The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2018. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2019, when it received 11,167,197 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report8 times. The weeks in which this happened:
"She was previously an activist". What does this mean/refer to? I find nothing on it in the body of the article. Lead already states "politician and activist". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's referring to:
After the general election, she traveled across America by car, visiting places such as Flint, Michigan, and Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota, and speaking to people affected by the Flint water crisis and the Dakota Access Pipeline.
In the source itself:
An activist she knew at Standing Rock, where indigenous activists were leading a demonstration against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, told her the camp could use more women. So the then-27-year-old Ocasio-Cortez and two friends set up a GoFundMe page, loaded up a car full of supplies, and set out for South Dakota.
Controversy sections tends to become shit-magnets, so separate sections should if possible be avoided, more at WP:CRIT. Finding paragraphs with controversy in them is not hard if you read the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. Dedicating a section or paragraph to "controversies" is a bad idea. How is a campaign contribution from George Soros controversial? I believe consensus is against including ethics investigations, just conclusions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of support and opposition on Pay raises for Congress
@Ruhrob, you asked why the sentence pertaining to Kevin McCarthy is related to the topic. It is related because it gives context there is some opposite party support for her position as well as same party opposition for her position. By removing the supporting section and leaving the opposing section, it creates a false balance. Ward20 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The last time the House censured a lawmaker" line
The final sentence of the section "Online harassment from Paul Gosar" states:
> The last time the House censured a lawmaker was in 2010.
However now that Rashida Tlaib has been censured in 2023, this statement is out of date. I was thinking about changing it to "The previous time [...]" and perhaps that would merit a citation to Tlaib's censure? Generally I would advocate for avoiding terminology like this that can become out of date.
Perhaps the entire sentence can be removed, it feels like it is adding spin by emphasizing the infrequent rate of censures in the House of Representatives. Razziabuissa (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that that's true. We include it on a few firebrands but not on all of them (for example, it's absent from Donald Trump. I noticed that when you added it you compared her to Marjorie Taylor Greene, but I'm not sure they're comparable in terms of the coverage she received. In any case, this gets to the main issue, which is that we shouldn't decide things like this based on WP:FALSEBALANCE but based on what the sources say in each case - is AOC typically referred to as left-wing in coverage? --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing there isn't great for putting this in the lead. Almost everything in the "far-left" citation bundle is brief attributed quotes or things that don't actually describe her personally as far-left; and it also labels her as progressive, with no clear explanation for why you went with "left-wing". And of course the rest of the section goes into a lot more detail, with more in-depth sources that generally don't use those terms. Glancing over the history, you've been pretty aggressive about reverting this back into the lead every time it's removed, given that it hasn't really been discussed and reflects only a single recently-added line in the body. In fact, the entire sentence you added there is weird - it pulls a bunch of brief mentions out of context to provide a list of terms that aren't really given much focus in any one piece of coverage, when we already had a much more in-depth discussion of her politics. If you compare her to MTG (the article that seems to have prompted this on your end, though, I'll reiterate, that's really WP:FALSEBALANCE), there's repeated references throughout the article with much more in-depth sourcing; and it's window]] for why that is. much easier to find in-depth sources discussing MTG's connection the far-right in general and discussing it in ways that make it central to her notability. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Far-left" would be an example of false symmetry and United States-specific parochialism in a global encyclopedia. Unless there is a Maoist caucus in Congress, there are no far-left representatives. The left in the United States would be leftish centrists in most of the rest of the world. Please read Overton window for why that is. Acroterion(talk)13:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing is a fairly broad description that provides little information for readers. Referring to AOC as a Democrat already tells us that she is to the left of the U.S. center, if that is the definition of left-wing in the U.S. Best leave it out.
Comparing her with MTG is a false balance. In France, AOC would probably be in the center-left Socialist Party, while MTG would be in the far right National Rally. TFD (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the only subheading is "elections", but lines like "media coverage" and "endorsements" seem to be intended to be subheadings, but just aren't. if anyone knows whether this is intended or not, please answer, I didn't want to just edit it, because the article has the warning label 86.214.184.42 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In previous discussion, consensus overwhelmingly supported adding this section of the infobox, because it's pertinent and highly reported. 2019 discussion. I believe the same.
The DSA is not a party, it's a nonprofit organization no matter how hard some people wish and hope and pray that it is, and until they make legal steps to do so, and if/when AOC makes the decision to leave the Democratic Party and register as a DSA voter/candidate for office, it will remain inappropriate and false to call it "other political affiliations." We should not be going down a rabbit hole where every semi-official grouping gets listed as nauseam in infoboxes because someone wants to shove that Josh Gottheimer is a "Blue Dog+NewDem+Problem Solver". Describe her political positions and organizational membership in the DSA in the article where it belongs. Same holds for the WFP, which just throws an array of Dems their ballot line and/or endorsement off and on various election cycles but does NOT indicate such Dems are political party member of the WFP (and they quite literally have never been in NY). So it's highly inappropriate and even more incorrect to list that under "other" in the infobox since it's objectively untrue. Again, mention the connection in the text and of course break down the vote allocation in her electoral history where it belongs. Both DSA and WFP in the infobox is misleading and undue weight. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
