# Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

In the part of the page where it says "Ocasio-Cortez has been described as progressive, left-wing, left-wing populist, and far-left.". Isn't the far-left label similar to the one used for La France Insoumise? Aka, a label used by their critics?
I don't think the label and the sources should be removed for "far-left", but I believe a footnote and/or extra sentence mentioning how the "far-left" is mainly used by her critics should be discussed and perhaps added to her page. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

if she only has 2 majors then she doesn't have a degree, so it is incorrect to say she graduated. Graduation means getting a degree.
Basicaly she is a bachelor. So no degree, so, no, she didn't graduate. 2001:818:DDA3:B400:A062:54ED:8FAB:A204 (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what a double major or a degree is. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
When pursuing a bachelor's degree, a student declares one or more major fields of study. The article says that she had two majors and she graduated. This makes sense. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 00:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Where I studied, you could not have a double major, because you needed ten credits for a major while only nineteen credits could be counted toward a degree. However, different schools have different rules. TFD (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

She was born in Parkchester not the Bronx area of New York City and moved to Yorktown Heights as an infant before she could talk not when she was 5 2600:1700:700:6520:B928:6C57:661B:5295 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Would that be Parkchester, Bronx? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to assume that somewhere on the Internet there is a thread where there are people who can't be bothered to read what the article says, but who have the time to come here and waste their time and ours asking the same thing over and over., imagining that they've uncovered something huge if true Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
It is a thing all of a sudden for some reason. https://x.com/AOC/status/1940137749123575943 – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Based on a quick Google search for "aoc bronx", it seems that Fox News and the New York Post are running some sort of "not really from the Bronx!" line of attack this week. My assumption is that the people flooding in here misunderstood what those papers were saying, coming away with the false impression that she wasn't from the Bronx at all as opposed to "she moved out of the Bronx when she was five." I would speculate that this sort of confusion was the intent - there is a reason why neither is considered a WP:RS for politics. --Aquillion (talk) 12:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Five requests in less than 48 hours to add a detail that is already in the article. Another example of fake news spreading through illiteracy. Yue🌙 01:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done Added Parkchester neighborhood (of the Bronx) from her US Representative website. This, I hope, will end requests for information already in the article. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I put in information about AOC's Iron Dome vote and response to it. It was reverted as "undue". But this isn't undue; the DSA and others criticized her, and someone vandalized her office. She even responded to it on social media. This is all verifiable through sources. It may be a minority view, but I shortened the sentence as much as I could. In my opinion, the sentences "The vote was criticized by some who argued the system enabled Israel, and her office was vandalized days later. She responded by pointing out she didn't vote for military funding" are not giving the dispute inappropriate weight. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

MTG proposed many amendments and I believe they all failed, this one in particular got six yay votes. And AOC is taking some criticism from the left for voting against it, but will we remember this in ten years? A vote is not a political position. We have sources on her position. We stick with that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
This is an change to her position on the Iron Dome. This makes it clearer what she actually thinks. And I've made sure to dedicate only 3 sentences to this section which compiles her stances on the conflict through the years. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
She has not changed any positions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes she has. She voted present on the Iron Dome before and apologized for it. Now she says she supports the Iron Dome. I personally don't care, but it is notable. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Personisinsterest that this information should be in the article. Her vote isn't what's encyclopedic, its the reaction and consequences that are. You say that "a vote is not a political position," which is true, but she also went on Twitter and explicitly supported funding Iron Dome, and there's also been a backlash large enough to be reported. That is something that will be remembered in 10 years and should be in the article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
If we do add her vote on the amendment, we should also add that she voted against the overall defense budget (which included the Iron Dome). There has been a lot of misinformation that she materially funded something, which she did not. Catboy69 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
We would have to include that, which just adds to the length of describing a nothingburger. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
The media reported on this and she received significant backlash, and she also explained her vote by explicitly changing her position on the Iron Dome. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
This is why I believe you are being biased. You think that her voting against the defense budget and also the Iron Dome amendment means it's a nothingburger. But you don't get to decide what's important. Neither do I. I agree, the vote doesn't matter. But we write what's been reported, and this vote has garnered a lot of controversy, and we need to write that. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Why is this vote DUE in context of AOC?  If we zoom out is this something people will associate with her 10 years from now?  With few exceptions, how a politician votes on an individual bill should be presumed UNDUE unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.  That is likely true even in cases where, hypothetically, AOC is the only Democrat to vote for/against a bill.  Springee (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Again, the vote isn't what's DUE, it's the backlash and her personal clarification that makes the vote worth mentioning in the article. Her public statement explaining that she doesn't want to cut aid to the Iron Dome is ultimately what is at stake here, and represents a significant clarification on what she believes. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Her leftist base is obviously mad about this (as shown in reliable sources), yes, her position on the Iron Dome will be remembered in 10 years. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I am going to add this back into the article (with due weight and good wording) since it has been thoroughly covered by reliable sources and no one is responding to me Personisinsterest (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
That noone responded isn't a good reason to add it back. What coverage is there now in the last few days that suggests this has lasting impact? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
The article that says there's a rift between AOC and Ilhan Omar, all the backlash, vandalism, and death threats, all the coverage of this event in general. Why are you so opposed to putting this in the article? Personisinsterest (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. What "rift" between AOC and Omar? The "backlash" was time limited and appears to be over and forgotten already. It's not WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
You could make the case for deleting half this article with WP:Lasting. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
We try to only add things back in after reversion if there is clear concise consensus or if there is consensus through correctly exercised policy.  Seems that if Personisinsterest can provide some RS that can verify more DUE WEIGHT than perhaps it might need to be revisited. Eruditess (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Here's some excerpts:
"Ocasio-Cortez’s position on the Iron Dome now is to the right of her position four years ago."
"The close colleagues are splitting on funding Israel's Iron Dome system, but Omar is on stronger ground."1
"we were further deeply disappointed by her clarifying statement on her position on the Iron Dome. Along with other US-funded interceptor systems, the Iron Dome has emboldened Israel to invade or bomb no less than five different countries in the past two years." 2 Personisinsterest (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
An op-ed in MSNBC and a press release from the DSA are not reliable sources Catboy69 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Time: "she sparked outcry from some progressives after voting on Friday against the amendment" 1
NYT: "It took place just days after a contentious vote on defense funding for Israel roiled the left ... some factions on the far left have found her opposition insufficient ... She said she continued to oppose sending military supplies for waging war to Israel, and she voted against the overall military spending bill that would have done so. But she argued that cutting off funding for defense would only put more innocent lives at risk." 2
The New Arab: "Progressive US lawmaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been forced onto the defensive ... Ocasio-Cortez has come under heavy criticism"3
WaPo: "Ocasio-Cortez defended her pro-Palestinian record against those who accused her of supporting Israel’s war in Gaza ... On Monday, she hit back at those who were falsely saying she had voted to fund Israel’s war in Gaza." 4
The backlash and position change are widely reported, along with the reporting on the vandalism and death threats. I believe this warrants a sentence or two. I understand she voted against the bill, but she also explicitly changed her position on the Iron Dome. I feel we would be doing a disservice to anyone interested in learning about her positions if we didn't mention this. I personally am neutral on this issue, I'm not trying to make her look good or bad here. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
You're still on this? Nobody else is.
Time: July 22
NYT: July 22
The New Arab: July 20
Washington Post: July 22
It was widely covered, yes. For about 72 hours. Where's the WP:LASTING though? This is what WP:NOTNEWS is about, or else we'd be including so many "widely covered" news stories in what are supposed to be encyclopedic entries. A convoluted vote on an amendment doesn't clarify her position on the issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
She explicitly said she supports the Iron Dome. An unknowing reader would read that section and come away thinking AOC doesn't support the Iron Dome because she apologized for it in 2021. She has changed her mind. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
There were op-eds in the new Arab and the hill in late July and August respectively about the incident. One said that it showed moderation and could help in a presidential run, one criticized the move again. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
AOC is one of the most high profile politicians in the US and is constantly in the news. This article must be selective in what is included. TFD (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
It isn't. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
This happened two months ago. If it is, as you said above, something with lasting significance, then by now you should be able to find recent coverage still talking about it per WP:SUSTAINED. If the only coverage is from around July 22, and no WP:RSes have talked about it since July, that implies that it's not really significant enough in the long term to go in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
There is so much stuff in this article with no sustained coverage Personisinsterest (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Seconded. This vote and her comments on "defensive weapons" have been consequential to the perception of her from the left. So what if it's no longer in the corporate news cycle? Tony414 (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Further coverage of the vote:
Haaretz (opinion), Sept 13, about DSA and Palestine. "But AOC's real sin, in the eyes of some DSA factions, was her vote to support continued funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system ... may consider a resolution to censure her for her 'tacit support of Zionism.'"
Opinion in The Atlantic, Aug 24, about DSA factionalism: "Some even put forward a resolution at the convention to formally censure her for her 'tacit support of Zionism,' on the grounds that she had supported the funding of defensive Iron Dome weapons for Israel"
Article, City and State New York, Aug 13, about the DSA and AOC relationship: "Ocasio-Cortez was also criticized by the National Political Committee, the DSA’s leadership body, after she said that she only opposed sending offensive weapons to Israel but does not oppose U.S. funding for Israel’s missile defense system. ... Like Eblaghie, other DSA members are critical of Ocasio-Cortez’s position on Israel and would like to see her adopt one closer to that of New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, a DSA member who supports the BDS movement and has called for an end to all military aid to Israel."
Article, Rolling Stone, Aug 7, about the DSA convention: "but simmering tensions are likely to flare up at the convention, particularly in light of AOC’s recent vote against a measure that would have cut funding for Israel’s Iron Dome system. Both a resolution to formally censure AOC and to review her DSA membership over her alleged 'tacit support for Zionism,'"
I also found more reporting of the incident when it happened: USA Today (opinion), Middle East Eye, The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Washington Jewish Week, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Newsweek, Politico, The Guardian.
At the very least, this should be included in the article to further explain her relationship with DSA and the left. Along with the sources detailing the vote, this is a notable event with sustained coverage. With due weight, this is very important context. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
If it must be added, we should make a note that she has never voted for a single dollar to go to the Iron Dome or Israel in any capacity, as she has voted against every defense spending bill since she has been in office. Catboy69 (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
"In July, Ocasio-Cortez voted against an amendment from Marjorie Taylor Greene that would cut funding for Israeli defensive systems, though still voted against the overall military budget. Ocasio-Cortez received heavy criticism from DSA members and progressives, but defended her vote, saying the amendment "cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue". Personisinsterest (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I've proven this has significant coverage during and after the event, what more do we need to get this sliver in the article? Personisinsterest (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
The list of more recent sources as of September 26th has convinced me this is definitely WP:DUE for at least a short mention. Loki (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
There’s not really a short way to say it though Catboy69 (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Change congressional district to Congressional District following 14th. 2601:582:C200:2820:907D:974:8A50:1341 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: "Congressional district" is not a proper noun. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

DSA should not be listed under affiliations. She has been conditionally endorsed by DSA but she is not affiliated with DSA. C452310 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

TBH, using New York City would be better, rather than one of its five boroughs. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I also vote in favor of this. I'll state my reasoning why:
1. New York City is more broad than mentioning The Bronx. It's fine to mention that Alexandria grew up in The Bronx and was born there. But it's better to mention that in the body paragraph.
2. It has said New York City for 7 years now. Her page was created back in 2018 and has always said New York City. Why are we changing it now, just because one person objects to it?
3. New York City is the city she was born in, The Bronx while yes it is a borough inside of broader of New York City. Do we have hospital records of which hospital she was born in? birth certificate of the particular location.
I'll leave it there. I really hope someone has a very strong counter argument against what I just said. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
1. Specificity is better than being overly broad. 2. This does not matter. If there's a better way to do something, we make changes. We are told to WP:BEBOLD. 3. Birth certificate? What are you talking about? WP:RS connect her to the Bronx, including by birth. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
GoodDay why do you believe that's better? The Bronx is more specific than all of NYC. She's well known to be connected to it. What's the downside? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts. Right now majority opinion says keep it as New York City. @Muboshgu whether or not you think you are right or not. You are in the minority and have been out voted. For the current consensus I think it should remain the same. Because majority rules. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Three people total is hardly enough for a majority opinion. I welcome other voices to chime in. What's your rush? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Because we should be going by city, state, country. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@GoodDay I love that statement. City, state, country. That's what matters. I already mentioned my thoughts. If others want to join to agree/disagree feel free. The consensus stands as such and we should keep it that way until otherwise. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The documentation for the template says that the field is to be used for the birthplace. The documentation doesn't say that it should be a city and a state... and the Bronx is a specific place. It makes sense to use the Bronx in the infobox, as it is a specific place. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
This does not address the issue at all, actually. Why is it better to stick with a city of 8 million and not break it down to the borough of 1.4 million? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The majority of US states have a smaller population than The Bronx. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Irrelevant IMHO, as long as it's still a part of a city. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we should be going by city, state, country.  Cities differ wildly in size; New York City has a larger population than 38 states. In fact, the Bronx alone still has a higher population than many states. It makes sense that coverage would often be more specific in that context, and when it is, we should reflect that coverage rather than make up our own arbitrary rules. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The Bronx (always including the article "the") has a population of 1.4 million. It is not a small area. It is quite different from Manhattan, which many people connect to when hearing NYC. She is well known for her connection to this area in RS. I support using The Bronx. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Omnipaedista, regarding your edit, with the edit summary suggesting that we use one randomly selected biography as comparison, there are many articles that do list a borough. Why is the biography of Stan Lee more relevant here than that of Chuck Schumer, which lists the neighborhood and borough? Also, regarding the hidden note -No boroughs/neighbourhoods, just cities per format, what "format"? Where is a consensus saying that this article should be kept your preferred way? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu Wow that is a weak argument. Are we really doing this? This page is about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not Chuck Schumer. Are we really trying to make her page identical to him? Really? That's a weak statement.
It totally goes against my point two statement. Her page has said New York City for 7 freaking years. Now we must revert to be identical to him? That makes zero sense I'm sorry.
There are thousands of other articles of people who were born in New York City and their's says New York City. Jennifer Lopez is a good reference who was also born in The Bronx. Try again. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Wow that is a weak argument. Are we really doing this? This page is about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, not Jennifer Lopez. See how that sounds. WP:CIV O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Jennifer Lopez is a better reference than Chuck Schumer. My opinion is subjective. But you both started with the point about Chuck Schumer.
Personally, I feel like Jennifer Lopez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have more in common with each other than him. I don't need to use her as a reference, I can find another person to use instead of her, if you want to continue to go down that road.
You didn't even address my point, "Her page has said New York City for 7 freaking years." Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
So we shouldn't change anything that has lasted seven years? Nothing to address. And I don't know remember saying anything about Chuck Schumer. Personally, I feel like Jennifer Lopez and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have more in common with each other than him. I suggest you strike that comment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
You didn't, but your friend, @Muboshgu did. To be honest, you both are still in the minority. I don't know of anyone else that objects except you two. I'm done talking. I said what I said, I have a life outside of Wikipedia and feel like this argument is coming to a pointless mute point. Have a nice day. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I asked an editor a specific question about a specific edit that they made to this page, with the edit summary cf. Stan Lee. I do not see a problem with raising Schumer, who is far more relevant to AOC than Stan Lee. I do see a problem with your tone, as O3000 pointed out. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Support "The Bronx". It's more specific, gives relevant detail, and is in-line with how we do many other New Yorker biographies. That the article has said "New York" for the past 7 years is not at all relevant to what we should do now. Wikipedia isn't finished and there's always room for improvement. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Not all New Yorkers have their borough mentioned as their birth place. You should check through a thousand others that have New York City listed as their birth place. If only the borough of their birth place should mentioned.
Why not go through every single person's page to change it? Just because some have one of the five boroughs? If that's the case, revert everyone's page to say their borough and not their city.
That tells me, there's no precise rule regarding saying New York City as the birth place. Because hundreds and thousands of other pages says the exact same thing as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
7 years yes is a very good strong reason on why we should keep it the same. Her name is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Do you want to change her name because it's been that way for 7 years, actually 36 years because that was her birth name. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Support the Bronx as birthplace; it's more specific. Miniapolis 00:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You haven't actually given a good reason not to change it in all those articles. If it could be accurately sourced, I'd support doing so.
And no, I wouldn't support changing her name to something else... because that would be inaccurate. If we'd been getting her name wrong for the past seven years (or if she changed her name), then I'd certainly support correcting it! Elli (talk | contribs) 00:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
If she acknowledges that she wants to be called a different name then that change is acceptable. Because we are addressing how the person wants to referred to as. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
You haven't actually given a good reason not to change it in all those articles. If it could be accurately sourced, I'd support doing so. - That's your opinion, not fact. 
I've seen the same opinion regarding, "The Bronx side of the argument". 
- The Bronx is more specific
- The Bronx has 1.4 million residents
The Bronx has 1.4 million residents, Chicago and LA have more people than that. Do we need to change people's birthplace instead of saying Chicago to say, Lincoln Square, or to say "Lake View", as oppose to say Chicago or Los Angeles to say: "The Hills" or "West Hills" as oppose to Los Angeles? 
The Bronx is more specific, I don't have anything against The Bronx. We are just simply referring to the city she was born in.
The Bronx can be mentioned in her body paragraph. What's wrong with that? Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

You are now disagreeing with comments from three administrators. Now, they have no more !votes than you. But, they generally have more experience along such lines in Wikipedia and you might consider what they say. Any closer is likely to do so. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
We'll continue this debate.
I'm not an administrator. However, I am a good debater and honestly a good public speaker too. That could be me thinking highly of myself, but I think it is true. It has also worn me out. I honestly wish I could be doing more important things than feuding with users on the internet, especially admins. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Writing something in bold italics does not make for a better argument. Yours boils down to "this is the way its done" and now some WP:OTHERSTUFF about Chicago and L.A. for whatever reason, which is not convincing to me. You can disagree with the reasons I have raised, but you could also be a lot more polite about it in the process. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
What is it with you? What is about me that you always want to continue to go back and forth with me? Do I intrigue you in some kind of way lol?
I didn't make the statement in bold italics to make my argument sound better. I did it to just simply highlight what the user was talking about.
If someone is disagreeing me, I have to counter the argument. That's how debate works.
If I came across strong, fiery, or any way that was perceived in some kind of way. I am sorry. I felt that I was being kind during the entire process. Maybe it's just my personality or it could also be the way things get misinterpreted on the internet.
I notice that with language, reading a text can easily be misinterpreted. I don't think I'm being rude, but I'm sorry if you felt that way. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
It's good for all of us to take a step back. We can all misinterpret other people's comments and instead remember to AGF. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Coming back to this, I don't know that any consensus can be formed in this discussion. I think I will initiate a RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)