Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 7

Liberalism in the United States
What is the point of the Liberalism in the United States sidebar? It includes the last 45 presidents of the U.S., every single Supreme Court judge and the overwhelming majority of elected officials over the past 200 years of which AOC is among a small number of exceptions. TFD (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The term is fairly vague and broad (especially when used internationally); a few sources using it in relation to her isn't sufficient to make it central to the topic in a way that would justify the sidebar.  And, generally speaking, politicians don't seem to get it by default (eg. Barack Obama does not have it.) If we gave her every sidebar that could reasonably be applied to her politics, there would be an unreadable number of them (at the bare minimum the socialism sidebar would be vastly more appropriate, given that her fame is primarily for being unusually successful for a Democratic Socialist politician in the US - not that I'm suggesting adding that, but if we were going to have one or the other that would obviously trump the Liberalism one by being clearly more relevant, comparatively speaking.)  Even if the references naming her "liberal" in passing were sufficient to define her as liberal despite her rejection of the label, it's clear that the in-depth sources discussing her socialism have more weight, and it's clear from context that that aspect of her politics is more relevant to her notability. --Aquillion (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article Liberalism in the United States is about the major ideology that has guided the U.S. since its founding, which is constitutional government, equality before the law and private property. The article Modern liberalism in the United States is about the version that developed in the 1930s, which is what Americans normally mean when they use the term liberal. But socialism is outside both those traditions. But even if AOC was a liberal, adding the category and sidebar would be unusual unless we were going to add it to every politician in the U.S. TFD (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of her French Bulldog
Should the information on Ocasio-Cortez purchasing a French Bulldog puppy be included in her personal life section? We now have the added controversy of criticism by PETA about buying a dog instead of getting one from a shelter. This seems to have been picked up by the New York press and others.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously there's nothing wrong with covering political animals per se: Category:Animals in politics. IMO we can skip this one for now per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROPORTION. If I may make a WP:OSE comparison, Kate Upton's dog has coverage over time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Social Democrat should be removed, as she no longer aligns herself with the Soc Dem/Dem Soc ideologies but aligns herself with centrist Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9D40:12F0:BC72:A043:4FAB:828B (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of this? Her tactics may prove to be better than Bernie's at promoting social democracy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Relationship with the Democratic Party
I think it's relevant to add something about her status as an outsider and she has clashed repeatedly with the main arm of the party. It's not simply a one off thing, but a pattern in their relationship. Maybe it should be in a section of its own or part of the "tenure" section. I'm not sure, however, what exactly should be written and what should be left out, so I'll make these suggestions to see what others think and in the hope that a better and more experienced writer than me can write it up.

There's the fact that AOC has aimed to specifically endorse candidates to unseat democratic incumbents. In addition, a new party policy makes it much harder to unseat incumbents, and AOC has pushed back hard against it, calling it a "blacklist". she goes so far as to ask her supporters to stop donating to the party and instead give directly to swing candidates. She herself has refused to pay her dues to the party because of this issue, creating a PAC instead that explicitly criticizes the party.

Less notable maybe are her "feuds" with Pelosi. Pelosi criticized AOC for using twitter instead of talking directly to party members during negotiations over border legislation. . AOC also said that Pelosi "singles out women of color", calling it " outright disrespectful".

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadPaper (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , my thoughts are all the Pelosi parts are WP:UNDUE because of WP:NOTNEWS, and it may all be outdated anyway. Her relationship with the DCCC and her own PAC should already be in the article. Isn't it? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi . The article makes no mention of the DCCC, or her PAC's relationship with them, or the "blacklist", or the fees she refuses to pay. Regarding the Pelosi stuff, I guess I agree. Though in that case, would you not consider the paragraph on Trump's criticism of the squad (in the tenure section) to be also WP:UNDUE? It seems like it's on par with the "feud" with Pelosi. Regards, RadPaper (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the DCCC item should be added. If you like, you can draft some text for us to review here, or you could be WP:BOLD and add it yourself if you feel you can. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks RadPaper, a paywall prevents me from reading the NYT but I have paid for WashPo and read that article. Absolutely this is information that needs to be in her article, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AOC's status as an outsider is the most important thing about her and should be in the lead. It doesn't require a separate section but should be clear from her biography. For example, in her first run, she organized working people and raised small donations, while the Democratic establishment and its donors rallied round the incumbent and the national news media ignored her. If doesn't mention either her membership in the DSA. Instead she is portrayed as Horatio Alger fighting her way to the top with luck and pluck. TFD (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal Life was wrong in PR descendants
She has said, "to be Puerto Rican is to be the descendant of African slaves, Taino Indians, and Spanish colonizers. We are all of these things and something else all at once—we are Boricua."[16] Omareg03 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is the actual quote from the source: "But to be Puerto Rican is to be the descendant of: African Moors + slaves, Taino Indians, Spanish colonizers, Jewish refugees, and likely others. We are all of these things and something else all at once — we are Boricua.”  I can't see that this information is needed in her Bio and I think that the best way to handle this problem is to delete the inaccurate quote from her article.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done - someone has corrected the quote. GoingBatty (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Elections
I would like a section dedicated to her 2020 election bid against Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. It doesn’t have to be long, but seeing as how she is a very prominent politician and the race was actually very highly watched, I think we should dedicate a section to it. KRed221 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be a sentence or two about facing a well-funded conservative challenger. It was certainly a talked-about race but there was little substance to it nor actual suspense in the outcome. Jbbdude (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sephardic Jewish heritage
This is not an undisputed claim made by AOC. It has been raised as problematic before yet it's still on the page without clarification that it is simply a claim AOC made (rather controversially). I understand WP:CLAIM to be specifically about the problematic implications of the word "claim". Is there room to suggest adding e.g. "At a Hanukkah party, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez stated that...", something to clarify it is something she has said? Jbbdude (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've never felt that it should be included. It is several generations back if I remember correctly.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone just commented to me that they didn't know AOC was a Sephardic Jew, a fact they learned from this article just today. There is no evidence for this still. I will update the article for clarity. Jbbdude (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Replacing a redirect with a proper article
As of right now, the 2018 New York's 14th congressional district election "page" is just a redirect to 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in New York.

Perhaps someone can create Draft:2018 New York's 14th congressional district election by copy/pasting bits of 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in New York and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into a copypasta article (following the CC-by-sa 3.0 license, of course). I may do that at some point, but someone in New York would be better qualified to do that. I recommend using the format that we used for 2018 California's 10th congressional district election -- RobLa (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would really love a help with Draft:2018 New York's 14th congressional district election. As of this writing, it's still mostly copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&oldid=968024112, but I've started to restructure it into an article that can be NPOV.  Anyone have the time/ability to help me?  See Draft_talk:2018 New York's 14th congressional district election for more discussion of the draft.  I'd really love some help from someone who knows NYC politics.  -- RobLa (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

New Way Forward Act
AOC has show open support for the New Way Forward Act. I've added it the article under immigration was sources, but was reverted. Per WP:BRD I am opening a discussion as to why this should or should not be included. Valoem talk contrib 19:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's already a thread at WP:AN/I. You are WP:FORUMSHOPPING and that is not okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What? I am opening discussions on the talk page are we moving the discussion over there? Valoem talk contrib 19:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion you linked only talks about BRD This discussion here is for inclusion of her support of the bill. This is not forum shopping. Valoem talk <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 19:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove loopback link to Riley Roberts page
In the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez section there's a link to Riley Roberts page, which is redirected back to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, so it's a bit unnecessary to have it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yedpodtrzitko (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Fixed, thanks for noticing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When the link to Riley Roberts is gone, should the redirect at least lead directly to the "Personal life" section. --Blobstar (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are to have that redirect, it's an improvement. Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

College Double-Major
The article only lists AOC with a major in international relations, however the source for that clearly states she double-majored in international relations and economics. This is a fairly straightforward edit that ought to happen but understandably this page is locked. So hopefully someone who can edit it notices this and makes the change, thanks! Rosenbuck (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I fixed it.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Noticed the same mistake exists in the third paragraph of the intro as well. Rosenbuck (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit removed about FactCheck.org on AOC's hearsay about migrants drinking out of toilet
Hello, I have recently added source material from Factcheck.org about the claim made by AOC that the migrants were told to drink out of toilets which has been proven to be hearsay. NorthBySouthBaranof reverted this edit citing that DailyMail is a "deprecated source". In fact I was sourcing from a factcheck.org article which simply mentioned a DailyMail journalist relevant to the chronology of events. Mind you, it's important to note that AOC began her series of accusations with photographs of the bathroom/sink facility stating that their sinks are toilets - unaware that it's a standardized facility across all detention centers in which the sink though attached to the toilet is a separate water source altogether.

Given the fact this page excludes all the claims she's made which have been proven to be false in her time so far as a congresswoman I will not count on this relevant detailing of the chronology being included. However, this bit below should either be removed or wording adjusted as it is pure hearsay and does not belong on an encyclopedia.

See what it currently says and then below how Factcheck.org rates AOC's comments:

"In July 2019, Ocasio-Cortez visited migrant detention centers and other facilities in Texas as part of a congressional delegation to witness the border crisis firsthand. Ocasio-Cortez described conditions she called "horrifying." She said that women in one cell said they had not had access to showers for two weeks and were told to drink water from the toilet when their sink broke, and that one woman said that her daughters had been taken from her two weeks earlier and she did not know where they were.[204][205]"

From Fact-check org: "Were detainees in border patrol facilities told by guards to drink water from toilets? That’s what at least four Democratic lawmakers claimed, though it’s unclear whether the reference to toilets was to a sink/toilet combination unit and the tap water from the sink part. From a fact-checking perspective, this claim is akin to hearsay in court. We can’t say what unidentified guards told unidentified detainees or what those detainees then told lawmakers. But we can lay out what we do know." https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/confusion-at-the-border/

If we are to consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia we must attribute the same standard we do to hearsay made by non-Democrat public officials — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pformenti (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * AOC was quoting what a prisoner told her. We don't know if what the prisoner said was true. I don't see the issue. Three other legislators reported that prisoners had told them the same thing, so it is probable that AOC was quoting the prisoner correctly. Common law rules of evidence were designed for courtrooms, not political discussion or news reporting. There is nothing wrong with reporting what prisoners say guards told them without actually being present when the guards were speaking. TFD (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does not present AOC's statement as truth - it presents it as something AOC said. Readers can judge for themselves whether she was truthful or not. If we were to remove anything a politician said which could not be proven in a court of law, we would include very little of anything that Donald Trump ever said, for example. If there is a reliable source which reports that she was wrong and that no prisoner was ever told to drink out of a toilet bowl, that would probably be relevant, and we would want to present that report in context. But there aren't any reliable sources which say that.
 * In fact, your edit summary was misleading, because it stated Fact-check.org ... confirms that migrants were not drinking out of toilet - when the source says no such thing. The article does not, in fact, "confirm" that detained migrants were never told to drink out of the toilet bowl. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is a photo of a typical prison toilet. When one reads what they were doing to even small children I don't see why it's so hard to believe that the women were told to drink out of the toilet when the sink section did not work.    Gandydancer (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * AOC did not say that the women were told to drink out of toilets but that they said they were told to do that. The question is whether she should have repeated what multiple prisoners told her or should she first have conducted a thorough investigation and found proof beyond reasonable doubt. I think the evidence she obtained could be considered probable cause which is not as high a standard, but if beyond reasonable doubt were the standard before anything was investigated, nothing would be investigated. TFD (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To draw this comparison please cite an example of wording or phrasing on Donald Trump's wikipedia article that includes his first-person recounting of an incident told to him by unnamed sources and is not followed up with editorial commentary either disputing it or including a media personality offering critique or skepticism on said statement.

I tried finding such instance and it is nowhere to be found. This is alike Trump and his team going out for political reasons and speaking to people who witnessed mail-in voter fraud, and then taking this personal anecdote without any follow-up evidence and including it in his Wikipedia page. We all agree I hope that this would not make its way into Wikipedia as it has no factual basis and is more or less a politically motivated statement as is AOC's recounting of what was told to her.

Moreover, the fact that the other legislators from her same political party backed up her recounting does not change that this is still hearsay. By comparison Republican senators may support other outlandish claims or accusations put forth by other Republican senators, this does not constitute as evidence.

I do not see any other than motive for keeping it the way it is other than to make a politically charged statement on what's supposed to be an encyclopedia article. The very fact that it exists and concludes the section is misleading at best as it opens it up the possibility of it having occurred without us knowing it did. We should not include something just to have it when it is not verifiable otherwise this is alike tabloid reporting. Since you are using the courtroom example than let's include the guard's recounting of the events in which they deny this claim and even drank out of the very same "toilet-sink" appliance. This is from: https://theweek.com/speedreads/850592/are-border-patrol-agents-really-telling-migrants-drink-toilets "An unidentified Homeland Security Department official told The Washington Post that no Border Patrol agent would make detained migrants drink from a toilet and that clean water was available to drink."

The lede of the section indicates already that she was criticized for a hyperbolic recounting in comparing the detention centers to concentration camps. Rather than providing the opposing side's hearsay which there is plenty of, I suggest we remove this part entirely as the issue is not black and white. A Wikipedia article for a high-profile public figure such as AOC cannot read like activist journalism.

Pformenti (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually that place where those women were being held was one of the nicer places. As you may remember, a group of lawyers visited a Texas facility at about the same time.  They reported this:
 * " the lawyers encountered a 17-year-old mother from Guatemala who couldn’t stand because of complications from an emergency C-section, and who was caring for a sick and dirty premature baby.


 * “When we encountered the baby and her mom, the baby was filthy. They wouldn’t give her any water to wash her. And I took a Kleenex and I washed around her neck black dirt,” said Hope Frye, who was leading the group, adding, “Not a little stuff — dirt.”


 * Every single news service covered this information, including the NYT and WaPo--and in fact they wrote more than one story on it. This was discussed on every evening news show.  Beyond all the policy reasons that have been offered, it really just floors me to see anyone get so upset about toilet water.  Actually they were lucky to have any water at all.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Again if it was discussed by all those credible news organizations then by all means rewrite the hearsay with factual reporting with citations that back up this claim. This is a politicized issue and those very same news organizations chose not to report these very same human rights conditions under Obama, Bush, Clinton presidencies. Pformenti (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well you're right about that! Yes, in fact no reliable source did report these "same human rights conditions under Obama, Bush, Clinton presidencies."  Gandydancer (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Section removed as undue weight and a coatrack
I have removed a section of the article because it appears to be undue weight and a WP:COATRACK. The place to discuss something Saikat Chakrabarti is accused of doing is... the biography of Saikat Chakrabarti. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof while I have no issue adding this allegation or the section to Saikat's page it in the least should make mention given all the news sources which have reported on it. I disagree on the point of WP: COATRACK AOC's platform is hyper-focused on transparency in politics so her campaign being accused of this violation seems relevant to mention since it contradicts her political stance. I am new to editing on Wikipedia and apologize for not following proper protocol. But I do think a consensus is owed in the least as you told me to do in your contribution note. Thank you. Pformenti (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on adding allegation regarding potential campaign finance law violation with Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress LLC
Hello,

I would like to start a consensus on making mention of the allegations regarding campaign finance law violation. I have been told that this has undue weight, well I figured this would happen so here are several notable news organizations who written articles about this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/payments-to-corporation-owned-by-ocasio-cortez-aide-come-under-scrutiny/2019/03/05/ae5045ee-3f61-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fact-check-did-ocasio-cortez-her-team-break-campaign-finance-n980121

https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-was-accused-of-campaign-finance-violations-2019-3?IR=T

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-19/ocasio-cortez-s-campaign-finance-has-critics-crying-hypocrisy

https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/ocasio-cortez-and-top-aide-should-be-investigated-possible-campaign

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-millionaire-chief-of-staff-violated-fec-rules-to-hide-885g-fec-complaint-alleges

Curious as to what your thoughts are... it seems definitely notable given I've cited at least 4 RS according to Wikipedia which have made mention of it. I am happy to adjust wording or have some of you more experienced editors take a swing at it. Pformenti (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) −
 * Heritage is a right-wing think tank. FOX News is not a reliable source. Your own NBC fact-check says But there's no evidence of wrongdoing. Business Insider says Most election law experts say there's no evidence that Ocasio-Cortez or Chakrabarti committed serious campaign finance violations, but there may be cause for further investigation. The sources don't even present this as something AOC might have done, but rather her chief of staff. We can afford to wait and see if anything comes of the partisan complaints. If the FEC finds that laws were violated, that would probably be relevant. But they haven't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm assuming Fox News not reliable because it's right wing. I am new to Wikipedia can you explain then how NBC is deemed reliable if it biased in the same way but left-leaning? AllSides rates NBC biased strongly to the left as they rate Fox biased strongly to the right. I added multiple sources to indicate that it is worthy of mention since so many large news outlets picked up the story and as you've noted there is not a consensus. I am alright with waiting but I am unclear as to why it doesn't warrant a place in the Wikipedia article in the least as an on-going allegation/open investigation by FEC. Surely you are not suggesting that Wikipedia never mentions inconclusive or on-going cases because I could cite some examples.

Also it seems like stretch to whitewash AOC entirely as this was her campaign PAC's and her political candidacy is strongly based around transparency regarding money in politics, need to make sure this is not just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Pformenti (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before, at Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez/Archive_4 and Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez/Archive_5. There was no consensus for inclusion then, and there have been no developments in the story in the year plus since then that I am aware of. Nothing has changed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The rating on Fox News on politics is no consensus, per Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That's not a decision that editors on this page made and if you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT this is not the page to complain. Also, the fact her campaign was based on transparency has no bearing on what should be in the article. That is something that reliable sources should take into account when they decide to publish, our objective is to ensure articles reflect reliable sources, per weight. What are we supposed to say anyway? Right-wing lawyers make false claim against AOC? If the claim goes anywhere we can reconsider it, but so far it looks as if the claim got coverage in March 2019 when it was made and has since faded away. TFD (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Muboshqu - do you know how I can look up the history so I will not add extra for everyone in the future, I was not aware of this and appreciate the more veteran editors helping a young buck out. Pformenti (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , next to the table of contents is an archive box. It's underneath all of the banner notices. It's hard to spot in the clutter, so let me know if you can't find it. You can type in any search term to see if a particular topic has been discussed in the past. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Education - Double major
The article states that "she double-majored in International Relations and minored in economics", then later says she double majored in both. She majored in economics, not minored.

Im not sure how to appropriately look into or edit this, but I wanted to bring the inconsistency to an editors attention. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.135.100 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I fixed this once and it seems that someone changed it.  I fixed it again.  Cross your fingers...  Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I changed it for the simple reason that one of the cited sources (the Chicago Tribune one) specifically states the major/minor. I'm changing it back, but feel free to do a deep dive on the matter if you find a clearly contradictory source of equal or greater reliability.  White Whirlwind   19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted you. Snopes clearly states double major and includes correspondence from the university.  The Chicago Tribune is clearly a light hearted piece and far from something that would out-weigh Snopes.  Gandydancer (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok we can stick with that unless something better comes out that contradicts.  White Whirlwind   19:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020
Ocasio-Cortez was recruited to run for Congress by Justice Democrats. [] [] [] Ramyen2000 (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

League of Legends footnote
At the far bottom of the article, it mentions her position in League of Legends. In my opinion, I believe this isn't important and should be removed from the article. It's factually correct, but Ocasio-Cortez is not a professional gamer, it feels extremely irrelevant and contrary to Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone.

Thank you for your time and consideration. R. J. Dockery (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree it should not be mentioned unless it is covered in reliable sources other than gamer magazines. TFD (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

American socialism
So an IP recently came by and removed the long standing American socialism box here, I reverted to status quo here, and then removed it here again stating Not justified by content. An accusation does not create fact. Socialists and Democratic Socialists generally hate each other (in Europe this has led to bloodshed). DS think socialism is a step too far, too extreme. Besides being a lot of OR it should be noted that the template is American Socialism NOT a general socialism template. Also it has been in the article a long time at this point. Should it be restored? For reference it was added here back in December from what I can tell. PackMecEng (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's "old" content, but still wrong, so I agree with that removal and also cleaned up the categories. The article content and sources used do not justify the category or label, so it is a BLP-violating category. The article only contains one accusation of her being a Socialist. It's properly sourced, so okay as an opinion. That is hardly justification for labeling her as such or including her in the category.
 * Too many people are ignorant of the fact that an accusation does not create fact. Socialists and Democratic Socialists (DS) generally hate each other (in Europe this has led to bloodshed.). DS think Socialism is a step too far, too extreme. FDR was not a Socialist, but essentially a Social Democrat. Accusing a Democratic Socialist (or Social Democrat like myself) of being a Socialist is just as offensive as calling a Republican a Nazi. -- Valjean (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is still a commentary on American socialism. Democratic socialism is part of the series on socialism. It is completely irrelevant is certain brands of socialism hate each other. Again democratic socialism, which she refers to herself as, is a variant of socialism. PackMecEng (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article still lacks the RS to justify such a categorization. Your own arguments at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard support using extreme caution when categorizing people, so I'm surprised you don't advocate such caution here. Let's be cautious, especially since we don't have the RS to justify such a categorization. -- Valjean (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The RS are in the article (last sentence of the lead) and democratic socialists is not a contentious label. Even less so when the subject explicitly calls herself that. Heck she is even named in our article Democratic Socialists of America. What are the RS you would like to see? PackMecEng (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What. Of course we have RSes.  She's a member of the DSA and describes her own politics as Democratic Socialist, which the sidebar encompasses (in fact, the DSA is listed prominently, and she's probably their most well-known member.)  This fact is central to what makes her (particularly) notable for an elected representative, so the socialism sidebar is justified. I also think that your concern here underlies the issue with trying to apply WP:LABEL to politics - any political label is going to be contentious to someone, so trying to apply it this way inevitably involves people imposing their own views on what a "neutral" view of politics is on articles.  We should go by what the sources say, and they make it overwhelmingly clear she's a democratic socialist. --Aquillion (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa! Hold on, both of you. I have NOT objected to the DS label at all. I have objected to the Socialist label. We only have one source making the accusation of her being a Socialist, one that is false. By analogy, we'd need multiple, high-quality, RS to accuse a Republican of being a Nazi. Just because they are both on the right-wing does not justify accusing a moderate of being an extremist. The same applies to the left-wing. Even though it's common for members of the now extremely right-wing GOP to label Democrats as Socialists and Communists, that doesn't make it right.
 * We just need the sources, and they aren't in the article. -- Valjean (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Democratic socialist is basically a term adopted by socialists to distinguish themselves from communists. AOC is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is one of three groups that emerged following the dissolution of the Socialist Party of America in the early 1970s. (The other two were Social Democrats USA and the Socialist Party USA.) It endorsed Sanders' nomination but is not endorsing anyone in the presidential election.
 * However, I don't think the socialism sidebar is appropriate. AOC's notability does not stem from her membership in the DSA but from her position as a Democratic congresswoman. It would be different if she had been elected as a socialist, like Kshama Sawant, the Socialist Alternative member of the Seattle City Council.
 * TFD (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * TFD, I generally agree with your views, except the first sentence, and I suspect that's a typo as it makes no sense. Democratic socialist and Social Democrat are basically terms adopted by them to distinguish themselves from Socialists, as they are Democrats (they have slid further to the right on the spectrum) who are no longer Socialists (or have never been so, all depending on the person), but still have sympathies for certain social justice ideals espoused by Socialism. FDR was like AOC, a Democrat who espouses social justice ideals. AOC finds herself at home in the Social Democrats of America, and runs as a Democrat.
 * Socialists still identify as Socialists to distinguish themselves from Communism, which is an extreme variation of Socialism. -- Valjean (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The terms socialist, democratic socialist and social democrat are generally interchangeable, although some writers use these terms with different shades of meaning. Hence the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the Socialist Party (France) and the Labour Party (UK) which describes itself in Clause IV as a "democratic socialist party," were all members of the Socialist International, as was the Democratic Socialists of America.
 * FDR btw was not a socialist or social democrat. As the Socialist Party leader Norman Thomas wrote, "Emphatically, Mr. Roosevelt did not carry out the Socialist platform, unless he carried it out on a stretcher."
 * TFD (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of those three terms, only the latter two are somewhat interchangeable. Socialist is in a class separate from them, separate, but related. Your mention of FDR carries on the conflation. He was not a Socialist or a Social Democrat (and I didn't say he was either), but his social policies were practically identical to many of those advanced by Social Democrats.
 * Social Democrats are truly an amalgamation of the Democratic Party and certain aspects of socialism, while completely rejecting many other aspects of Socialism (state control, nationalization, etc.). They are Democrats with socialist social justice ideals. They are capitalists (like Democrats and Republicans) who believe in a mixed market economy. It is mainly the social area where they differ from many Democrats and all Republicans. -- Valjean (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are getting your information. Why do you think that Labour, the German SPD, the French Socialists and the DSA would all belong to the Socialist International, if none of them were socialists. And why would the French social democratic/democratic socialist party call itself the Socialist Party? And why would the people who founded the DSA belong to the Socialist Party of America in the first place?
 * Social Democrat is not a combination of socialist + Democratic Party, but the name of various socialist parties, most notably in Germany and Sweden. The specific meaning was that while liberalism had brought political equality, social democracy would bring economic equality and the ideology was based on Marxism, although it was later abandoned except in the Soviet Union.
 * TFD (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * is right., you seem to be confusing socialism for communism, or more accurately central planning and Marxism–Leninism, the state ideology of Communist states. You also seem to conflate social democrats, who are socialists (socialism is a philosophy and movement, not only an economic system and social democrats have been pragmatic and reformist socialists), with the Third Way and social liberals, who are... well, liberals. While sharing many policies and having some overlaps, they come from different traditions and had different reasons for supporting the same policies. Just like Bismarck supported the welfare state for vastly different reasons than social democrats, who originally opposed it. Davide King (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Davide, my understandings stem from being an American raised in a very conservative Republican home under the shadow of McCarthyism, believing the propaganda that Socialism was the same as Communism. We were totally naive regarding politics.
 * I have lived in six different countries under widely different forms of government, ranging from extreme socialist (nationalizing some private businesses), right-wing civilian and military dictatorships, and Scandinavian Social Democracies. Needless to say, my views have evolved, and I now identify as a Social Democrat who usually votes Democratic in the USA. Most of my adult life I have closely seen how the following parties work: List of political parties in Denmark. That doesn't mean I can't be wrong, but I'm certainly better informed than 99% of Americans. I think more like a European. -- Valjean (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been a convergence of major political parties toward support of the status quo, so one could compare the Democrats to the social democratic parties in most other Western countries and indeed they work together. But the underlying ideologies remain distinct. TFD (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, I tend to agree, but the American Democratic Party still distances itself from typical Social Democracy, hence its treatment of Bernie and AOC. Yet it does span broadly enough to include Social Democrats who will cooperate with their main goals, hence why Bernie and AOC were allowed to run as Democrats. The Overton window helps us understand how the Democratic Party hasn't slid very much to the left and still spans over the middle of the left-right spectrum, while the Republican Party has slid very far to the right and no longer spans over the middle. (Europeans consider Democrats as a moderately right-wing party and the Republicans as almost Nazis.) That's why so many Republicans are now comfortable voting for Trump and supporting racist, white nationalist, and fascist politicians, activists, and foreign far-right authoritarian leaders, the ones Trump often praises. Things have changed a lot. In my youth, the two parties overlapped each other over the middle and didn't go very far to the left or right. There was distance between them and the extremists on their sides of the middle. -- Valjean (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You always take it one step to far don't you? PackMecEng (talk) 22:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that her notability does not stem from her socialist background. It was certainly something that came up a lot during her campaign and election along with Rashida Tlaib. Though I will admit a lot of the coverage was just explaining what Democratic socialism, at the same time though it was something that was almost always mentioned in relation to her. PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If AOC had never run for Congress, she likely would not be notable. But if she had never joined the DSA, she would still be probably just as notable. Her membership in the Squad gets more coverage than her membership in the DSA, yet we don't have a Squad sidebar. TFD (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The squad is kind of a niche thing. I am not saying being a democratic socialist is the most notable thing about her for sure. Just that it is part of her notable and often mentioned in relation to her and her politics. Whereas the squad is just a group with sometimes common ideals. PackMecEng (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that we are talking about including a sidebar not her description. She is a young female Latinx Democratic member of Congress, a former bartender, a Puerto Rican, a progressive, etc. Do we have sidebars for all of these? I see why Eugene Debs has the sidebar, because he was the Socialist Party of America candidate for president in 1900-1912 and 1920. But AOC has never been a socialist candidate. It's a bit like putting a Protestant sidebar for every U.S. president who was a Protestant and a Catholic sidebar for John Kennedy who wasn't. Also, Tony Blair was prime minister of the UK, but has no socialism sidebar. Ronald Reagan doesn't have a conservatism sidebar, FDR doesn't have a liberalism sidebar although both of them respectively were more important to those ideologies than AOC is to hers. TFD (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For whatever it is worth Rashida Tlaib has one. Those people you mention are also more notable in general so things like that are less important to their overall notability. I could support Latinx Democratic member of congress, the others are just silly though! Or are just better as cats at the bottom of the page. But I can see where you are coming from. PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * FDR, Reagan and Blair wre hugely signficant figures in Modern liberalism in the United States, Conservatism in the United States and Socialism in the United Kingdom, more than AOC in socialism in the United States. They don't have sidebars. Why does AOC? TFD (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Also related question, should these cats be restored? PackMecEng (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, & separate from the sidebar issue, should the categories Category:American Christian socialists, Category:Catholic socialists, & Category:New York (state) socialists that were removed here be restored? PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are useful in the sense that readers are unlikely to use them and therefore it makes it harder for them to find relevant categories. Member of the DSA is useful because readers can click on it and find out what other notable people are members. Also, we don't know if the category Christian socialist describes AOC. The term doesn't just mean someone who is a Christian and a socialist, but someone who wants policy to be influenced by Christian doctrine. So often they would find themselves aligned with conservatives on social issues. TFD (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would question if "Catholic Socialists" and "American Christian socialists" are even a valid cross-categorizations. ValarianB (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Race
The quotation about “Being Puerto Rican” should clearly be labeled as Ocasión-Cortez’s confused sense of identity. (If included in this article at all). Being Puerto Rican means being born in Puerto Rico. It says nothing about your race. Her insistence that being Puerto Rican necessarily implies you are part Negro, part Indian and who knows what else is frankly nutty and a grotesque insult to White people of Spanish descent.<< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.162.136.248 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense - I'm guessing you've never been in New York on Puerto Rican Day, or for that matter seen West Side Story.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , (as per the Census and others,) Hispanic is not a race, it's an ethnicity. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. The IP seems to be troubled by the notion that other Puerto Ricans might partake of "part Negro, part Indian and who knows what else."  Acroterion   (talk)   02:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I have been. In fact I’m Puerto Rican of complete Spanish descent, a European Caucasian, much as that distresses you and the likes of AOC.  You may have to lie down and put a cold compress on your forehead when you hear this, but we do exist.  A Spanish surname is NOT synonymous with mixed race.98.162.136.248 (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly getting a better picture of what's important to you, with your particular emphasis on White Hispanics and the notion that Black and Indian ancestry is "a grotesque insult," and your apparent distaste for people of mixed race.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no “distaste” for people of any race. But this is what’s wrong with discussions about these matters today.  You do not allow anyone to think differently from you.  Either I agree, or else I’m a hateful bigot, which is emphatically not the case.  I’m “grotesquely insulted” not because I have “distaste” for anyone, but because what is being said about me is simply not true.98.162.136.248 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please also note that human races do not exist other than in a purely sociological sense. Cheers ⌘  hugarheimur 15:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Races exist because we have defined them to be so. You can employ all manner of Jesuit casuistry to deny that, but your wishing it doesn’t make it so.  Cheers to you98.162.136.248 (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
(Note: on creation, the subject of this talkpage section wasn't categorisation. Its title was "Sephardic Jewish ancestry: misrepresentation of sources")

Based on five sources, the Personal life section currently says: "[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] stated that she may have some Sephardic Jewish ancestry, although she does not practice Judaism."

Looking at two of the sources, The Washington Post and 'Haaretz', the article text is misrepresentative: she didn't state that she may have Sephardic ancestry, she stated that (based on genealogical research) she has. The part about not practising Judaism (which doesn't appear in either of those sources) is unnecessary: you can still have Jewish ancestry even though you're not practising the Jewish faith.

<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  08:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has objected to the categorization here; we do not require special "proof" of ethnicity (proof of what, from whom?) before categorizing someone, and no reliable source has been cited which disputes her statement of Sephardic Jewish ancestry.
 * Stating that one has specific ancestry is not an "exceptional" claim under any of the following grounds:
 * The claim is not surprising, and is covered by multiple mainstream sources;
 * The claim is not challenged by any reliable source and is repeated and discussed in a wide variety of mainstream sources;
 * The claim is in no way out of character or against an interest they have previously defended;
 * The claim is not contradicted by anyone and alters no mainstream assumptions.
 * Therefore, I have restored the category and suggest that further removal absent clear consensus is disruptive. Should anyone wish to dispute it, they are welcome to discuss and, if necessary, open an RFC; if there is a clear editorial consensus, or a formal RFC finds consensus to remove, then of course that consensus shall prevail. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a defining WP:CAT and should be removed. Her statement that she has Jewish lineage is not a defining aspect of her public persona. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have it utterly backwards. once a cat is disputed, it is not for you to unilaterally declare that it is "correct." CATs connoting any affiliation, be it religious, ethnic, professional, or otherwise that is not a defining aspect of the public persona of the subject are inappropriate. It is on you to develop consensus for this cat. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The category has been in the article for more than a year without objection or removal; it is well-understood on Wikipedia that if an edit is made and not disputed, particularly over a long period of time, the material in that edit gains WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Of course, that consensus can change. You have attempted to revise or object to that edit after more than a year's time; I am disputing that edit, and now we can come to a new consensus. If that new consensus is that the category should be removed, I will submit to that consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be specific, the category was added nearly two years ago here. You have been significantly active editing this article for most of those intervening 23 months, and yet you chose not to dispute the category at any time until now. That is, of course, your choice, but in those intervening 23 months, the category has gained WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS and you'll need to demonstrate a clear consensus the other way if we're going to remove it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The CAT no longer has "consensus." Stop with these silly procedural arguments trying to spin it as if the burden is not on you. The burden is indeed on you as the one advocating for maintaining the CAT to demonstrate why this CAT meets the relevant criteria. And please keep your commentary to the article and my arguments here, not my participation at this page. CATs are not supposed to be controversial. WP:CATV. This is not a defining characteristic of her public persona and you have presented no evidence that it should be considered as such. WP:CATDEF. This is not a reflection on whether or not the claims are appropriate for inclusion in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed a large number of irrelevant CATs based on the criteria in WP:CATDEF. It is of no consequence that a CAT may have been unchallenged for even a year or more. People just add CATs and never remove them, and the list grows and grows, and suddenly her defining characteristics are "Sephardic Jewish Roman Catholic Activist Restaurant Staff from Yonkers." Huh? We need to work out which of these are defining and keep it to that list. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You removed far too many. I particularly object to the removal of "American people of Sephardic-Jewish descent", which is a standard biographical detail per WP:DEFINING - an uncontroversial genealogical category normally applied to anyone it covers.  She certainly is notable for her activism and political positions; the fact that she is also notable for other things doesn't change that.  The only removals I agree with are restaurant staff / bartender, which are a relatively minor part of her bio and which are not standard biographical details the way descent is. Also, FWIW categories work exactly the same as editing anything else - if you want to remove a longstanding category and someone objects, you need to demonstrate consensus for your proposed change, the same way you would for any other change to a longstanding aspect of the article.. --Aquillion (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: when I opened this section of the talkpage, I was not addressing the question of categorisation of the article, but misrepresentation of the sources. The nature of that misrepresentation probably does have a bearing on the categorisation issue, however, in that there is a weaker case for including an article about somebody speculating that they may have some Sephardic heritage in the category than an article about somebody who has stated that they do. I looked at some of the other biographical articles included in the category. The subjects appeared not to have a greater degree of Sephardic ancestry than that claimed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which weakens the argument based on the WP:DEFINING rule. I think the arguments for inclusion or exclusion should be centred more on whether it helps readers find relevant articles rather than whether there is evidence backing up the subject's claims. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">   ←   ZScarpia  10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Every politician has political positions, and we do not call them an "activist" for each of those positions. Nor does a claim to Sephardic Jewish ancestry automatically become a defining aspect of that person's public persona. I have no idea what you mean by "longstanding category." Show me where that is reflected in policy. Consensus is required to maintain any CAT, and that does not change because it hasn't been paid attention. Your position that "This is the way it is and that's how it'll stay" has absolutely nothing to do with WP:CONSENSUS. This is a rather weak last line of defense for some of these CATs which are clearly either dated or inappropriate. I think that religious and ancestral cats are overused generally, because, as I believe is occurring here, editors confuse "important" as in important enough for mention in the article with the much higher standard of "defining" for a category. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you feel so strongly about this, start an RFC - I am definitely not seeing a consensus for your proposed changes at the moment. But as an experienced editor, I am sure you are aware that the standard when there is a dispute, outside of WP:BLP-sensitive claims that do not apply here, is to maintain the longstanding version of the article until a consensus is demonstrated otherwise; I am unsure why you think categories should be handled differently. I am glad that you're acknowledging that you fundamentally disagree with the standard way religious and ancestral categories are used and that, therefore, your position on this is a minority one that does not reflect common practice - indeed, I was about to point out that Donald Trump has comparable categories, eg. "American people of German descent" and "WWE Hall of Fame inductees"; Nancy Pelosi has "American people of Abruzzese descent" and "LGBT rights activists from the United States"; Mitch McConnell has "American people of Scotch-Irish descent" and "Sons of the American Revolution"; Hillary Clinton has "American people of Dutch descent, American people of English descent, American people of French-Canadian descent, American people of Scottish descent, American people of Welsh descent, American women's rights activists, Children's rights activists, Activists from New York (state)", John Kerry has "American people of Austrian-Jewish descent, American people of English descent, American people of Hungarian-Jewish descent, American people of Scottish descent, American people of Scotch-Irish descent" and so on. But I'm particularly bothered by the fact that you chose this article to suddenly express your disagreement with the longstanding practice of applying such categories, and especially by the way that this began with a (completely unsupported and utterly groundless) statement of personal disagreement with an entirely uncontroversial category whose use here reflects the entirely standard way biographical details are covered by categories.  Under the circumstances, is hard to take your sudden, strong feelings about reducing the number of categories seriously, especially when (as you seem to be acknowledging) it does not reflect common practice. --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Watch it with your bad-faith accusations. This is not about which articles I choose to edit. Your understanding of how consensus and categories work is exactly backwards. WP:CATCON holds that categories should not be controversial. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS provides that consensus can be assumed for content until it is challenged. This is clearly a controversial CAT, not justified by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Categories should be used only for defining aspects of a person's public persona. This is not a "new" practice, this is and always has been policy. I'm waiting to hear why this is a "defining" aspect of her public persona, and all I'm hearing are these incorrect procedural arguments about consensus. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, what is your source for the claim that the category is controversial? Which reliable source creates a controversy around the idea that the article subject has Sephardic Jewish ancestry? If you cannot provide such a reliable source, then the only answer is that you as a Wikipedia editor believe it is controversial. Your unsourced opinion is irrelevant here. Wikipedia does not care what you or I or Aquillion or any other editor believe is "controversial" - Wikipedia cares what reliable sources say. Either provide reliable sources which create a controversy around the issue, or you need to admit that you are attempting to create a controversy which does not exist in reliable sources, and that is original research prohibited by foundational policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CAT says categories should be "uncontroversial," meaning among editors. I do not see sources restating her claims without attribution, and it does not appear to be a defining characteristic. The NYT piece, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Jewish, Too? only attributes the claim to her, and then quotes her as suggesting she is also the descendant of . . . African Moors + slaves, Taino Indians, Spanish colonizers, Jewish refugees, and likely others. Do all of those deserves CATs too? This has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of her claim, and everything to do with how reliable sources have treated it. Beyond this one instance where reliable sources sort of reported on this with bemusement, there has been no mention of this aspect of her heritage. Other aspects of her heritage and background have received significantly more attention for historic value (i.e. youngest woman elected to Congress; one of the few Hispanic-American members of Congress). Those are defining and worthy of categorization. This is not. I'm not obligated to provide a reliable source to prove a negative. I've shared the sources I'm relying on and commented on why they do not establish the criteria for WP:CAT. Per WP:CAT, if you believe that this is worth including, you need to establish that it is a defining characteristic and kindly stop attacking other editors who disagree with you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in the guideline which states that "uncontroversial" means "among editors" - that is, indeed, nonsensical because it suggests that any editor could unilaterally and permanently remove any category from any article at any time merely by claiming that the category is "controversial." That is an absurd result clearly not intended by policy or guideline. You think an editor should be able to say "I think it's controversial that Donald Trump is president, therefore I'm removing that category"? Ridiculous, and patently not how things work.
 * The example given for "controversial category" is For example, a politician (not convicted of any crime) should not be added to a category of notable criminals. Clearly, we cannot state that someone not convicted of a crime is a criminal. Similarly, we cannot state that a controversy exists about a living person's ancestry where one does not exist.
 * If reliable sources suggest there is controversy about this issue, present them. You are claiming that your own bald assertion creates a controversy where none has heretofore existed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "bald assertion here." The line from WP:CAT reads, Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. This does not mean that categories themselves need to be uncontroversial; otherwise we would not have categories for racists, criminals, conspiracy theorists, and the like. It means that the categorization cannot be controversial. When a categorization sparks an intense debate, that's called controversy, and the fact that you don't think it's controversial and repeated dismissals of other editor's views does not erase.
 * So let's move on to the substance of that debate, which has unfortunately been ignored in some of your comments. Why is this controversial? Because it is not a defining characteristic. WP:CAT also reads: A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio. Is the subject's claimed Sephardic Jewish ancestry in the opening line of the article? Has it been repeatedly covered and referenced over the years by sources as a definitional part of her public profile? No. It's a claim buried deep in the article, which reliable outlets only reported on by attributing it to her, and which has since received virtually no sustained coverage. It clearly does not fit the WP:CATDEF criteria, and adding it as a CAT to the article despite failing the primary test for CAT is what makes this controversial, not simply my pointing it out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to argue that it is not a defining characteristic - if there is a clearly-expressed editorial consensus that the category does not belong, then of course that consensus shall prevail. I suggest that you open an RFC on the question. Perhaps that will lead to broader consensus discussion of all ethnic categories - is it "defining" that Donald Trump has Scottish ancestry? I would welcome such a discussion should you decide to initiate it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's in fact what I've been doing for this entire discussion. I'm still waiting for you to present a single reason to support this as a defining category. Consensus is required to keep material in the article, not remove it, so I suggest starting by formulating an argument why this CAT belongs as a definitional aspect of the subject. WP:ONUS. If you cannot do that, then you are confirming what I've already stated. Conversely, if you are right and I am wrong, this should be easy to prove. And per WP:CAT, definitional should be easy to prove. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to have a broad-scale project-wide discussion of whether or not it is "defining" that Donald Trump is a WWE Hall of Fame member or that AOC has Sephardic Jewish ancestry, that would be a great discussion to have. What is the definition of "defining category"? I agree that could and should be refined. We could start that on WP:VPP anytime.
 * But I decline to allow you to unilaterally impose your personal opinion of "defining category" on one single congresswoman's article. The existing article and existing categories have consensus - you need a new consensus to change them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am actually not asking you to make a general argument about why "defining" is arbitrary and meaningless and should be ignored. And the fact that there are other ridiculous CATs floating out there on other pages does not justify misusing CATs on this one. WP:OSE. I am asking, per the definition provided on WP:CAT, why this is defining. The policy page sets out a very clear definition by explanation and example, see above. And I assert that this element is not met. That is not my "personal opinion" as you condescendingly put it, but my editorial opinion. This is based on: 1) a dearth of reliable source coverage on this aspect of her profile, 2) the fact that it only ever received attention in a short burst of coverage over a year ago, 3) the fact that these claims were only reported in reliable sources with attribution. These are objective observations. And you are confusing the standard for inclusion and how consensus works, again. WP:ONUS. See also WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. This content no longer meets the criteria for explicit or implicit consensus. We are all required not to dismiss other objections and assume good faith, and failure to do so does not alter the policy on consensus. The burden is on you or others supporting the CAT to now establish or make a semblance of an argument why the criteria for this category is met. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that you alone have the unilateral power to decide what is or is not "controversial" or "defining." I disagree. No single editor has such power here. Your BOLD edit removing a number of categories has been reverted and objected to by multiple editors - the ONUS is now on you to establish a new consensus for that edit - or in the alternative, work to establish a new project consensus on what "defining category" means. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing I have unilaterally anything. WP:ONUS applies for inclusion not exclusion. I and others have objected to this CAT. I am articulating that objection, and I keep being accused of "personal opinions" and overriding some non-existent consensus. This is getting silly. You need to stop making this about me and explain why you believe the elements for inclusion per WP:CAT are met. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for you to open the RFC, and then I'm happy to have a discussion about why "Sephardic Jewish ancestry" is as defining for AOC as "Sons of the American Revolution" is for Mitch McConnell or "Inductees of the WWE Hall of Fame" is for Donald Trump - that is, it links the person to other relevant or meaningful people, places, ethnic groups, organizations, etc. with shared connections. Again, if you want to broadly change policy and guidance on what "defining category" means, the talk page of a single congresswoman isn't really the place to do it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion. Your points about other pages have no place here. I have not advocated that policy be changed, I have advocated that policy be followed. You clearly cannot or will not show why the criteria for inclusion here have been met. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Some stuff exists for a reason. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project. Precedent and consistency across the project currently supports these sorts of categories which are found in literally millions of pages. If you disagree with that precedent and consistency, the onus is on you to develop a new consensus to change it. Deciding that you disagree with the precedent and wish to make one single congresswoman's biography inconsistent with the precedent, while ignoring all others consistently adhering to that precedent, suggests that you aren't actually interested in consistently changing the precedent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So the basis for including this category, which you seem to basically be acknowledging is not "defining," is that policy is clearly violated at other pages? The "precedents" you are asserting are so ridiculously out-of-whack with WP:CAT that they should not be viewed as precedents at all. That is exactly not the reason to include it here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And we can play "ping pong" with this "onus is on you, no you no you" all day, but it is unequivocal that WP:ONUS applies to whichever editor is seeking inclusion of challenged content, not removal. My source for this? The policy page. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the process here, 23 months seems to be a long enough time for WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS to be satisfied, which means that the status quo is inclusion.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong on process. This material has been repeatedly challenged. Edit-warring it back into the article and then offering spurious justifications has absolutely no relation to consensus. WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS doesn't exist here. There is no consensus for this material, and the main proponent of this CAT refuses to articulate why this meets the criteria for how we use CATs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly challenged before 30 September 2020, which is this current dispute? Show me.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you been reading this thread? Please point to a specific RfC or closed discussion establishing consensus. Claiming "implicit consensus" as content is argued, debated, reverted, etc., is counterlogical. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If the content was introduced today or very recently, there would be no consensus. But this is longstanding content, that's the difference. Status quo matters, unless the sources disagree.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO has nothing to do with policy or consensus. Under your view, no one can challenge or change material once it's been in the article for a while. That's false, and this is distracting from the fact that quite literally no justification has been offered for why this piece of information meets WP:CATDEF. I've also had to repeatedly deflect personal attacks and accusations of bad faith from two others. This kind of zealous guarding of a page under the pretext of "status quo" is not good for the encyclopedia. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you can challenge and change the material - but you'll need consensus to do so, because your WP:BOLD removal has been reverted by two separate editors.
 * I have already explained why I believe the category is relevant and useful in this article; your disagreement with that explanation does not entitle you to unilaterally reject it.
 * That you decline to open an RFC on this matter to determine a broader consensus suggests you aren't interested in reaching a broader consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, as has repeatedly been explained, WP:ONUS applies the burden of consensus to those seeking inclusion of material not exclusion of material. This has been repeated often enough that you almost certainly have read it, so you are now just ignoring this and favoring an untrue interpretation of policy. What works against consensus are, unfortunatley, bad-faith accusations and personal attacks, and a refusal to offer a valid policy justification. We have laid out the correct criteria here for determining if the CAT is appropriate. WP:CATDEF. That is the standard that deserves discussion, and any consensus reached will focus on the question of whether or not this is a "defining aspect" of the subject's public persona. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And forgive me if I missed it, but I just skimmed the discussion again and I have not seen your argument for why the category is relevant or useful. From the start, you have insisted, wrongly, that we need "clear consensus" to make changes to the article. Those are not the DS conditions of this article, and there is no discussion or RfC you can point to supporting that there is absolute consensus for this point other than it's existed in the article previously. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep running to WP:CATDEF while forgetting that it's a guideline, not a policy. We are under no requirement to strictly adhere to it - we may choose to use it, or we may choose not to use it, and we may choose to interpret it in various ways. We could choose to entirely ignore it if we wanted to. The issue here is not whether the category meets WP:CATDEF, but rather whether there is consensus that the article should be so categorized. We could have consensus that the category isn't "defining" yet still merits inclusion here. Your demand that a guideline be the sole standard that deserves discussion is simply not acceptable.
 * As I stated above, "American people of Sephardic Jewish descent" is as defining for AOC as "Sons of the American Revolution" is for Mitch McConnell or "WWE Hall of Fame inductees" is for Donald Trump - that is, it links the person to other relevant or meaningful people, places, ethnic groups, organizations, etc. with shared connections.. In a formal RFC, I would likely refine and expand upon that argument, noting that it is common practice and consistent with millions of other biographies to include categories of ethnic descent. Again, if your argument is that categories of ethnic descent are generally not "defining" and therefore should be removed, that is a broader-scale argument which would probably need project-wide input. Your laser focus on a single category in a single article about a New York City congresswoman is interesting.
 * As the "Guideline" box notes, the statements of a guideline should be best treated with common sense. Common sense would indicate that if millions of Wikipedia biographies are categorized by their ethnic or national descent, that this biography ought to be consistent with those other biographies absent good reason to the contrary. You have yet to present any good reason why AOC shouldn't be categorized as having Sephardic Jewish descent but Donald Trump should be categorized as having Scottish descent. Common sense would indicate that if we were to remove one, we should have to remove the other as well. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Every tangential connection is not worthy of a category, and this one is exceedingly tangential. It is a claim that was treated with bemusement and subtle skepticism by the news media (see the NYT; WaPo), that likely falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It has never been repeated since, and has never been the subject of anything more than a burst of coverage. I have no interest in responding to WP:OSE arguments, which seem to connote some accusation of bad faith. Those are about the weakest that we can make here. The general practice is represented by WP:CATDEF, that is the precedent and practice we look to, not inconsistent use of categories on other cherrypicked pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You can keep dancing around your bullshit to try and pretend that the sources don't say what they say, but they say what they say. (Hint: A question mark in a headline does not indicate "skepticism" and headlines are not reliable sources anyway.)
 * You're welcome to not respond to my arguments, and other editors are welcome to draw from that refusal whatever conclusions they wish.
 * As you have no interest in responding to my arguments, then this discussion has come to a close; feel free to open an RFC if you wish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Dance around your bullshit?" Strike that. I just responded to your argument as it regards this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Dance around your bullshit" refers to your unsourced and unsupported attempts to undermine AOC's statement of her own ancestry, and I am under no obligation to strike anything. Her claim is not exceptional and was not treated with subtle skepticism by reliable sources. There remain zero reliable sources cited here which challenge, question, or even so much as suggest that her statement is false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Under your view, no one can challenge or change material once it's been in the article for a while. - that's incorrect. I said that if the sources disagree, you can challenge the material, so it's up to you to bring the reliable sources. Also, you can start an RfC to challenge the material. I can't stop you from doing that.  starship .paint  (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times Piece Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Jewish, Too?, said:

Notice the consistent attribution and tone in how the claim is treated? On Monday, as the video went viral, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez tried to get ahead of any criticism of her ancestral claims. It then quoted her as qualifying the statement by saying: “Before everyone jumps on me — yes, culture isn’t DNA,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter, the social network that has helped vault her career and where she counts more than 1.5 million followers, more than all but a few members of Congress. “But to be Puerto Rican is to be the descendant of: African Moors + slaves, Taino Indians, Spanish colonizers, Jewish refugees, and likely others. We are all of these things and something else all at once — we are Boricua.” Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't know how to explain to you that there isn't any "skepticism" in that paragraph. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support keeping the category based on the arguments made by in the tediously long discussion above. I recommend that  seek project-wide consensus for removing self-identified ethnic categories from biographies instead of zeroing in on this particular biography. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Cats can be decided on a case-by-case basis, and there is no indication that this is a "defining claim." WP:CATDEF. As I stated earlier, Every tangential connection is not worthy of a category, and this one is exceedingly tangential. It is a claim that was treated with bemusement and subtle skepticism by the news media (see the NYT; WaPo), that likely falls under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. It has never been repeated since, and has never been the subject of anything more than a burst of coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:CATDEF gets its definition of a defining category from WP:DEFINING, which says that standard biographical details are considered defining. As I explained and demonstrated above, ancestry has always been considered to fall under that.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support keeping category. It's defining, and longstanding content does indeed enjoy implicit consensus. Yes, the content can be challenged, but not removed without establishing a change of consensus. That attempt has failed miserably, and this time sink needs to end. It's disruptive. Stop kicking the dead horse. -- Valjean (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A reminder that this is an open encyclopedia and editors are free to debate content wherever they like. You insist that this has "implicit consensus," despite this challenge, so apparently it has not been challenged before. Please collectively excuse anyone in this thread who has the gall to disagree on content, but how about we drop the accusations of bad faith. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is definitely no accusation of bad faith, so be careful with such accusations. My comment was just a reminder that when multiple very experienced editors and admins disagree with you, it's time to step back and rethink your approach so you don't waste everyone's time by repeatedly doing the same thing (repeating your failed arguments above) and expecting a different result. That's a counterproductive approach when dealing with editors with vastly more experience than yourself. It just causes irritation.
 * You have been encouraged to take the next logical step in dispute resolution, which would be a local RfC right here, but you haven't done that. Why not? -- Valjean (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Be careful?" No, please be careful with statements like repeating your failed arguments above and Stop kicking the dead horse.. There has been no formal consensus either which way, so I don't see what "failed." I've been involved in removing CATs at many other pages and am well familiar with the criteria and common practices for CATs, despite the repeated insinuations that I am "zeroing in" on this page. As for the format, it seems like we're following an informal RfC right now. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just offering you some advice. Step back and look at what's happening. You are ONE editor against everyone else. Your objections to the category have not succeeded in upsetting the existing implicit consensus. Because of the participation of many editors who disagree with you, it is no longer a passive implicit, but a very active explicit, consensus against your position. Your arguments have failed, as revealed by the fact that no one else is agreeing with you. That's how I see it. A formal RfC is the next step, or you can just withdraw. If I were in your shoes, I would do the latter, as the resistance to your arguments is quite strong and solidly based in policies and community practices. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you apparently haven't read this thread or reviewed edit page's history, because at least as many editors object to the inclusion of the CAT as have advocated for it here. There is absolutely no explicit consensus, and it is ridiculous to keep claiming WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS while the content is debated. There is an active discussion, that we will let play out. I don't need you to characterize my arguments or give me advice, thanks. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Mine is that a conclusory restatement of "this is defining" isn't persuasive, and I've laid out my reasons for opposing it above. In any case, I have nothing further to add to this reply thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been following each comment in real time, but have waited to comment myself. Your "at least as many editors object to the inclusion of the CAT as have advocated for it here" is patently false. Here's the tally: Against category: Wikieditor19920. For category: NorthBySouthBaranof, Aquillion, Starship.paint, Cullen328, Valjean Uncertain: PackMecEng At best, it's 2/5, and I'm not certain what PME means. So far it's been you against five other, far more experienced, editors. -- Valjean (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair most of the arguments for the category have been fairly weak. Implied consensus stops being consensus the second anyone objects. The rest of the arguments are fairly baseless as well. Mostly centering around original research from best I can tell. As you know, the number of or experience of people voting has nothing to do with strength of argument and your arguments have very little strength. I personally have no opinion other than keeping it consistent and trying to reduce useless fluff, like times she pandered to certain groups. PackMecEng (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you're considering coming down on oppose? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Another user,, also objected to inclusion, and two additional editors challenged it with edits to the article, so get your facts straight. Second, it's a pretty poor showing when the only arguments you can come up with are to attack me personally as "inexperienced" (false), but since you're so well-versed in policy, I shouldn't have to remind you to focus on content, not editors. I'm waiting for an elaboration on why this is "defining" other than simply stating "it is." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Saying that I objected to inclusion is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. I was arguing that inclusion or exclusion should be based on whether or not it helped editors to find articles of interest. Unfortunately, the category page doesn't actually define what its purpose is, but, by its very nature, it doesn't look as though it is aimed at grouping articles by what might be described as a "defining" characteristic. I pointed out that some of the other people whose biographies are listed have only a very small proportion of Sephardic ancestry.  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  17:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I've collapsed the discussion thread so that the vote thread is easier to find. If someone objects to this reformatting, please feel free to change it; just a temporary solution due to a debate involving several editors growing too long. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Meh I don't know that we need to include every instance of pandering, especially when RS don't put it in their words often. If we removed socialist, a long standing category that is actually backed by RS, I don't see an issue with removing a insignificant cat that has no actual impact. PackMecEng (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - As per my extensive remarks in the collapsed discussion; extensive precedent exists across the encyclopedia that such "XXX descent" categories are proper and useful - just look at, well, literally any significant biography. There hasn't been any good reason expressed why this particular category in this particular biography should be treated differently from the others. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per my remarks in the discussion above; her ancestry is both uncontroversial and reasonably widely reported as fact in reliable sources, and including such simple, uncontroversial biographical details as categories is standard in biographical articles (as I demonstrated above by listing numerous biographical articles of comparably high-profile political figures that have similar categories included, often when coverage is much lower than it was for this one.) Beyond that, the idea that an attribute that has gotten entire articles in high-quality, mainstream reliable sources devoted entirely to discussing it directly is not WP:DEFINING is absurd. The sudden opposition to the entirely standard and unexceptional inclusion of such definingbiographical detail categories here is completely baffling. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what's so baffling here. Per WP:DEFINING, a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. Are there any articles that have continued to mention this past 2018 in the month she made the remarks? It's also notable that the sources have not in prose defined her as having the trait, but merely attributed the claim to her and reported on those claims. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has had WP:SUSTAINED coverage, yes.
 * Here, from two days ago.
 * Here is a peer-reviewed academic paper from this year discussing it.
 * Here is a book published this August discussing it.
 * Here is a peer-reviewed paper from 2019 discussing it.
 * Here from August 2019.
 * Here from July 2019.
 * Here from April 2019.
 * Here from Feburary 2019.
 * Here and here from January 2019.
 * This is far more coverage than we'd usually require for such a biographical detail to be represented by a category, of course. It was a big deal in some areas and continues to get significant coverage in high-quality sources. And to your second point, the peer-reviewed papers and the book (which are, obviously, higher-quality and further removed from the original primary claim) generally report it as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's just one problem: all of the news sources you cited do not write the claim in prose, they attribute it to her. And two non-news sources you cited? Yes, they do restate the claim in their own words. But what is their source for this? Those same news articles that in fact do not restate the claim but describe it only with attribution. The article and book each cite contemporary news articles as their source, pretty much the same ones we have here, and nothing else. They are no more weighty than the news articles for this particular claim, because they cite those same pieces in restating this claim. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose this only came up from AOC and the RS only repeats that AOC said she has ancestry. Further, this is not a defining cat for her biography, considering that she mentioned it once and that is it. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the sources provided by Aquillion above satisfy sustained coverage of this biographical detail.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with all those sources is they all just reference that time she mentioned it while at that Jewish event. It comes off as fluff and pandering. PackMecEng (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per evidence of sustained coverage, above. ValarianB (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We need to bear in mind that categories are navigation devices. Someone reading this article may want to read about other Democratic members of Congress or politicians endorsed by Justice Democrats or notable members of Democratic Socialists of America. But it is unlikely that they want to read about other people whose DNA tests showed traces of Sephardic Jewish ancestry. In the end we would have lots of categories that would overwhelm the ones that might actually interest readers. If someone wants to have a list of Americans with such ancestry, a list article might be better. TFD (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

IPA outside brackets
Hey. Just wanted to leave you a note about my edit that you reverted. Per MOS:IPA, IPA-ens are, not in brackets (unless there are many different pronunciations). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 23:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Condensing political positions
The political positions section of AOC's article takes up a lot of the article's space. For most prominent politicians (cf. Mitch McConnell, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or Paul Ryan), the political positions section is kept short, with the main article link to a separate page (Political positions of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example). Could we not do this with AOC? IMO what we have now is somewhat clunky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:0:8120:B414:8477:8503:6882 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Spanish name
Hi, I recently came across the February 2019 discussion on whether AOC's name uses Spanish naming customs. AOC herself has attributed her surname "Ocasio-Cortez" to "Latinx culture"; see her tweet on this. Several news articles have also discussed this issue: see NBC News, DiversityInc. If AOC herself describes her surname as Latine, I believe that using Spanish name on this article is accurate. feminist (talk) &#124; free Hong Kong 07:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. That heading is usually added when the person uses the two surnames without a hyphen, or uses the second name rather than the third for everyday use - to explain why a person named Gabriel García Márquez might use "García Márquez" as their last name, or a person named "Vicente Fox Quesada" might choose to be known as Vicente Fox. Presumably she is hyphenating her last name so that everybody will know exactly what she wants her name to be; if she wanted it to be "Ocasio Cortez" lots of people would get it wrong. In any case, I think she is using a variant of Spanish naming customs and the heading is appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The section "2018 campaign" states:

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

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

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

Article containing quotes from that scene:

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

Add twitch streamer.
Come on guys Dpasten (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * no — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 00:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Page overhaul needed
I believe that there are many issues with this page as is and should be edited to a more compact and straight to the point version. An example of this is the entire subsection of "Verbal Assault". It provides no substance to the article and would not be included in standard biography pages. Nothing WP:NOTEWORTHY becomes of this story. This section does not provide the reader with additional details and pretty much leaves it off at a cliff hanger. Just because something has been published in a reliable source does not require its inclusion in any given Wikipedia article. If we included everything ever published, it would become quickly become massively unbalanced and unwieldly. I call on WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. This biography, in general, seems to be overly saturated with much of the information coming from the past few years. If we compare this biography to that of Abraham Lincoln we will find that it is of almost the same length. In addition, this page seems to be WP:PROMO or even WP:ADVOCACY with many section dedicated to campaigning and links to websites that directly contribute. Please let me know what you think. Yesornooridk (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC) — Struck as Yesornooridk (talk&#32;• contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet.
 * But hey, when I said this page wasn’t at all prepared for its Good Article nomination I was reverted. Trillfendi (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Verbal Assault
Under the main page is a paragraph titled "Verbal assault". This is labeled incorrectly as there is no actual offense in law called Verbal Assault. There can be no assault that occurs from the use of words. These incidents can be untoward, impolite, ignorant or rude. However there is no actual thing as a Verbal Assault. It is an improper socially constructed idiom created by conflating the act of speaking with a physical act of assault. Even though it has become a phrase in common use and even has some dictionary references it actually has no legal meaning. It is often used by persons when confronted by a strong difference of opinion of which they disagree but would rather not debate. It is ironic that in many cases, as with this one, females who otherwise consider themselves strong independent equals to their male peers. Will take up this mantle of victimization that they would not if the other party was a female. An accusation almost never leveled between two males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.119.101.98 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, in many places verbal speaking can be counted as assault. For example in Australia (possibly other countries too, but I've only done classes in Australian Law), Indirect Assault is basically what you are calling verbal assault above. It very much has legal meaning and can result in up to 20 years imprisonment! Also, do you happen to have an sources for 'An accusation almost never leveled between two males.' because to me, that just sounds like misogyny, and last I saw data there was a very large amount of Indirect Assault cases where both parties were men.--LizardsAreQualityBeings (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that up. Verbal assault refers to words that make someone perceive an immediate physical threat. (See Astor Legal.) The expression in this article is not used with the same meaning. TFD (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple mentions on Page and in Talk that assert... "that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (pictured) is the youngest woman ever to serve in the United States Congress?"
The link next to it clearly shows she's the 116th youngest member of congress at the time of her swearing in and that Elise Stefanik is younger.

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


 * AOC age at first inauguration: 29 years, 2 months, 21 days
 * Elise Stefanik age at first inauguration 30 years, 6 months, 1 day


 * What seems to be the problem? ValarianB (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If the ages are correct, then we should say "At the time she assumed office.... youngest...." Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "New York Democratic congressional nominee Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will win her general election race easily and become the youngest woman ever in Congress, CNN has projected. Having turned 29 last month, Ocasio-Cortez will inch out the previous holder of the distinction, New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, who was elected to Congress at age 30." - So not only is the IP in grevious error, the wording matches the wikipedia phrasing. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)