Talk:Ilhan Omar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malix27 (article contribs).

National Legal and Policy Center complaint / divorce paper claims.

I don't feel that the recently-added material here passes WP:DUE for inclusion right now relative to Omar's stature. One is a complaint by the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative advocacy group; a complaint like that doesn't automatically have much weight until / unless some event confirms it or unless it has WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The divorce filing, likewise, is just a bare accusation at the moment. While they have some coverage, devoting two paragraphs to potentially-negative material about a BLP requires more than just one news cycle noting that accusations exist - especially one who attracts as much attention as Omar; this coverage is minor compared to what she normally gets. If these turn out to be significant or are confirmed by later coverage, there will be more going forwards, but right now I'm not seeing enough to support covering fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL defamatory claims about a BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I fully agree with you. Perhaps sometime editors forget that a BLP requires a higher level of sourcing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Is this material less worthy of inclusion than:

-Omar’s father’s comments on school bullying she suffered due to her Muslim identity;

-Comments made by an unidentified Omar supporter at a 2019 rally in New York City;

-Omar’s introduction of legislation that would sanction the nation of Brunei; and

-Omar having been featured in a Maroon 5 music video?

That material is on the page right now, and there is no apparent dispute over its weightiness.

For now, we can wait and see whether more coverage develops on the divorce issues and the complaint (there is already a good deal), but let's be sure to guard against using a heightened standard of due weight because of who the subject of the article is.

Also, Aquillion, please note that your assertion in an edit summary that "a complaint with no followup is WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPCRIME" is incorrect in this instance; per WP:BLPCRIME, that rule is inapplicable to public figures. SunCrow (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The reason the National Legal and Policy Center exists is to promote unfounded rumors ignored by the mainstream. It is not our role as editors to assist them unless per WEIGHT the story gets widespread attention. TFD (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

<-----this is a completely baseless accusation.

I'm really interested in why so much attention is put into defending/ protecting liberal candidates and shielding them from criticisms where as if they were conservative, the wiki would be full of just about every accusation and criticism ever made. There seems to be extremely heavy bias here.2601:187:4002:4160:6C25:B79F:F207:C568 (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like Whataboutism. If there is an article where you think a conservative person is being treated unfairly, the best place to raise that would be on that talk page. Zaathras (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. (Also I have moved the inappropriate addition at the end of TFD's comment to its own line, and fixed the indenting..) --JBL (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"American politician" vs. "Somali-American politician"

For a very long time this article began (essentially) "Ilhan Omar is a Somali-American politican ..." (or sometimes "Somali American"); for example, Nov 2018 (just before being elected to Congress), Jan 2019, March 2019, May 2019. More recently, some editor or editors have removed the "Somali" (or "Somali-") descriptor from the first sentence. Unlike the silliness about her "Arabic name" above, this seems to me misguided: her notability derives in significant part from her background (she is the first Somali-American elected to any legislative office in the US, etc.). I propose that the modifier be restored. The relevant guideline is MOS:ETHNICITY: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. -- it seems to me that the qualifiers are amply met in this case. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Her notability stems from the fact that she's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and before that the Minnesota House. How much does being Somali factor into her notability? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

She was notable before she was elected -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilhan_Omar. She received widespread national news coverage as the first Somali-American elected in the US. (This is covered in multiple places in the article, along with a detailed discussion of her ethnicity/background.) --JBL (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

She has indeed received a lot of coverage focusing on her Somali upbringing. I'm torn on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the above user. Furthermore it is unclear whether she even retained Somali citizenship after immigrating and becoming a U.S. Citizen, thereby making the label "Somali-American" questionable anyway, but nonetheless her notability is entirely as an American politician in the U.S.A. I'm not sure how her ethnicity/place of birth figures into her notability at all to warrant inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This is beside the point (i.e., it doesn't control what the first sentence should say), but you are absolutely wrong about the first part: the descriptor "Somali-American" is about her ethnicity/birthplace, it has nothing to do with her nationality, and it is attested to by an infinite number of reliable sources. About the second part, if you read the lead of the article you will see it already contains a detailed discussion of her Somali background, because it correctly reflects the content of the article. The question I am raising is whether, in addition, it should begin by describing her as a Somali American. --JBL (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just realized there was an earlier discussion of this that I missed (probably, this is when the removal happened): Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_10#Heritage_and_Nationality. It does not look to me like there was consensus for the removal there. --JBL (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In the first sentence it should not mention "Somali" because I think that wouldn't be appropriate considering that it is followed by "politician" and she was not a politician in the Somali. Also I think this case is very similar to Obama and in the Obama article the first sentence doesn't say "African", etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Barack Obama is not African. Ilhan Omar is Somali. Nevertheless, Barack Obama's article mentions that he is African-American in the second sentence. --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, then based on what Mr. JBL said, I think I further stand by why the term "Somali" should NOT be included in the lead. The lead per Wikipedia guidelines as stated in WP:Ethnicity already mentioned above should only describe nationality by default, not ethnicity or place of birth or prior nationalities unless the latter are somehow directly relevant to her notability. Simply being born in Somalia or being born a Somali citizen does not mean that said descriptor should be included in the lead. We don't have any information that she retains Somali citizenship, whereas we know for a fact she is a U.S. citizen as such is a prerequisite for her political office. Also, her Somali birth has little to no relevance to her notability as a U.S. politician. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't made my mind up 100%, but I think it's worth noting that while she has recieved considerable press for being the first Somali-American congresswoman, even more headlines mention her faith first. Your average headline would say "first Muslim woman elected to congress"(well, tied for first). I think we should leave the lead as-is. Also note, Rashida Tlaib has the same lead, American politician, with Palistinian-American further down. Let's leave the lead alone. TheSavageNorwegian 02:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Thesavagenorwegian: Rashida Talib was born in the United States, and the fact that she's Palestinian is much less widely noted than the fact that Omar is Somali. (Just compare the coverage in the two articles.) --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Apoorva Iyer: I am happy to be called by my username (Joel B. Lewis) or by my abbreviated username (JBL); but if you want to use a title/honorific, the correct choice is "Dr.", not "Mr." --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I see your point. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please learn how to indent and thread your posts correctly. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am not that familiar with the way to indent on wikipedia. do you have a source I can look to to learn/could you let me know how? Also, Rashida Tlaib being born in the USA does not change the situation one bit. Being born in a different country does not somehow make that country more relevant to inclusion in the lead, just as being born a certain ethnicity does not either. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the link: WP:THREAD. (I have fixed the indentation on the comment right above this one, I hope that's all right.) Substantively: being born in a place is a more significant connection to that place than not being born in that place. So it is not particularly surprising that Tlaib is not called "Palestinian-American" in the first sentence, and the fact that she is not does not shed much light on the case of someone like Omar with a much stronger connection (both in terms of biographical significance and notability/coverage in reliable sources). --JBL (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I disagree here. Being born in a place may offer an obvious biographical connection to that place, but as to whether that is notable and worthy of inclusion in the lead is an entirely different question and one akin to asking whether someone's ethnicity, religious background, or other information is also information worthy of inclusion in the lead. Rashida Tlaib is known for being Muslim, Palestinian-American, and a variety of other things but those are not included in her lead. Similarly, I don't see why we should include Ilhan Omar's birthplace in the lead. Just because she was born in Somalia does not automatically make that relevant to her notability and worthy of inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, I think a great place to look for guidance on this issue is the part of WP:Ethnicity that states "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Ilhan Omar achieved her notability as a U.S. citizen and politician in the USA, not as a Somali one. News articles may highlight her Somali heritage as they may highlight Rashida Tlaib's Palestinian one but that does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion in the lead just as their mutual muslim backgrounds, which are also notable and mentioned frequently in the media, are also not included in their leads. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, this is a side note and not directly relevant to the topic at hand, but I'd like to note that being born in a certain place doesn't always even give you a significant connection to that place. Take, for instance, people who immigrate as infants or toddlers from another country. These people have no memory or connection to their place of birth over their US-born counterparts. This isn't Ilhan's case, but just thought I'd provide food for thought. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Many of your comments have the following feature: they live entirely at the level of generality and fail to deal with the particular details of this particular biography. Such comments do not add anything to the discussion. —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I addressed the fact that media sources like to highlight her Somali heritage/birthplace. I provided a comparison to other aspects of her background which are also highlighted in the media but yet are not included in the lead. I referenced Wikipedia guidelines on the issue as well. What is your reasoning for inclusion of her birthplace in the lead beyond that it is mentioned in media sources? Why should we include it in the lead over other qualifiers that are also equally addressed for her in the media such as her religious background? I feel like I need more specifics from your end to justify how her Somali heritage is directly relevant to her notability as a U.S. politician before I can be on the same page. If the only reasoning is that she is the first Somali-American elected to office, etc., then I'd point out that Rashida Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American elected to office and birthplace outside the USA as discussed previously is not somehow a greater reason for inclusion in the lead. Also she is one of the first muslim congresswoman so technically her religion is also important for the lead if we are looking at it from that angle. I think it is better that these factors are mentioned a few lines later as opposed to in the first line. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Usually hyphenation would mean that Omar was a politician both in Somalia and the U.S. By comparison, Einstein was a German American scientist, Peter Lorre was a German-American actor, but we wouldn't say that Reagan was an Irish American politician, because he never held office in Ireland. TFD (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure I agree with this analysis, but assuming consensus is reached to include, we can then discuss which form to include. (The earlier discussion was leaning towards “Somali-born American”, which I also like and skirts the hyphen issue.) —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the qualifier of "Somali-born American" doesn't really solve the issue either. We still have to ask why her birthplace is worthy of inclusion in the lead. Being the first of Somali birth or heritage in her position isn't any different than Rashida Tlaib or anyone else of other ethnicities being the first of their heritages to be elected to their offices. Just because she was born there it doesn't somehow make that more worthy of inclusion in the lead. And then by that logic do we have to include her religion in the lead too? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that "Somali-American politician" is the correct and accurate category for a naturalized citizen, as the second paragraph shows. Compare Arnold_Schwarzenegger is an Austrian-American actor, filmmaker, businessman, author, and former professional bodybuilder and politician. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I disagree. I don't see in what way that would be obvious. Unless your place of birth is directly relevant to your notability (ex: you achieved your notability in that country prior to immigrating to a different one), and/or you remain a citizen of that country, why would you include it in the lead? Especially for Omar, who achieved her notability as a U.S. Citizen only and has no evidence of retaining Somali citizenship, I think the label Somali-American would in fact be inaccurate. I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger has dual citizenship. Not only that, but Wikipedia is pretty clear on this too in WP:Ethnicity. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop bludgeoning the conversation: you have repeated the same thing over and over again, and other people are entitled to discuss without this bad behavior from you. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, I wasn't even aware that "bludgeoning" was a thing. I think you can be a little kinder in your tone. I responded to this previous user's post as it repeated many of the same points brought up before that had already been discussed. I will be sparser in my commenting here from now per WP:Bludgeoning. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we keep it as it is with "an American politician..." in the first para in the lead and then introducing her Somali heritage in the second para as we do now. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger came second in the Mr. Universe contest when he still lived in Austria and before he became a U.S. citizen in 1983 was famous as a body builder featured in Pumping Iron and had starred in Conan the Barbarian. So he was an actor both before and after he became a U.S. citizen, while Omar was never a politician before becoming a U.S. citizen. TFD (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump tweet about "go back and help"

The article leads the reader to believe that the President said she should go back, but he never said "should". The article says - should "go back" to the "places from which they came". This paraphrases his tweet in such a way to lead the reader to believe he used a racist trope. Go back and help is quite different in meaning. President Trump said "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." The article eliminates "and help" which makes it out of context. He never said she should stay there, as the racist trope goes. In fact he says "Then come back". The link to the racist trope is unfair and biased. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.25.58 (talk)

They came from the US. O3000 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The article does not say that Trump used the word "should". Your statement that the article misquotes Trump as using the word "should" is false; in the article only "go back" is quoted from Trump, and the word "should" is an accurate paraphrase that is outside the direct quote. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note: After my comment pointing out that the previous comment (claiming that the article misquotes Trump) was wrong, an IP-editor made edits in that earlier critical comment, changing the wording so as to make it appear that my comment was wrong. This violates talk-page guidelines, see WP:TPO (Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning). NightHeron (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

From WP:REDACT: if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. NightHeron (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Articles rely on the interpretation in reliable secondary sources. Why btw doesn't Trump go back to Europe and fix their broken health care systems and open borders? TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is the substantive, real-world one; on that issue, the IP's post is utter and complete BS, as well as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. The second issue is about whether that wikilink is appropriate as currently used, and regrettably the IP is correct that this is questionable; see MOS:LINKQUOTE. It would be much better to include that link separately, elsewhere in the same sentence or in a separate sentence. (Reliable sourcing of the racist content of Trump's post will not be hard to come by.) --JBL (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of anti-semitism controversy from lead

We had a closed discussion-consensus a few months ago that the controversy regarding the anti-semitism accusations belonged in the lead. Who removed the content and why? Where was the consensus for doing so? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Things change over time, your answer was easily found n the talk page archives, Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_12#Early_2019_statements_in_the_lead. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that four three editors, who participated in the prior discussion involving over 30 editors, who voted against keeping the material, even though the discussion resulted in consensus for keeping the material, returned and decided to unilaterally override the prior decision at a time when they knew that the discussion was unlikely to receive broader input. This shouldn't have been done without another RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be calling names like "right-wingers" in your edit summaries. You should know better. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the discussion I'm referencing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A portion of the comment from the closing administrator: I would suggest though to wait at least a year or until there is another significant event they are involved with. The editors (who voted no in the linked archive) in the extremely limited "discussion" you linked to blatantly disregarded this recommendation, waiting only 7 months and with no significant intervening events, to reinstate the version they preferred. This type of sneaky gaming is no justification to make these dramatic changes to a high-activity article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Note the part of the RfC closer's statement: "or until there is another significant event they are involved with." Well, an awful lot has happened since last April, for example, the frequent attacks on her by Trump in his tweets. If the fact that the US President has a fixation on attacking her doesn't belong in the lede, then neither do claims that comments she made a year ago were anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not an either or proposition. It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments, especially not within 7 months. Her political disputes certainly are not such an event, and it seems the lead already notes the "political harassment," which is a charged and questionable term. There is a concerted effort on this page to diminish controversies and play up political disputes that seem to cast the subject in a sympathetic light. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

For a US president to ask the government of another country to deny a visa to a congressperson and for him to launch personal attacks against her, calling on her to return to her country of birth -- this is (as far as I know, but I'm not a historian) unprecedented in US history. It is far more notable than a controversy about interpretation of the words she used to voice opposition to Israeli policy. If the former is not notable enough for the lede, then neither is the latter, as should be clear to editors irrespective of their personal opinions about Rep. Omar. NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the comments you're referring to belong is a separate discussion. Weight is accorded based on treatment in reliable sources, not your opinion or personal analysis. One has nothing to do with the other. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the US President's vendetta against Ilhan Omar wasn't covered much in reliable sources?? NightHeron (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm telling you that it's irrelevant. This back-and-forth is getting very WP:POINTY, as well as off-topic, and I don't have any interest in continuing it. If you have other concerns about the lead, those are best expressed in a separate section. What we're addressing here is a consensus formed months ago and the attempt by a small group of editors to override it without broader input. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments. That is not the conclusion that the RFC reached. The discussion was close and hinged on a lot of people concerned with recentism, with a specific caveat that allowed for the possibility that an event could overshadow it; therefore, the conclusion was that it would stand only until there was another major event, which (at least based on the most recent discussion) was the case. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop saying "recent discussion." There was no discussion. You and two other editors who had a problem with the material returned in August to remove it. Two editors objected, and you ignored them. You have been about as non-transparent about your intentions as possible. Second, to date, no other event has been treated as significantly in reliable sources as the anti-semitism controversy. It's telling that you find the watered-down version acceptable, which makes no reference to the criticism against her, only a whitewashed statement about her views on Israel. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of this from the lede was out of process and ridiculous. A public trouting might be warranted here, even, it's not really excusable here given the time and effort that was spent by dozens of people here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Its "lead" not "lede". They are two different things. --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We are discussing the article lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for this horrendous and offensive oversight, Malerooster. What I said was a horrific violation of the English language and I am not sure I can ever be forgiven, let alone if I can ever forgive myself for this. Toa Nidhiki05 01:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

An RfC is not a stone monument, forever unyielding to change. Several editors held a discussion in the link I provided, a discussion that resulted in the removal of the content in question. Said discussion took place in August, thus the trimmed lede (for the record, I use lede/lead interchangeably, I have no idea what the exchange above is on about) has remained live for the last 4 months, abot as long as it was from RfC-to-that-discussion. I would therefore posit that it is incumbent upon Mr. 19920 and his new friend to establish consensus for the restoration, and that it should be restored to it's August version while they go about that.

Pinging the participants in that last discussion; @Aquillion:, @Starship.paint:, @Nableezy:, @Sir Joseph:, @SharabSalam:, @Nblund:. Zaathras (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Stability is a goal for a high-activity article on a controversial subject. When you have an RfC that received the input of dozens of editors, it carries more weight than a trio of editors superficially addressing the same issue a short time later. Further, there was no "result" of the discussion; the same editors who initially objected the material repeatedly returned to the page to remove it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We can always go for another RFC, I suppose. But my feeling is that (keeping in mind that this is negative material about a BLP and therefore consensus is always required to keep it in, and that recent discussions have obviously called that consensus into doubt) I really don't think it would be possible to reach a consensus to keep it there today. She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio. That is why the more recent discussion five months ago ended with it being removed, and I assume it is why the people who objected (though they found themselves in the minority) declined to waste time by pushing for an RFC that they surely realized would no longer be able to reach a consensus to keep it there. Certainly stability is a goal, but the removal was stable for months on end (indicating that, yes, most people tacitly accepted it), and that likewise indicates that the initial addition was ill-considered WP:RECENTISM for something that, relative to the subject's overall bio, ultimately turned out to be little more than a brief wave of talking points. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillon: What a dishonest post. I also wouldn't use the words "talking points," if I were you. You have repeatedly returned to try and purge this material from the article. The fact is we have a standing consensus for the material and that is not overturned by the fact that you and two other editors returned a few months later and rehashed the same points that were rejected in February. The fact that the material was removed is just as easily explained by the fact that many of the editors advocating for its removal, like myself, haven't been closely following this page, yet you still overlooked the concerns expressed by editors in August. The anti-semitism accusations and subsequent criticism are continually referenced, have received the most substantial coverage of anything she's done at this point in her career, and are clearly still a prominent part of her public profile. Only someone who's utterly biased could deny that, and it's a shame editors refused to accept an RfC they disagree with and return every few months to sneakily slip the material out when no one's looking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:CRYBLP removal by Aquillion. Jerusalem Post described the Democratic rebuke of Ilhan Omar's antisemitic comments as "exceptional"[2]. It's not that some other things happening after that make it completely irrelevant and warrant its erasure from the article completely . Aquillion should drop this "my way or no way" attitude here or else it's starting to look like tendendious POV-pushing. --Pudeo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Referencing CRYBLP in a discussion may be an easy method of dismissing another editor’s concerns. We still take extra care in using highly negative material in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether it stays or goes, it is badly written by presenting the accusation before the context. For neutral tone it should state something along the lines of:

"A frequent critic of Israeli politics, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and criticised the pro-Israel lobbies influence in US politics. Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes."

But that last sentence is the contentious part as everyones political opinions are subject to criticism. It may be best to present it with a closer context to the statement "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, and other harassment by political opponents.[8][9]" as they are indelibly linked. Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Aquillion said, "She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio." That makes a lot of sense to me and I agree. I suggest that we keep some of the copy re her criticisms of Israel and remove the sentence, " Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes." She did apologize for those statements and the body of the article, not the lead, is the place for that information. I also agree with those who believe we need to include a sentence in the lead re Trump's statements. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi GandydancerI agree. I have changed the sentence a bit, removed a duplication (the last part of the sentence was actually already stated in the sentence above). I also added the fact that she is a "victim" of direct critique by Trump. I think this should be included as Trump is one of the main sources for her being targeted. as NightHeron also mentioned. I feel this is crucial information. Garnhami (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's just shocking to me how blatant editors are to use terms to cast the subject in a sympathetic light and make disingenuous arguments to remove critical content. This article is a prime example of WP:SOAPBOXING at its worst. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please try to be respectful and avoid accusations against other editors. I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint it's hard to observe WP:AGF. But please try. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the obvious effect of the language used. "Victim" is a decidedly non-neutral term. Watering down negative material is equally problematic. I hope you're being intentionally ironic, because your comment I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint... is in fact an accusation and has nothing to do with the article. Don't presume to know what my views are, and try to be a bit more objective in analyzing content and arguments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wikieditor19920 I saw they removed the adjustment I did. I do agree that a sentence explaining she does receive some critique (as the one I wrote) could be in its place as I think it is ok to note that she received some critique for her viewpoints. For me "For some of her comments she has been criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes of Jewish money and power fueling support for Israel." is a rather neutral sentence. Gandydancer removed it, but maybe it can be put back later (altered maybe?) if there is a consensus. However, I do NOT agree with you regarding what you insinuate about the use of the word victim. She clearly is a victim. You can not deny that Trump has been attacking her and that he is one of the roots of the backlashes she gets! A USA president that talks like how he does? Not normal. NightHeron is right when it comes to that.Garnhami (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that no one is arguing that last year's controversy about Omar's comments about Israel and about the pro-Israel lobby in the US should not be covered in detail in the article, as it is. The issue being discussed here is whether or not that controversy belongs in the lede. So editors who believe that it does not belong in the lede should not be accused of trying to remove criticism from the article. NightHeron (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you're following the discussion, but restating the obvious is a waste of space. I find it interesting that editors on this page arguing that the substantial criticism of her views is not relevant for the lead while her views on Israel are. I'm sure some editors would like to see any mention of the controversy purged from the article entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I"m also astonished at what a joke the lead has become. "Personal critique from Trump?" Not only is this poorly written, it just further exacerbates the problem I've been discussing all along, where controversies are omitted contrary to MOS:LEAD and information is played up to portray the subject of the article sympathetically and as a victim. This page has and continues to be negatively impacted by editors who are either consciously or unconsciously revising the page in a way that is in complete non-conformance with WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a suggestion in there somewhere? O3000 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty easy to find if you'd actually read my comments: 1) respect the consensus met in the prior discussion and include the criticism of her comments re: her views on Israel in the lead, not just a whitewashed summary of her views without mention of it, and 2) stop exaggerating political disputes and the "victimhood" notion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920She faced (and still does) major backlashes/pure racism/hate due to the actions of Trump, I do not consider this as exaggerating at all nor as pure political disputes. Calling someone to go back to "their country" is hardly political. I do agree with your statement that there can be something added about others critiquing her, as I already mentioned in my previous statement.Garnhami (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If your only argument is "it was agreed upon at one time, so it must remain that way", that is extremely piss-poor IMO, and should be weighted very little in the final analysis of this discussion, read WP:CCC when you have a moment. Also, perhaps you could find current (.i.e. withing the last 2 weeks or so) sources that shows Rep. Omar is still criticized regularly for her actions? If not, then this ship may have passed, and is only worth a reduced mention, as the article had before you reverted it.

To the other editors who have been more measured and reasonable in their responses thus far, should another request for comment be held? Zaathras (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Zaathras: your arguments are utterly devoid of any reference to sources or policy. You and others are only offering your personal opinion about the controversy, which is totally irrelevant and inappropriate. You also made some bizarre reference to "right wingers" in your edit summary removing the content again. Certain discussions carry more weight than others. We had a consensus developed over several weeks with the input of 30+ editors in which it was decided that the material was relevant and shouldn't be removed for an extended period of time, for at least a year. You don't get to dismiss an RfC or re-litigate because it doesn't align with your opinion. It seems that there isn't any objection to mentioning her views on Israel generally within the lead, without mention of the fact that those views have garnered intense criticism + accusations of anti-semitism. This was national news and the most coverage we've seen to date. Editors like Aquillion, who participated in the original discussion and whose arguments did not prevail there, are just rehashing the same points yet again, in the process revealing their own bias when referring to the material as "talking points." Not unlike you, with your "right-wingers" comment. We don't assess whether or not information is favorable or unfavorable to an article subject. We examine its coverage and relevance in proportion to the overall public profile of the person. Someone also said that the "death threats" are "inextricably linked" with her comments on Israel, something conspiratorial and completely unsupported by the sources. @Garnhami:, I appreciate that you understand that the comments on Israel belong in the lead, but you need to frame your arguments in context with sources. Honestly I think that @Toa Nidhiki05: had it right when he called out the abuse of process going on here, and I think we may be better off with dispute resolution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920: Your emotional response to editors who disagree with you is not a positive contribution to improving the article. In this thread you called a comment by User:Aquillion a "dishonest post." You accused editors of being "sneaky" and "disingenuous." You just made a false accusation against User:Zaathras: your arguments are utterly devoid of any reference to sources or policy. Just a few lines higher, User:Zaathras referred to WP:CCC, a policy which is definitely relevant to this discussion. You claim that other editors are ignoring the closing judgment on the earlier RfC, but it's you who are ignoring the part of that closing judgment that says or until there is another significant event they are [Omar is] involved with. Once before I appealed to you to observe WP:AGF. Please tone down your anger, and try to work constructively with other editors. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron It's interesting that you've appointed yourself as policeman of this discussion while exhibiting the same behavior that you're going on about ("I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint..."). You should spend more time addressing my points, and less on lecturing. What exactly do you mean by "significant event?" Significance, weight, is determined by sources. Consensus can change, but not all discussions are equal. The RfC referenced here clearly should prevail over a smaller discussion of three editors who made changes to the article when there was less attention paid to it. Clearly, you lose on the time element -- an the amount of time deemed appropriate by the closing admin has not passed. So you and others are zeroing in on this "significant event" language. But what superseding event has eclipsed the anti-semitism controversy or made it irrelevant? I do not see any evidence to support this, nor have you or anyone else put such evidence forward. The mere fact that she has been in the news since does not make the anti-semitism controversy earlier this year moot. In fact, there are reliable sources that continue to report on the matter as little as recently as this week. See here. So why, all of sudden, are we hearing the same arguments that were made when the controversy first broke, from the same editors? If the positions were reversed, and the same closed RfC had come out against inclusion, with an admin specifying a period of time that should pass until it is reconsidered, would you all be arguing that the RfC was irrelevant? I have my doubts. Further, this whole notion of conflating the anti-semitism controversy with the Trump comments is a red herring. The two are unrelated except for the fact that Trump apparently referenced it in some of his comments, but the vast majority of reliable source coverage have treated them as distinct. Editors should be doing the same here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920: No, I'm no "policeman." The policemen/policewomen on Wikipedia are the admins, not us rank-and-file editors. I was merely appealing to you to relate to other editors respectfully, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Any editor, "policeman" or not, can appeal to another editor to do that. As far as my words highly partisan are concerned, it's your tone and insults directed against other editors that lead us to see you as highly partisan.

I asked you before, Are you suggesting that the US President's vendetta against Ilhan Omar wasn't covered much in reliable sources?? You didn't answer that. Trump's tweet campaign against Omar is a significant event they are [Omar is] involved with in the words of the closing admin for the earlier RfC. Trump's tweets on this subject -- and the controversy over them --- have been extensively reported on by mainstream media. You claim that's irrelevant, but it's not. It's directly relevant to the words of the RfC's closing admin. NightHeron (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron I'll say it again: focus on your own behavior. Calling other editors "highly partisan" is not very nice. And I have no idea what you believe the Trump comments have to do with the anti-semitism controversy re: Omar's comments and tweets. They neither out-rank in significance nor eclipse the controversy. One involves another politicians comments about her. I would hardly say that Trump's criticism of her has defined her career in a significant way. The anti-semitism controversy happened only a few months ago and was the subject of national coverage for several weeks, from the NYT to CNN, and continues to be referenced by sources. I'm fine with addressing the Trump thing in the lead, but I don't understand why this has to be connected with removing the anti-semitism controversy. MOS:LEAD requires that controversial and significant elements of the subject's bio in the lead. We have an RfC affirming that the events were significant and controversial and worthy of a mention. Whether or not another politician's criticism of her, Trump or any other Republican, belongs in the lead is wholly unrelated. These arguments trying to connect the two are tenuous, disruptive, and should stop. We need to respect the results of the closed RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am concerned that there is a combination of talk page and edit summary tone and a lack of assumption of good faith that has created what appears to be an ongoing issue here. It's hard for me to understand what are the desired outcomes, because there's so much focus on interpersonal issues.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to identify someone as anti-semitic (or any other negative connotation). And, this shouldn't be done unless there's a wealth of information over time to support such a stance. There is plenty of information in the article about Omar's stance against Israeli politics (although that doesn't make someone anti-semitic). Why is it important to identify her as anti-semitic? Are there a lot of reliable sources that identify her as anti-semitic?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No one has suggested that she be "identified as anti-semitic." She has made comments that were perceived as anti-semitic regarding American support for Israel, which received significant attention and some backlash. The problem here is that we have a consensus for noting the controversy in the lead, which a small group of editors have decided to disregard. I doubt you'd have much trouble finding the relevant sources on Omar with a cursory Google search. Many of them are dated in February or March, but you'll find it's been continually referred back to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The content from this reverted sentence sure seems to suggest that she's anti-semitic. There is a political climate right now that seems to be rife with name-calling. For instance, when I searched on "Ihal Omar and anti-semitic", the results came up with a number of people identified as potentially anti-semitic, such as Bernie Sanders. I still don't think this language should be in the article until more time has gone by, but if you have an RfC and a majority of people that support its inclusion, I can see why there would be an argument to keep the language.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

She indeed made comments that were perceived as anti-semitic. It was very controversial. That's what the edit you linked says. That's what the source says. The distinction you're missing is that, at no point, did this article "identify her as anti-semitic." We already have a closed RfC affirming that the material should be included, and consensus is not a majority vote. You can brush up on the archived, closed discussion here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

For me, it's really a matter of encyclopedic tone. For instance, take a look at the intro for Stephen Miller (political advisor) (light tone in comparison to his influence) and David Duke (clearly calls him anti-semitic, etc. after decades of proof that he is anti-semitic, etc. Thanks for providing the links and distinction that it's not just majority vote that determines the outcome (although that's what's generally considered as a major factor).–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, though, I support the earlier conclusions. I was just stating my personal opinion... and feel it would be better to wait to see how things work themselves out in the House, re: request for apology, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not really at issue right now. To date, the comments are the most controversial aspect of her public profile. I'd recommend you do some further reading on the sources cited in the past discussion, and in the article before the content was removed. Here is a good place to start. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not necessary. The fact that The New York Times wrote the article and her statements have raised concern with leadership lets me know that this is a concern and real controversy. There is already information in the article about the ongoing fact that she questions Israel. I am just more conservative about adding inflammatory content, apparently like the edits that contributed to the Stephen Miller (political advisor) article. For instance, the intro could contain content that his actions have resulted in calls for him being fired for his actions that have spanned several years to a far more dramatic negative impact on the lives of people in America.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is becoming a circular discussion. I don't care what happened at that article or for labels like "inflammatory." Her statements were controversial. They were heavily criticized. This is all well documented, and remains a significant part of her career. She is well known for her views on Israel, and the remarks that led to accusations of anti-semitism were a part of that. Some editors want to have their cake and eat it too here (tout her views on Israel but omit the controversial nature of her statements), but WP:PUBLICFIGURE and MOS:LEAD don't give grounds for whitewashing the lead of a controversial subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Pleasant. I understand your points... and they would come across so much better without the tone issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I'm glad we're understanding each other better now, and I appreciate the feedback. @NorthBySouthBaranof: I'm largely in agreement with your edits, but I have to urge a few minor tweaks: First, she wasn't commenting on "Israeli" influence, it was about the influence of Jewish-American pro-Israel lobbying groups. She was specifically referring to AIPAC with the "all about the Benajamin's" remark. Also, I don't think it's fully accurate to say that it was just "critics" who described her remarks as anti-semitic. That seems to just suggest political opponents characterized the remarks as such. In fact, that interpretation was much more broad, from the NYT to other reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The cited NYT source: And her insinuations that American policy toward the Jewish state is driven by money — “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she wrote on Twitter — have drawn charges of anti-Semitism, prompting her to apologize. The source doesn't support stating, as fact in Wikipedia voice, that the comments were anti-Semitic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should state the comments "were" anti-semitic. I'm saying that the perception that they were anti-semitic went beyond just her "critics." It's sort of misleading to say that just someone's critics said something, when the condemnation of the remarks was far more widespread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone making such a statement is, by definition, critical of Omar - that doesn't mean they're wrong, it simply means they were critical of those particular statements by Omar. "Have been perceived" is anodyne anonymity - said that? We have to at least attempt to create attribution of opinions. Several of the groups she has referred to are explicitly Israeli lobby groups, not merely "Jewish-American," so the correct approach would be to mention both. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

What "Israeli" lobby groups has she referred to? The comments that got her in trouble were in reference to AMERICAN lobbying groups. And I have no idea what you're talking about with "anodyne anonymity." I'm glad you're busting out the thesaurus, but her comments were widely interpreted as anti-semitic, not just among "critics" of her. Your black-and-white reasoning (if they said her remarks were anti-semitic, for example, the NYT, they are a "critic") misses the point and is misleading in that it glosses over this crucial point. Stop edit-warring. You already stepped over the line by sneakily trying to get the content out a few months back -- now you're rewording it in a way that is not true to what's reported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Trump's attacks on Omar

The current wording criticism from Donald Trump puts Trump's vitriolic tweets and lies on the same level as responsible criticism. In keeping with the descriptions in the main body, I've changed this to false and misleading claims by Donald Trump. NightHeron (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron, I reverted this per WP:BRD, especially for the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Malerooster, what?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NightHeron I also feel that just "criticism" is rather weak. His tweets or comments on her were a bit more than just criticism. Criticism is rather neutral and does not necessary mean it was "bad", yet the stuff that Trump said was rather racist and blunt (and wrong). So perhaps acerbic criticism is better or even something in the line of blatant criticism?Malerooster what do you think?Garnhami (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Garnhami, what is wrong with what NightHeron said, "false and misleading"? Also I dont understand what Malerooster was trying to say. Were you trying to reference WP:BLP or WP:BRD.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I took the terms "false and misleading claims" directly from section 6.5 of the main body: He [Trump] made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar. NightHeron (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to Trump, numerous articles now use the terms false/and or/ misleading as a WP statement. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)