Talk:Ilhan Omar

Marriage controversy

There seems to be a brewing controversy about Ilhan Omar's marital status. I see in the article's history that there has been some edit warring related to this, so I think a discussion here is warranted. This article in the Star Tribune says there is a marriage discrepancy that clouds Ilhan Omar's campaign. The article says that "Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in Eden Prairie, according to their marriage record" and that "Minnesota courts have no records of Omar and Elmi filing for divorce." However, the article implies that Ilhan Omar has referred to Ahmed Hirsi, the father of her children, as her husband. The original reports of this contradiction arose from what would be generally considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia's BLP standards, but the issue is now being addressed in reliable sources, such as the Star Tribune article noted above. Is it appropriate to add content related to this controversy to the article. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The previous edits that introduced this were not backed by reliable sources and worded in a non-neutral manner. So long as it is well sourced and maintains a neutral point of view, I see no harm in including information on the marriage controversy. Also note, though, that a source is only a source for what it says not what it implies, as it is not our position, as editors, to draw conclusions from sources. (see WP:SYNTH) -- Sjrct (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Star Tribune article contains reporting on the following things:

• what some bloggers wrote
• the results of a public records request for marriage licenses and divorces for Ilhan Omar.

The conclusion that anything deserving the word "controversy" has happened fall entirely in the first category, and the second category is a random collection of facts. This is very far from inclusion-worthy. (Why editors at the Strib thought "PowerLine blogger makes allegations; we fail to substantiate them" was a good idea for an article is unclear to me.) --JBL (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

But the Star Tribune's investigation has substantiated part of the issue: marriage license showing marriage to one person, and campaign claiming marriage to another person. That's presumably why they thought it was worth reporting on. Deli nk (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea that "X was at some point married to Y but is now in a committed long-term relationship with Z" is controversial in the US in 2016 is not plausible, even for values of X that include politicians and other public figures. If there's an actual story here, the Strib article is not it -- there is no way to contextualize the facts in the article in an encyclopedic way while avoiding "some blogger wrote." Maybe at some point the Strib will have a reporter do some actual reporting, and then there might be something to write about. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. X is claiming to be married Z, but is actually married to Y. If X is a politician, that's a news story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.195.202 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, JBL's point that the article is essentially reporting on what a blog wrote remains. I would agree that such an article does not substantiate reliable information. Even though they perhaps turned up some unusual things with respect to her marriage license history, the only information that would cause this to be a controversy is the allegations of a few bloggers, which certainly does not seem sufficient to me to be notable enough for inclusion. If there are additional secondary sources that elevate this to the point of actual controversy, I would not be against inclusion, but as it stands now, I agree with JBL that this should not be included. Sjrct (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There is now a second Strib article, also with no evidence of any reporting. I still don't see anything worth adding to this article. (I suppose we have enough sources to support "she lives in Minneapolis with her three children and their father" or something.) --JBL (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

CityPages initially reported (see here: [1]) that the rumor began on the PowerLineBlog. However, the PowerLineBlog clarifies (see here: [2]) that it actually first appeared on a forum known as the "SomaliSpot". I think it should be mention due to the amount of press it received, its currently one of the highest searched things about Ilhan Omar, and how she took the time to comment herself on this issue (see here: [3]). AcidSnow (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The United States Supreme Court has also responded to the flase claims that they would be investagationg Omar (see here: [4]). Any thoughts JBL, Sjrct, and Edgeweyes? AcidSnow (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the US attorney, of course. I am willing to discuss any proposed language with an open mind, but my basic instinct is the same: the natural thing to write based on these sources is "some bloggers said X, which is false" and I don't feel like that belongs in an encyclopedia article. --JBL (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, this source just seems to further assert the unsubstantiated nature of the claims surrounding her marriage history. I agree with JBL that false rumors are in a general case not encyclopedic content, but there is a decent amount of press coverage so I could see potential for inclusion if the phrasing was suitably NPOV. Given that this is a BLP article and such a topic could easily induce contention, I would also further agree with JBL that the wording of such an addition should be proposed before inclusion. Sjrct (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Political positions?

Pretty rare to see a wikipedia article on someone running for political office which does not mention any of their political positions. Is her religion really the only thing interesting about her? 71.182.237.133 (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has existed for less than a week. This being Wikipedia, you could add a paragraph about her political positions yourself! --JBL (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source that could be helpful for this: [5] --JBL (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

tweet

thanks Victuallers (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Arab" etc.

This edit describes Omar as "Arab" and gives her name in Arabic, with what looks like very thin sourcing to me. I would like to get a consensus about this here.

It also illustrates that we currently have only one picture (the infobox image is simply a cropped version of the other) -- are there others out there somewhere? Edit: This is not quite true, we have two different but essentially identical photos, take from the same viewpoint at the same event. A different photo would be much preferable for one of the two. Is there one out there somewhere?

We could also discuss the Cedar-Riverside versus West Bank descriptor; if both are sourced, the official neighborhood name seems clearly preferable to me. --JBL (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Arab America indicates that she is the first Arab American state representative in Minnesota [6]. However, this is not something empirical like here actual Somali ethnicity, so I'm okay with dropping it. The Arabic name was because Arabic is a co-official language in Somalia (an Arab League state), her country of birth. Anyway, West Bank and Cedar-Riverside are the same place, so the latter works fine as well. As to the files, they are similar but one is in profile whereas the other shows her actual face. They also appear to be the only licensed files of her available, so they'll have to do. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead, twitter, Breitbart, etc.

So, as usual Omar is the target of the right-wing loony brigade, this time realized in a series of edits by an IP and Ajackson12. Aside from the fact that Ajackson12 should probably be blocked for POV-pushing & edit warring (including terrible edits across a half-dozen articles), it seems like there are one or two decent sources here (Tablet and Haaretz). (Of course don't support the nuttiest bits.) Obviously inclusion of "look there was a tweet" in the lead section is a no-go. Overall, I think this version by Snooganssnoogans does a pretty good job of using non-garbage sources to record the parts of the events that might actually belong in an encyclopedic biography, with appropriate placement in the article. Although I am dubious of the idea of quoting tweets at all; surely there is a better way to include the information? --JBL (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, but please avoid personal attacks. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's better to try to work constructively with editors, including those whose politics don't align with ours. Ajackson12 is capable of editing well, with this as one positive example (see WP:WTW). I've got my eye on the situation and will block if it's necessary, but hopefully it isn't necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes well I have no problem with Ajackson12's non-terrible edit. I would like to revise my earlier comment slightly in a different way, though: there is no Haaretz reporting, the Haaretz link is literally just a quote from Tablet, I am going to remove it as a source. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I see a slow edit war starting again. @Ajackson12 and Koncurrentkat: use the talk page, not edit summaries, to discuss whether accusations of Antisemitism belong in the lead or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m in agreement with you here, which is why the lead should stay as it was previously (containing that section) until consensus is reached. Now as to why the accusations of antisemetism should be in the lead- the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. The article includes accusations of antisemetism, so too should the lead. Furthermore, the current version is well sourced and shows both sides, so there really isn’t a reason why it shouldn’t be in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajackson12 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article covers Omar's entire biography and political career, of which her criticisms of the Israeli government are just one part. There is no reason to single out just that part for inclusion in the lead.Wukai (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That’s the great thing about Wikipedia, you can add the rest! This sentence summarizes a section of the body, if you would like to summarize more sections then you should. And just to confirm, is there an objection to how the sentence is phrased, or just the sentence itself? - Ajackson12 —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding the rest would make the lead section too long. It's a short article. There is no need to get into any of her political views in the lead section. They are not usually mentioned in lead sections about politicians anyway. A brief summary of their political career suffices. See Keith Ellison, for example. Wukai (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

1. It won’t make it too long, right now it’s like 4 sentences. 2. This is very noteworthy, most of the coverage around her mentions this controversy. The only reason I can think of as to why it wouldn’t be included is a political bias for Omar, and an attempt to cover up what she’s said. Your previous edits to remove the lead and controversy section and bury the paragraph about this issue in the middle of the early career section only reinforces this. 3. To characterize this as a political view is misleading, it’s about the criticism that her political views have gotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajackson12 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms of political views are even less notable than the views themselves. You have given no reason that the lead section should include either, when it is not standard for lead sections to do so. I doubt anyone will agree with you that it should. Certainly the criticism would not be "covered up" as it is described in great, indeed excessive, detail in the article.Wukai (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As the edit warring has continued, I have locked the page for a week. Figure this out without undoing each others' edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that this material does not belong in the lead: it's unambiguously undue weight, and piling references that just rehash the same thing (including one of them twice, nice work) doesn't change that. Not really clear why we should pretend the user who keeps edit-warring to keep it in is acting in good faith, either: has anyone else looked at his edit history? --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)