Jump to content

Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tag: Reverted
Tag: Reverted
Line 83: Line 83:
:If you have any complaints about how MTG is described, discuss it at her article. Don't complain here just to make a [[WP:POINT|point]]. AOC is a self-described democratic socialist, which doesn't make her far left in reliable sources. And making money has no relevance to one's political position. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
:If you have any complaints about how MTG is described, discuss it at her article. Don't complain here just to make a [[WP:POINT|point]]. AOC is a self-described democratic socialist, which doesn't make her far left in reliable sources. And making money has no relevance to one's political position. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
A O-C is a far-left activist. Her wiki page should reflect this.[[User:Not-PCwoke|Not-PCwoke]] ([[User talk:Not-PCwoke|talk]]) 04:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
A O-C is a far-left activist. Her wiki page should reflect this.[[User:Not-PCwoke|Not-PCwoke]] ([[User talk:Not-PCwoke|talk]]) 04:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

:::Of course Ocasio Cortez is Far Left. She is a socialist who supports eliminating ICE, opening borders even more, defunding police, the "right" to free housing, free medical care for all, student loan forgiveness, and extreme deficit spending to pay for everything. The problem is that many of the "mainstream sources" that the Wikipedia editors refer to, such as NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc. lean to the left, but maintain that they are where the middle of the road is now. This view is further supported by the prolific Wikipedia editors who also tend to lean left. This skew makes anyone even remotely conservative be characterized as far right, while to be viewed as far left a politician would have to be even more radical than the members of The Squad. So good luck getting anyone here to agree to include "far left" in any article about AOC. The editors here can't even support characterizing MSNBC as leftist, even though that network is at least as far left as Fox News is right. [[User:Green Marble|Green Marble]] ([[User talk:Green Marble|talk]]) 12:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


:The salary of a representative is not nearly half a million. She's worked a grand total of two years in DC and that region can easily eat up a six figure salary on just living expenses, saving 30k in net assets from what I can assume was nothing in a couple of years actually indicates she's rather frugal.[[Special:Contributions/2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8|2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8]] ([[User talk:2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8|talk]]) 03:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
:The salary of a representative is not nearly half a million. She's worked a grand total of two years in DC and that region can easily eat up a six figure salary on just living expenses, saving 30k in net assets from what I can assume was nothing in a couple of years actually indicates she's rather frugal.[[Special:Contributions/2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8|2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8]] ([[User talk:2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8|talk]]) 03:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:31, 2 August 2021


Translation of name into Spanish

There is no need to translate her name into Spanish in the first sentence of the article. A consensus about this has been reached at various places:

  • MOS:LEADLANG - "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses." AOC was born in the Bronx, and her father was born in the Bronx. How does she have a "close association" with Spanish?
  • MOS:NICKCRUFT - "Foreign language details can make the lead sentence difficult to understand".
  • MOS:FIRST - "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere."

Except for the fact she can speak Spanish and has a Spanish name, there is nothing in the article indicating a need to translate her name into Spanish in the first sentence of the article, and Wikipedia policy does not support it. The input of others is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy, so it really doesn’t matter. Trillfendi (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AOC is a citizen of Puerto Rico which has Spanish as one of its official languages. TFD (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would question the utility of including a Spanish pronunciation. Including relevant alternative language names is important when the names are very different from each other. A minor difference in articulation is a) very obvious to anyone with even minimal proficiency in Spanish, and b) next to useless to the 99% of readership that can't easily parse IPA. The cross section of readers who would both be able to parse the transcription and learn something from it seems vanishingly small and doesn't seem like it justifies further cluttering the lead. signed, Rosguill talk 17:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my personal opinion only, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Spanish one...if you want to see her name in Spanish, see the Spanish Wikipedia....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have, and should have, lots of non-English content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did the Spanish pronunciation come from? Does the subject actually pronounce her name in two different ways, depending upon which language she's speaking at the time? (Some people do.) Or did some editor ignore the subject's own pronunciation and decide that the "correct" (according to the editor) pronunciation in English is one thing and the "correct" pronunciation in Spanish is another way? What we want is "the subject's own pronunciation(s)", not some editor looking at a high school Spanish textbook and deciding that there 'should' be two different correct ways to pronounce her name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She pronounces her own name with a Spanish sounding accent. Gandydancer (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Always? Then we should remove the "English" one, because that's "wrong". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that for a fact but yes, I believe she always pronounces her name in "a Spanish sounding sort of way...". Until only recently most Spanish names were said without the Spanish sounding accent, the way a native Spanish speaker pronounces them. But recently one is starting to hear names pronounced with the Spanish accent by Spanish speaking news men/women. Miguel Almaguer is an example. I believe that this is a deliberate attempt to accept that Hispanics have a right to keep their native language--to learn English but not give up their own language. (Native tribes in America are also making an effort to teach native languages in schools where the languages are dying.) Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's just because if you pronounce "Jean" as something closer to "John" than to "blue jeans", you're probably not going to recognize the latter as actually referring to you.
@Pigsonthewing, this has reminded me of the Wikipedia:Voice intro project. When there's a dispute about the pronunciation of living people's names, it's really nice to have a recording of them saying their own names. I don't suppose there is anyone watching this page who could beg a friend to ask for a voice recording? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're better off keeping it the way it is with both pronunciations. I found one youtube site that had quite a few news, etc., commentators saying her name and they all said it with an English accent. Here is a site with it said with both an English accent and a Spanish accent and I doubt most native English speakers could say it. I sure couldn't. [1] Gandydancer (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal assault/harassment section

Is the verbal harassment section still due? It seems like something that was a so and so early on but no longer seen as important. Basically boiling down to a high school spat. Should we remove the section or at least trim it considerably? PackMecEng (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable secondary sources (WP:PSTS) covered it so it should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ix-holtzman (talkcontribs)
Then coverage almost immediately died. So something like WP:NOTNEWS comes into play since it has had no long term impact on her life. The issue is not coverage by RS, the issue is WP:DUE weight. PackMecEng (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the due weight link, I'm still learning. Due weight is largely determined by prevalence in reliable sources: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public" — WP:DUE. For what it's worth, I suspect many readers may be inclined to agree with you regarding the relative triviality of the verbal altercation compared with more serious issues like crime. But from what I can surmise, the length of the section is appropriate. Best, — Ix-holtzman (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a notable event for Yoho to be covered on Yoho's page, as he resigned from a board over it. As for AOC's page.... I'm not sure. It drew a lot of attention at the time, and could be seen as worth keeping. But there's so much else to cover for her as well.... A trim would not be amiss. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a considerable cut would be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AOC and Israel

Hey all,

I recently made this revision[2] but it was reverted. I wasn't sure why (it's notable and well-sourced), so I thought I would bring it up for a discussion. My user pages discloses this, but I want to be clear here as well that this is my new account after losing access to my old account Pretzel butterfly per WP:VALIDALT. Benevolent human (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because contrary to your edit, the House resolution does not mention BDS or Israel.[3] It merely affirms that boycotting is a protected right as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. That's probably why mainstream media ignored it, which means it fails weight for inclusion. TFD (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream media source I cited refers to the resolution as "a document that is widely understood as a specific show of support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel" given the timing [4]. And that Omar said right before filing that it was an "opportunity for us to explain why it is we support a nonviolent movement, which is the BDS movement." However, while I still think the sentence should go in, if BDS isn't in the resolution text itself, it's not worth my time to continue to push it if there's disagreement. Thanks for pointing that out! Benevolent human (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forward is a biased publication on this issue, with a Israeli nationalist bent, and has numerous times described statements by people in questionable, biased, and inaccurate terms in order to push the framing that anyone who critiscizes Israel is "antisemitic". Describing the resolution merely as a "BDS resolution" is a biased and not good faith attempt to refer to it, it is merely a political talking point and an intentional distortion. Give their numerous bad faith inaccurate articles to push this right wing narrative I do not think they can accurately be described as "mainstream" any more than any other publication with a clear nationalist ideology.2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Far left

I notice that in the wiki for Marjorie Taylor Greene it states that she is a "far right conspiracy theorist". To be fair, shouldn't the wiki for aoc state that she is Far left? In reality, it should also state that she doesn't comprehend the legislative process, the 3 branches of government or the Constitution. The article also puts her net worth at $30,000 yet she has received half a million dollars in salary as a Congresswoman not to mention millions in income from other sources including Netflix. 71.34.175.2 (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any complaints about how MTG is described, discuss it at her article. Don't complain here just to make a point. AOC is a self-described democratic socialist, which doesn't make her far left in reliable sources. And making money has no relevance to one's political position. TFD (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A O-C is a far-left activist. Her wiki page should reflect this.Not-PCwoke (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Ocasio Cortez is Far Left. She is a socialist who supports eliminating ICE, opening borders even more, defunding police, the "right" to free housing, free medical care for all, student loan forgiveness, and extreme deficit spending to pay for everything. The problem is that many of the "mainstream sources" that the Wikipedia editors refer to, such as NY Times, Washington Post, USA Today, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc. lean to the left, but maintain that they are where the middle of the road is now. This view is further supported by the prolific Wikipedia editors who also tend to lean left. This skew makes anyone even remotely conservative be characterized as far right, while to be viewed as far left a politician would have to be even more radical than the members of The Squad. So good luck getting anyone here to agree to include "far left" in any article about AOC. The editors here can't even support characterizing MSNBC as leftist, even though that network is at least as far left as Fox News is right. Green Marble (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The salary of a representative is not nearly half a million. She's worked a grand total of two years in DC and that region can easily eat up a six figure salary on just living expenses, saving 30k in net assets from what I can assume was nothing in a couple of years actually indicates she's rather frugal.2601:140:8900:61D0:ADF1:2C9A:7E54:E8A8 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for feedback on the Endorsements section

I am wondering about other's feelings on perhaps cutting this section back. At the time it was perhaps interesting as it showed what she was up against, but on the other hand it is/was not surprising in that he was a pretty powerful Democrat who was fighting Trump and had a pretty decent platform. I'm going to print it out here. Perhaps there are still some good reasons for keeping it all rather than just a short mention.

This is all very relevant as AOC's main notability derives from her success as a insurgent candidate. Incidentally IIRC the Working Families Party did not endorse Crowley but nominated him so that his name would be on the ballot as a candidate for their party. Neither the party nor Crowley were able to remove his name before the November election. TFD (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good--I trust your judgement and thanks for the quick reply. About the nomination, I read that and felt that a reader would need to read the source. If you know how to make it more understandable I'm sure that would be an improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism

Add that AOC has made false and baseless claims smearing Israel as an "apartheid state."[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickplops (talkcontribs) 00:30, May 18, 2021 (UTC)

There's an article about that, Israel and the apartheid analogy. Haaretz wrote about the WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this false concerning Israel's racist policies? 18:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)
Anti-zionism isn’t anti-Semtitism. It isn’t hard logic. Trillfendi (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This right wing talking point conflating Judaism and Israel is quite ludicrous. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-College Timeline is Not Consistent

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/02/ocasio-cortez-westchester/751333002/ 'Westchester County land records show that Ocasio-Cortez was living there with her mother and brother in 2016 when they sold the home for $355,000.'

This article says that AOC went to live with her mother in the Bronx after college. I would like to propose this to be changed in light of the above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in that link that would warrant a change. It was a tabloid-ish piece of sensationalism, and if you read it all the way through, would see that the accusations were rebutted. ValarianB (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since AOC graduated from Boston University in 2011, evidence that she lived in Westchester in 2016 is not evidence that she did not live in the Bronx after completing university, since the Westchester house was rented out. It could be she moved there in order to prepare it for sale. Since none of the articles that claim she lived in Westchester are reliable sources, there are no changes we can make. TFD (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible loaded language

In the sentence "The Young Turks have continued to cover Ocasio-Cortez and defend her from political and media elites who see her as outside the political culture of DC, with occasional criticism on some of her policies", the phrase "political and media elites" seems like a loaded term with a connotation of non-neutrality (AOC vs. shadowy unnamed "elites").

Recommending a NPOV alternative such as "opponents". A {{who}} tag might not go amiss either. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence pending any consensus on wording to include. "Political and media elites" is too POV a phrase. "With occasional criticism" isn't particularly descriptive, either. It reads as promotional for TYT to me. Is there anything of substance to say about how TYT covers AOC? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not from my knothole. There's plenty of other parts of the article that talks about TYT and their early promotion of AOC (which is notable, I think) but I fully agree this sentence offers nothing of substance. 73.254.89.77 (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]