Talk:The Squad (United States Congress)/Archive 1

Social media playfulness
The Onion wrote a comedy piece saying that 82-year-old representative Bill Pascrell asked to be part of "the squad." Then, Pascrell retweeted it saying "why not" and now he's part of the squad; unclear how serious his squadness is. Does this deserve to be mentioned on this wiki page? https://politics.theonion.com/82-year-old-new-jersey-congressman-bill-pascrell-quietl-1836417927 https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-welcomes-82-year-old-congressman-pascrell-to-the-squad-2019-7

67.180.58.131 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is an example of social media playfulness, which is maybe part of the cultural impact of the Squad that could be mentioned in a future section here, but I think it's clear that Pascrell hasn't actually "joined".--Pharos (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Picture
Is there no free image of "The Squad" all together available for the article? Some sort of government picture has to be out there somewhere.. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥ ) 14:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I took a look around, but none that I could find. The closest I got was C-Span coverage of their recent press conference. But since that wasn't part of a debate in Congress, pictures or screenshots emanating from that event are not free for use. Somebody could stitch together some freely licensed pictures from the Squad members using editing software, though. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  08:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The Squad is not an official caucus
Though "The Squad" resembles a caucus in some ways, it is not an official caucus, unlike all of the others listed. Its four members are instead part of the much larger Congressional Progressive Caucus.--Pharos (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Source? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussed as a group before November 12, 2018?
The article currently says The four members of the Squad had already been discussed as a group, even before the coining of the name, and formerly had as an example a Fox News commentary, but that television piece was in fact from November 13, a day after Ocasio-Cortez's first viral Instagram post. Is there any evidence the group was discussed in the media before November 12? I don't see any at the moment. However, possibly we should mention of the role Maureen Dowd appears to have played in popularizing the term.--Pharos (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything except NPR grouping them with Sharice Davids in the photos, and from The Nation: "Their sense of urgency helped Pressley displace an able but older Democratic incumbent in her September primary, and it has ushered into Congress a new generation of intersectional activists—among them Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, Rashida Tlaib from Michigan, and Ilhan Omar from Minnesota—who have been given a charge not merely to dissent against Trump but to present a governing alternative." w umbolo   ^^^  14:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Nation piece is an interesting one, and we should probably mention it and have a link to intersectionality somewhere in the article.--Pharos (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote this sentence based on my understanding of the North (Vox) piece, which portrays "Squad" as only widely coming into use after Dowd's July 7 article. So while Fox News' usage does not predate Ocasio-Cortez's Instagram post, it still was one of the first significant sources to discuss the subject. The original wording was bad, and I think the current wording of "even before the name was widely adopted" is better. Duck type goose (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "women of color"
Multiple reliable sources state that all four congresswomen are "women of color". They don't make the distinction that one is of Middle Eastern descent and might be considered "White". Pulling information from the census about who is White and who isn't might be considered WP:original research as it pertains to this discussion. (And regardless, Wikipedia concerns itself with verifiability, not truth. — Eyer (If you reply, add   to your message to let me know.) 13:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is indeed not unlikely that members of both Tlaib and AOC's families have marked "White" on a U.S. Census form at one time or another. That is not the point. These terms are not in fact exact antonyms, and it is indisputable that both Tlaib and AOC themselves identify as, and are generally identified in media sources as, people of color.--Pharos (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

SF 2019: As race is a scientifically fallacious term, I propose that we drop this label entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.17.79 (talk)

Semi protected edit request
With news about the squad piling up, someone is going to eventually vandalize this page. Can we make this article Semi-protected? Redandvidya (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe the news will pile up, maybe it will fizzle out. Nobody knows. Needless to say: if this page ever needs protection, we will provide it. But I don't think we should preemptively prevent large groups of people from editing this article because something may or may not happen in the future. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  18:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Trump tweets
Should we make a new article for Trump tweets regarding these four Congress women? There is a lot of coverage about his tweets in the media and there is reaction from the UK politicians, Canada's Prime minister etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump on social media is the place to update or add a new section to this article as it is not that big. It would be ill advised to make a separate article as it might be seen as content forking, recentism and a coatrack article. It might seem as a big deal now, but really it might just be political noise that will be forgotten when the next controversy comes along. But perhaps not and these sections will grow and perhaps then splitting will be needed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

New York Times opinion piece in the lead
, I removed this again. Per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, we should discuss this before putting it back. Here is the item removed with this edit for others to critique:

For full disclosure NightHeron add it here I removed it here and NightHeron put it back here, now I have removed it again. I see I was a bit flippant when I first removed it and I apologize for that.

I mentioned the lead summarizes the article and this bit was not in the body of the article. NightHeron responded with According to WP:MOSLEAD the lead should not only summarize content but also "establish context, explain why the topic is notable". I still feel that such context should be mentioned in the body to be included in the lead. But I also feel it is a bit of puffery that they have yet to earn. History may look back and say these women were instrumental in revitalizing the democratic party, it seems too soon to include a WP:CRYSTALBALL opinion and so not presenting the WP:IMPARTIAL tone our articles should have. Perhaps instead we should mention the CBS News and YouGov poll mentioned in the History section with something like A poll shows the Squad has very unfavorable ratings among Republican and favorable ratings among Democrats. rather then a gushing endorsement by an anything but impartial activist. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In reference to the title of the article by Dr. Ransby, I see your point that it sounds like puffery and speculation about the future. I should not have included the title of the article in the text.  (It's likely that the title was chosen by an editor and not by Dr. Ransby.)  The actual words of Dr. Ransby, however, are not puffery or speculation about the future.  They speak of an effect these four women have had on the progressive wing of the Democratic party.  A reliable source does not have to be impartial.  Clearly Dr. Ransby is sympathetic to the progressive wing of the Democratic party (she's also a professional historian and professor, not just an "activist"), and in that sense she's not impartial.  But she's a reliable source for describing the effect of the four women on the left wing of the Democratic party.  (In the same way, a conservative writer would be a reliable source for describing the effect of someone on the right wing of the Republican party.)  The sentence you propose adding (about the favorable/unfavorable views of the women by Democrats vs Republicans) supports the Ransby quote, although what Ransby writes is stronger evidence for notability, because the fact that some people are viewed very favorably by a group does not necessarily mean that they have had a "revitalizing" influence on the group.  So I propose that the Ransby quote be put back, but without including the article title in the text, and that a sentence about favorable/unfavorable views be added, as you suggest.  Does this make sense?  Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I think we can definitely put the quote down in the history section without the title, but do include Dr. Ransby's name as part of the prose. I want to include in the lead something that summarizes the cheers and jeers along the political spectrum. The history section has become a bit of a blog and seems to only address commentary. The article does not record any stated position nor block voting patterns of the Squad, so the whole article seems a bit superficial to me. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I put the Ransby quote in the history section with her name but not the article's title in the text. I agree with you that the history section does not read as very encyclopedic.  Assuming RS can be found that discuss the phenomenon in greater depth, it would be better if a section titled "History" looked behind the day-to-day news at what's really historic about the group of four women of color organizing a caucus in Congress.  There are also some historic precedents being set by those who attack them, for example, the first time (I believe) that a US president has asked a country to deny entry to a US member of Congress. The notability of the group comes not so much from being in today's headlines, but rather from the ways in which longstanding political traditions in the US are being broken.  I'm not very familiar with the analysis that's appeared in RS, so I don't know whether or not they've gotten beyond commenting on the daily drama. NightHeron (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I glad we could resolve this some. Maybe when I feel inspired I will add something to the lead. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Controvesaries
How about including a section on their attacks on Jews and Israel, which many people regard as anti-Semitic. I can give examples if editos are open to it.173.166.127.233 (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This article covers the "Squad" as a political and cultural phenomenon and does not discuss the various policy stands the four congresswomen have taken on different issues. Per WP:UNDUE, we should not add content on their views on Israel unless we also want to add information about their views on a range of issues. Perhaps that's best left to the individual pages; for example, see . NightHeron (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If the squad as a whole takes these stances then it would make sense to include them. The page includes their views on medicare for all and the Green New Deal, therefore it would make sense to include other universal views of the members of the squad that have coverage. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why my change about the Ukrainian bill was reverted? The four members of the squad were the only Democrats to vote against the bill, so the fact that they are so outside off the Democratic Party mainstream on such an issue is important. So the squad as a whole took this position and according to your criteria this information can be included in the article. Pganelin (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You cited no coverage by secondary sources. The information on one vote is UNDUE unless it's covered extensively in reliable secondary sources. If it is covered extensively, then it has to be presented neutrally with context, that is, the reasons for and against their vote as explained in reliable secondary sources. NightHeron (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are the secondary sources:
 * https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-unites-aoc-smack-down-russian-asset-seizure-1701849. The Squad is mentioned explicitly in the article.
 * https://thehill.com/news/house/3469582-four-republicans-four-democrats-vote-no-on-bill-urging-biden-to-confiscate-assets-from-sanctioned-oligarchs/
 * https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/us-elections-government/ny-aoc-assets-russia-putin-oligarch-20220428-g5dttf5fprcwpp3ydodmubq3be-story.html
 * https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2022/04/28/democrats-vote-against-ukraine-bill/1691651153110/
 * The bill itself (so not the list of the people wfo voted against it was covered in)
 * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-bill-aims-to-use-assets-seized-from-wealthy-russian-to-assist-ukraine
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/explainer-why-us-needs-a-law-to-sell-off-oligarchs-assets/2022/04/28/341e5000-c739-11ec-8cff-33b059f4c1b7_story.html Pganelin (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it received news media coverage, but Wikipedia does not cover daily news unless there's evidence of lasting importance. From WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. If we include a vote on a specific issue, we have to explain the context (what the proposal was, and what the reasons people cited for voting for or against it), and that amount of attention to a single vote would be WP:UNDUE unless the vote has lasting significance. NightHeron (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You asked for the secondary sources I gave it to you. Now you state that it is not important. I think you are trying to impose your subjective criteria about the importance of the issue and I do not agree with it. The vote was covered in the mainstream press and the press evidently decided that it is important. The Washington Post does not cover each vote in the Congress and WP made a decision that it is important. Pganelin (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Pganelin: please comment on content. Article talk pages are not an appropriate place to opine about the imagined motivations of other editors. See our talk page guidelines for more on how we expect you to behave here. On substance: of the sources you presented, by your own admission only one mentions "the Squad" by name. I checked that one and saw that the Squad was only mentioned incidentally, and focused mainly on AOC, giving her rationale for the vote but did not comment on the group as a whole. This is thus not the type of source we can use to establish the notability of an event for inclusion in this article. The others, since they don't mention the Squad explicitly, are not even worth discussing in this context. In order to establish that this information is notable and due for inclusion we would need a secondary source that gives pride of place to the Squad explicitly. We could then discuss whether the content in question meets other notability criteria such as the 10 year test. This is, as NightHeron has rightly pointed out, an encyclopedia and not news. Generalrelative (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Cori Bush: potential addition to The Squad?
While I think the article should continue to make it clear that the four original and still widely agreed upon members are Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley, and Tlaib, recent primary election wins have led many to include Cori Bush in the Squad, including Bush herself. I don't think a decision needs to be made about whether to officially include her, as it's not an official caucus anyway, but I think it'd be important to at least acknowledge her. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-squads-new-member-11596673508 In this WSJ article, it describes Cori Bush as a Squad member. https://www.democracynow.org/2020/8/17/cori_bush_2020_missouri_primary_victory In this DemocracyNow interview, Bush describes herself as a Squad member. https://twitter.com/RashidaTlaib/status/1291002112499908609?s=20 In this tweet, Tlaib says "our Squad is big" possibly implying her inclusion of Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flavor blasted goldfish (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

OR issue with recent IP edit
The US Government does not classify people by race, but rather asks people to self-identify. Hence it's a violation of WP:OR to interpret a US Government census source as a statement of US Government racial classification. The four Squad members self-identify as women of color. The IP's source says nothing about who must be considered to be white, and certainly says nothing about the Squad. This is a blatant case of misrepresentation of the source and WP:OR in the lead, which I've reverted. NightHeron (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Shortbus squad" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shortbus squad. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 30 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

2023 Members
Is there a reason why Summer Lee, Greg Casar, and Delia Ramirez have been added but not Becca Balint and Maxwell Frost? Jgtrevor (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Removing Delia Ramirez due to lack of citation. Keeping Summer Lee and Greg Casar due to their self-identification as "socialist." Nateknauf (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Noticed that Delia Ramirez is listed as a member of the squad on her wikipedia page? 140.194.194.252 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)