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).

Category

I removed the Category:Anti-Zionism in the United States in this edit as the article does not discuss Omar in these terms. Pls see WP:CATDEF. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Omar is an outspoken anti-Zionist. The last line in her lead section reads: "A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies." Revert the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

There's a tweet by Hufsa Kamal in the Patriotism questioned subsection. Please add this reference to the references at the end of the tweet. Thanks! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: There are already RS for this claim and adding the tweet adds nothing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the existing sources for the tweet is archived, so if they become dead links - as news articles often do on the web - there will be nothing left linking the tweet to its source on twitter.com. Editors may still object to this edit saying it would be better to archive the existing sources than to add a reference, but they are advised to take on that labour themselves - I am 0% willing to do that for them when I've already formatted a reference to the tweet with an archive link. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Voter Fraud?

There is a Youtube video with allegations of Ilhan Omar being involved with voter fraud. It's just two days old and already comes close to one million views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWK56l2VaLY Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? Shai-Huludim (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A Youtube video is not a reliable source, see WP:RS and WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minneapolis-police-omar-ballot-harvesting

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/09/28/trump-has-turned-ballot-harvesting-into-a-rallying-cry-against-mail-in-voting-heres-what-it-is/

Shai-Huludim (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is Project Veritas, a group known for deceptively edited videos and not close to a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see the puke funnel still operates smoothly. The Daily Mail, so we know it must be legit! --JBL (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Legit enough for the Minneapolis police department to investigate. This will be in the article. I dare you : )Shai-Huludim (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please go troll elsewhere. --JBL (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing more coverage of this; may be encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.107.191 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing Project Veritas claims has been proven to be truthful. Right wing echo chambers do not establish significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. The number of sources probably isn't a good metric unless those sources are independently attempting to verify/fact check the claims made by Project Veritas. So far, this has mostly just been ignored by reputable outlets, and those who have covered it have simply reported what PV said. Nblund ^talk 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Today's New York Times has an article that characterizes the Project Veritas video attacking Omar as "disinformation" (see "Project Veritas Video Was a ‘Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,’ Researchers Say", [1]). NightHeron (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Numerous local news agencies-- https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/09/29/project-veritas-report-accuses-ilhan-omar-supporters-of-illegally-harvesting-ballots/, https://www.twincities.com/2020/09/28/project-veritas-video-alleges-widespread-voter-fraud-in-mn-with-u-s-rep-ilhan-omar-at-head/, etc.--have reported the alleged ballot harvesting/voter fraud. It should definitely be mentioned somewhere. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It would do everyone good to read Snopes’ analysis of this. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/29/project-veritas-ilhan-omar/ starship.paint (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The first Project Veritas video relies heavily on Snapchat clips originally posted by a Minneapolis man named Liban Mohamed. But Mohamed never mentions Ilhan Omar. Instead, he mentions Minneapolis City Councilman Jamal Osman

Although the second video promises with its title that an “Omar Connected Harvester” would be “SEEN Exchanging $200 for General Election Ballot,” it’s unclear what’s going on in the clip. All one sees in the video is two unidentified men speaking Somali in an outdoor setting, discussing filling out a voter registration form. At one point, money allegedly changes hands.

Additionally, we note that what are presented as the most incriminating aspects of what the man states sound like audio clips taken out of a recording of a longer conversation.

We also note that our efforts to independently verify the accuracy of the Somali-English translations produced by Project Veritas have so far been unsuccessful. We asked McCabe who translated but didn’t receive an answer.

Financial transparency section

I would vote that the financial transparency section be decoupled from her time in state politics and moved to its own section, and beefed up with more recent news, e.g. https://www.twincities.com/2019/08/28/ilhan-omar-under-scrutiny-first-marriage-then-fidelity-now-a-federal-campaign-complaint-and-a-state-fair-death-threat/ MaineCrab (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That "news" is not recent; it's over a year old. As far as I know, nothing came out of the old complaints made by conservative anti-Omar sources. Are there any recent mainstream sources for this? This source doesn't belong in the article, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"more recent" meaning more recent than her time in state politics, which the story is. The news is of an FEC complaint. If it went nowhere, her page can reflect that. I would think an FEC complaint is noteworthy for a politician, but perhaps they happen all the time, I'm not an expert. MaineCrab (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Please change "He made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar, including allegations that she had praised al-Qaeda, argued for leniency with ISIS recruits, and "smeared" American soldiers who had fought in Battle of Mogadishu by bringing up the numerous Somali civilian casualties" to "He made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar, including allegations that she had praised al-Qaeda and "smeared" American soldiers who had fought in Battle of Mogadishu by bringing up the numerous Somali civilian casualties." The very source that was cited directly states that Omar did, in fact, plead leniency for ISIS recruits in a 2016 federal case. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No, the source does not use the word "leniency" or any synonym, and neither did Omar's letter to the judge. Omar is quoted as saying the convicted young men made a "consequential mistake". In her letter, she called for "compassion" instead of multi-decade sentences. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen. I think you are mistaken. You are correct that Omar did not specifically use the term "leniency". However, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, leniency is defined as "treatment in which someone is punished or judged less strongly or severely than would be expected" . That was exactly what Omar was calling for in her letter. She strongly cautioned the Judge not to sentence the defendants to "30 or 40 years" and instead called for a "restorative approach." No matter how you want to define a "restorative approach" it is, undoubtedly, more lenient than decades in prison. Please reconsider. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not mistaken, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and I will not reconsider. Neither Omar's letter to the judge nor the article that reported on it used the word "leniency" nor any synonym. You are engaging in original research when you interpret and spin her words and the words of the source to conclude that what she said amounts to a call for leniency. Original research is not permitted as a matter of policy. We accurately summarize the sources and do not add our own interpretations. That kind of comment is fine for a blog post or your Facebook page or your Twitter feed but personal commentary is forbidden by policy on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, is the NY Times a RS? "Ms. Omar wrote a letter to a federal judge asking for leniency in sentencing on behalf of nine Somali-American men, who were found guilty or pleaded guilty in 2016 to charges that they tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State." [2] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, and thank you for finding an actual reliable source, Sir Joseph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, not to nitpick, but what was the source for inclusion? Claiming Trump lied is a BLP issue and we should not just put those in the article without a valid source, which we didn't have, the reference used said the opposite, whether it used the word "leniency" or not, it showed Omar wrote a letter, that should have been enough for you to remove it as being contentious as a BLP issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I did not add the content. I responded to an edit request that brought forth a specific source. I read that source and it did not support the proposed edit. You found other sources that did support it, and I immediately conceded the point. Is that clear? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, The sourced used clearly said Omar wrote a letter to the judge asking for compassion. While the source didn't use the word "leniency", to claim Trump lied about it is not OR as you claimed. Asking for "compassion" in a letter to a judge isn't SYNTH to say that's asking for leniency. Regardless, as per BLP, that should have been removed considering the source clearly said Omar wrote a letter to the judge and you know very well that Trump wasn't lying with his statement.

But whatever. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought the matter was resolved but I guess you want to argue that compassion is a synonym for leniency, which I don't buy. Now that actual reliable sources describing her letter as "leniency" have been brought to the discussion, I see no point in discussing it further. Do you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I don't see any reason to continue. I'll just leave it with a question for you to ponder. Until I brought a source, would you have edited on the Trump page that "Trump lied when he said Omar asked for leniency for ISIS recruits" using the original reference which showed that Omar did write a letter but didn't use the word "leniency?" Have a good night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. I do not recall ever editing the Trump biography and if I did it was minor. Trump has told so many genuine lies that I have no interest in adding this stuff to his bio. The question before us was whether one specific source supported removing content. That source didn't. Once you identified good sources, the matter was resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump said that Omar had "pleaded for compassion for ISIS recruits attempting to join the terrorist organization." That is false as stated. She was not asking for compassion for people who were being recruited into ISIS. She was talking about former ISIS members who were prisoners awaiting punishment. What Trump did was like saying that someone wanted "compassion for someone who was attempting to rob a bank" rather than "compassion for someone who was convicted of attempting to rob a bank and was awaiting punishment." Asking for compassion in sentencing or arguing for mitigating circumstances is not the same as expressing sympathy for the crime they were convicted of, which is what Trump was claiming she did. The article's sentence in question is okay as it is. NightHeron (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, Snopes, which of course may not be a RS, but most certainly does lean to the left, does indeed say Omar advocated for leniency. "In 2016, Omar wrote to a U.S. District Judge on behalf of a man convicted of terrorism offences, advocating "restorative justice," rehabilitation, and leniency over a "long-term prison sentence."" [3] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: and here Fox News uses the word leniency as well with regards to Omar and men who tried to join ISIS. [4]. Here is the NY Times saying Omar wrote a letter to the judge pleading for leniency. [5] "Ms. Omar wrote a letter to a federal judge asking for leniency in sentencing on behalf of nine Somali-American men, who were found guilty or pleaded guilty in 2016 to charges that they tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Cullen328: Neither of you responded to my point. Did you read it? I was not disputing sources or quibbling about the words "leniency" vs "compassion". My point was that Trump's statement was highly misleading. He said that Omar expressed compassion for people who were being recruited to ISIS, as if she were sympathetic to terrorism. The truth is that she was calling for compassion for people in the punishment stage, presumably because of specific mitigating circumstances in their case. That's a very different thing. So it is correct to say that that was one of Trump's misleading statements. NightHeron (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, that is SYNTH. Trump said she wrote a letter asking for leniency for ISIS recruits, she did. It's irrelevant that she wrote it for rehabilitation reasons, the fact is as RS pointed out, she did ask for leniency and Trump's statement, in this case is correct. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, that is not SYNTH. The headline and first sentence of the source describe Trump's attacks on Omar as "misleading" and then one-by-one contrasts what Trump said about Omar with the actual statements by Omar. The words "misleading" and "false" are in the source, I didn't synthesize them.

I'm surprised you don't see the difference between someone asking for leniency in sentencing vs expressing sympathy for the crime. NightHeron (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, the article was fact checking all of Trump's statements. Some of his statements were false or misleading as was pointed out, but as even the factcheck pointed out, Omar did write a letter, so it's not difficult to say in this case, Trump wasn't lying, which is why RS says "Omar asked for leniency" unless of course you don't consider the NY Times a RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, The source's headline is "Fact-checking Trump’s misleading attacks on Omar, Ocasio-Cortez in North Carolina." That article title says that the statements of Trump that it's fact-checking are misleading attacks. I'm going by what the source says. You're engaged in OR, because you're of the opinion that one of the "misleading attacks" is not misleading. You're entitled, of course, to disagree with the source, but we should go by what the source says, not what some editors' own opinion is. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you see a "difference between someone asking for leniency in sentencing vs expressing sympathy for the crime"? NightHeron (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, the request was to take out the part about her letter, which the fact checker showed she did write and as I showed RS specifically said she pleaded for leniency. I'm not sure why you're asking me about expressing sympathy for the crime when that wasn't the issue, it was that Omar plead for leniency. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Expressing sympathy for the crime was exactly what Trump claimed when he said that Omar had "pleaded for compassion for ISIS recruits attempting to join the terrorist organization." Don't you see how misleading that is? The source included that claim by Trump in its list of misleading attacks for good reason. NightHeron (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, please read the OP's request again. All he asked for is to remove the statement that said "argued for leniency with ISIS recruits." THAT IS ALL. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Yes, I know what the OP wanted to remove. Let's examine what the source says: Omar wrote a letter to a federal court judge seeking compassion for a defendant in an ISIS conspiracy case. The conspiracy charge was that they traveled to the Middle East with the plan of joining the terrorist organization ISIS. The source quotes from Omar's letter: "As you undoubtedly deliberate with great caution the sentencing of nine recently convicted Somali-American men, I bring to your attention the ramifications of sentencing young men who made a consequential mistake to decades in federal prison," she wrote, adding that "such punitive measures not only lack efficacy, they inevitably create an environment in which extremism can flourish, aligning with the presupposition of terrorist recruitment." She does not express sympathy for ISIS or for terrorist recruitment, as Trump alleged. In fact, she argues against an excessively long prison sentence by saying that it will play into the hands of the terrorists. That's why the source lists Trump's allegation as an example of a misleading attack. The original sentence in the Wikipedia article was simply paraphrasing the source when it included this allegation in the list of false and misleading statements by Trump. NightHeron (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, not sure why you keep missing the point, the OP asked to remove the following words, "argued for leniency with ISIS recruits" not sure why you are bringing in other stuff. There is no point in continuing this discussion. Have a good night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, That's exactly my point, and indeed, it's the opposite, it's if the source quoted supports inclusion, which it didn't. Again, the source used to reference the claim in the article did not adequately support the claim, which was a BLP violation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per the NYTIMES which said that Omar wrote a letter to the judge asking for leniency, so the claim that Trump lied about that is a BLP violation and not false, so no reason to include here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

and FactCheck, [6] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you have been here for a long time and are not a newbie like the OP. You know very well that contentious material in a BLP must be sourced to to indisputably reliable sources. It is disingenuous and irresponsible of you to bring forward a source that you admit "of course may not be a RS". Stop it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I removed a BLP. And the NYTimes is the source, and FactCheck, and FoxNews and Politifact. Are you saying NYTimes is lying? You said RS doesn't use the word leniency. This is from the NY Times:

""Ms. Omar wrote a letter to a federal judge asking for leniency in sentencing on behalf of nine Somali-American men, who were found guilty or pleaded guilty in 2016 to charges that they tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State."

So, please tell me how we can have in this article a claim that Trump lied about Omar pleading for leniency when she did. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, Exactly. Contentious material MUST be sourced. It says Trump lied, and the sources say he didn't. The BLP violation is yours stating we need to keep that in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You found a good source. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, and I didn't take it out until I found a source, and I noted that in the edit summary in my edit and I added the NYTimes in the article as well because it had more references, especially when removing something from an article is not a BLP violation in any event, which is what the BLP was asking for. This was contentious and a BLP issue and should have been removed especially when the sourced used to include didn't say that Trump lied. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User: Sir Joseph for your professionalism.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Views on the Police

Should we include a section on Omar's views on the police? She has called for the abolishment of the Minneapolis Police Department, per https://www.axios.com/ilhan-omar-minneapolis-police-department-7d0c6cf5-6179-4077-ba03-1ebc909f6bbe.html, https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again you're misrepresenting the source. She calls for "rebuilding" not "abolishing". The source quotes her words as follows: "A new way forward can't be put in place if we have a department that is having a crisis of credibility, if we have a department that's led by a chief who's suited for racism, if we have a department that hasn't solved homicide — half of the homicides in Minneapolis police department go unsolved. There have been cases where they've destroyed rape kits. And so you can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild. And so this is our opportunity, as a city, to come together, have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community, and just like San Francisco did — right now, they're moving towards a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to." NightHeron (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted her quotes similarly to the source. "Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) defended calls to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department following the killing of George Floyd, saying the department in its current state can’t be reformed.". If you want to replace 'abolish' with 'dismantle' that's fine. In another source, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/501449-nrcc-turns-up-heat-on-vulnerable-democrats-over-omars-call-to-abolish, Omar says that "The Minneapolis Police Department has proven themselves beyond reform. It’s time to disband them and reimagine public safety in Minneapolis.". So, essentially, she does want to abolish/dismantle/disband the current Minneapolis Police Department. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to adding a sentence or two about Omar's views of the police issue in Minneapolis. However, per WP:BLP her views have to be rendered accurately, without misleading terminology. She has made it clear that she wants the current police force replaced by a different type of police force that performs better and is not resistant to reform. She uses the word rebuild. Omar's opponents, such as Trump, distort her views by trying to give the impression that she thinks that Minneapolis should function without a police force. That's obviously not what she says. Feel free to suggest text on this topic for the article. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Characterizing her views that she wants Minneapolis to exist without a police department is false--you're correct. However, she never makes specific recommendations (unless you have a different source). She has repeatedly said the current Minneapolis Police Department, in its entirety, is "beyond reform" and a "cancer." Additionally, per https://www.vox.com/2020/6/14/21290877/democrats-defund-police-omar-clybur, and other sources, a lot of more moderate Democrats have rejected calls to defund/dismantle the police and have distanced themselves from Omar's rhetoric. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What I quoted above, taken from your source, includes a quite specific recommendation: have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community, and just like San Francisco did — right now, they're moving towards a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to. Saying "we should do something like what San Francisco's doing" is hardly a call for radical defunding or abolishing. A difficulty that certain US cities such as Minneapolis have is that, regardless of how strong public sentiment is in favor of reforming the police department, the police union is fiercely resistant to change. That's why people such as Omar are calling for a complete reorganization/rebuilding. NightHeron (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue what San Fransisco is doing, and none of the sources mentioned clarify what San Francisco is doing. You are engaging WP:OR:saying "we should do something like what San Francisco's doing" is hardly a call for radical defunding or abolishing. A difficulty that certain US cities such as Minneapolis have is that, regardless of how strong public sentiment is in favor of reforming the police department, the police union is fiercely resistant to change. If you want to write about police sentiment or the specifics of police reform, I assure you, there are plenty of articles for that. But for now, I am just trying to summarize the main reporting of all of the sources: that Omar has advocated for the dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD--done, plain and simple. I am not calling her a radical, and I am not defending or opposing her statements. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You made the claim that "she never makes specific recommendations" and I quoted from your own source showing that she does. If you don't think suggesting San Francisco as a possible model of police reform that Minneapolis should follow is specific enough (since you personally don't happen to know what San Francisco is doing), the other part of the quote makes another specific recommendation, namely, that while police officers are needed for certain types of crimes, non-police professionals could better respond to other types of disorder. Claiming that she's advocating "dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD--done, plain and simple" is a misrepresentation of your own source and a distortion of her views, in violation of WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If that's a distortion of her views, then The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department), Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-dismantle-americas-economy-political-system-oppression), Business Insider (https://www.insider.com/ilhan-omar-supports-calls-to-dismantle-the-minneapolis-police-2020-6), and every other major media source must be sued for libel at once. Since you're so adamant about defending Omar from the slightest amount of negative press, I am willing to compromise a bit. We could say something like: "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department, claiming that the Department was "rotten to the root" and "beyond reform." Omar appeared on CNN and clarified that she believes in a police institution resembling San Francisco, where only certain crimes are investigated by police officers." I'm assuming she means that other crimes (i.e., non-violent crimes) should be handled by non-law enforcement (like social workers or whatnot) but she doesn't specify, so I don't want to put words in her mouth. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good start. You don't need both "dismantle" and "defund" -- please choose one or the other. I'd suggest changing "claiming" to "saying" per WP:SAY. Also, the part about San Francisco is a little inaccurate. She speaks of San Francisco "moving towards a process" where the police perform more restricted functions; she's not endorsing the San Francisco PD as it is right now. NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as a good start at all. There is no place for statements such as "Omar advocated to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department, claiming that the Department was "rotten to the root" and 'beyond reform.'" When we go about summarizing her position we should not be using emotionally loaded statements such as "rotten to the root." It still needs a lot of work. Gandydancer (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "rotten to the root" should go. Omar uses the word "rebuild": What you can do is rebuild. Perhaps the following revision of that sentence would more accurately summarize her views: "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department and rebuilding it." NightHeron (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The source says that Omar wants the Minneapolis police abolished and replaced. It doesn't say anything about her views on police in general. TFD (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, The Hill is a usable source but Fox is not to be used for politics and we have not rated Business Insider. Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, dead wrong...the close of the Rfc on Fox News said "for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable."[7]. It did NOT say Fox is not to be used for politics.--MONGO (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with "rotten to the root"? Those are her exact words, and that's exactly what's used in the title of the Hill article I cited. I'm trying my best to accurately convey her views on the Minneapolis PD. We should not be using emotionally loaded statements such as "rotten to the root"--hmm, well if that's the standard around here, then explain to me why we have this quote in her Military Policy section: "knowing my tax dollars pay for bombs killing children in Yemen makes my heart break," with "everyone in Washington saying we don't have enough money in the budget for universal health care, we don't have enough money in the budget to guarantee college education for everyone." Or this quote in her Israeli-Palestinian Conflict section: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel". I would love to hear you explain to me how those quotes are not "emotionally loaded." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A problem with the suggested wording that we're discussing (and recall that I called it a "good start") is that it gives undue emphasis to emotional, headline-grabbing phrases and does not have enough clarity about what Omar actually said. It says "dismantle and defund", and I suggested saying one and not both. Similarly, instead of including both "rotten to the core" and "beyond reform", I suggested dropping "rotten to the core". For example, we could say something like "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department, which she said was "beyond reform", and then rebuilding it." If we want to have more than one sentence on her views concerning the MPD, we could also say that she has recommended following the example of San Francisco in moving toward restricting police responsibility to certain types of crimes rather than the broad gamut of things that the police currently respond to. NightHeron (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems a bit contradictory. How can you "rebuild" something that is "beyond reform?" She wants no remnants of the Minneapolis PD. It should really be something like: "Omar advocated to dismantle the Minneapolis PD, saying that the Department was "beyond reform". Subsequently, Omar stated that Minneapolis should have a policing institution where only certain crimes are investigated by police officers." -- Then you could mention San Francisco. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Omar's words "you can't really reform" and "What you can do is rebuild" are part of the same quote (which I gave above, taken from your source). Her words advocating "a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to" are also part of that same quote. They were not subsequent. So she doesn't see a contradiction between "beyond reform" and "rebuild". I think she's correct in seeing no contradiction there. People talk about "rebuilding a football team" after a series of disastrous seasons, and they don't mean that it will be anything like before. One can tear down a house and rebuild a (much better) house on the same lot. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right that: "you can't really reform" and "What you can do is rebuild" is part of the same quote. But, you're suspiciously avoiding a few keywords right in between those two quotes, AKA: "rotten to the root". Let's not engage in WP:CHERRYPICKING. If we're gonna quote that phrase, we might as well quote the whole thing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, there's no contradiction between "rotten to the root" and "What you can do is rebuild". A house can be "rotten to the root", and the new owners can tear it down and rebuild a much better house. You're trying to construct a linguistic problem in what Omar said, where none exists. As Gandydancer pointed out, when paraphrasing a quotation there's no reason to pick out something that sounds emotional over other parts of the quote. In this case the words "beyond reform" convey more content, because they convey Omar's rejection of an alternative approach of trying to reform the MPD without changing its fundamental nature.

I would appreciate it if you observed WP:AGF and not use words like "suspiciously" that question my motives. NightHeron (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of what a good copy editor does: I wrote this: "Skraba says he met with Jean Paul Luksic, the Chilean billionaire whose family owns Antofagasta Minerals the parent company of Twin Metals, and “the big cheese” made a good impression on him leading him to believe the company will respect the Boundary Waters.[47" My copy editor changed it to this: "Skraba has said he met with Jean Paul Luksic, the Chilean billionaire whose family owns Antofagasta, and that Luksic made a good impression on him, leading him to believe the company will respect the Boundary Waters.[47]" Now I won't deny that I wanted to suggest that it is pretty foolish for this small town Minnesota man to call a billionaire from Chili, and one well known to be a crook at that, the ""big cheese" and talk as though you talked man to man with him and by golly you came away from your talk impressed with his sincerity, etc. But my excellent copy editor took care of that wish of mine and the wish to include the words, "rotten to the root" fall into the same category - as Night Heron said, "in this case the words "beyond reform" convey more content." That is the difference in reading a newspaper account and reading it in an encyclopedia. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue what Gandydancer is getting at. There's no reason to pick out something that sounds emotional over other parts of the quote. -- I agree, that's why I suggested we use the entire quote, so it's fully in context: “You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild”. This is a great compromise. I still feel like its a contradiction, but no matter! It's her exact words. And if you think it's fully necessary, then we could include San Francisco in the next sentence. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Both Gandydancer and I have been getting at the difference between a newspaper -- which typically looks for eye-catching emotional headlines and leads -- and an encyclopedia, which is supposed to put accuracy and content first. We both agreed that the phrase "beyond reform", which was part of a quote from Omar in your source from The Hill (June 5), conveys content.

The article only needs a sentence or two about Omar's views on the MPD, and those sentences can be paraphrases of what she said. We don't need long direct quotes. The first three subsections of the "Political positions" section (concerning Omar's views of "Capitalism and socialism", "Education", and "Health Care") consist of a total of 7 sentences, with no direct quotes. Her views concerning the MPD are certainly no more important than her views on those three issues, and in fact as a Congressional Representative (not a member of the city government) the police issue in Minneapolis is not part of her remit. NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would also appreciate it if you don't WP:AOBF. I was merely pointing out that you were engaging in selective quoting. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC) When did I ever accuse you of acting in bad faith? Could you please be more specific? NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC) In heated disputes, users often remind others to "Assume good faith" (AGF) whom they perceive to be doing the contrary. However, like bad faith itself, the assumption of bad faith should not be assumed merely because at first glance it might seem to be present. By telling me to engage in good faith, you were implying, without evidence, that I was engaging in bad faith. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Please do your trolling somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks very much for striking the comment above; I apologize for my own wording, as well. --JBL (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, there are tons of instances in this article of eye-catching, emotional leads (see my comments on bombing children and Israel hypnotizing the world). How is: “You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild” a long quote? Since apparently we can't seem to agree on her views, then I think quoting her exactly is the best route to go (just like the sources do). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but doing what you want to do is not a compromise, and you don't have consensus in any case. Your intransigence on including the "rotten" phrase might mean that we can't form a consensus to add anything on the police issue, in which case this whole discussion has been a waste of everyone's time. NightHeron (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

How about we say something along the lines of: Following the death of George Floyd, Omar called for the dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD, saying that the Department has "proven themselves beyond reform." Omar hoped to see a new police department be modeled after the one in Camden, NJ . Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty accurate summary, except that readers don't know anything about the Camden, NJ police department, unless they read the source you've found. I think it's a fair and balanced source, but we can't assume that readers will read it. Perhaps it would be more helpful in this case to actually include the source's quote from Omar explaining what she means: "A new system will allow officers to address the most dangerous situations and serious crimes that our residents face, while ending the criminalization of poverty and disproportionate violence against black and brown communities." Instead of the sentence about Camden, we might include that quote or paraphrase it. We could include both the sentence about Camden and a sentence quoting Omar, but 3 sentences on this topic might be undue (or maybe not, I'm not sure). NightHeron (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That was my exact issue when we were discussing the San Francisco PD-- I had no idea what she was talking about and neither would the reader. In this case, what happened with the Camden PD is much more well known, so let's just hyperlink the Wiki: Camden. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to put that in. I might do minor copy-editing, but nothing more. Unless other editors disagree, that should conclude this discussion. Thank you for your willingness to compromise and seek consensus. NightHeron (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want go back and forth 20 more times?--jk. Do I need to put something specific in the edit summary, like linking this discussion? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"New subsection on views on police, see talk page" would suffice. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did we get this quote from: In a statement, the Minneapolis mayor said they planned to work to address "systemic racism in police culture." The only thing the NBC article states was that Jacob Frey, the mayor, was booed by protesters after he refused to commit to defunding the police. Even so, the quote doesn't seem relevant since it wasn't from Omar, nor was it specifically about Omar. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Omar's views on the police should be considered in the context of her proposals on police accountability[8] and her opinions on the BLM protests ("protests valid, destruction not"[9]).VR _talk 02:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Capitalism and Socialism

I deleted this section because I don't think it adds anything to the article. An editor re-instated it saying, "Please don't remove an entire section without discussing it in the talk; Omar's anti-capitalism views are well known and supported by RSs."[10] The section reads:

Omar does not self-identify as a socialist, though she has indicated support for socialist ideals.[81][82][83] Unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who were also elected to Congress in 2018, Omar was neither a member of nor endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

There is nothing however in the sources about anti-capitalism or socialist ideals or what socialist ideals means. Basically, Omar is one of 433 out of 435 members of Congress who do not self-identify as democratic socialist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

These are the three sources used: [11][12][13] The Intercept article states:

But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values and so I think as Democrats, we all share serious socialism ideals about providing for people and caring about our communities and making sure that government is held accountable in providing for its citizens.

Basically, she is saying that Democrats, in general, support these ideals. It is highly misleading to use this out of context to state in WikiVoice that she supports socialist ideals.

I see nothing relevant in the Politico article.

Refinery29 is a young woman’s fashion site. It only says that her campaign manager said she was socialist when she herself has denied this. It does say she did not sign a DSA pledge.

I see nothing about anti-capitalism related to this article. Removal of this subsection was correct. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 and TFD are correct and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. In US politics, the term socialist is a loaded term, usually seen as a pejorative. For example, Trump frequently accuses Democrats of being "socialists". The evidence in the sources indicates that Omar is not a socialist, and we don't normally have a section of a BLP about what the person is not. NightHeron (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The section was a little more nuanced than just stating "Omar is socialist." In fact, the first sentence states that Omar does not identify as a socialist but is warm to socialistic ideals. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think we're allowed to label someone a "nationalist" or a "socialist" (or state if they're friendly to nationalistic or socialistic ideals) even if the person in question doesn't use those terms-- so long as RSs use those terms to label that individual. For example, John Bolton's page clearly states that ...his political views have been described as American nationalist, conservative, and neoconservative. Bolton rejects the last term. Should we remove "neoconservative" from his lead, just b/c he dosen't use that term?--no, that's silly since most sources associate that term with him. As for Omar, she is frequently associated with the "Democratic Socialists" or the highly-progressive wing:

• [14]: host Daniel Denvir spoke with one of the leading lights of the democratic socialist movement, Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar.
• [15]: Rep. Ilhan Omar is a self-described “democratic socialist” who has made a name for herself as one the farthest-left voices in the House of Representatives
• [16]: Ilhan Omar is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and does not call herself a socialist, though she says she favors some socialist ideas.
• And, maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America [17]: DSA Wholeheartedly Supports Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar
• Lastly, in reference to the Intercept interview, you have to go through some mental gymnastics to conclude that Omar is not saying that she supports socialists ideals. Here is the whole quote: So for me, what I say to that is I believe in not having extra titles so I am a Democrat. But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values and so I think as Democrats, we all share serious socialism ideals about providing for people and caring about our communities and making sure that government is held accountable in providing for its citizens. All she is saying is that she doesn't like using 'titles,' but she feels deeply connected with socialism, and, according to her, most Democrats have socialistic sentiments.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll let you all consider the question of including or excluding the subsection but I wanted to quickly comment on the dsausa.org link: it is a statement of support towards them against an Israeli government decision considered bigoted. I imagine they might also put out a statement like that in favour of GOP Reps. Zeldin or Kustoff if either of them were to become impacted by anti-Semitism as blatant as the Islamophobia in this case. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you're completely right. But, considering the fact that they issued lots of statements like this about Omar [18] [19], [20], it's safe to assume she is supported by DSA, if not formally endorsed. Additionally, Omar endorsed the DSA in her district [21] (something I forgot to mention). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I’ll go through each point:
• On the Jacobin podcast, your quote is not from the podcast itself, but from a lead in to the podcast essentially advertising a subscription.
• The Independent article appears to be an opinion column (the voices section).
• I don’t think Common Dreams Is RS. In any case, I think most people support some socialist ideas.
• I already commented on The Intercept quote.
• An endorsement from DSA is completely irrelevant. Unless you want to include David Duke’s or The Proud Boy's endorsements of Trump as proof he is a white supremacist. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the Jacobin quote is from intro, but that's completely separate from the subscription part (which is just the last line of the intro). Common Dreams seems to be a more local, progressive news source, but it has featured lots of big name writers. As you admitted, most people support some socialist ideas, so why not include the socialist/ semi-socialist ideas Omar supports (some of which are listed in the sources)? I really think you need to reevaluate the Intercept quote. If Omar just said Democrats, in general, support socialistic ideas, then fine, we'll leave it at that. But she unequivocally said that "But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values." How much clearer does she need to be? As for the DSA endorsement, you must have missed my other comment where Omar endorses the DSA in her district [22]. If the Proud Boys endorsed Trump, and Trump endorsed a local Proud Boy's chapter, then you could probably put 2 and 2 together. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The first two sources are clearly wrong. Omar is not a democratic socialist and does not describe herself as one. The DSA has a list of endorsements, which includes AOC, Tlaib, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, who are all members of the DSA, but not Omar.[23] It could be though that the local DSA has endorsed her, as have many other progressive groups. (Note that her website says they endorsed her, not that she endorsed them.) That would mean that local DSA members would campaign for her, but the national organization would not. The DSA has backed various non-socialist Democratic candidates, including John Kerry and Barack Obama. The ideals of socialism Omar claims to support are basically ideals that most people support. It's like someone saying to Jews or Muslims that they support their ideals without actually belonging to those religions. As for Bolton, see my comments on adding him to the list of neoconservatives: "I have always found the list a problem because there is no clear guide to who is a neoconservative, especially after we advance past its origins and move from intellectuals to politicians."[18:21, 30 March 2018][24]

As a point of trivia, the founder of the DSA is credited with coining the term neoconservative. By it he meant fellow socialists who had converted to conservatism.

TFD (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, that's an interesting factoid at the end. John Bolton was just an example. There are plenty of articles that describe political figures using continuous terms. Tucker Carlson's page states: Carlson has been described in the media as a conservative or paleoconservative. Writing for New York magazine's Intelligencer, Park MacDougald called Carlson a "Middle American radical...". I don't believe Carlson ever described himself as a paleocon or a Middle American radical, but that doesn't mean those labels aren't true. Also, I should have stated this earlier, but I don't think we should call this section "Capitalism and Socialism," since clearly, Omar doesn't fall into either of those categories. I suggest we rename it "Political Ideology" or something of the sorts. Additionally, by listing the DSA endorsement on her website, she is, in effect, accepting the endorsement. This obviously doesn't mean she stands with DSA on every position, but it does show that her ideology aligns closer to democratic socialism. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What John Bolton and Tucker Carlson say in general is irrelevant to this article. You seem to be indulging in a great deal of WP:OR. I suggest we have no section divining her ideology from poor sources and assigning labels thereto. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If you actually spent a moment of your time looking at what I wrote, like The Four Deuces did, you would know that I am not trying to include statements by Bolton or Carlson into this article. I am simply stating the fact that it is perfectly appropriate to assert labels or describe a person's ideology--as done on many other BLPs. Devoting just 2 or 3 sentences to her ideology, as we had before, is all I'm asking for. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

For one, you said I "admitted" most people support some socialist ideas. Well, then why should we include that here if it doesn't define her? Most people think murder should be illegal. No reason to include that either. You seem to want to attach a label that has become ultra-controversial (since McCarthy days) -- a label with so many meanings. I don't see how this is of benefit, any more than adding to the Trump article that he supports aspects of socialism because he supports some "ideals" that might be called socialist. In any case, it isn't supported by RS and isn't going to be added. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one attaching that label to her--she is. For the 100th time, Omar states in clear and precise language that "the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values." I am not saying saying 'socialism' is a good thing or a bad thing. If Trump said "the ideals of Nazisim is one that is deep in my values," that would be in the very 1st paragraph of his lead and he would be branded a Nazi without a second though. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have a PH.D, I would hope you understand out of context quoting. Enough. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can infer anything from the endorsement, per synthesis. It's local organization is just one of many progressive groups that endorsed Omar. Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress endorsed Juan Gaido, who leads a socialist party in opposition to Nicolas Maduro, to be president of Venezuela. It doesn't mean they are socialists. Congress invited the British socialist leader Tony Blair to address them, where he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Other socialists honored include Anwar Sadat and Martin Luther King. Congress even named a public holiday after King.

I think though that NightHeron is right. Socialist is a loaded term in the U.S. while in the rest of the world it's usually just one of two major parties. When describing foreign leaders, U.S. media only use the S-word for socialists they oppose and never use it for those they support. So Maduro is routinely referred to as a socialist while Gaido never is.

TFD (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)