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).

Financial transparency issues: Campaign payments to E Street Group

"Since 2018, Omar's campaign has paid $586,000 to E Street Group, a consulting firm owned and operated by Tim Mynett. Omar married Mynett in March 2020, following allegations from Mynett's ex-wife that he was romantically involved with Omar in her divorce filings. At the time of Mynett's ex-wife's claims, Omar and Mynett had denied romantic involvement.

This information was removed because "there was never any wrongdoing found. this was a hot topic within right-wing circles for a blip of time." The section is not about FEC actions taken against Omar, it is about well covered and widely reported criticism of her campaign's spending in both local (https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/07/22/new-ilhan-omar-attack-ad-goes-after-1-1m-in-campaign-funds-paid-to-her-husbands-firm/, https://www.startribune.com/u-s-rep-ilhan-omar-severs-financial-ties-with-husband-s-political-firm/573094641/) and national outlets like the Washington Post that are considered highly reliable and can hardly be dismissed as "right-wing circles." This was reported by the Washington Post as drawing "renewed scrutiny of campaign spending." The total amount paid to Mynett's firm was over $1.1m, with over $400,000 paid since they married, representing approximately 40% of total campaign spending.

In a section titled "Financial transparency issues," this is a glaring omission. The section is not titled FEC Enforcement Action or Campaign Finance Violations, and this is a clearly identified issue with financial transparency that has been widely reported. Alternatively, a section could be created to more specifically refer to payments made by her campaign to her husband's firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atxwi (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The section also lacks mention of the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board's finding that Omar illegally filed joint tax returns with a man she was not married to, while legally married to another man. The Campaign Finance Board's report has been widely reported in reliable local and national sources and should be added to the article.

Atxwi (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree with @Atxwi::

1. Wikipedia doesn't shy away from covering suggestions of financial impropriety—even when multiple investigations have found no wrongdoing (e.g., the lead of the Kelly Loeffler article).

2. The finding that a public servant who legislates on taxation violated Federal and state laws by filing taxes jointly with one man while married to another is prima facie notable—as is the fact that she has criticized other politicians for refusing to release their tax returns, while failing to respond to calls (and an AP request) to release her own.

3. These are all well established, widely reported and impeccably sourced facts, and their exclusion lends a distinctly unpleasant odor to Wikipedia's editing process when it comes to politicians of differing stripes.

4. I would also note that I attempted to remove "conspiracy theories" from the "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment" section, as I'm unable to find any "conspiracy theory" mentioned in the article or cited sources (in which Omar is alleged to have been a conspirator—of course she herself has been accused of propagating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories). My edit was reverted, along with a non-responsive and mocking note, but I would again ask for the citation of any "conspiracy theory" in the text—otherwise, the term would appear to be, most charitably, "original research". I definitely see how claims that she married her brother point to her participation in a criminal conspiracy—but the article appears to have been repeatedly sanitized of those widely-reported allegations.

Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed to your point about Conspiracy Theories. As with any politician, Omar is going to have some people thinking crazy things about them (see the many wacky conspiracy theories regarding any other prominent politician). Why that is given highly disproportionate attention, including framing the overwhelming majority of criticism against Omar as racial attacks or undefined conspiracy theories is unclear.

It may make the most sense to add a section on her legal issues to her Tenure, as is done with Loeffler's article to accurately place the issues into the timeline of her congressional tenure. This should also be added to the lead. This has been a well covered topic regarding Omar in the media and in her legal issues. Unlike other examples that are featured in their article's lead (Loeffler), this encompasses known violations of state law rather than simple investigations into wrongdoing.

The same is true for the widely covered criticisms that Omar's statements are antisemitic. Reading the article's lead, you would be led to believe that the only reason Omar is controversial is the "death threats, conspiracy theories, harassment by political opponents and false and misleading statements by Donald Trump." Reverting edits that cover any reporting on Omar that is not explicitly positive, including judgements made by the state Campaign Finance Board that found her to be in violation of the law, is detrimental to the accuracy of this article as a whole.

Remarkably, her widely reported illegal filing (as found by the Minnesota CFB) of joint tax returns with a man she was not married to is actually cited in the article as it was a major story in the national news media, but has instead been used to cite the fact that she was married to him with no mention of the widely reported illegal filings. The same is true for Tim Mynett, where all major media coverage of the marriage includes the fact that Mynett's company was receiving payments from Omar's campaign while they were denying a romantic relationship alleged by Mynett's ex-wife and the subsequent hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to his company.

Atxwi (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Atxwi:, yes—as to the previous, my specific point was that none of the things listed in the section so labeled are in fact "conspiracy theories". Omar is alleged to have: been punched; received death threats; had her photo juxtaposing with the WTC on 9/11; been criticized for saying "some people did something"; told she can go back to Somalia; had her patriotism questioned; and been subjected to alleged "hate speech" characterized as "Islamaphobic" and "anti-immigrant". None of those is a "conspiracy theory" featuring Omar as a conspirator, and the only one that could possibly been construed as such is having her photo near one of the WTC—and the cited sources mention nothing of the sort. However, my removal of the term was reverted by an editor who's been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me with the comment "This was a terrible edit for more reasons than can be enumerated in an edit summary." For some reason, he also deleted her name in Arabic.

More broadly, I agree that there should be sections on both her legal issues as well as her reported antisemitism, and that they should be referenced in the lead. She is best known for being a Somali Muslim Congresswoman who wears a hijab; for her anti-capitalist and socialist political bent; for her shady finances, overlapping (re)marriages, and refusing to answer questions about either; and for her serial antisemitism and subsequent "clarifications". I have attempted in the past to include indisputed, widely reported facts regarding her violation of laws vis a vis her taxes, and was aggressively reverted.

As you wrote, this article is routinely sanitized as if by Omar's PR team. Look no further than the "Views on the Police" section above, where editors grind down any mention of the widely reported fact that she called a police department "a cancer" and "rotten to the core" in favor of anodyne statements about "rebuilding" and "reform"—by claiming an encyclopedia must avoid "eye-catching emotional" quotations. Wikipedia is increasingly a bastion of naked left-wing political advocacy. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros, please knock it off with garbage comments like this article is routinely sanitized as if by Omar's PR team and Wikipedia is increasingly a bastion of naked left-wing political advocacy. We here are supposed to assume good faith and work collaboratively. You post shit like this, it gives off the impression that you want to "rebalance" the article by adding negative things about the subject, and that does not make it easy to collaborate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: in what way does the second part of the edit by @Atxwi: which you reverted here[[1]] "misstate what sources show"?

@Atxwi: The issue was not "a focus of criticism by her primary opponent and local and national media" because mainstream local and national media reported on the criticism, which is not the same as doing the criticism. NightHeron (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Agreed I have changed this section to reflect the fact that the widespread coverage focused on criticism of her campaign's payments to Mynett by a number of different groups rather than being primarily editorial criticism of those payments.

The two sources cited in the Personal Life section covering her marriage to Mynett report on the marriage as being notable in the context of two things: 1. Mynett and Omar's denial, months before announcing they were married, of being in any relationship at all following Mynett's ex-wife's claims that he was engaged in an affair with Omar. Their denials are in the headline of the main AP article cited, and Beth Mynett's allegations of Mynett's affair are a significant piece of the ABC article. As such, this section should include this coverage if we are using these sources.

2. The significant contracts Mynett's firm received from Omar's campaign before their wedding announcement, at which point they were denying romantic involvement, and the millions of dollars received after their marriage. This made Mynett's firm and Omar's campaign each other's largest contractor and client respectively, and is covered widely locally, nationally and internationally. This includes the AP article cited in the section.

I've added context to more accurately reflect the coverage in the sources cited than the current "Mynett worked for her campaign," which does not accurately reflect the focus of the coverage.

@Atxwi: Agreed that her denials of an affair are worthy of inclusion, given the wide reportage. I think it's worth including issues brought up by the comments by Professor Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey School in the AP story as to why he believes the episode raised legitimate questions about her honesty. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Inappropriate description

I think it is inappropriate to describe her family as a moderate sunni muslim family. They are normal. Using the word moderate sounds like as if the extremists (in this case the Wahhabis) are the normal muslims. Her family is the normal way muslims are. The word moderate should be removed. Only sunni muslims should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semakpln (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point. Most readers probably know little about Wahhabism, so perhaps we should make the sentence clearer by inserting "conservative" or "puritanical" (the words used in the lead sentence of the Wahhabism article) along with "rigid" before "Wahhabi interpretation". If we do that, the word "moderate" becomes redundant, so there'd be no reason to keep it. Then the who-clause would be: who were Sunni Muslims opposed to the rigid, puritanical [or "conservative"] Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. NightHeron (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Add IPA?

It seems that there should be an IPA template added to the lead section. Omar's full name (Ilhan Abdullahi Omar) could be difficult to pronounce, and IPAs are added in articles where this is the case. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I object to adding an IPA pronunciation without a reliable source to support it. --JBL (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: here is a source with the correct pronunciation. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe that source that the a in "Omar" is pronounced like the a in "cat"? The a in Omar Sharif's first name is pronounced like the a in "father". NightHeron (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Which is exactly why there should be an IPA. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: But a reliable one. An incorrect one is worse than having none. NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Is GovTrack not reliable? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably not in this case; compare with [2]. NightHeron (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I think that govtrack is more reliable than Google's automated pronunciation. Anyways, they both sound the same to me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the reverse. They're not the same. The a in "cat" and the a in "father" are different. Most likely the "Omar" in Ilhan Omar is pronounced the same as the "Omar" in Omar Sharif, wouldn't you think? NightHeron (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: So should the IPA be added using the Google pronunciation as a source? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No, my opinion that Google's the reliable one here is just one person's opinion. For Wikipedia we need an authoritative source for what's correct. Probably both you and I are correct -- you that Google is not authoritative and I that govtrack is not reliable. NightHeron (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: In any case, I would definitely support the addition of an IPA here. But where are we supposed to find a reliable source? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know -- sorry. That might be a good question to ask a more experienced editor than I am; you could use the suggestion in the welcome message on your talk page. NightHeron (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Far-left

If Majorie Green on the right of the Republican Party is reported (on Wikipedia)as far-right, then from a NPOV, should Omar who is on the extreme left of the Democratic Party be reported as far-left too.

Both have made anti Semitic comments.

Nonsense. Omar has not called for the killing of people she disagrees with. Greene has called for the execution of prominent Democrats. NightHeron (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that the only criterion for determining whether or not a US politician is far-left or far-right. As for Omar being on extreme left, please consider this article before replying. https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/ilhan-omar-voted-2019s-antisemite-of-the-year-613308 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.41 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Omar's remarks about Israel, and her apologies for some of them, have already been discussed at length on this talk page, so don't need to be discussed again. But even if she were an anti-semite (which has been disputed), that does not equate to "far-left". If it did, a large part of the far right would also be far left. NightHeron (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a poll conducted by stopantisemitism.org, a group funded by Milstein Family Foundation. The website defines criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitism and Adam Milstein was forced out of AIPAC for false Islamophobic claims about Omar and Congresswoman Tlaib. Omar's defense of Palestinians probably has more to do with her religion (Islam) than left-right politics. TFD (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I've read the page, and it seems to me like the page has a point of view issue. the opening does not mention Ilhan's controversial statements, instead opting to frame them as vocal criticism, and goes out of its way, both in the opening and later on, to describe comments made about Omar in a way which appears to be victimizing her. to use the opening as an example:

"Omar is the first Somali American, the first naturalized citizen of African birth, and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in the United States Congress. She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib) to serve in Congress.[11][12] She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, other harassment by political opponents,[13][14] and false and misleading claims by Donald Trump.[15][16]" should probably sound more like:

"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.[8][9][10] Omar is the first Somali American, the first naturalized citizen of African birth, and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in the United States Congress. She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib) to serve in Congress.[11][12] Omar's criticisms of the State of Israel, the nation's settlement policy, and the pro-israel lobby in the United States, have drawn significant criticism from Jewish, Israeli, and Semitic groups, which they claim stem from anti-semitism, which they see as evident in multiple of her statements.[8][9][10]" Totalstgamer (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, this does not belong in the lead. Omar has taken controversial positions on many issues, and Israel is only one of them. The lead as currently written is accurate and well sourced. NightHeron (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, but im still kind of weary regarding the mention of criticism towards Omar. mostly in the sense that it feels strange to emphasize, especially in the lead, the existence of death threats, given that a significant amount of politicians recieve them. same thing for harassment, conspiracy theories, and claims by Donald Trump. On top of that, the section relating to her harassment online also seems strange to me in terms of its existence, and im not sure its particularly notable. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources make clear that she's a prime target of the right wing, and you'd be hard pressed to find another member of the House of Representatives who's been so vilified by the right wing. This is notable. If you have in mind well-sourced death threats against other politicians that are not mentioned on their BLP, by all means add mentions of them there. NightHeron (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources, most notably in the lead, just mention that "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, harassment by political opponents, and false and misleading claims by Donald Trump." I see what you mean, but that is very broad, and certainly doesnt appear to be notable in its own right, the same applies to the last part of the "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment" section, which simply argues that she's the most frequently harassed muslim-american politician, which is not very notable given the limited number of muslim-americans in congress. id apply this to a lesser extent to the "patriotism questioned" sub-heading Totalstgamer (talk) 16:07, 10 February

The source cited at the end of the section on "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment" discusses Islamophobic attacks on three Muslim American politicians and says that Omar was the prime target. This is notable because the right-wing attacks on her were explicitly connected to her religious faith, and because, of the three politicians discussed, Omar stands out as the number one target. NightHeron (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So the attacks against Omar are notable because they're connected to religious faith, and Omar has been attacked more than the other two individuals cited? that's hardly noteworthy, at least on Ilhan's page, though it would probably be notable within Threatening government officials of the United States. besides, there are other things that need to be addressed, such as the lack of reasoning for notability in the lead itself, as mentioned previously. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteworthiness is determined solely by the treatment of various topics about the subject in the body of reliable sources. While reliable sources may choose to highlight attacks against Omar because she is a Muslim, we highlight them because reliable sources do. If your main source of news is outside the mainstream, then expect to see a different emphasis either pro or con. But we don't balance mainstream sources with alternative ones. TFD (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The lead should reflect the body. This topic gets significant coverage in the body, ergo it is summarized briefly in the lead. (It gets significant coverage in the body because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.) --JBL (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I see, in that case, would it not be sensible to determine that the controversiality of Omar's actions or statements is also worth summarizing in the lead? given the vareity of sources that include, or center around, said criticism of Omar by a Jewish, Israeli, or otherwise prevalent group. this is far from fringe or alternative, in that, criticism of Omar is rampant enough to warrant a note regarding its status in the lead Totalstgamer (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell which of two things you are interested in: something currently in the body of the article that is omitted (or inadequately summarized) in the lead, or something in reliable sources that is omitted in the body?

(Separately, and not really central: the notion of "controversiality" is problematic at best. I think it is almost always better to replace a statement that something is controversial with a substantive statement about the nature of the controversy.) --JBL (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, what is worth mentioning in the lead is determined by the degree of coverage in reliable sources. If Omar walks on water, raises the dead and balances the U.S. budget and it receives only passing coverage, then it is not significant. TFD (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There is certainly enough coverage to warrant a mention of criticisms relating to Ilhan Omar. Examples of articles relating to specific cases, though, depending on the context, implying general controversiality or repeated criticism, include Vox, The New York Times, PBS, Buisness Insider, and NBC. while its height was in March of 2019, its still an ongoing discussion with mentions in more recent times, such as one of the articles i mentioned earlier, which was in August, as well as articles from February, this one from July of 2019, which accuses her of prejudice, or This callback, which came after an attempted removal of Omar from her committees. hence, i would make the case that, specifically when relating to criticisms of Israel, the pushback is notable. and the general, continuing theme of condemnation of various of her statements should be mentioned after the mention of her status as a vocal critic. Totalstgamer (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally would find it super helpful if you would answer the question that I asked. --JBL (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Technically, the former, though i believe i explained exactly what i think needs changing in the previous message. In addition, my reply was mainly to TFD, and acted as a broader clarification Totalstgamer (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fine -- I was just letting you know that I was not able to understand exactly what point you were making, and I didn't want to respond before understanding. Is the following a fair summary of your position? In the section Ilhan Omar#Israeli–Palestinian conflict, there are (at least) a couple of paragraphs that detail not just her positions, but specifically that her positions and comments have drawn criticism (from a variety of named sources), leading in some cases to retractions, clarifications, or apologies; but that this aspect (her comments drawing criticism and in some cases leading to her apologizing / whatever) is not covered by the one sentence in the lead whose purpose is to summarize the section. --JBL (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Roughly speaking, yes. there's a level of controversiality, provable via condemnations, apologies and retractions covered extensively both by the media and the page itself, over a relatively lengthy stretch of time, that are an important part of Omar's policy regarding Israel, and of her political career as a whole, and are not represented in the lead. there are other things that have and can be discussed, but perhaps at a later date, as i feel this is the simplest change that could mean the most significant gain in the article's representation of Omar Totalstgamer (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. This will no doubt blow Toa Nidhiki05's mind, but I agree with you: I think this aspect is a significant part of the coverage presently in the article and should not be completely omitted in the lead. Keeping in mind due weight, I think either adding a short sentence following the current sentence about Israel, or reworking that sentence to include this as well, could be reasonable (and versions of this have appeared in the article before at various times). Good wording is tricky. As I said before, I think the language of "controversy" should be avoided in general. Here is an off-the-cuff possibility: "Some of her comments on the topic have drawn criticism, including from other House Democrats." (Ok, I think this is bad, but maybe as a starting point?) --JBL (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good direction, as the condemnation that comes from house democrats is a key part of the controversiality of her statements as a whole. id go for something more akin to "Several of her statements regarding the conflict have been condemned by House Republicans (sources here) and Democrats (sources here)" Totalstgamer (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll be devising an appropriate version of this change, and adding it to the page, sometime this week Totalstgamer (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s not worth arguing about it here. Editors here have long ago discarded the idea that criticism of her for any reason can be included in any meaningful sense, so you might as well just move on. Toa Nidhiki05 20:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: But this comment isn’t showing bias? There is arbitration enforced on this article because its subject is considered controversial. Any edit could be scrutinized. Trillfendi (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: so to prevent an edit war, why do you believe this violates WP:UNDUE? the subject is discussed in the article, and appropriate weight has been given to the subject in the form of a short sentence.

as per WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." my reasoning as such would be that A. the matter is featured in the article, sourced reliably, and contains a notable minority viewpoint. B. due weight is given. this was not a large sentence, and didnt take up a significant portion of the lead. Totalstgamer (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Totalstgamer: 1. Per WP:ME, please do not label an edit as a minor edit if it is not a minor edit.

2. No consensus has yet been reached on the talk page about what, if anything, should be added to the lead concerning Omar's statements about Israel.

3. Out of the three sentences in the lead concerning Omar's stands on various issues, one is devoted to her statements on Israel. Of the corresponding section of the main body, roughly one third is devoted to the Israel issue. So this is appropriate coverage in the lead.

Of course, there's no rigid rule that the space devoted to a topic in the lead has to be proportional to its coverage in the main body. You might be able to get consensus for an additional sentence, provided that it's balanced and accurately reflects what's in the main body. The sentence you added misleadingly gives the impression that Omar's statements on Israel were condemned by all Democrats and Republicans. The truth of the matter (as described in the main body) is that reaction among Democrats was "mixed", with three contenders for the Presidential nomination (including the current Vice-President) and also the Black Caucus defending her. The resolution passed by the House of Representatives did not condemn her, and in fact she endorsed it.

The main body also covers the Israeli ban on her travel to Israel. This was notable and extremely controversial, but there's nothing about this in the lead. I'm not saying that there should be. Not everything of importance that's in the main body has to be fit into the lead.

If you want to continue advocating for an additional sentence in the lead, please propose text here on the talk-page. To quote JBL above, good wording is tricky. It'll be more likely to achieve consensus if it's balanced. NightHeron (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

1. I have noted the mistake made relating to the edit being minor, it is not, i apologize.

2. I believed, given the stretch of time that passed, the notes on the oncoming change, and discussions i had with other editors, that the edit as proposed was uncontroversial. it appears this was a false belief, and i apologize.

3. I understand, it is the main reason i brought the proposition up for discussion multiple times, both inside and outside of the talk page, over the course of two weeks. i understand that does not fully qualify as consensus, and will note such a fact for future edits. as for what should be mentioned / summarized, it should be the backlash / criticism omar has recieved due to her statements on the israeli-palestinian conflict. this takes up about, give or take, a sixth to an eigth of the article. if you'd like, an alternative phrasing could be this:

Several of her statements regarding the conflict have been condemned by House Republicans[11][12][13] and drew / have drawn a mixed reaction from House Democrats[14][15]

a bit weak, but gets the point across Totalstgamer (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be anything here worth discussing. Members of the opposition, minority party criticize a member of the other party? Routine politics. ValarianB (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ilhan's statements are particularly controversial. not only are they a key part of this article about Omar, they've also drawn a fairly divided reaction amongst the Democratic Party, with some of her statements drawing criticism from Speaker Pelosi, Whip Clyburn, and committee chairs such as Eliott Engel. Totalstgamer (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How much lasting significance does that controversy have? Omar apologized for wording her statements in ways that (unknowingly, she said) appealed to anti-semitic tropes, but of course did not apologize for her views on Israeli government policies. It seems that the sources for the controversy are two years old, and the controversy died down after that. NightHeron (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The Controversy seems to still be prevalent, on account of instances like the call from House Republicans to remove Omar from her committee assignments. Controversy in 2020 relating to her primary challenger's donors. the height of the Controversy is clearly in 2019, when it was the most prevalent and bipartisan, but its effects on Omar's political career remain. Totalstgamer (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether it belongs in the article (which it obviously does) or whether it deserves a sentence in the lead (which it already has). The question is whether it's of enough lasting importance to merit still more coverage in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

from my perspective, yes. given the importance of criticism of Omar's policies on Israel/Palestine/Whatever to the section about said policies, it only makes sense to mention its existence. only mentioning that she's a frequent critic presents it as a standard policy issue, rather than the point of contention that it is Totalstgamer (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, routine partisan politics. When ones actions have actual, tangible repercussions, e.g. Re. Greene being stripped of committee assignments, then it becomes a notable aspect of one's biography. All your attempted addition to the article amounted to was "Republicans don't like Ilhan Omar". ValarianB (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tangible repercussions aren't necessary, from what i can tell, note Donald Trump's mention of racism in the lead, which wasnt penalized. or Mike Pence's controversial statements on homosexuality, or Tulsi Gabbard's statements on Bashar Al-Assad. ignoring the fact that there was an attempt to Strip Omar of her committee assignments, or the fact that the backlash she's recieved, as phrased in my edit, explicitly mentions in-party criticism, which is notably significant, we're still talking about a large part of the article which is only represented partially in the lead. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

After a double-check, Pence specifically might not apply, but another example would be Ted Cruz and the Capitol. he's just mentioned to have been criticized and blamed for the deaths Totalstgamer (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

They are not necessary per se, but when those tangible things happen, reliable sources cover them in-depth. That isn't the case here. ValarianB (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This article from NPR would probably imply that in-depth coverage from reliable sources exists. it goes into the controversy, various responses, and actions by the House in its aftermath. Same thing with this Vox article, though i imagine its status as a reliable source is more in question., This one from CNN, and This article from NBC news, all from fairly reliable, mainstream sources. coverage of this very backlash also exists in the present day. plausibly long articles from USA today, and The Independent, and this Opinion piece from the Washington Post, which is hazy, but ill consider it as implying that coverage exists. touch to varying extents on Ilhan Omar's behavior, but generally mention to an ample degree the Backlash Recieved, and the original statements that were made, implying lasting coverage. this in turn means that we have both long-term and in-depth coverage, from reliable sources, on a fairly significant part of the article, relating to backlash of varying levels of bipartisanism. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your sources don't support your point. The first four are from 2 years ago, and the others are reporting on partisan attacks on Omar, in the context of the stripping of committee assignments from Marjorie Taylor Greene. Nothing new or in-depth. NightHeron (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Going into it, i believe they do support my point, i'll explain my reasoning:

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.

The first four articles are significant and In-depth, as mentioned previously. their date does not matter, as they meet this criteria, hence meaning that the event has recieved significant or in-depth coverage.

"Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."

These events are not exclusively covered in sources published during or immideately after an event. as seen by the articles ive cited, these events have been covered, even if within the context of another event, two years after their occurence, which demonstrates that they are notable. a line that could potentially back this up is "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance". the event is cited in the context of another event, after the initial coverage has died down, which, in this case, could be an indication of the second necessary fact - lasting significance.

There are articles that are new, and there are articles that are in-depth. that is all that is necessary for notability. at no point is a requirement mentioned in wikipedia's guidelines, and at no point has it been necessary, for some, most, or all sources, to fit both criteria. referring to Tulsi Gabbard's statements on Assad, this is evident. Totalstgamer (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to mention that notability refers to article creation. The criteria for inclusion in an article are normally referred to as noteworthiness or significance. I believe that the article currently shows due weight in coverage of criticism. The criticism you want to add has come from fringe sources and received little coverage in reliable sources. If you get your news from Fox News Channel, OAN and Newsmax, then you will see a different weight, but they are not reliable sources for determining weight in articles. The fact that mainstream sources may occasionally publish editorials that trash Omar is not helpful either, since editorials don't count as reliable sources and therefore are not used in determining weight. TFD (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, big assumption. i'm not ideologically a conservative, nor do i consume Fox News or OAN. in fact, I never, in this entire, long discussion, even mentioned them by name, let alone linked to them. secondly, i believe the perspectives we have clash to an extent, that's clear, but i'm making my case, and responding to the other case. i was told the subject has no new or in-depth coverage, and i made the case to the contrary.

The criticism you want to add has come from fringe sources and received little coverage in reliable sources.

This is not the case. If we're referring to the premise, as presented in my proposed edit, than there's no lack of reliable coverage. note the articles i linked NightHeron. Mainstream, in-depth reports from news sources that are, as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, considered reliable. not personal opinion-pieces, with the exclusion of the one linked from the Washington Post, used soely to denote the fact that articles relating to Omar have continued to be written in the present day, and not acting as the sole citation for that fact.

The fact that mainstream sources may occasionally publish editorials that trash Omar is not helpful either, since editorials don't count as reliable sources and therefore are not used in determining weight.

The response here is almost identical to the previous one. i'll sample one of the articles linked during this conversation, This one from CNN.

Omar: 'I unequivocally apologize' after backlash over new Israel tweets

Right off the bat, not an opinion piece. the article then goes on to report on backlash towards / recieved by Omar. an example from the article would be: "(CNN)Freshman Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota publicly apologized Monday after she faced backlash for tweets condemned by both sides of the aisle as anti-Semitic." followed by a quote of her apology.

Another one, to preemptively make clear that this article covers the backlash itself. "Omar's statement came on the heels of one from House Democratic leadership calling on Omar to apologize for comments they said included "anti-Semitic tropes."

"The statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and other members of House Democratic leadership said anti-Semitism had to be called out 'without exception.'" Followed by a quote/press statement from Pelosi

That is not an opinion piece, or an Editorial, but coverage of an event, and its length is such that makes it in-depth. this is how the entire article is written, and at no point does the writer interject to talk about just how much they hate Ilhan Omar. the same applies to the other articles linked. Eitherway, im either gonna bring this up with the Guild of Copyeditors (or whatever place makes these sorts of editing decisions. i check before i make any claims at this point, and i'll make sure im completely certain who this is suppoused to be brought up with before i am to do so) or drop the stick on this one. its not really worth it at this point. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

The intro has the sentence:

"Omar is the first Somali American, the first naturalized citizen of African birth, and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in the United States Congress."

Please change this to:

"Omar is the first Somali American, the first naturalized citizen of African birth, and the first Minnesotan woman of color in the United States Congress."

Explanation: The current construction of the sentence is somewhat clunky and suggests that these firsts are among Minnesotan members of Congress, when these firsts are actually among all members of Congress. This rewording addresses the issue. Since there is usually a backlog of semi-protected edit requests, I feel compelled to highlight this for editors in a hurry:

NO ADDITIONAL SOURCES ARE REQUIRED SINCE THIS IS A REWORDING.

Sources for these claims do exist, numbered 11, 65, 66 and 67 in the current version of the article. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC) 209.166.108.199 (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the rewording, and I think it's pretty clear now. As for the sources for the claims it looks pretty clear to me as well. Two Democrats are poised to become the first Muslim women in Congress is the headline of a source for and (alongside former Michigan state representative Rashida Tlaib) one of the first Muslim women elected to the Congress. Looks like that claim is sourced and verified. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish you have literally done what I tried to prevent in my edit request by not reading all the way through my edit request, possibly in a hurry, and assuming that I had a problem with the sourcing of the article. I do not, in fact, have a problem with the sourcing! You and I agree that the sources for these claims are sufficient!

Regarding your thought that the current wording is clear, well, it's pretty common for some folks to understand a confusingly worded sentence and other folks to misapprehend it. I'm reopening this edit request so someone else who gets it can action it. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the IP: in the current wording, the phrase "to represent Minnesota" appears to bind all three preceding clauses, while in fact it should bind only the third (for the first two, she is the first such person representing any state). The IP's wording is clunkier that the current phrasing, unfortunately. Another option would be "Omar is the first Somali American and the first naturalized citizen of African birth in the United States Congress, and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota." --JBL (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally did misread what you said about sourcing for these claims existing. I'll go ahead and blame early morning editing. That said I support JBL's wording. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I endorse JBL's wording, which is clear and unambiguous. Thanks to the IP for calling attention to this. NightHeron (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I made the change using JBL's wording. 209.166.108.199, does that phrasing address your concern? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you ScottishFinnishRadish NightHeron JBL. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry again about misreading. I don't know how I misread Sources for these claims do exist as Sources for these claims do not exist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's fine - if I can get even one editor to slow down and read edit requests all the way through, I'll consider it worthwhile. I will mention in passing, though, that "Minnesotan woman of colour" doesn't sound very clunky to me - I've read/edited articles talking about Iowans on the House Agriculture Committee, Californians in the Senate, and so on. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)