Talk:Ayanna Pressley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Squad

She is one the four Squad members. https://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2019/07/12/64681/pelosi-versus-the-squad-fault-lines-deepen-between/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.99.32.90 (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Transwomen's rights

Pressley is distinguished in Congress for supporting the rights of transwomen.[1] Additionally, she is a member of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

14Jenna7Caesura, first of all, I probably should have left a 'cite needed' tag on her membersgip of the Congressional LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus, rather than remove it, I think there are such press references to her membership of the caucus.

The removal of the Category:American LGBT rights activists category was correct though, for a number of reasons. Firstly, on a practical level, it's pointless (and against policy) to put anybody, (or any thing or place etc for that matter), into a category unless the article contains CITED info supporting the membership of that category as a significant, defining, aspect of the person concerned. There is no info about Pressley's LGBTQ activities, beliefs etc, so someone wanting to find out about LGBT activists in the US would find out nothing except the name - and that with no cite to support it.

Secondly, even being active in LGBT causes within her political life and within the caucus would not automatically make her an 'activist'. Clearly from the news articles I briefly read, Pressley is sympathetic to LGBT causes, but being an 'activist' usually involves a higher and longer level of commitment and activity than that of a politician endorsing a cause as part of their political life. Ideally we would want a cite that refers to her as an 'activist' and outlines some of her activism, a summary of which should be in the article before including her in the category. It isn't up to us to decide that she is an 'activist' .

I'm a UK person, so I barely knew Pressley's name before yesterday and my removal of the category was more based on policy than on any specific knowledge about her. Perhaps she should be in the category, but the text and cites supporting her belonging in the category should be in place first. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Political positions" section needs to be reduced

This seems excessive detail. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

QueenofBithynia, can you be more specific? What detail there is excessive? And how does this relate to the advert tag you added? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit to not being an expert on US politics, but the detail of each political position seems excessive. Then again, comparing it to (what I assume to be) similar Congresspeople such as AOC, I will admit that I may have been mistaken. And that's a good article. (As for the advert tag, this amount of detail effectively reads as a résumé/CV and an endorsement of these opinions). Sorry to have wasted your time. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not a waste of time. Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve articles. Thank you for your points. Skimming it, there may be some things tightened up or cut. I haven't read it checking for CV/resume properties yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It could be more concise. Do we really need a section that a Democratic member of Congress opposes Donald Trump? TFD (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't. I removed it. The fact that it was positioned first shows me that someone stuck it in there with non-neutral intentions. Her impeachment votes could be relevant because impeachment is a BFD. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)