which all these yahoos are claiming is the meaning of the word with their 7th ever (or "ever") edits to the encyclopedia. Being a teacher and an educator are different things, always have been. Probably a substantial reason why both this page and her own campaign have never called her a "teacher". Nonetheless she's called an educator in numerous other outlets:
  • The New Yorker profile: "she previously worked as a community organizer and educator in the Bronx"
  • Fortune 40 under 40: "Politician, educator, community activist"
  • Vox profile: "after graduating from college and has since worked in community organizing and education."
  • Our Revolution profile: Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez is a third-generation Bronxite, educator, and organizer"
So short of her CV listing a position into a single easily-digested noun, it seems to me any interpolation of these claims as something else would be synthesis, not a plain reporting of what the sources are calling her. JesseRafe (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to chime in here on JesseRafe's comment about delegitimizing. I am not commenting on calling her an educator. There is an organized process of attacking American figures on the left that repeatedly focuses on wikipedia. Somewhere is a place on the internet that repeatedly sends out trolls (usually IPs) to insert a comment here, remove a phrase there. They will keep coming back, new IPs, new users insistent on the same point. We are going to get pounded by various new accounts trying to remove this phrase. It will go on for years, perhaps well after there is any relevance. I don't know who is sending out these marching orders, I can't identify the source, but as an experienced wikipedia editor with over a decade of service, I have seen it happen time and time again. Trackinfo (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As an experienced wikipedia editor with over a decade of service, you should know that's a wholly-inappropriate comment for this article's talk page. I'll leave it at that.John2510

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

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

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

No objection, the New Yorker source covers that nicely. I was only going off the source given in the article for that section.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: Further thoughts? It was pretty ecumenical in her early coverage as a description of her career to that point. JesseRafe (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: Please respond as one of the two admins in this convo who have removed her previous occupation description. This was the neutral description mainstream press used for her and it has only been chipped away at by those with a discernible bias. JesseRafe (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
JesseRafe, I'd love for you to tell me what my "discernible bias" is. Please, enlighten me. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I'm partaking in "a politically-motivated attempt at delegitimizing her"? Cullen328, do you know if this editor has been informed of discretionary sanctions for this area, which should also cover a lack of AGF, making unwarranted assumptions, and playing the man rather than the ball? Asking for a friend. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
What the heck are you talking about? When did I accuse you of doing that? Is Thomas WTN your sock? Why are you being so aggressive and making leaps and bounds to read bad faith? The plain reading of my comments was the crusaders removing it, not you who had succumbed to their whims. I provided you sources and you didn't respond so I pinged you after two days of no response. Read what I wrote and tell me how that was an accusation of bias on you. Then go back and read this the main page and this talk page's history on the number of brand new editors and IPs who have done nothing but campaign to remove "educator" under flimsy arguments. Please. JesseRafe (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
What I'm talking about is a. me removing that term; b. me commenting on it; c. you following my comment immediately with this claim of a "politically-motivated attempt". That was just a coincidence that you said that to me, who had just removed the term you want in this article? Oh, wait, I'm just succumbing to someone's whims--ha, sure. I'm either a partisan hack or a gull.

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

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

Israeli Palestinian conflict[edit]

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

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

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

You are surely aware that this isn't the best course of action immediately following your recent sanctions on the subject matter, yes? Either Arab-Israeli conflict or BLPs. Also, please investigate the actual term "Antisemitism" and how it's properly used. JesseRafe (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I was referring to Tsumikiria's reason - HIS reason - for reverting my edit. It read in part, "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel" (sic)

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

Position on ICE[edit]

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

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

I searched through relevant keywords and found no other articles mentioning this, and WP:RSN doesn't even have a discussion on this source. This source sounds sketchy and I would refrain from using this unless we have more source support. And I guess she can have her own interpretations on "abolishing" something, so that still doesn't count as explicitly denouncing her previous position. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
"the source sounds sketchy" is not a valid reason for removing sourced info and even less a valid reason for inserting your own opinions into the paragraph, both of which you have done here. Unless you have a definitive Wikipedia policy that says that source isn't usable, your changes are completely invalid and you should seek a third opinion before attempting to add them again here. Ewen Douglas (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Please don't be this polemic, I followed WP:BLP in that any unsourced or poorly sourced material must be removed immediately. I wasn't even inserting my own opinion, but restoring content to a previous consensus. And I believe I told you before that we should seek consensus with other editors on this page before making or restoring a challengeable change. Multiple sources would help verify on a BLP, but we now have only one. I hope we can resolve this together with other editors, and make no edit until a consensus is reached. I'm sorry that my DS alerts was seen as a "subtle threat". It was a standard procedure suggesting that we all needs to be extra careful on related topics. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This article needs a serious rewrite for NPOV. It completely omits everything remotely controversial or not favorable to Ocasio-Cortez, and promotes that which supports her. Vermont (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you have a specific example of a sentence that needs to be rewritten or removed? I'd be happy to discuss it here with you, but "This article needs a serious rewrite for NPOV" doesn't really help anyone, or the article. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

AOC, Israel, and turning Wikipedia into Hagiography[edit]

This discussion has strayed very far from the legitimate purposes of an article talk page. Please refocus on specific proposals to improve this article, and specific references to reliable sources supporting the changes you propose. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Thanks for your comments, unfortunately you ran into the reality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is biased and there is no way around it. You can try to edit RS that is factual, but if the numbers on the other side don't like it, it won't end up in this article. This article, to me at least, certainly reads with a heavy tilt in favor of AOC as if it were written by her publicist. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any specific examples of text that you would like included or struck? I could discuss it here with you, but general statements like the one above don't really give us a place to start. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
First of all, I would most certainly add about her threat to subpoena Trump Jr. and how that most likely violated ethics rules according to Congressional ethics groups. I would also add a section on her many gaffes/misstatements, but I won't go further because I'm not getting into the meat of the article because I've been here long enough to not get too involved in politics in Wikipedia on a superstar article, I'll wait for her to implode when she gets to Congress and realizes that her fans on Twitter won't get her anywhere when she suddenly needs to get things done once "inaugurated" and she can't "sign bills" into law. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a wise choice, as "I'll wait for her to implode" might suggest a certain bias in one direction on your part. Probably best to leave the article to more neutral editors. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No, it's just being pragmatic. You have the article all to yourself to make it all AOC for now, then once the party is over, the real encyclopedia can be written. Right now it reads as was pointed out like a press release or hagiography. You're not a neutral editor, why is only pro-AOC edits allowed? Sir Joseph (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I take issue with the statement "You're not a neutral editor", as neutrality is what I'd like to see in every Wikipedia article. Again, as you've made your "anti-AOC" position clear, I think it's best you let neutral editors handle the page. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit. It's not up to you to decide who gets to edit, that is the whole point of the OP, that this page reeks of bias and POV. That you can't see it shows that you aren't a neutral editor. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That you haven't pointed to anything specific suggests that you can't. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I gave specifics further up. That I don't have to entertain you doesn't take away that this article is biased. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: She did not threaten to subpoena Don Jr. She pointed out he's likely to be subpoenad. You have to provide proof she "most likely violated ethics rules." What "Congressional ethics groups"? Not the House Ethics Committee, the group that decides it. Gaffes and misstatements... all the garbage the right wing has to try to discredit her. Heaven forbid a politician ever misspeak in any way. You're not bringing any real suggestions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
At the very least to be honest you would have admitted the gaffes and misstatements. That you don't even do that, just solidifies that you don't see a bias in this article. And the right wing doesn't have to do much to discredit her, she does it to herself. That I don't want to edit this article is because I've been around the block a few times and know that Wikipedia has a bias and I'm not in the mood for it at this time. That doesn't mean it's proper. I read the article and was surprised by the tone of the article and the extreme weight. I called it out, that does not mean I am required to edit it myself. There is much criticism of her out there but the editors here apparently from what I see won't allow it, which is a shame because balance is what I thought is what we should strive for. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
She has misspoken a couple of times and has quickly corrected herself. She's human, it happens. Why should this article include every time she has misspoken? Provide some good sourcing on the gaffes to suggest why they should be included, and it can be considered. And remember, Fox News, Infowars, and Breitbart are hot garbage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

No, not really. Right wing bias comes in different forms of extremity. Fox News has been going hardcore to try to smear AOC, and are as unreliable as the other two. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
So we should only use left wing sources in this article? No wonder why this article is such crap. That is not how things work. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why the right conflates sites like the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, etc. with left-wing sources like Daily Kos, Common Cause, etc. That's not how things work. We use neutral, mainstream sources. Lack of right wing bias does not mean left wing bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
That you don't consider CNN left wing reiterates my concern for you editing this article. Do you seriously expect me to believe that you think CNN is non-biased? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
(ec) CNN is opportunitist centrism and nowhere left wing. That is conservative bias on your part. Refuting a mere posulation of another editor's input and debasing the collaborative effort is nowhere helpful in the consensus building process. this revert is unhelpful either. We can discuss and add additional content right after that paragraph, not restating that paragraph again and append unreliable sources. Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
The first part of collaborative editing is admitting bias. Calling CNN non-biased is not something someone who edits a political article should be doing. And additonally, someone who calls CNN "opportunitist centrism" really misses the mark. You guys really need to get out of your bubbles. Regardless, I don't need to remind you that Foxnews is indeed a RS for inclusion, even if it reports negatively on your wonderful AOC, which I'm sure will continue once she gets into Congress and starts to screw up even more. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You're really not doing a good job of arguing for neutrality, or yourself as a bastion thereof. You should tread lightly in how you characterize RSs and other editors. JesseRafe (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I never said I'm neutral, I just said edits have to be neutral and the article has to be balanced. Aw, look, I offer an opinion and you threaten me because you don't like it? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
"Balance" does not mean neutral reporting and fringe lunacy in equal parts, it means neutral reporting. That's it. I don't give anything close to a fuck about your opinion, nor do I make threats -- but your constant whining about not including Fox News and calling CNN "left-wing" without having anything constructive to add is making my watchlist very boring. Get some new material, but this talk page is not a forum for it either. If you can't offer a substantive critique of the article's contents then you shouldn't be here wasting everyone's time. JesseRafe (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You don't get to dictate who gets to be here, and that you don't consider CNN to be left wing is to most people cause for you to not be here wasting people's time. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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

We usually paraphrase from banal quotes like that. Why should we include the exact quote? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am giving this as an example of a successful "buff": Why should we replace the former text with an actual exact quote with new text being an eloquent Wikipedian's paraphrase in the first place? I am not making the case for using the quote over the eloquent Wikipedian's paraphrase, merely demonstrating how the editing consensus operates in this article. patsw (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Seen in a fair light, this article is the definition of "buffed". You could look up George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Gandhi, or God himself - all of those folks have Wikipedia articles, and none of them are as one-sided as this one is. AOC has made numerous comments in public that deserve mention here, but which are immediately scrubbed by one of her ardent fans. Take her embarassing mis-statements regarding Israel: Comparing the violent Gaza protests to the peaceful West Virginia teachers' strike, and asking what people would think if 60 protesters had been killed in West Virginia, after 60 Gazans were killed on May 14 during the riot there. Nearly every Gazan killed was a Hamas member (as per Hamas), numerous Gazans were armed with guns and molotov cocktails, and Israel was repelling an attempted armed invasion of their country. In West Virginia, teachers walked around in a circle holding signs. No comparison, really. Or when AOC mentioned - in two different interviews! - "Israel-occupied Palestine", which is Hamas-speak as the justification for wiping out Israel. When one interviewer, Margaret Hoover, asked her what she meant by "Israel-occupied Palestine", AOC had a long pause before admitting she is "not the expert" on the Middle East.
On which planet is this not worth a mention? Yet when I added that, the redoubtable Tsumikiria was there to immediately revert it, using the remarkable claim that, and I quote,
 "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel" (sic)  
He also accused me of "disruptive editing" for my "defamatory" comments, and threatened a block. (I notice that his Talk Page contains comments by numerous editors pointing out Tsumikiria's habit of threatening other editors like he did me.)
Suffice it to say, anyone who thinks that an opinion piece in the Independent that as its thesis supports as "truth" AOC's comments on the Israeli-Arab situation is RS, but that any Israeli newspaper's news story about the Israeli-Arab situation is not RS, has absolutely no idea what a reliable source is, or is biased to the point that he shouldn't be here. (Check up, for example, the WP articles on left-wing Ha'Aretz, centrist Jerusalem Post, or centrist Times of Israel, the latter of which has an Arab-language edition.)
As to AOC's comment at a private event - right into the camera - about being "inaugurated" on January 3, and "signing" legislation on Jan 4, if that is not worth a mention, then would we agree that Romney's "47%" comment isn't either? Show me where one person in the last 6 years removed the Romney gaffe from his page because 'hey, politicians make mistakes, who cares?' Or how about Cindy Hyde-Smith's comment at a private event about her dedication to the host to where she would go to a "lynching" if the host invited her? Let me know when that will be removed from her page. Cindy Hyde-Smith was not advocating lynching, obviously, yet the connection to Mississippi's past was made by, well, everyone. And there it is on her page. Yet when AOC uses the language of a terrorist group in Hamas, whether or not it was intended to be in sympathy with their position, and repeats the comment later, after comparing Hamas and their brutality (in a way) to West Virginia teachers - that information doesn't belong in the article?
It is situations like these that cause WP to get a reputation as having a noticeable leftward slant (as mentioned on WP's own WP page, under "criticism"). I could just give up, a la Sir Joseph, but I would still like to think that a fair - or at least fairer - Wikipedia is still a possibility.
Vcuttolo (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Wow. You really went full bore there. We treat AOC with more reverence than God? Anyway, trying to find substance in this rant, I'm struggling. AOC saying "inaugurated" instead of "sworn in" and suggesting legislation on Day 2 is somehow the equivalent of Mitt Romney's BS statement that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes? Or Cindy Hyde Smith's celebration of lynching and the Confederacy? In what universe? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
We're here to discuss content, not editors. Vermont (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, our Lord Cthulhu Alex Cortez. If by ranting your idiosyncratic "repelling an attempted armed invasion" and "Hamas-speak as the justification for wiping out Israel" you still cannot understand why you cannot get your desired content onto the page, you need to pay more time reading our policies, especially regarding original research and novel synthesis. But I guess by continuously trying to characterize and hint her support or supposed ignorance for "violent Hamas terrorists", once, twice, warned, thrice, getting sanctioned, yet still doing it fourice and frice, and labeling her supporting organization "Anti-Israel", it doesn't appear to me that genuinely improving the article was your objective. Making this a personal vendetta and telling everyone that I'm an "antisemite" isn't helping your argument either. This isn't a platform for your personal justice, which could be seen as some finely grained libel. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Addressing Muboshgu: Gaffes by candidates make news when they feed a narrative. When President George HW Bush somehow got the wrong date for Pearl Harbor, it came and went, because George HW Bush was a WWII war hero. Romney's "47% comment" (technically true but wildly misleading) became news becasue it aligned with a view held relatively widely, and especially among Democrats, that Romney was a very aloof rich guy. Cindy Hyde-Smith's comment was certainly less news-worthy than AOC's gaffes, because it was abundantly obvious that she was in no way referencing the racially problematic history of Mississippi. Yet the Democrats, and then the mainstream media, ran with it, because it aligned with the narrative being pushed that assumes all Republicans to be racists. (The picture of Hyde-Smith in the Confederate uniform only emerged later.) AOC had already become a butt of humor on the right because she has made a long list of comments that make her sound ignorant on the basic issues. So yes, her not knowing the difference between a representative and the POTUS is certainly worth a mention.
As to your continued slandering of me, Tsumikiria, all I did was quote YOU. If you think your own quote means I accused you of being an anti-Semite, that would be very telling, now wouldn't it?

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

Let me add a couple of points I omitted. Muboshgu, yes, God gets more criticism on his Wikipedia page than AOC does on hers. Look it up. Your mischaracterization of AOC's comments about HER being inaugurated and HER signing legislation on Day 2 suggests you are addressing a comment you have neither read nor heard. Read it first, then comment. Again, Romney's "47%" comment was technically true, therefore not "BS", as you mislabeled it. Your comment about "Cindy Hyde-Smith's celebration of lynching" - now that's total BS. I would appreciate if you knew the facts before you commented on them. Furthermore, if Cindy Hyde-Smith's use of the term "lynching" in a context entirely unrelated to racial history is worth headlines everywhere and an obvious Wikipedia mention, then yes, AOC's in-context using the same terminology as Hamas, considering that she made false accusations against Israel, undoubtedly belongs on her Wikipedia page. As to your repeated and false attacks against me, it is clever of you to accuse me of doing to you what in fact you have been doing to me for some time, and which, based upon your own Talk Page, numerous others say you have been doing to them as well. But I am sticking to the facts, not making false, anti-Semitic claims.
Vcuttolo (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
As to Tsumikiria, yes, Israel "repelled an armed invasion", not by an organized military, but by organized Hamas members. If you don't know that, perhaos you should read centrist news sources, not just leftist ones. (How about starting with Wikipedia's own article 2018 Gaza border protests? Yes, "Israel-occupied Palestine" is standard Hamas-speak as they continue to call for the destruction of Israel. Again, you should know that, and certainly before you try to dismiss what I accurate wrote.
Whoops - sorry, Muboshgu, I somehow inserted part of the previous comment in the wrong place. The part that starts with "As to your repeated and false attacks against me", that was supposed to be at the bottom, part of the response to Tsumikiria, not to you. Vcuttolo (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Article talk pages are not discussion forums[edit]

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

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

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

Known as AOC?[edit]

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

I don’t believe it warrants mention. Vermont (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't seem like she's known by initials any more often than anyone else (DJT, BHO, HRC...); in the absence of references showing otherwise, it doesn't seem to have reached the level of LBJ (whose article does mention the initials); the pointer at AOC seems sufficient for anyone sees the initials somewhere and looks them up on Wikipedia. -sche (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with all, though I think she is a lot more known by her initials than DJT and BHO and probably a bit more than HRC, I think a lot of that is national media being offput by the "length" of her name and the less familiarity with how to spell/pronounce it, which would probably dissipate over time. JesseRafe (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I placed that mention because of the commonality of the use of her initials to cover the otherwise triple name. If you are going to insist on stacking more references, I'll go ahead. Trackinfo (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
VOX, New York Times, Weekly Standard, plus critics and supporters all using the initials in reference to her. Quoting the Newsweek source

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

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

@JesseRafe: Since you are going to introduce reverting sourced content; here are the sources I was previously quoting: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11], [12], [13]. There are plenty more. It constantly confounds me that some people develop source nearsightedness when they wish to achieve a result. Are you serious that experienced wikipedia editors couldn't find these on the first couple of pages of google? Trackinfo (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is doubting whether they were previously or currently sourced, but whether it needs be mentioned as anything more than an obvious abbreviation of her name, not a nickname or alternate billing, like say The Rock vs Dwayne Johnson, or to a level of initials being used almost more than their name themselves such as LBJ or JFK. JesseRafe (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, keep littering everyone's watchlist by adding these one at a time. That's productive and an excellent policy-focused argument. JesseRafe (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I happen to keep looking . . . And the major reason this is important is because AOC is a social media phenomenon, sourced in the article. Facebook, twitter, youtube etc are not reliable sources but THAT is where the AOC abbreviation is used almost exclusively and where wikipedia can serve the less knowledgeable public . . . remember, what we are here for. Trackinfo (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Could we make the "sometimes abbreviated to AOC" bit a footnote? Is that a decent compromise? We already have the pronunciation as a footnote. -sche (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand the motivation to diminish or essentially, hide this piece of information from the public. Trackinfo (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Conversely, I don't see the need to prominently emphasize that she is not an exception to the general phenomenon than anyone's name can be abbreviated to initials. -sche (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

!vote to include/exclude her initials in lede[edit]

  • Include AOC as the initials are used often enough in liberal and conservative reliable sources to establish it as notable. Also searching Twitter for her initials indicates that is commonly used as a substitute for her name in political discourse by both sides of the aisle. Political pundits are almost as likely now to say AOC rather than her full name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Include AOC per the numerous, varying sources I have presented above. Trackinfo (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Include, probably as a footnote - This is an acronym. thoroughly used by the media, although factors such as reporters being unfamiliar with her long, Hispanic name should be noted. She has yet to earn a historic significance and become cemented by their initialism as someone like FDR so a more concise lead in the form of a footnote explaining the acro. would be a decent compromise. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)See my comment and update below Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Include, less prominently than FDR. This is a proxy question to listing her at AOC (disambiguation), and she should be listed because Vox, CNN and others have called her AOC. However, FDR is commonly referred to as FDR, while Ocasio-Cortez is not. wumbolo ^^^ 16:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Include as a footnote - agree with Tsumikiria's points. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude or include as a footnote per -sche's reasoning above. It's self-evident and the sourcing is tediously long. JesseRafe (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The sourcing is only tediously long, meaning extensive, because some people, including YOU, made it an issue. Trackinfo (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Looks like while there's consensus to include, almost half the voters agree that it should be as a footnote. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I fear that my initial recommendation to make it a footnote may have swayed some people, and now that I changed my mind after seeing AOC herself embraces the acronym AOC, I guess it's possible for others to reconsider as well. So, ummm… People, shall we do this again? Tsumikiria (T/C) 17:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wumbolo:,@-sche:,@JesseRafe:, @Grammarxxx: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackinfo (talkcontribs)
  • Include in the lead. It's her Twitter handle, and would have to be listed here prominently to keep it on AOC (disambiguation). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that a fact? Then someone should tell the people editing Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, which doesn't mention "AOC" even once on the entire page, despite being on AOC (disambiguation). Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewen Douglas, I can't speak to WP:OTHERSTUFF. If he goes by "AOC", then that page should include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that "It's her Twitter handle" and "would have to be listed here prominently to keep it on AOC (disambiguation)" are opinions, and not actually based on any Wikipedia policies that I'm aware of. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a particular case. I thought herself recognizing the initialism, on top of being sufficiently reported as AOC was enough for it to be included in prose. I'll re-add the bit just to reactivate this discussion. Any objections? Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:DABACRONYM, AOC would need to be included somewhere in this article to be listed on the dab page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Include in lead. Frequent usage in RS.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Include in the lead -- commonly used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Can we declare a consensus to Include AOC in the lede and close this discussion? Aside from the initial three, all new commenters, particularly since Tsumikiria's announcement of her Twitter account have all concurred. AOC is the new rock star in congress, getting the 60 Minutes interview last weekend and 300,000 new followers since. That means the traffic to this article is high. [Popular Wikipedia Articles of the Week (December 30, 2018 to January 5, 2019)|Number 11 on all of Wikipedia this week]. Yes, a lot of social media users have figured out who "AOC" is talking about but for those who haven't (like me initially), we should be providing the informative service of explaining it. Trackinfo (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Motion to close? - We seem to have other (trivial?) issues to worry about on this article. This doesn't appear to need someone filing a formal request to close. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Question I agree with the consensus to include AOC in the lead, but two questions: (1) does it need to be cited? Will anyone challenge that she's known by AOC? Isn't that bluesky obvious by now? (Or maybe I only think that because I'm American?) (2) Why is Twitter the source? I thought we don't use Twitter as a source generally? I know her changing the Twitter handle to AOC helped solidify consensus, but aren't we interpreting a primary source by citing to a Twitter handle change to support "known by AOC"? There are lots of other sources that refer to her as AOC... like the NYT, perhaps we should use one of those? I didn't want to change it without discussing it here. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    The Washington Times, [14], has a discussion directly about the initials, if that helps any. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: I didn't want to flood the lead with 5 or seven references to support the inclusion of three mere letters, as this happened before and is messed up. We could either append it with one or two finest source for the establishment on such initialism, or remove them altogether and leave a inline hidden text. Whichever works. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Footnote is fine, not in the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Political Party[edit]

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

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

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

Boston University Mashup video[edit]

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

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

That's a plain declaration of fact. Is there a call to action about what could be done to improve the article embedded somewhere in there? Or do we need more YT links everywhere? JesseRafe (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The BU dancing video that went viral on Twitter yesterday is insignificant in the grand scheme of her entire life biography. It's WP:RECENTISM to believe it belongs here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Publishing Venture[edit]

I've modified the description of her publishing venture (Brook Avenue Press) in "Early career" to limit it to what the source actually states. While she had some vague involvement with the government-funded enterprise and reportedly "launched" Brook Avenue Press, there is no indication in the source that Sunshine Bronx Business Incubator provided financial funding to Brook Avenue Press, or that Brook Avenue Press ever actually published anything. An ISBN search turns up nothing for Brook Avenue Press. Especially given those circumstances, I think it's wise to stick with precisely the narrow description provided by the source and not impose any additional assumptions. John2510 (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I question whether the references to Brook Avenue Press and GAGEis, Inc. should be included at all.
There seems to be virtually no documentation of what her involvement consisted of, and certainly no source to suggest that it constitutes any real part of her career. One solitary article[15] says that she "launched" Brook Avenue Press, but what did "launching" it consist of? Were there ever writers working on projects? I can find no source to support that. ISBN lists no publications for that entity. Does anyone know anything at all about this supposed entity? Apparently, it was an idea for a student project once upon a time (see, but how did it materialize (if it did at all)?
GAGEis, Inc. is similarly shrouded in mystery. Her title indicating association with that entity (to the degree it actually is an entity) has one solitary source [16]. What is the company? When did she work there? Was she an employee, or volunteer? What did her work consist of?
I'm kind of shocked these questions didn't get explored when she was running for office. John2510 (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
These are one-sentence mentions, hardly things she hung her hat on or that this article pins as significant. She opened a printing company. It failed. Hardly news, but doesn't mean she did not "launch" it. It's also discussed on other pieces, such as where there is a brief interview with someone else who was at the same incubator as Brook Avenue at the time. His venture also is no longer in business, because, gasp, some very number of startups fail. Big woop. The fact that there are no ISBNs for it is not a rationale to say she did not "do" it, but is holding an 18-word sentence to the N standard of being its own article, which I don't recall anyone trying to do. JesseRafe (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Every sentence should be accurate, or omitted. The source linked in states "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 22, has shelled out $1,000 since April simply to rent space while she researches her business idea — a children’s book publishing company devoted to telling positive stories set in The Bronx." Simply researching the idea seems to be as far as it ever got (unless there's a source to the contrary). That would be better description, rather than padding the bio with misleading statements (one-sentence or otherwise). There is no indication that it "started up," "opened" or "failed." It simply never really existed. It was an idea. John2510 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
She founded it; it failed. What's there to litigate? There is every indication that she launched the venture and it fizzled and presumably shuttered.
Are all indicative of it existing and the first link is her financial disclosure listing her as its founder. Jeez, you people are exhausting. "She failed at business, lol!" or "She's a liar, her business didn't exist because she's a failure, lol!". JesseRafe (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure which, "you people" you're talking about. I didn't say those things about her and (as far as I know), she never said that she ran a publishing company. I'm trying to get this article accurate. She rented some space and researched the idea of publishing, and that seems to be an accurate representation, as far as any sources show. A parked domain for sale on GoDaddy is hardly evidence of the existence of a business. Nor is a Twitter account with one tweet. She didn't fail at publishing, she simply didn't actually engage in it. As far as publishing (versus researching or talking about the idea of publishing), is there any evidence that she embarked on it? John2510 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"extremely remote" ancestry[edit]

@Hyjukilo: Regarding these three edits: the current "have ancestry" summary is an adequately weighted summary. It is quite a tautology to say an ancestry is "extremely remote", it is also a dubious summary that potentially undermines the subject, as extremely remote can refer to a range from a thousand to a quadrillion years. Yes she did say that it's generations ago, sth like 500 years, but we also observe guidelines like WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH here. Discuss here, and less reverts would be more helpful for the improvement of the article. Tsumikiria (T/C) 12:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sephardic ancestry could for example be recent cultural or ethnical hertige from one or all four grandparents. In contrast, Alexandria has extremely remote Sephardic ancestry from 500 years ago. Politicans want to claim a belonging to different groups for different reasons. If there is room for the public to get a more nuanced picture, then that's always something positive to contribute with Hyjukilo (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC).

Depending on more detailed information 'extremely remote' could be arguably changed to just 'remote' ancestry, but not such information is at hand at the moment. Hyjukilo (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I concur. I would say that it's a matter of definition, but given that we have her assertion about her family trees, and furthermore given the history of Spain and Puerto Rico and the number of generations involved, I'm fine with extremely remote. (Elizabeth Warren probably has more indigenous ancestry, genomically speaking. Shorter time-frame.) kencf0618 (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I've always felt that this added information is trivia and does nothing to improve the article. I'd remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Extremely remote" reads like editorializing to me (which is generally unencyclopedic.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"Extremely remote" is both editorializing and unencyclopedic. It's ancestry, the plain meaning of the word means it's remote and "extremely" is OR. Neither word belongs in the sentence if the sentence is even to stay. JesseRafe (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

'Remote' is commonly used in geneaology to distinguish recent ancestry (a Jewish grandfather) from remote ancestry (a Jewish great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather). Hyjukilo (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Another way of phrasing it is that say the her Sephardic ancestry is not remote (even though it is), but miniscule or microscopic. Hyjukilo (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Trying to write off an ancestry as miniscule or microscopic is some interesting editorializing that would suggest a certain POV on your part. Consensus is not in your favor in this case. Of course you can escalate, but you might not get what you want. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
In this case it is trivial. It is her word she made as a politician to score brownie points. It's certainly not noteworthy. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It's important to uphold a neutral and objective point of view. Suggestion: We remove the sentence all together. Out of all people here on the talk page, 2/6 favor extremely remote, 1/6 favor removing the sentene, 2/6 question the sentence and 1/6 favor the current version. All opinions lack consesus, therefore, we should remove the sentence. Hyjukilo (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The new edit is correct JesseRafe. Hyjukilo (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hyjukilo: Your reading of consensus does not appear to be accurate. Could you name which editors you believe support what? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth see above: 2/6 favor extremely remote (Hyj + Kencf), 1/6 favor removing the sentene (Gandy), 2/6 question the sentence (Aquill + Jesse) and 1/6 favor the current version (Tsumik). Now more people has entered the discussion, with Sir Joseph also arguing against Tsumikiria.

I support the current version, quotes are good. Hyjukilo (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You've proved Peter's point by showing yourself incapable of reading other editors' comments accurately. I was one of many who said "extremely remote" does not belong in the encyclopedia -- a grouping you failed to even include. JesseRafe (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We usually paraphrase banal quotes like that, which is why we used ancestry to summarize it in the first place. Go make a RfC, instead of misreading intent of other editors to support your editorializing. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings to the public, happy to give you my input Hyjukilo (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


I noticed in the full 4'20" Boston U dance video, that Alexandra is listed as "Sandy Ocasio-Cortez". [17]. If she still uses that name informally, it should be in the WP article. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Bellagio99, "Sandy" is a hypocorism of "Alexandria", so we shouldn't include it in the first sentence per MOS:NICKNAME. Barack Obama used to go by "Barry", but there is significance behind this that makes it biogaphically relevant. If that's the case with AOC, we can mention "Sandy" in a similar way. If it's not, maybe we don't mention it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Both for being a common hypocorism and neither being a name she uses or is referred to in the media, we don't need to include. Agree with the above, just without any "maybe". JesseRafe (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post Op-Ed[edit]

This should be in the article. Truthsort (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, maybe. That's quite a broad statement. In what context, phrasing, and location does it belong? ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This is an opinion piece, is it not? Ergo, no.--Jorm (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I've seen this user go to various talk pages of Democrats (specifically remembering Andrew Gillum before the election), drop a link to an article that casts the subject in a negative light, and say something along the lines of "this should be in the article" without providing any context. If it's an opinion piece (haven't clicked on it, don't want to waste my free WaPo views for the month on it), then hard pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Question, how does this not violate Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? I changed the section heading, this is low threshhold trolling and should be removed. It's clear foruming, with barely the words needed to say it's a "suggestion" when it clear isn't and isn't intended to be. JesseRafe (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This section should be removed on sight. The sole purpose for it was to attract the eyesight of any passerby of this talk page and disparage the subject or fellow editors. No entertaining value. Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
If the user is doing something in a systemic way so as to be intentionally disruptive, then take them to ANI or AN and sort it out. If you don't want to do so, then it's probably best to save blatant personal accusations and whole sale removal of threads in which multiple editors have already commented. GMGtalk 21:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The article is listed in the analysis section of WAPO. It is not an OP-ED. Truthsort (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This source is no worse than the ones cited in the Trump lead for his record/unprecedented number of false (or "misleading") statements. There's no reason not to mention AOC's false statements in the body. wumbolo ^^^ 10:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If this is even to include, in what place, what context, and what phrasing of the article shall it deserve to be an appendage? By not providing any of those you are certainly not expecting any of us to fulfill your order, so this this trolling without any subtlety. One source cannot overturn the rest. Unlike the human orange hellscape there isn't multiple sourced, fair, proportionate, and bias-less coverage on her alleged falsehoods, and ripples and echoes from conservative blogs celebrating this thinly veiled opinion piece certainly doesn't count. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Now you seem to be the one trolling. See these in-depth reliable sources: Mother Jones, CNN, Fox News and Vox. Furthermore, highlighted AOC in their feature article about the whoppers of 2018 [18], and AOC's comments about the media and fact checkers have been compared to those by Trump [19] [20]. Finally, Glen Kessler HIMSELF shared the WaPo article on Twitter [21]. wumbolo ^^^ 16:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree about including in the body mention of the media commentary criticizing her for getting facts wrong, including the RSes listed above. I don't think it should be a separate criticism section, I think it should probably go in the media coverage section, and be merged into the prose chronologically, e.g., "In January 2019, AOC was criticized by A, B, C and others for saying in an interview X, when in fact Y" or "...for misstating X" or something along those lines; whatever the sources say about it. Levivich (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

"Claims Jewish ancestry." NOT POV[edit]

There is nothing inherently POV about the use of the word "claims" here -- she is making a claim, one that, like any other claim, may or may not be backed up with evidence. The inclusion of what she said at the party without the context of why she is saying it is essentially a basic kind of poor writing -- the introduction of evidence without a sense of what claim tht evidence is meant to support. PaulCHebert (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit, used paraphrase and made the quote inside the references. Hopefully this will settle everything. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The word "claim" is actually viewed as problematic on Wikipedia; it even has its own section link, WP:CLAIM. The issue is that it casts doubt on the veracity of the statement, as a claim is something that is not necessarily true. It's probably best to use that word only to precede statements are demonstrably false based on WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


@The lorax: This guy is completely unnotable. This has been deleted before. We're WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE. Please establish a consensus here for is inclusion, or self-revert. I'm out of my revert ration of the day. Thanks. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, he's not notable, which is why he doesn't have his own biography. However, AOC's relationship status is relevant to her biography, so there's no problem with one line describing her boyfriend. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd lean towards excluding it; the fact that they were dating during the campaign doesn't mean they are dating now. An article at "" [22] says "Ocasio-Cortez Is Extremely Private About Her Relationship, & Never Posts About Roberts on Social Media". It's only because AOC is tabloid fodder that anyone cares, we should probably handle this similarly to how we handle other celebrities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, there's legit, non-tabloid coverage of their relationship, though I agree not much. All the content says is they lived together in Parkchester during the campaign. Someone took out that they met at BU. She made a reference to her boyfriend on Twitter last night.[23] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71, stop edit warring, or you'll be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

For a BLP, we need a better source than tabloids and the gossip press, such as Vogue. Twitter is out of the question. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder, I wasn't suggesting adding that tweet as a source. I was presenting it here for the discussion. The Vogue link is what I had added to the article to include mention of her boyfriend, limited to attending BU together, living together during the 2018 campaign, and his job. I'd be fine keeping his job out of it, but the rest I believe belongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree that "living with her boyfriend during the campaign" is irrelevant in the context of the campaign. Pure tabloid fodder. As this is a BLP, it should stay out, unless a convincing consensus is reached that it belongs. Clearly, that is not the case as of now. Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewen Douglas, how is her relationship status "tabloid fodder", as opposed to biographically relevant? Better go through the articles of every other U.S. Representative to take out mentions of their non-notable partners and spouses? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I would point you to WP:OSE, and also would say, yes, if you are aware of a similar entry on another politician's page, American or British, I would gladly go review it. If you know of ten of those, I would review all ten. In the meantime, this is a BLP, and I believe your reversion of that removal was completely out of bounds, given Wikipedia policy, unless you have consensus, which, given the amount of argument here, you clearly do not (as of yet). Ewen Douglas (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewen Douglas, you're allowed to revert edits of editors who have been blocked for that edit. It's not OSE, as that's a policy for deletion discussions, which this is not. Let's look at Joe Crowley's page, chosen just because she beat him. His page says he's married to Kasey, a registered nurse, and they have three children together. Why would we include that and not include a comparable sentence in AOC's bio? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are making the argument that a long-term marriage that has produced children is the same thing as a short-term cohabitation with a boy/girl-friend, I think you would find yourself in a very small crowd staking out that opinion. It's ridiculous on its face. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewen Douglas, who said it's short-term? I'm saying that relationship status is relationship status. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I believe that in the absence of a reliable source stating that it's a long-term relationship in which the pair are co-habitating, it's a trivial mention, not on par with someone's marriage. We're not allowed to guess at whether it's short-term or long-term, and you seem to be putting forth the view that since we don't know if it's short or long-term, then we default to automatically including the information in the article. Again, that is ridiculous. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewen Douglas, if you read the Vogue article, you'll see that they met at BU. She graduated from BU in 2011, so I'd call that a long-term relationship. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a solid source calling them long-term partners, or is that an inference on your part? Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a fair point. The source says they met at BU. It doesn't say they've dated since they met at BU. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem adding a brief mention of her partner, as we might for any other member of Congress, iff there is a reliable source that isn't a gossip magazine or tabloid. Jonathunder (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

See my comment immediately preceding this one. Do we have mentions of any boyfriends and girlfriends for any members of Congress? I don't think so. There's a reason for that. It's tabloid trivia. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
You raise a good point. Barney Frank's article names his former boyfriend, but he received spousal benefits and there were good references of such, so that's probably a special case. Other than that, I'm not aware of any. Jonathunder (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewen Douglas, the source provided isn't a tabloid and what's being proposed is including basic information about her personal life that's been reported on in WP:RS under the relevant section. Calling it "trivia" is ridiculous; it's clearly relevant to the section and the bio in general. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Can you point to a source other than Vogue? Surely if it's notable, there must be more. Jonathunder (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly care about her boyfriend, and don't particularly know why anyone else would either. Find me an article on someone from the 1800s where we cover their boyfriend, and we can talk. We cover major affairs between notable people that are widely reported, but we're not a tabloid and we're not here to give details about someone's love life. GMGtalk 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Then the Personal life section is obviously of little interest to you, but that doesn't mean it's "unencylopedic." And again, the source is not a tabloid; I don't think mentioning that she lives in an apartment with a partner is the sort of salacious, invasive level of detail that you are implying. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The Vogue piece also says she won a science fair in high school. Why should Wikipedia care about that any more or less that who she dates? GMGtalk 00:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The article already mentions the science fair thing, because it led to an asteroid being named after her. I agree that belongs. I think that biographies should include properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children. In the vast majority of cases, I do not think that boyfriends and girlfriends should be mentioned, unless such relationships receive significant press attention from multiple reliable sources. My recommendation is to keep the boyfriend's name out for now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Cullen328 hit the nail on the head. Basic personal details—family, partner, children, residence—are typical for BLPs and there's nothing "unencyclopedic" or "trivial" about it, particularly when we have multiple sources reporting on it (also including Business Insider). I agree that we don't need to name the boyfriend. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That's your source? That clickbait grab bag of bits from other places says she's "subletting a DC apartment with her boyfriend for a few months before finding a permanent place." No mention of his name or how long they've been together. So we're going to pass that on to the article just to say she has a boyfriend? Be serious, please. This is a BLP. Jonathunder (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
So now we're not providing enough detail about the relationship? Nonsense. Business Insider is a WP:RS and a perfectly appropriate one to use for BLPs. The article is titled "Meet Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," and as one would expect, it reports on basic, non-controversial aspects of her personal life. I don't understand your objection. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920 (talk) - "Basic personal details—family, partner, children, residence—" no. Cullen328 said "properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children." You've added your own spin to his comment to make it seem as though he's agreeing with you. He's not. In any case, there's enough controversy around this that, in a BLP, there's no way it can be added without consensus on this page. And that's the right course to take. There's not even a reliable source to establish that the boyfriend is a "partner" (which is a dubious criteria for inclusion to begin with!). Articles include "properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children." That's it. Not "partners". And certainly not "boyfriends", unless you have a very good reason for it, and well-sourced. None of that exists. It's fairly open-and-shut. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Please don't use words like "spin," and try making WP:AGF a habit. I agree with part of what Cullen328 said, the parts that I indicated. Furthermore, you're misunderstanding my argument: the criteria isn't whether's he's a "partner" or "boyfriend," it's whether or not the material received coverage in multiple WP:RS. It has, and there is no WP:BLP violation in including it, so I don't understand your argument. Creating a lot of smoke by making much ado about nothing doesn't mean there's fire. The question is whether it's relevant to mention these details of her personal life in the Personal life section, and given the sources provided and the subject's own commentary to the press, I don't see a compelling reason not to mention it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It is difficult to assume good faith when you outright lie, twice. You said "I agree with part of what Cullen328 said, the parts that I indicated." - but you didn't indicate what he said that you agreed with, you made up your own phrasing that was similar to his (but not the same). It's very reminiscent of politics in general lately. Fortunately, most editors, I'm sure, can see through this type of double-speak. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, consider trying harder, and don't make unsupported accusations of "lying" that could be construed as a personal attack. I agree that a) personal/family life details are of encyclopedic value when they are properly sourced and b) we should not necessarily call non-notable family members by name. Where I disagree with Cullen328, and with you, apparently, is whether the relationship is worth mentioning in the article, and I'm asserting that it is based on the level of reporting in WP:RS, including commentary by the subject herself. By the way, I don't think we need to go beyond the single clause of 4–5 words that were in the article previously. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Gee fizz. I go give my kid a bath and there's 50 comments. I don't care. Really, I don't care about Cortez as either a person or a politician. We don't list people's boyfriends in articles. That's not a thing we do. If you find a pattern among articles from people in the 1800s where we list their boyfriends and girlfriends, then feel free to ping me. But for however long this conversation goes, consider my !vote to be no. GMGtalk 01:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
No one's proposing to "list her boyfriends." I don't even think anyone's even advocating that he be mentioned by name. The line in the article before the edit-warring broke out was a brief mention of the fact that she lived in an apartment in Parkchester, Bronx, with her boyfriend, derived from the following paragraph from Vogue:
Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Parkchester neighborhood of the Bronx, and it’s where she lives now, in a one-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, an easygoing redhead who works in web development. Her mother, an Evangelical Christian born in Puerto Rico, cleaned houses. Her father, who was born in the borough and became an architect, died of lung cancer at 48.[2]

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is disconcerting to see my clearly stated argument against mentioning the boyfriend being used as an argument in favor of mentioning the boyfriend. Also disconcerting is seeing Business Insider praised as a reliable source. It isn't. Their senior editor is Henry Blodget who was banned for life from the securities industry. Other senior staffers worked at the notorious gossip site Gawker before it was driven into bankruptcy. Business Insider is a clickbait driven news aggregator that takes snippets of reporting from other news sources of widely varying reliability, and then mashes all that up into a pathetic imitation of actual journalism. I stand on my previous recommendation to keep this relationship out until multiple reliable sources devote more than a trivial passing mention to the boyfriend. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You said the following: I think that biographies should include properly referenced information about parents, marriages and children. In the vast majority of cases, I do not think that boyfriends and girlfriends should be mentioned, unless such relationships receive significant press attention from multiple reliable sources. The sources available include the the Guardian, CBS, Vogue, and others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That sums it up for me as well. And many thanks for affirming that Wikieditor19920 was doing exactly what I stated he was doing. It isn't a personal attack when you're just stating facts, Mr. 19920, but well done on trying to turn that one around. Perhaps next time! Ewen Douglas (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Ewen Douglas check your talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920 (talk), "check yourself", as the young people say. If you feel you've been personally attacked, I suggest you take your grievance to an administrator. I will be eagerly munching on popcorn. Ewen Douglas (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ewen, Cullen, and GMG in this case. The criteria for inclusion on a BLP isn't about getting merely passing mention in some (reliable?) sources. Unless we have in-depth coverage on AOC's relationship or love life or whatever, then we can include it in the form of one- or two-liner summary. Else, no. Relationships are by default unstable. I don't think as an encyclopedia we need to update a BLP every time someone dumps someone else. Let's end this discussion before it waste any more of our time. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have an opinion either way, but we definitely shouldn't be name-dropping the boyfriend who has been harassed by the media [24] as per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. wumbolo ^^^ 16:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I for one would not proclaim him a victim of harassment based on one tweet from AOC that calls out one Daily Mail reporter for approaching the boyfriend's family. That's why the Daily Mail is a rag, because they routinely do that sort of thing. If we avoided naming everybody who was harassed by paparazzi, we wouldn't name anyone. Anyway, AOC and the boyfriend posed for photographs for the Vogue interview (he didn't appear in the picture by accident, that was intentional on AOC's part, obviously); he talked to Vogue and Post reporters; his name was published in the those reports and elsewhere (see links below and above). He is not some kind of secret that we need to protect. The Congresswoman has revealed him publicly and talked about him to the media. I'm not sure if naming him is DUE or not, but I don't see him as a victim of anything, and I don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies here. Levivich (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: Reading it again now, I want to apologize for the tone of my reply above. I don't know if I was cranky earlier or what, but there was no need for me to be so argumentative. Sorry about that. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no need to mention the boyfriend by name. The argument for inclusion with the sources already provided, which is solidly based on policy (IMHO), becomes much weaker when we start pushing for that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


  • The Vogue article's lead photograph is a photograph of AOC and Riley Roberts, with the caption: Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic candidate for New York’s Fourteenth District, in a Victor Glemaud sweater, at her Bronx apartment, which she shares with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts (left). The article is a lengthy interview with AOC: Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Parkchester neighborhood of the Bronx, and it’s where she lives now, in a one-bedroom apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, an easygoing redhead who works in web development...Then there’s Roberts, whom Ocasio-Cortez met—"in true nerdy fashion," she says—at a weekly Friday-afternoon conversation hosted by the dean at BU. He later moved from Arizona to be with her. When I first met him backstage at The Daily Show, he was casually citing tax rates in the 1950s... In August, she and Roberts took a vacation to Acadia National Park in Maine, where she posted a photo of a sunset on Twitter.
  • The New York Times refers to her "partner", but not by name: She said she saved money before leaving her job at the restaurant, and planned accordingly with her partner. "We’re kind of just dealing with the logistics of it day by day, but I’ve really been just kind of squirreling away and then hoping that gets me to January."
  • USA Today's lohud has a photograph of AOC and Roberts: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, center, the winner of the June 26 Democratic primary victory in New York's 14th Congressional District, hugs campaign volunteer Riley Roberts the day after her upset against U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley
  • The New York Post quoted Roberts: Among Ocasio-Cortez’s group was her partner, Riley Roberts. "A really incredible day, really special," he told The Post, adding that he liked Washington thus far. "It’s great."
  • Insider in a lengthy interview with AOC: "She still needs to find an apartment in Washington. For the next few months, she'll be subletting a place while her boyfriend, a web developer with whom she shares her one-bedroom in the Bronx, finds them a more permanent spot."
  • Vanity Fair (Spanish): En Estados Unidos hay un caso reciente ilustrativo: cuando Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ganó la semana pasada el asiento en el Congreso apareció sin su pareja, Riley Roberts. which translates to In the United States there is a recent illustrative case: when Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a Congressional seat last week she appeared without her partner, Riley Roberts.
  • Vanity Fair (Italian): Ocasio-Cortez è nata nel quartiere di Parkchester, nel Bronx, ed è lì che attualmente vive in un bilocale con il fidanzato, Riley Roberts, un giovane flemmatico dai capelli rossi che lavora come sviluppatore web. I don't speak Italian, but it looks like the Vogue article language. Google translates that to: Ocasio-Cortez was born in the district of Parkchester, in the Bronx, and that's where she currently lives in a two-room apartment with her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a young red-haired phlegmatic who works as a web developer. ..."flemmatico" = "easygoing" or "phlegmatic"? :-)
  • The above are aggregated with attribution by (Over 1,000 WP cites but see this 2017 RSN re: as a source for BLP), again, and (93 WP cites).
  • Incidentally, in 2011, Roberts gave a TEDx talk at Boston University [25]. If he gets a sentence, maybe it should mention this.

AOC and Roberts have spoken to multiple media outlets (AOC: NYTimes, Insider, Vogue; Roberts: Post, Vogue). This isn't a passing boyfriend; per her own words, they met in college, have lived together for an unspecified amount of time in New York, and moved together to DC. The word "partner" is used by the New York Times, Post, and Vanity Fair to describe him. Photos of them together have been run by Vogue and lohud (part of USA Today). In my view, he's a significant part of her life, they've talked to the media about it, the media has taken notice, and the reader will be interested. I think a sentence is due. Levivich (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of those may be good sources, unlike the clickbait and gossip rag stuff mentioned before. (BTW, "flemmatico" literally means "phlegmatic" but something like "laid back" is probably more idiomatic.) Jonathunder (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jonathunder: Would you (and any other editors who care to chime in) agree with this: For example, Vogue is a fashion/lifestyle magazine, and is not, in and of itself, a reliable source. Meaning, if Vogue says "so and so is dating so and so," we wouldn't include that statement sourced to the Vogue article. But an interview in Vogue is reliable, because it's an interview. Meaning, there is no reason to think that the information conveyed in the Vogue interview is untruthful or made up–obviously, in an interview with a Congresswomen, they're going to get the transcription right, and if they got it seriously wrong, we would hear about it (presumably from the Congresswoman). Nevertheless, even if a Vogue interview is reliable, there is still the question of weight (WP:DUE). So, just because Vogue publishes a story about something, doesn't mean that something is actually notable enough to include in an encyclopedia article, because Vogue will focus on things ("fluff" for lack of a better word) that other, more serious reliable sources, like newspapers and scholarly journals, would not focus on. So, analyzing a source isn't just about sorting sources into one bucket (reliable) or another (unreliable), but actually looking at who is doing the writing (the source), what kind of writing they're doing (is it an interview? is it a gossip column?), and what topic they're writing about (is it independently notable, per other sources?), before deciding whether it can or cannot be included in a WP article. For example, a gossip column in the The New York Times might not make a suitable source for the factual claims made in the column, whereas an interview with the U.S. President in Cosmopolitan might be used as a reliable source. Just curious if I'm understanding the general gist of RS. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a good analysis. Jonathunder (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's important to note that interviews are always considered a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used to establish notability or for statements of fact. They should generally be avoided in favor of reliable, WP:SECONDARY coverage. I also don't agree with you that Vogue is an unreliable source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


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

"Other political affiliation" in infobox?[edit]

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

It is mentioned in the lead, but I agree it should probably be mentioned in the info box as well. PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Very widely reported. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It certainly merits a infobox inclusion. Whoever added that comment on the line"|otherparty" that DSA isn't a party so we shouldn't include it - I don't see relevant rules on the Template:Infobox officeholder. Political affiliation certainly doesn't have to be a party. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done: It renders as "other political affiliation", even though the parameter is "otherparty=", so it's not a problem that DSA isn't a party. Levivich (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Dual major v. major/minor[edit]

I removed "minor" in economics (as a stop gap) because the sources cited do not say that, nor can I find any other source saying that. I note the discussion a few threads up in the "educator" thread. I believe the sources establish that it was a double major and she earned a dual degree in Economics and International Relations:

  • NBC News: Ambitious and driven, Ocasio-Cortez graduated from Boston University in 2011 with a dual degree in Economics and International Relations.
  • The New Yorker: She changed majors, from biochemistry to economics and international relations, and worked part time in Senator Edward Kennedy’s Boston office, dealing with constituent concerns, including immigrant issues.
  • Newsmax, that bastion of the liberal left :-) has a great way of phrasing it: For someone who graduated from Boston University with a double major, she is remarkably ignorant.
  • Her Campus, which I'm not familiar with, but appears to be a reliable Boston-based media company (About Us): She graduated from Boston University with a major in economics and international relations.
  • BU: Ocasio-Cortez, who graduated from Boston University with degrees in international relations and economics, is a former organizer for Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign and a former staffer for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. To me, "degrees," plural, means dual-major, not a major-minor (as that would be one degree not two).
  • AOC's website: Alexandria went on to study at Boston University, where she earned degrees in Economics and International Relations. Again, "degrees," plural.

Based on the above, I think the article should say she earned "a degree, double-majoring in Economics and International Relations" or "a dual degree in Economics and International Relations" or "a degree in Economics and International Relations". Because I don't think it matters whether it's a "dual degree" or "degrees" or "double major", the third example above is my preference. Any objections to making that change, and citing the sentence to NBCNews and New Yorker (instead of the cites there now, which don't go into enough detail)? Levivich (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

We should cite what the sources say not make up own guesses unless one say is clearly more accurate and precise than the others. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
How about avoiding the whole degree/degrees distinction, since sources are not in agreement? I suggest something like "she attended (or graduated from) Boston University, majoring in Economics and International Relations." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It's relevant context to contrast with wealth taxes in other Western democracies[edit]

It would identify to readers just how extreme (or not) the policy is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We can consider many alternatives. Should we? We can consider how tax avoidance reduces tax receipts [26] in the real world that makes the $72 billion per year less likely. The $72 billion per year, which less than 10% of the deficit, doesn’t even help pay for current bills or come close to paying for Medicare for all. Tyler Cowen considers the AOC rate for incomes starting from $500k [27] There’s many other articles that consider her proposal among other alternatives. This can become a full blown Wiki article. I suggest we limit commentary to her proposal. It’s her opening gambit. Let’s not consider hypothetical moves or guess her end-game. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
We are not a policy comparison tool, but an encyclopedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is confusing and borderline dishonest for us to discuss proposals that she did not make, in a sentence about a proposal that she did make. Leave it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Conflating her proposals with other, unrelated ones to highlight how extreme hers supposedly are is WP:SYNTH, which has no place in an article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I'd also argue that the 1st two lines on Krugman's article is sufficient to establish that AOC's tax rate proposal is respectable. Giving Krugman 3 times the copy as AOC is WP:UNDUE. Towards the end it ventures into the polemical. The criticism of hypothetical Republican ideas just begs for a rebuttal such as Alan Greenspan's [28]. I've chosen not to take that route and make our article more appropriate to an Encyclopedia instead of a partisan slug-fest. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding her religious beliefs[edit]

Ocasio-Cortez wrote an Op-Ed on how her Catholicism shapes her political views in American Magazine. Several other news organizations corroborate that she's Catholic. This should be added to the infobox because of its notability. Tastybaldeagle (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • FWIW, the link is here. No opinion as to whether it's notable or not. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I would prefer to see a strong non-primary source reporting this to establish that it's notable enough for the article. Not disputing its factual nature, but WP:UNDUE comes into play if there's only one source. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • That's the interesting thing about AOC--there's really not a lot of strong secondary sourcing about her, in contrast to the plethora of sources about what she's said or done. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
        • It's already in the body of the article, and a person's beliefs or personal belief system is always a notable subject for their biography. An ABOUTSELF source is the best source for a person's beliefs. I'm not seeing the argument that we shouldn't say she's Catholic until other people besides AOC say she's Catholic, or until other people besides AOC say her Catholic beliefs are important to her. For me, because this is an article about a human being, and not an article about a political campaign, party, policy or ideology, there is no problem with putting Catholic into the infobox. Levivich (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It isn't an "argument", per se; it's a Wikipedia policy spelled out pretty clearly in WP:WEIGHT. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere in WEIGHT where it says that if a BLP's religion is in the body of the article, sourced by a WP:SELFPUB source, we should not put it in the infobox. Nor do I see anything in WEIGHT or the NPOV policy in general saying we cannot source a BLP's religion to a SELFPUB source. I'm not sure what the objection is: that it's not true, that it's disputed, that it's not important enough to mention, that we're going into too much detail, or that characterizing her as "Catholic" is inappropriate because she has "Catholic beliefs" but isn't a "practicing" Catholic? Perhaps instead of a bluelinked capitalized shortcut, those who object to including Catholic in the infobox could state the reason for their objection, specifically? Levivich (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)