Talk:Ilhan Omar

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)

If you must have your twitter-twatter in the lede, it would be reasonable to include reference to tweeter Glenn Greenwald to whom/which the Member of Congress responded (the "AIPAC" scandal).126.243.120.157 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2019 (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)

The article currently locks poorly sourced smears into the lede. Admins should fix this immediately. And Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a clear consensus that the material Ajackson12 inserted doesn't belong in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Perhaps, given the pretty clear consensus here against the protected version, you could abbreviate the period of protection? --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I'll unlock it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be at least some mention, under her political positions, of her NO vote on a bill against FGM (female genital mutilation). minnesota-bill-against-female-mutilation-raises-opposition? Seems more than relevant given her belief and concerns of others about her. I do not think that qualifies as "right-wing loony" vandalism... and should think this absolutely relevant to feminist voters --Thorsmitersaw (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia: you can either edit the article directly or propose text on the talkpage for discussion. The article you linked (which is pretty good, and explains the context surrounding the issue in some depth) mentions Omar only once in passing, so it is not much to hang content on. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, the purpose of Wikipedia articles on politicians is not to help voters vote the way editors would like, it is to provide encyclopedic biographies of notable people. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thorsmitersaw:@Joel B. Lewis: I have added this controversy. It should be noted here as it is an important issue, especially if the news is abused. She voted yes, but she did criticize it. Often (right-winged) news sources claim she voted no, which is incorrect according to the final votes https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/votes/votes.asp?ls_year=90&billnum=HF2621&session_number=0&year=2017&id=285. Garnhami (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: you call an official vote in the house a blog or a simple first source? This is an official voting and she voted yes. News media are lying about her vote, so yes, this is news that should be mentioned so people know she did vote yes and not no as some right winged news outlets claim. You do realize by NOT putting the fact that she voted YES aids in the lies regarding her vote? Right winged news outlets use the fast that she criticized it as a tool to come up with news that she voted no or is pro FGM , while it is not true. SO better to inform people here that she voted YES rather than ignore it completely. https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/votes/votes.asp?ls_year=90&billnum=HF2621&session_number=0&year=2017&id=285

Perhaps @Muboshgu: should take a look at it. I stand by my viewpoint: it is better to make a statement here about her voting YES and explaining the problems or backlash she faces by alt-right regarding certain lies that she voted NO. This is better than not mention it and leading people to the wrong idea. Also: keep in mind that the news from Judge Friedman made the case pop up again! So this is crucial information at the moment as this item is getting worldwide attention currently.

(ec) I have reverted you: your new section combines all the previous problems of sourcing (primary sources, blogs, and one passing mention from a conventional news outlet) with a new sin of unencyclopedic writing, synthesizing this non-event with something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Omar. And now we can add edit-warring to the list, I see. Wonderful. --JBL (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Controversies section

So far, Omar's various controversies have been handled in the political positions section. However, it is common for elected officials to have a controversies section separate from the political positions section. The antisemitism controversy and the Lindsey Graham controversy seem a better fit for a controversy section. They are not about political positions per se, but rather about rhetoric which stirred controversy. Zekelayla (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversy sections are not recommended, according to at least one well-regarded Wikipedia essay, WP:NOCRIT. Both of the issues you mentioned above are already in the article. I agree that sub-headers should make the page easier to navigate, but there are better ways to handle controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link. Zekelayla (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: vague "controversies" sections are not recommended, but specific subheaders covering a topic that might be controversial are perfectly appropriate. @Muboshgu: Can you explain a bit more clearly this revert, specifically what the MOS:LAYOUT issue is? That policy doesn't set any hard rules, and even though it says Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading., the section in question has two lengthy paragraphs and one short one. The latter two are specifically about allegations of anti-semitism, which stem from her comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What you said is basically what I said in my edit summary: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." The Israel-Palestine section has two paragraphs (however lengthy you think they are, I think they're standard size) and sentence that I wouldn't call a third paragraph. That doesn't need to be subdivided. And I completely agree that "controversy" sections, one place to pile in all sorts of negative stuff, is inadvisable. Better to discuss anything controversial in the appropriate place for full context. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't know any article where individual racist comments are placed in a section about political positions. wumbolo ^^^ 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, I don't see any "racist comments", and I say that as a Jewish person. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu Her comments were ethnically insensitive at a minimum, as she herself acknowledges. At any rate, this controversy doesn't fit comfortably in a section on "political positions". Zekelayla (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Zekelayla, it fits in just fine in the "Israeli-Palestinian" section as her comments were about AIPAC which lobbies for pro-Israel policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The controversy was about alleged anti-semitism, not Israel/Palestine per se. Zekelayla (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree w/Zekelayla & Wumbolo — seems obvious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You are repeatedly removing a subheader and insisting that commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is equivalanet to allegations of antisemitism. This makes no sense. It's time for you to engage in the D in WP:BRD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Is The Published Reporter RS?

This source is used in the I-P section: https://www.publishedreporter.com/2019/01/27/pelosi-gave-coveted-seat-on-house-foreign-relations-committee-to-member-with-documented-history-of-anti-semitic-and-anti-israel-remarks/

It is a rather vituperative op-ed. Surely there are better sources to use? The Forward op-ed for instance. (Though that is not as current) Zekelayla (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Zekelayla, you can always ask at WP:RSN. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG - "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is for any kind of article, and we need to be even more careful in a WP:BLP. Eperoton (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Bari Weiss op-eds

They don't belong on this Wikipedia nor any other Wikipedia page. She's not a recognized expert on the history of anti-semitism nor anything else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You mean the columnist for the New York Times? WP:RSN says otherwise. Perhaps you should use that forum to voice your opinions about the reliability of sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Point me to the RSN discussion where it was agreed that opinion editorials in the NY Times are considered RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikieditor19920 understands the problems with using opinion pieces in BLPs -- just check out this edit summary! --JBL (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, op Ed's can be used to cite facts that need to be cited but are otherwise uncontroversial. Those facts usually have better sources that can be used. Bari Weiss' opinion of Ilhan Omar is as relevant for us as Glenn Greenwood's opinion ot Bari Weiss. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Omar responded directly to it, so that makes more sense to include than a random opinion piece, just like the Andrew Sullivan piece to which Bari Weiss responded. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, the Weiss opinion piece and Omar's response to it received WP:SECONDARY coverage from Haaretz. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That should be added to the article. Not a primary source opinion by an ideological opponent. wumbolo ^^^ 19:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post was also cited. Primary does not equal bad, and since it's what initiated the exchange I don't see an issue with including it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, primary isn't always bad, but secondary is almost always better. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately we have both in this instance! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• That development needs to be reflected on the page. One should also realize that views by people on Israel and whatever do evolve. I think something she said in 2012 does not desrve that much space on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Her apology should certainly be included. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

And it is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This quote is just one column out of a countless number. Why is it featured in an article about an entirely different person? It makes little sense. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Because Omar responded to this one and the exchange received WP:SECONDARY coverage from Haaretz and other WP:RS. This is clear-cut WP:DUE. Read the above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear-cut WP:DUE based on what, exactly? haaretz is suddenly some major source for news on Ilhan Omar? You could perhaps make an argument for including this on the Bari Weiss article. Certainly not here. And it appears that other editors agree with me on this, and no one with you. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a WP:RS, but we also have the Washington Post (see above) and you've again misread the discussion. I'm stating a fact—the response by Omar to Weiss's op-ed received WP:SECONDARY coverage and is therefore WP:DUE. The initial objection was to including WP:PRIMARY opinion op-eds (which they all are) by themselves, and that's not what's being done here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It really is ludicrous to have a statement in reaction to the Op-Ed and yet not have a statement about the op-ed, that is just pure stupidity at its finest. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with Sir Joseph here. Sterilizing discussion about -- let's be honest -- the reason most viewers came to this page does not a good article make. Let's face it -- a good chunk of people are coming here to read about this issue, and we must serve to our readers. --Calthinus (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Policy disagrees with you: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If people are coming to Wikipedia for hot takes on the latest breaking news stories, they're on the wrong website. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You do not have a monopoly on interpreting policy do you want me to regurgitate the diffs?. Per WP:Controversial articles, For a controversial individual or organization, it is likely that many sources have criticized the person or the group. A well-sourced summary of these criticisms should appear in the article, giving weight to the viewpoints in accordance to the weight that these viewpoints are given in reliable, published sources. The fact is that the notability of the subject has her role in controversies of these sort taking a central part -- hence relevant, and deserves indepth coverage. In this case the opinion piece recieved substantial secondary coverage, and a lot of the notability -- even the name recognition -- of this article's subject comes from that. Per proper policy, if we omit it -- or worse, as Sir Joseph noted, include the response to it but not the piece itself (classic spin tactic), we are being incomplete at best. Now please step aside and let people add relevant information.--Calthinus (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I shall respectfully decline your suggestion, thanks all the same (nor does your opinion of what's "relevant information" carry any more weight than mine). I notice you haven't provided any reliable sources to support your claim that notability of the subject has her role in controversies of these sort taking a central part – it would be helpful if you could do that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Right now on Google if you type in Ilhan Omar, the first suggestion is "Ilhan Omar twitter", the seventh is "Ilhan Omar tweet AIPAC". I don't need to supply an RS for a non-main-space argument that let's be honest, we all know is true.--Calthinus (talk)

"Ilhan Omar twitter": 38.4 million results" [[1]], versus "Ilhan Omar representative": 15.5 million results [[2]].--Calthinus 02:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Google search results emphasize recent happenings; imagine that. But "recent" does not equal "significant" and the Google test doesn't establish notability. What "we all know is true" might not in fact be true. I don't see what any of this this has to do with the topic of this thread, which is a single op-ed in the Times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Also per WP:BLP: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Unless Weiss is a recognized expert (unlikely, as she's a mere journalist), then her editorial is categorically not a reliable source to use for criticism of Omar. I've removed the citation to Weiss's editorial; anyone who wants to add secondary coverage of her remarks is welcome to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that requires removing the Weiss citation. The content in the article is sourced to WP:SECONDARY coverage of the exchange; the initial op-ed and Omar's response to it. WP:PRIMARY also says that Primary does not equal bad, and since here the content is supported by secondary sources, there is no issue whatsoever with linking to the original op-ed; in fact, it would probably be preferable to at least direct readers to what initiated the exchange.

And by the way, @My very best wishes:, can you explain a little bit more why you view a candidate's position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and allegations of anti-semtisim to be one and the same? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking your policies (Primary does not equal bad actually comes from Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, which is a supplementary page, not a policy). We have to use extra care with biographies of living persons. That policy suggests that we should definitely not link to external sites that offer contentious opinions about the article subject (my bolding): Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy and External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. It should go without saying that opinion pieces in the NYT often contain content that goes against the spirit of BLP policy. The statement since here the content is supported by secondary sources, there is no issue whatsoever with linking to the original op-ed strikes me as highly disingenuous; obviously not all of Weiss's op-ed is supported by secondary sources. Indeed, if an author referencing a given primary source in the process of evaluating and synthesizing such primary sources were all that were required to render the entire primary source valid for inclusion, why would we ever bother with secondary sources at all? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The policy you cited completely supports my point and refutes yours. The full quote from WP:BLP is Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. In other words, the citation is permitted. The restriction that it is referring to is the one prohibiting the use of unreliable sources, which the New York Times, the paper the published the op-ed, is plainly not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words, no it isn't (in all cases). The operative word there is may, which is emphasized in the policy. And please don't conflate op-eds in the Times with its news reporting. The latter is generally reliable; the former is not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's right—may means permitted. You're trying to twist that into somehow requiring removal, which is nonsense. And what is unreliable about the NYT op-ed section, exactly? The reliability of the publication and its reputation means they are likely to publish commentators who are considered knowledgeable in their respective fields. Do you have evidence otherwise? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"May be acceptable" does not mean "is acceptable". Please find a dictionary. May be is used in a conditional sense here, not a broadly permissive sense. Regarding NYT commentators, RS guidelines are clear that opinion writing is generally not reliable for factual statements. The burden is on you to show that Weiss is a reliable authority on matters of anti-Semitism, not the other way around. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You are asserting that a policy that says something may be included means it cannot be included. The Weiss op-ed is not being used to source a factual statement; it's being used as a source for her opinion. The majority of editors agree in this section that the citation belongs, so I don't really need to show you anything if you're not going to be receptive to reasonable arguments. The New York Times reputation extends beyond its news department and almost certainly includes its opinion section; among its regular columnists are a world-famous economist, and any number of notable political commentators like Charles Blow, Frank Bruni, and David Brooks. If the NYT opinion section isn't reliable, according to you, I'm not sure which newspapers' is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Who are the "majority of editors" agreeing with you (not that consensus is a vote)? I see most editors expressing skepticism that Weiss's opinion is at all relevant. You can equivocate all you like with the meaning of "reliable", but RS and WP:BLP are explicit: Opinion pieces are primary sources, while criticism of living subjects requires secondary sources. I know you are aware of this, since JBL pointed it out above. Who you think you're fooling by pretending that the opinion of an op-ed columnist (who is not Paul Krugman, David Brooks, et al.) is relevant to Omar's biography is beyond me. And no, I'm not using "may" to mean "can't". I'm using "may" to mean "subject to consensus, and furthermore, policy on external links in BLPs discourages this". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not an external link. We've already established that the Weiss op-ed receieved WP:SECONDARY coverage, so relevance isn't really in question. What you're objecting to is including the citation to the actual Weiss op-ed that the WaPo and Haaretz referenced in secondary articles, and to which the subject responded (the quote is provided in the article), and all you're doing is coming up with some convoluted policy argument that really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The relevant policy line on including a WP:PRIMARY to supplement a WP:SECONDARY has been quoted multiple times, and I won't do it again; however, nothing you're saying changes the fact that it permits inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Lots of things are permitted for inclusion. That doesn't mean all of them are advisable. Relevance is definitely an issue; WaPo referencing one or two lines from an opinion piece doesn't mean everything in the piece is valuable info. The citation to the op-ed doesn't contribute to any meaningful understanding of the subject that the secondary sources (broadly speaking) don't already provide. Readers who want to read Weiss's take can click through from the WaPo or Haaretz pages. I don't see any benefit in providing a citation containing an external link to a primary source that we wouldn't use in the article by itself (reasons for which already having been explained). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're just moving the goalposts. First it couldn't be included, now it shouldn't. The WaPo didn't reference one or two lines—it referenced the piece and quoted a line, as did the Haaretz article. And I'm sure you're well aware that all citations lead to an external site, but External links refers to a separate subsection with links that are not cited in the body of the article. The paragraph in the article already covers the full dispute, explaining Weiss's commentary and Omar's response; despite your personal opinions about this commentator and what they have to say, citing the original piece would unquestionably add to the article without violating the two conditions set out by the policy earlier: WP:RS and WP:OR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 the goalposts are going to do laps around the field, and the argument will go on till we're blue in the face. I'm sure you've experienced it, I sure have with all the Russian/Balkan/Caucasus nationalist skinheads I've dealt with in the past on here. There will always be some inconsistently applied argument to summon up to prevent people from making edits someone doesn't like. I'd say just call an RfC and let closers determine it -- AGF is important but so is realizing when the other side is not interested in coming to an agreement.--Calthinus (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Rather spurious arguments, I might add. First it can not, now it should not. It is quite obvious that Weiss's expert opinion on Omar has been covered widely in secondary sources - including WaPo. Omar herself responded to Weiss. It is quite clear that not only can this be included - it should and must be included. Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Since some people seem to have trouble with the idea that different arguments can support the same position, let me spell it out: (A) Most op-eds cannot be cited as sole sources of criticism in BLPs. (B) This op-ed should not be cited at all, given that (1) A applies to it and (2) any text it might support is already covered by third-party sources. Explaining A and then B is not "moving the goalposts"; it's providing multiple reasons for the same premise.

When users find themselves arguing strenuously for the inclusion of a citation that merely provides one person's contentious opinion and isn't needed to support the text, they should maybe ask themselves how exactly this is meant to serve the reader. The part about "expert opinion" is pure bullshit; Bari Weiss is a journalist and columnist. She's not a diplomat or scholar. No one has provided any published sources vouching for her as an "expert" on anti-Semitism whatsoever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf whenever I find myself arguing "strenuously" with you (trust me, it's not really strenuous) I know I must be on the right track. And you're correct, most editors on this page will have trouble understanding your shifting and inconsistent arguments. No one really cares about your biased evaluation (see ad hominem) of Bari Weiss. It's a thorough and well-researched op-ed, reliable WP:SECONDARY determined it to be relevant, and, perhaps most importantly, the subject responded to it. Therefore, the citation—without making any additional text edits to the article, even—provides necessary context to the reader. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

huh. nableezy - 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Read the discussion above if you're confused. This an op-ed that received WP:SECONDARY coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not confused. When this was put this in it was an op-ed by itself. You seem to have widely different standards for inclusion depending on if the subject agrees with your own views or not. That strikes me as a problem. This probably is not the best place to discuss user conduct issues though. nableezy - 17:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You are apparently very confused, or makings up; either way, if you want to talk about user conduct, don't make accusations without evidence or having done your research. I don't know what you're accusing me of inserting. My first edit to the section included only secondary sources; another editor inserted the Weiss source, along with a secondary, as well as an in-text attribution, and I later revised what was already on the page without adding or removing any sources. Scroll up for my explanation of the difference between my edits to the page you linked and my arguments here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

After this edit was made, and when you made this comment, this was the state of the article. See how the only source about Weiss' op-ed is Weiss' op-ed? See how you are saying that the op-ed is reliable to use? See how that is the exact opposite position you take on this edit? Scroll up indeed. nableezy - 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy:Really going at it with the ad hominems, I see. You also happen to be completely wrong. Reliability is a separate issue from the propriety of using op-eds without that have not received secondary coverage. The Greenwald piece, as far as I could tell, did not. When I made my comment about reliability in the diff you linked above, the line about Weiss linked to both a primary and a secondary source (the original op-ed and the secondary source covering it). If the Weiss piece had not received any secondary coverage, I would agree with leaving it out. However, it has. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There was not a secondary source. The TOI source that was at the end of the sentence does not once mention the op-ed. I posted the permanent links for a reason. nableezy - 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy I would add that the Greenwald blurb that Wikieditor19920 correctly removed is a false equivalence as it actually has a flagrant BLP violation -- Glenn Greenwald has criticized her pro-Israel and anti-Islam stances -- "anti-Islam stances" implies she is an Islamophobe. Nothing Wikieditor19920 has defended on this page that I have seen has anything nearly as damning as that accusation in Wikipedia's voice that he removed.--Calthinus (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I dont actually have even a little bit of a problem with that edit. Opinion pieces should not be used in BLPs, or most other articles for that matter. But in all BLPs, not just for biographies of people who share an editors view. But wait, we can have allegations of anti-semitism but an allegation of Islamaphobia is a BLP violation? You want to run that one back? nableezy - 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point: Wikieditor's edit on this page did not accuse Omar of anti-Semitism in Wikipedia's voice. The one he removed on Weiss' page did accuse Weiss of Islamophobia in Wikipedia's voice -- which is WP:BLP.--Calthinus (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Which would have been resolved by saying "what he describes as her anti-Islam views" now wouldnt it have? You can act like there is a difference here, but there is not. nableezy - 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This thread is now disrupted and confusing to follow; however, if you think they're the same, then go ahead and find a WP:SECONDARY that covers Greenwald's opinion. If you can, and you're able to frame it neutrally, you'll have no objection from me. However, I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And right at the end of the next sentence was the WaPo piece referencing Weiss's op-ed, along with Omar's response. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see that, you are right that existed. Wasnt exactly a part of your justification, in fact it was only an hour later you even mentioned any coverage of the op-ed here. nableezy - 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: (Redacted) you're not citing policies that support your position. A secondary source quoting a single line of an essay means that the source found that one line relevant to what they wanted to say. That's where the evaluation and interpretation provided by secondary sources comes in. It doesn't follow that we should consider the entire essay relevant or direct readers to it. In fact, I don't see where either WaPo or Haaretz quote anything from Weiss's piece; therefore there's no justification for even using it as a supplement to the secondary-source coverage.

As for my "biased evaluation", your view that Weiss's essay is "thorough and well-researched" is no less biased, and is irrelevant to WP policies and guidelines in any case. If you can demonstrate that Weiss is a "recognized expert" on the history of anti-Semitism, by all means do so, since the claim of expertise is what I was responding to.

Omar responded to Weiss; so what? She is not herself a reliable source (go ahead and accuse me of "ad hominem" for saying that). If the response gets RS coverage, we can mention that. If the op-ed gets RS coverage, we can also mention that. We can go by what secondary RSes have to say. Neither makes the rest of Weiss's commentary that RSes chose to ignore relevant to a BLP article. Directing readers to that commentary would be the only reason to cite the op-ed here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I'll just ignore the personal attack. You are indeed employing faulty reasoning by shifting your arguments, ignoring clearly-stated policy that does not support your position like WP:BLPPRIMARY, and showing clear bias in how you're evaluating the sources—reliability does not depend on whether you agree with the source's analysis.

And let's just review how Haaretz and WaPo referred to her piece:

WaPo Bari Weiss, a New York Times columnist, explained to Omar why many Jews found it so offensive in a biting commentary last week that prompted Omar to backpedal and apologize for not putting enough energy into “disavowing the anti-Semitic trope I unknowingly used.”

Haaretz Freshman Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar responded to New York Times writer Bari Weiss’ article on the anti-Semitic undertones of the lawmaker accusing "Israel has hypnotized the world" to carry out "evil."

And another: Forward This is not the first time Omar has apologized after being accused of anti-Semitism. After being called out by New York Times columnist Bari Weiss last month, Omar apologized for her 2012 tweet claiming that Israel had “hypnotized the world.”

We've now established that we have multiple secondary sources affirming the relevance of the op-ed and that it prompted a response from the subject. Now let's also review what WP:BLPPRIMARY states: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. The Weiss op-ed doesn't constitute original research, the source is objectively reliable, and it provides valuable context to the reader. And finally, let me clarify that what I and other editors are proposing is citing the op-ed, not changing the wording that's already in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same arguments you've made before. Yes, Omar responded – that has zero relevance to whether we consider Weiss to be a reliable source. Yes, WP:BLPPRIMARY allows primary sources to supplement secondary coverage subject to the restrictions of this policy. Well, what are those restrictions? They include requiring reliable, secondary sources for "criticism and praise". "Reliable" generally excludes opinion pieces, so there's one strike against the source right there. And there's very little "discussion" of the contents of Weiss's essay, as I'll demonstrate shortly. Indeed, The Washington Post mentions the exchange only in passing, by way of background to Omar's appearance on The Daily Show where Trevor Noah asked her about the tweet. I have no idea what you mean by "objectively reliable", but that's not how we evaluate sources in any case.

You've linked to the policy on due and undue weight, which says nothing about the "relevance" of primary sources. Instead, it talks about representing fairly all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Well, what are the "significant viewpoints" represented here? As described in the sources you've provided, Weiss "explained to Omar why many Jews found [her comments] so offensive" and described the "anti-Semitic undertones" of the tweet (The Forward saying she "called out" Omar doesn't really describe a "viewpoint"). The part Omar responded to also includes Weiss opining, "Perhaps Ms. Omar is sincerely befuddled and not simply deflecting". If all this summed up what Weiss had to say, I might be inclined to agree with citing her essay here, but it doesn't.

In the process of explaining the anti-Semitic undertones present, Weiss mentions Omar in the same breath as a Nazi propaganda film produced by "Joseph Goebbels himself", examines an unrelated, "controversial" tweet Omar wrote about Lindsey Graham as evidence of Omar's supposed "predilection for making accusations based on nothing more than prejudiced stereotypes", and says that all this proves "no party has a monopoly on speciousness". Her conclusion is that Omar represents an "intellectual climate that sees Jews as bearers both of monstrous moral guilt and of the secret power to conceal it". This goes well beyond analyzing a single anti-Semitic tweet.

Oddly, the third-party news outlets here ignore the implied comparison to Goebbels, the critique of Omar's "prejudiced" and "specious" reasoning, and making Omar the figurehead of an anti-Jewish "intellectual climate". If that's the kind of "valuable context" you hope to give readers, then you need to re-read WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your independent analysis of her op-ed and arguments disputing her points might be interesting, but it is also pretty blatant WP:OR. Perhaps you should write your own op-ed in response, but not here. Op-eds are not automatically unreliable; per WP:NEWSORG, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (emphasis added.) The viewpoint is Weiss's, and it's one that has WP:WEIGHT based on secondary reporting, so let's not get off-topic here. Again, policy allows inclusion of the citation, and because it initiated the exchange between Weiss and Omar, it clearly provides valuable context. That you find her or her points disagreeable does not change this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

On a further note, I find your last point about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP perplexing. Wikipedia editors and articles are subject to WP:NPOV; opinion columnists are not required to be neutral. Weiss, as a columnist, is stating her opinion; she is not making false factual assertions about the subject of this BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how long you plan to keep repeating the same points again and hoping something sticks, but I certainly wish you luck obtaining consensus that way. Once again, "allowed" doesn't mean "encouraged". Consensus may determine that something should be omitted in many similar cases where policy does not strictly prohibit something. Likewise, no one is disputing that op-eds are reliable as primary sources. I thought I was clear enough that I meant "reliable, secondary sources" when I said that op-eds were generally excluded, but apparently not.

Your opinion that the essay gives "valuable context" is no less original research than my opinion to the contrary, given that none of the "context" – beyond the existence of certain "undertones" – is mentioned by any of the other sources. When you say Weiss's viewpoint has weight, which viewpoint, out of the several she put forward, do you mean? The viewpoint that Omar is some kind of anti-Jewish mastermind infiltrating the House Foreign Affairs Committee is certainly not given any weight by third-party sources here.

Finally, I'm not interested in disputing any of Weiss's assertions. I bring them up to show that most of what she has to say about Omar has received no independent coverage in the news media and is the kind of contentious opinion that we wouldn't put in an encylopedic biography anyway, so has little to no relevance here at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

...opinion columnists are not required to be neutral – that doesn't mean we go out of our way to direct readers to contentious opinions published about the subject, especially where they have been ignored by independent RSes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I'd call any comparisons of living people to Nazi propaganda ministers pretty sensationalist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue responding to these winding, dishonest arguments. You are now making assertions that are provably false:

• A) that doesn't mean we go out of our way to direct readers to contentious opinions published about the subject, especially where they have been ignored by independent RSes The Weiss op-ed has been noted by several secondary sources, including WaPo, Haaretz, and Forward.
• B) I bring them up to show that most of what she has to say about Omar has received no independent coverage in the news media and is the kind of contentious opinion that we wouldn't put in an encylopedic biography anyway, so has little to no relevance here at all. Quotes from three sources have already been provided directly disproving this—when a source says "Weiss's op-ed" they don't mean 50% or 25% or just the first two paragraphs—they are referring to the op-ed.
• C) You are misrepresenting what was written in the op-ed. She did not explicitly compare Omar to a Nazi; she noted Nazi propaganda's place in the history of the antisemitic canard of "Jewish hypnosis" and related why she deemed Omar's use of the term offensive. See as follows:

The Jewish power to hypnotize the world, as Ms. Omar put it, is the plot of Jud Süss — the most successful Nazi film ever made. In the film, produced by Joseph Goebbels himself, Josef Süss Oppenheimer, an 18th-century religious Jew, emerges from the ghetto, makes himself over as an assimilated man, and rises to become the treasurer to the Duke of Württemberg. Silly duke: Allowing a single Jew into his city leads to death and destruction.

She then gives Omar the benefit of the doubt:

Perhaps Ms. Omar is sincerely befuddled and not simply deflecting. Because sentiments like these, once beyond the pale of our public discourse, are being heard with greater frequency and volume these days, allow me to explain why this Jewish American, and almost every Jewish American I know, found her words so offensive.

• D) By definition, all op-eds contain some highly opinionated content. If they didn't, newspapers would stop publishing them, because they'd be so boring that no one would read them and no secondary sources would ever give them a lick of coverage. Fortunately, the very sensible members of the WP community who developed these policies acknowledge this; that's why an opinion piece may be considered reliable for that author's opinion, but not a statement of fact.

Your argument boils down to the fact that you find her opinions objectionable and therefore believe that we should omit the citation to her piece so that readers won't be directed to it. I'm not here to defend Weiss's arguments, but I will argue against double standards for content. There is no reason not to include the citation when it is permitted by policy and offers background to readers who visit this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

...winding, dishonest arguments... Pot, meet kettle. I've lost track of how many times you've repeated the same points ad nauseam in these WP:TEXTWALLs of yours. But I'll have a go at responding: (A) Weiss's op-ed has been "noted" how? As a simple call-out, or a "biting commentary" that explained "the anti-Semitic undertones" of the tweet. That leaves out a good deal of Weiss's commentary and omits any "discussion" of Weiss's arguments. (B) Why do the news media only mention one aspect of Weiss's commentary and leave out her statements about Omar as a person? The op-ed and Omar's response to it are mentioned as a thing that happened – you know, news – mostly in the context of the furore over the later AIPAC twet. Only Haaretz focuses on the exchange between Weiss and Omar, and a good 80% of that article is about Omar herself. (C) I said "Weiss mentions Omar in the same breath as" Goebbels the Nazi film, which is true, and called it an "implied comparison" to Goebbels. You're going after a straw man there. Is Weiss giving Omar "the benefit of the doubt" by asking if she's "sincerely befuddled", or making a sarcastic jab? Your analysis looks like WP:OR to me. (D) Yawn; more WP:OR. And no one is disputing that op-eds are reliable primary sources. You've repeatedly said that you're not proposing adding any content with the op-ed as a source, so I don't see what you're driving at with that one. (Etc.) What "double standards for content" are you talking about? I haven't said anything about the content of the article whatsoever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason not to include the citation when it is permitted by policy and offers background to readers who visit this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So you have said multiple times now. That is your opinion. Consensus may determine otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If not, I hope it's for a better reason than editors being prejudiced against her opinions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe all I've said about Weiss's opinions so far is that they are "contentious", and yes, somewhat "sensationalist". Are you suggesting otherwise? Because that would seem to be a shift from your repeated assertion that Weiss's op-ed is valuable simply as "context" and "background". Watch out for those moving goalposts now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"contentious"? Far from it - it seems there is wide bi-partisan recognition on the nature of Omar's statements. In an era of increased partisan polarization - seeing Democrats and Republicans both repudiate Omar for her statements is rather unusual. So no - nothing contentious or sensationalist here. Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As I stated above, Weiss has some very personal commentary about Omar's character, thought processes , and intellectual pedigree that goes well beyond repudiating specific statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any of that. What is clear is that you don't personally like her opinion—as you may or may not know, that is not a reason to keep a citation out of an article. Frankly, you're the only one I see in this section continuing to raise hell about it; everyone else seemed to understand and accept that an op-ed that's received secondary coverage may indeed be cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been one long filibuster full of strawmen, Whataboutism, goalpost marathons, and all the like. There is no proposal to include anything from Weiss that is personal et cetera ("thought processes" -- what? I did not see that in the article...). As Icewhiz noted, in one of the most partisan eras this seems to be one of the (few) controversies that has the core right and the core left on the same side -- and, oddly enough, the alt left aligned with the alt right including David Duke, a staunch defender of Ilhan Omar on this issue [[3]] and the Venezuela one too -- really they do have some common isolationalist ground on foreign policy :). --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: that's the third time now you've accused me of personally disliking Weiss's opinions. I guess if the first two times had no effect, this must be the one where it sticks, right? As I've already explained, most of Weiss's commentary got no "secondary coverage" in the sources provided. A few passing mentions are not the same as evaluation and analysis. I summarized Weiss's statements about Omar's character etc. in an earlier comment. Please explain how those statements do not count as "personal commentary". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Accuse you? Do you think you haven't made it blatantly obvious what your opinion about Weiss is? What do you mean "most of her op-ed got no coverage?" We have three quotes on this page referencing the op-ed. You are engaging in hairsplitting to the point of absurdity; they don't have to give a blow-by-blow of her every syllable. We have established that the op-ed received secondary coverage; per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we may now rely on the op-ed to supplement what's been addressed in the secondary sources. Including the citation is a no-brainer, because the page already discusses the op-ed directly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To repeat, do you or do you not agree that the statements summarized here include personal commentary about Omar herself? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Who's statements, Weiss's, or your characterization of what she wrote? Neither is relevant to the discussion of how WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here. Weiss's opinions are just that; her opinions. The column's focus is Omar's remarks and Weiss's arguments as to why they are supposedly antisemitic. That's what was referenced by the sources above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as confirmation that Weiss did write personal commentary in her op-ed. As I already stated, a good deal of that commentary does not focus on Omar's tweet or the history of the trope she invoked. And three passing mentions do not constitute much "discussion" of the contents of the op-ed as described under WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not think her commentary was overtly personal. Nor does it matter—I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but the focus of the op-ed and what was noted by secondary sources was indeed her analysis of Omar's remarks. I'm not going to continue this debate; we have sufficient coverage to cover the exchange in the article, and we have reason (and a basis in policy) to include the citation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that having the op-ed there doesn't significantly add to an understanding the article text, since everything there is supported by third-party sources. Readers can check the refs and click through to the op-ed from there if they are so inclined. What it does offer are tidbits such as her predilection for making accusations based on nothing more than prejudiced stereotypes – you really don't think that's "overtly personal" commentary? I have tried not to emphasize such language on a BLP talk page, but I don't see any other way of responding here. I don't believe we should go out of our way to direct readers to such material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To a degree, I understand what you are saying. When a commentator says something that could be perceived as an unjust or vitriolic criticism, I can understand why it might elicit at least concerns about WP:BLP. I don't happen to think that Weiss's commentary meets that standard, but I also recognize that others might. For example, I would not advocate including some portions of her commentary that you pointed out, and leave it to what has been directly addressed by WP:SECONDARY sources (that way, we can avoid editors introducing WP:POV by picking and choosing what to include). However, I still maintain that the citation brings something to the table; because the exchange and op-ed is directly addressed, it seems odd not to include it. My position is that the most potentially inflammatory portions of the op-ed can be left out, but we should include the citation, and if readers so choose to follow it, let them make of it what they will. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Letting readers "make of it what they will" is not the mission of an encyclopedia. "We report, you decide" is the wrong slogan. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The mission of an encyclopedia is to provide information—or in this case, where the information is coming from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And the goal of editors should be to follow policy, not make prejudiced determinations about which sources are cited and which are not based on which align with our personal sensibilities. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That "understanding" didn't last long, did it? That's the fourth time you've accused me of prejudice. Old habits die hard, I guess. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes

I've added pending change to the article although frankly I think it could use WP:ECP. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I was thinking of asking for semi-protection (too WP:INVOLVED to do it myself), but hopefully pending changes works. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: we can see if anything useful gets accepted. If not, and particularly if non-ECP but auto-confirmed editors are a problem, ECP. Doug Weller talk 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For some reason that didn't work. I tried a again but failed. Twinkle showed that it had worked which is odd, but I went ahead and set it through Twinkle successfully Doug Weller talk 06:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela section

This is how the Venezuela section should be written up:

• In January 2019, amid the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Omar condemned the Trump administration's decision to recognize Juan Guaidó, the leader of the Venezuelan national assembly, as the new president of Venezuela, send $20 million in humanitarian assistance to Guaidó's government, and threaten action if Nicolas Maduro, who also claimed to be president of Venezuela, resorted to violence to stay in power. She said that this was a "U.S. backed coup in Venezuela" and that Guaidó was part of the "far-right opposition" (Guaidó's party is considered centrist or center-left). Her position was out of sync with that of the most congressional Democrats and Republicans, who had condemned what they described as a "sham election" conducted by Maduro.

References

Editors keep edit-warring out the text contextualizing her fringe commentary about the Venezuela situation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What about the fact that she was also criticized for tacitly supporting the incumbent/dictator, according to [at least https://www.jpost.com/International/Congresswoman-Omar-slammed-for-supporting-Venezuelas-brutal-regime-578748 one reliable source?] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not how it should be written for at least three reasons.

1. The sources do not support the claim that she condemns the things you are claiming she condemns. The sources given say "she said this, which we think must mean this other thing". Wholly unsuited for BLP.

2. We shouldn't be playing "gotcha" in Wikipedia articles in regards to statements of party ideology classification (e.g. "x congressman claimed Bernie Sanders was a socialist, but is policies are actually social democratic")

3. That a politician's policy position is accepted by <50% of their fellow party members is not mentioned in typical "political position" sections, and its inclusion here would be highly selective.Masebrock (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Masebrock. With particular emphasis on point 2: that's synthesis in its purest form. --JBL (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The source covers Omar's assertion and explains that it's false. It's not synthesis at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(2) It's not "playing gotcha" - it's explaining to readers that her classification of the party is false, just as we would explain that various Trump statements are false. (3) it's actually very common to mention when a politician bucks his/her party, because that is very notable (RS certainly find it important enough to mention). Just see the Walter B. Jones Jr. page which has been active today. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans don't rely on WP:OTHER for content. Just stick to what the sources say and don't introduce any of your own facts or research to make a point. That would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is what I think the other two editors are getting at. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No "own facts or research" has been introduced. The text is strictly based on what's in the sources. I addressed the WP:OTHER arguments made by the other users, because they were simply blatantly false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have gone with wording other than "out of sync," which sounds like editorializing, but now that I've read the sources, it's clear that what you wrote is supported. I agree this is better than what's currently in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

On many other policy position's of hers (free college, medicare for all, aboloshing ICE, ect) she bucks her party majority. But only on Venezuela do we describe her position as "out of sync"? That can't help but feel rather selective.Masebrock (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Because RS mention it as notable. And supporting "free college, medicare for all, aboloshing ICE" are clearly not fringe positions within the Democratic Party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, are you going to address issue #1, that these sources do not actually provide evidence for their claims of what she believes? Masebrock (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are two RS that are cited and the text mirrors those sources. Can you please explain which part you believe is unsourced? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't like the wording "out of sync" and it would be preferable to include her quote rather than an editors paraphrase, but the sources does say: The position of Gabbard, Khanna and Omar is not shared by a majority of Democrats in Congress, including congressional leaders. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who traveled to Venezuela in 2017 and met with Maduro, said Maduro followed through with a “sham election” to pack a constituent assembly with his supporters, making this week’s action necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your text does not mirror the source. She did not actually say she condemns the things you are claiming, and even the Miami Herald article, doesn't say she actually condemns them. The second paragraph of the article reads as, "here is what she said condemns, and here is what we think it means", and your interpretation on Wikipedia conflates the two. That the Miami Herald clumsily tries to pass off their least-charitable interpretation of her statements as her position, should give pause to us categorizing the article as a RS in this regard. An honest investigation of nuances of Omar's position should probably start elsewhere.

Let me break your wording down, claim by claim, to make my point clear:

You write "Omar condemned the Trump administration's decision to (1.) recognize Juan Guaidó, the leader of the Venezuelan national assembly, as the new president of Venezuela, (2.) send $20 million in humanitarian assistance to Guaidó's government, (3.) and threaten action if Nicolas Maduro, who also claimed to be president of Venezuela, resorted to violence to stay in power."

Your texts presents these as three things she supposedly condemns. The sources provide sufficient evidence that she condemns the first claim, and no evidence she condemns the second, and the third being an inappropriate extrapolation (no evidence she said anything in regards to the military of Venezuela "resorting to violence", this is putting words in her mouth).Masebrock (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Your text does not mirror the source." This is what the Miami Herald says: "Three members of Congress, California Rep. Ro Khanna, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, have released statements condemning the U.S. action in Venezuela, which so far amounts to the recognitio of Guaidó, $20 million in humanitarian assistance to the Venezuelan opposition and the threat of further action if Nicolas Maduro, whom the administration sees as an illegitimate president, resorts to violence." I stick to what the source says. If the source is wrong, point to alternative RS that phrase it differently or contradict this language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You do not stick to what the source says, because you omit the critical words "which so far amounts", that indicate the author is switching from describing her beliefs to explaining what he believes the broader situation to be. If an article says "Tom says he likes pizza, which is the worst food imaginable" we don't get to say on Wikipedia "Tom says he likes the worst food imaginable". You are confusing the claims of Omar with the claims of the author.Masebrock (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Those three things are not "what the author believes," they are what's happening. It is not a switch to opinion, it is describing "the U.S. action in Venezuela." They are the same thing. Parabolist (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this particular argument. If the author writes "Tom says he likes pizza, which is a round food" (fact!), we don't say on Wikipedia "Tom says he likes round foods". To add context in the Wikipedia voice, we would normally say something like "Tom says he likes pizza.[1] Pizza is a round food.[2]" to make it clear that Tom did not actually say he "likes round foods".Masebrock (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

These analogies don't make any sense and aren't helping. The phrase "U.S. action in Venezuela" is composed of the recognition, the aid, and the threats. They are the actions that the U.S. has taken in Venezuela. You keep implying there is some extrapolation or bridging here, when there is not. If the suggested text was using the source to say "Omar condemns U.S. foreign policy," this would be in line with what you're saying, but it is not. Parabolist (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Two issues:

1.These are not the only actions the U.S. has taken in regards to Venezuela. This is trivially easy to demonstrate this with reliable sources. For instance, the U.S. is imposing sanctions in Venezuela as well. The author is simply incorrect on the merits here, and we should not be parroting his incorrectness in the Wikipedia voice.

2.There's the question of ambiguity. Do we assume, again in the Wikipedia voice, that when Omar condemns "U.S. actions in Venezuela", she is condemning every possible action, including humanitarian aid? That's like writing "Bolton condemns the Chinese marching band" when Bolton says he "condemns China". That the Miami Herald article choose to interpret her views in cartoonishly un-charitable ways does not mean that we should repeat the same mistakes.Masebrock (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Masebrock here; we shouldn't be insinuating (because that's what it was) that Omar opposes things like humanitarian aid or responding to violence based off a single source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead

The policy is clear on this—MOS:LEAD states that prominent controversies must be addressed in the lead. This includes the AIPAC-antisemitism controversy regarding her recent tweets. This should be reinserted into the article:

A critic of Israel, Omar has attracted controversy for her position and comments on the issue. In 2019, she drew condemnation from Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House leadership, and a number of Jewish organizations for a tweet that was perceived as antisemitic, in which she suggested that American support for Israel was rooted in money spent by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). She later apologized for the tweet in a statement, and added that she "reaffirm[s] the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry."

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

What's the basis for the claim that this is a "prominent" controversy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is a complicated issue, and it needs to be properly described in the body of page. There are many different views about it. See, for example, Ilhan Omar is right about the influence of the Israel lobby. On a balance, I would not include this to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf Do some reading. The Wikipedia policy issue is not complex whatsoever - this has received coverage from just about every national media outlet in the country, and per MOS:LEAD it must be addressed in the opening. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between this and the discussion at Rashia Tlaib. Omar's comments received national coverage, but much of that coverage acknowledged that at least some of the outrage was exaggerated and politically motivated. The lead paragraph of political BLPs rarely include mentions of gaffes: Howard Dean's doesn't mention his notorious "scream", for instance. Moreover, Kevin McCarthy, Bob Dornan, Ron Paul, and Jesse Jackson have all had fairly high-profile accusations of antisemitism made against them. None of those instances are mentioned in the lead paragraph of their respective bios. Nblund ^talk 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that most of the OSE mentions here are not primarily known for said statements. Most of the coverage on Omar, to date, has focused on this - therefore inclusion is DUE for the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: In your edit summary removing the content, you said she is not known specifically for this. What you personally think she is known for is utterly irrelevant; the sources indicate this is a prominent controversy. MOS:LEAD is very clear on this: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The coverage justifies this characterization. And @Nblund: we can find plenty of examples of double standards on Wikipedia, but written policy is what guides content. Note that Eric Holder, Rick Scott, Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and Bill Clinton all mention prominent scandals/controversies in the opening paragraphs. Those are the articles that are following the stated policy of MOS:LEAD (just as an example). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not carry weight, nor do theories about whether or not the controversy is "politically motivated." This has been treated seriously by near every major outlet in the U.S. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that simply noticing all her views on different subjects in the lead, including her criticism of Israel and the alleged pro-Israel lobby organizations in the US would be OK. However, providing criticisms and responses to criticisms in the lead is a bad idea. We have a body of the page for that. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

According to policy, it's not a bad idea; it's actually required. If this were her campaign website, it would be a bad idea, but that's not Wikipedia is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

And the lead shouldn't note all of her views; it should only note the most significant issues based on WP:RS WP:SECONDARY coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• My very best wishes, thank you for removing that. There is no consensus for including it, and the arguments here are lousy. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article; this isn't one of them. And it should certainly not be stuck in the lead as the one single thing pertaining to her political life that's not just some biographical fact. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I work on a lot of articles on political figures and in my experience Drmies and My very best wishes are both correct. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Funny, I thought "importance" was largely determined by the sources, not the opinions of editors; apparently, that's a "lousy argument." It's also interesting that it's appropriate to address controversies in the lead for some articles, but isn't in others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"isn't in others". Which pages do you mean exactly? Let's fix them? More important, the controversy IS currently covered on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: She's probably better known for being a member of Congress than she is for this tweet. She's gained a great deal of notoriety for this in the last week - but it seems likely that it would fail the 10 year test. The average American probably remembers Howard Dean's scream far more clearly than they remember the 50 state strategy. But the former is not in the lead and the latter is.

@Wikieditor19920: to be frank, I think that you're adopting a strategy of gish gallop here that borders on disruptive. I'm sure you can see the difference between Bill Clinton's impeachment and Ilhan's tweet. WP:OTHERSTUFF can actually carry weight (read the essay) and there's no policy based reason for your suggestion that we should ignore reliably sourced stories that note the political motivations behind the outrage here. In general, political bios do not cover "gaffes" in the lead, but they do cover major scandals that have a lasting impact on the political trajectory of a career. This isn't an oversight or an inconsistency - those gaffes are usually covered in the article body - but the fact that the generally don't make it in to the lead reflects a widely held view among editors that many of these scandals are not essential for the lead paragraph. Nblund ^talk 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I've already made my point and clearly there's no consensus on this yet, but I'll respond because I was addressed directly. First of all, because you disagree with my points does not make them disruptive, so I would hope that you'd avoid citing that policy seemingly to silence opposing arguments; this is a sensitive and serious matter, and there should be a serious and policy-focused discussion when issues like this arise. Second, you are missing my point entirely with the Clinton/Dean analogy. Obviously the substance of the Clinton impeachment is different, but what determines WP:WEIGHT is WP:RS coverage, so it doesn't matter if it's a scandal over allegedly bigoted remarks, impeachment, or whatever: per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we should document what the sources say. Here, we have coverage from nearly every major outlet in the country, including the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc., so calling this "not important" or applying the 10YT (I'll just remind you of WP:CRYSTAL) seems to contradict the sources.

As far as the Dean scream and what the "average American" thinks, again, WP:DUE says Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public., so the decision to include the 50-state strategy instead of the scream may or may not be the right decision, I'll have to look into it—and again, this is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments shouldn't be made these types of discussions, because there are any number of examples that could support either side. Instead, we should look to policy, and since we're discussing the lead, MOS:LEAD seems the appropriate one to refer to. As far as "political bias," you're almost certainly correct (political gamesmanship over controversies? WP:YOUDONTSAY) but I don't see what bearing that has on the content itself. With respect to WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS, I don't think anyone should attempt to reinsert this into the article while the discussion plays out, but I hope that the final result reflects the best interpretation of WP policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not saying they're disruptive because I disagree with them, I'm saying they're disruptive because they're repetitive and unserious. No reliable source is going to justify comparing Tlaib's tweet to Clinton's impeachment - and it's a silly argument and it is time wasting and disruptive to ask me to refute it. Similarly, it is time wasting and disruptive to pretend that WP:OTHER (an essay) says that we shouldn't consider other articles (again, please read it). Similarly, it's not constructive to cite MOS:LEAD for a fifth time as if the problem is that every other editor hasn't seen it yet. Dial it back a little. Nblund ^talk 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And in my opinion, the "unserious" approach is the whole make-it-up-as-you-go-along, knee-jerk kind of evaluation you're engaging in, but that's just me. And again, you've missed my point completely - the key questions are "what do the sources say" and "what does policy say" - and please, point out to me where I said we shouldn't consider other articles. The analogy isn't between a tweet an impeachment - it's not even a comparison - it's looking at how prominently reported scandals/controversies were addressed in both. I've said what I have to say here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, do you think that the Clinton impeachment got more or less coverage than Tlaib's tweet? Do you understand that, when I said that gaffes rarely get covered in BLP leads, I wasn't really talking about one of the most significant political scandals in American history as a "gaffe"? Nblund ^talk 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're hung up on the wrong thing. Do you understand that I'm not comparing the two? What I'm saying is very simple: when something receives significant coverage, it is accorded WP:WEIGHT. Whether something is a prominent controversy is determined by WP:WEIGHT by sources, and if it is, then it's appropriate to include in the lead per MOS:LEAD. The question isn't more or less, it's proportion. My policy analysis here, and of the sources, is that this reasoning justifies inclusion of the paragraph at the start of this talk section in the article's opening. Perhaps I'm wrong, and clearly others disagree, but please don't misrepresent my point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Everyone agrees. If someone chimes in to say that "prominent controversies shouldn't be covered", then you should go ahead and cite MOS:LEAD for a seventh time and talk about Bill Clinton, but until then, please stop doing that. Nblund ^talk 01:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, apparently I misunderstood: were you not objecting to covering this in the lead? I'm trying to address how this article currently whitewashes a major scandal over accusations of antisemitism, but we could talk about Bill Clinton and Howard Dean instead if you like. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It is in the news for a few days. It is not a "major scandal" just because you say so. WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and all that. nableezy - 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not recentism. The tweet was years ago, and controversy on the issue is not new either [[4]]. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean what is in the news right now is not recentism? Huh, learning new things everyday. That link does not support in any way that there is some controversy. Much less a prominent one. nableezy - 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Check the date again. It is a year ago. Her notability i.e. political career started in 2016 -- meaning that a year is proportionally a large span of time.--Calthinus (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh yeah, I said about that source That link does not support in any way that there is some controversy. Much less a prominent one. nableezy - 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy I don't need to show that the source specifically says there was a controversy (all I need is WP:SECONDARY coverage) but I can anyways: Omar’s tweets about Israel have earned her notoriety in the pro-Israel community. In 2012, she said that Israel had “hypnotized the world” to ignore its “evil doings.” Defending that tweet earlier this year, she said on the same platform that calling attention to the “Israeli Apartheid regime” was not anti-Semitic. That being said, personally I think this needs to be covered but maybe not explicitly in the lede (more like -- "has repeatedly been the subject of controversies regarding discourse about pro-Israel lobbying" in the lede, don't need to go into gory details there). --Calthinus (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Notoriety in the pro-Israel community" is not exactly evidence of there being some controversy. The argument was that this has been a significant controversy for some time. Then evidence of the controversy from some time would in fact be needed wouldnt it? All that said, I agree with your bottom line. I personally would not have a problem with a line like that in the lead. Maybe not that exact wording, but something similar. nableezy - 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"Notoriety" by almost any interpretation means controversy in this context. But cool maybe we can get somewhere with this -- @Nableezy, Wikieditor19920, and My very best wishes: do you think a good middle ground would be to have a simple line saying something to the effect of Omar has been the subject of repeated controversy regarding discourse about pro-Israel lobbying? Imo this would stay on the page as long as the controversy is persistent (her political career is about three years long and it has been a recurring theme during a good portion of that short time), to be removed when and if the issue is judged to have died down after some time. --Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a specific subset finds her comments controversial. I dont see how that makes it a significant controversy though. As far as the line, I would prefer Omar has made a number of comments regarding Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the effect of pro-Israel lobbying on American politics that have drawn controversy. nableezy - 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy this is very close to working with me, with only one issue as I see it -- the most controversial statement she made was not about the effect, but about the manner of pro-Israel lobbying. I think it would be better to just say regarding Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and pro-Israel lobbying that have drawn controversy. Does that work in your eyes?--Calthinus (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. nableezy - 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean we should leave it out. And WP:NOTNEWS sounds nice when you put it in a sentence like that, but the policy itself actually refers to original or routine reporting, not WP:SECONDARY coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It means it should not be overly emphasized. That we write biographies conservatively and with a longer view than the current news cycle. If this ends up being a significant piece of her biography, and there is literally no way of knowing that now, then sure it would make sense to cover it in the lead. But as of right now it is just whats in the news. You seem to have only looked at the first part of WP:NOTNEWS, not the part where it says While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style. nableezy - 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You are bending over backwards to try and make this policy support excluding this well-documented and heavily covered controversy, and it's just not working. This is not regarding a simple "news report," which is the section you pulled that from. The goal should be to evaluate sources, policy, and then determine what the outcome should be—it's pretty clear you think you know what the outcome should be and are now backtracking and trying to find support in policy in ways that just do not fit. And significance is determined by sources, not editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not. You didnt seem to respond to my comments at all, only repeating your own. I dont know if that is how you expect a debate to occur, but I repeat. If this ends up being a significant piece of her biography, and there is literally no way of knowing that now, then sure it would make sense to cover it in the lead. As of right now, the "controversy" is strictly the current news cycle. nableezy - 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a WP:CRYSTALBALL to add content. The controversies over her position and multiple comments on the Israel-Palestine conflict already is a significant aspect of her public profile and should be addressed in the lead. This is based on the sources, which include the NYT, CNN, WaPo, Haaretz, and numerous others. That's what our jobs as editors are; not to dismiss or question the legitimacy of controversies reported on by WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 does Omar has made a number of comments regarding Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and pro-Israel lobbying that have drawn controversy. work for you?--Calthinus (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Good suggestion! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well Nableezy also agreed to it above, so it looks like this issue is resolved. I'm going to implement it now. --Calthinus (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I still do not think this should be included in the lead per arguments above, and not only me (see discussion). I am not sure what Nableezy thinks. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes Nableezy agreed to it-- actually minus a difference of about three words (see discussion above) what I added was exactly his proposal. That aside, could you spell out what your issue with it is exactly so we can find a middle ground and move forward?--Calthinus (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Hey all. Not being aware of this discussion, I edited (and reverted once I realized this thread existed) the lead the remove the last sentence ("Omar has made a number of comments regarding Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and pro-Israel lobbying that have drawn controversy."). I did so based on a plain reading of MOS:BLPLEAD, which states "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." So, per that policy (and few others cited above), I'd say that sentence should be removed, but I won't do it unless we reach consensus. Drummerdg (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that single sentence is fine. But there is a problem with that. Its the only set of statements of hers that would be included in the lead. I think what actually should happen is there be a paragraph summarizing some of her political views, the ones we have in the article are

• Omar identifies as a democratic socialist."
• Free Tuition
• Criticism of Saudi, including calls for a boycott
• Israel, and this latest kerfuffle
• Support of LGBTQA rights
• Opposition to the US recognition of Guaido

Now me personally, I dont think the last merits much mention in the article much less the lead. And the material on this particular episode has been expanded to take up way too much space on her political positions. I am fine with the sentence above, but it needs to be included with other material on her views. The main problem that is happening at this article is that everybody is just writing about literally one news cycle, as though this is Controversy over Ilhan Omar's Tweet. It is not, and the rush to stuff in every last thing that somebody can find because it supports their position is making this article unbalanced. That is what WP:RECENTISM is about. Yes, recent material can and at times should be included in an article. But this is a biography. Nothing about her early life is in the lead. Nothing about spending time in a refugee camp. The only thing people are editing, and adding, is what is in the news right this second. And personally I think that a fundamentally bad thing for a biography. Yes, a line on this can be in the lead. But not as though this is the only position she has ever taken. nableezy - 01:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Quote obviously, there is no consensus to include in the manner it was included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's far too recent an event to be described as a major scandal quite yet. We generally let RSes make that determination. The fact that several major news outlets all reported essentially the same story doesn't mean this has enduring significance to Omar's biography. That's how the news cycle works; next week they'll have moved on to a different scandal.

The controversy over all her tweets, including those that exercised the "pro-Israel community", currently takes up 247 words (11%) of this 2,274-word bio (excluding headers, captions, etc.), which I think is is more than sufficient given the existing sourcing. Of the 87 sources currently cited in the article as a whole, only eight are reliable news outlets addressing this controversy. In terms of this article, that doesn't look like a "major scandal" to me. Including the anti-Semitism allegations as the only political event of her career specifically mentioned in the lead would be giving it undue weight, as Drmies pointed out, and would be out of proportion to the existing coverage of Omar's life and career.

According to numerous other sources, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Forward, Haaretz, and Vox, the latest controversy is as much about Republican leaders' hypocrisy and double standards as it is about Omar's comments. Jake Tapper on CNN made a whole skit about the irony of it. Nancy Pelosi later defended Omar, saying that Republicans didn't "have clean hands". To include only criticism of Omar in the lead section minus this context would be highly misleading and borderline defamatory a borderline WP:ATTACK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC))

I don't think it's productive to call this "defamatory" (that' a legal designation that may or may not apply), but I agree with basically everything else here. It's definitely not an improvement to vaguely reference "controversies" without offering any meaningful about the nature of the controversy. If this becomes a defining feature of Omar's career then it might be worth mentioning, but it's currently just a story-of-the-week. It's well covered in the main body, but you're going to need to wait a while to determine whether or not it warrants coverage in the lead. Nblund ^talk 03:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right; I've struck the word "defamatory". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The sentence, proposed by Nableezy with an edit of three words by me which he agreed to ("the effects of pro-Israel lobbying" > "pro-Israel lobbying") stated Omar has made a number of comments regarding Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and pro-Israel lobbying that have drawn controversy. There is no "criticism" in this sentence.--Calthinus (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that's splitting hairs. What's a "controversy", especially a political one, without "criticism"? The one involving Omar certainly involved a good deal of criticism by her detractors. No matter, simply replace the latter term with the former in what I wrote above, and I'll stand by it. Writing about unspecified "controversies" is still unduly vague and doesn't convey meaningful information, as Nblund observed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not splitting hairs. A controversy just means it is heated, often and with two sides. Here's Merriam Webster [[5]] : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. Here's Cambridge [[6]]: a disagreement, often a public one, that involves different ideas or opinions about something. This is clearly a disagreement, there are clearly two sides here, I really hope you can see this. And it is persistent. I know I will be asked to provide RS for every one of my talk page statements so here's one -- Ron Latz, a proven progressive, an ally of Keith Ellison, who has "qualms" (his words) about the Israeli government, who tried to reach out to her and help her understand why comments like these are dangerous, to no avail, and he now says we have to move past the "kid gloves" [[7]]. And yes, because I need secondary coverage for my talk page statements, enjoy the reading [[8]] [[9]] [[10]]. Controversy means it is heated and there are two sides, and when these facts are true (and they are here), and if we have persistence and extensive secondary coverage (which we do), we do include it in the lede. From the lede of Donald Trump, a good example (and one which I emphatically support hte current form of): His election and policies have sparked numerous protests. Many of his comments and actions have been perceived as racially charged or racist... Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A major part of my problem here is that this is vague the the point of being meaningless: it's not even clear from reading the statement whether Omar is critical or supportive of lobbying. The statement also references "a number of comments" - but the "number" here appears to be "2". The advice from WP:LABEL seems worth considering: "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." And none of this addresses the larger problem of notability. It's true that career-ending gaffes (like Todd Akin or Trent Lott's) sometimes show up in the lead, but we're not there yet. Nblund ^talk 15:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: We are not comparing this to "career-ending gaffes", my comparison above is to Donald Trump, which pretty extensively covers controversies, which, like Omar, have spanned up much of the time of his political career. Now regarding lobbyists, this is OR on your part, we do not have statements from Omar on "lobbyists" in general -- instead she singled out three in particular, and grouped AIPAC, which consists of mostly Jews, with the NRA and corporate fossil fuel forces who deny global warming. I personally am very skeptical that she is broadly against lobbies, in which case we might also be hearing about the LGBT lobby, et cetera. Lastly, that a Jewish pro-Israel lobby somehow "naturally" groups with the NRA and fossil fuel climate change denialists would be very, very POV (and problematic in other ways too).--Calthinus (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This cant be the only view of hers covered in the lead. I dont have a problem including it within a paragraph summarizing her positions. nableezy - 16:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I think you're misinterpreting my comment about lobbying. My point is that it's unclear from the sentence whether Omar supports or opposes lobbying in behalf of the Israeli government, or what position she takes on the Israel-Palestine conflict - it's so vague that a reader could just as easily assume that she made controversial pro-AIPAC comments. Donald Trump's racial controversies are so extensive that they have their own spinout article. Despite that, the lead in Trump's case still came as the result of a a contentious RfC. Lots of his other controversies (most notably the sexual assault allegations) were never included because of a lack of consensus. Omar's two tweets obviously don't even approach this level of notability - so this suggests the bar is fairly high here. Nblund ^talk 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As she clarified in her final comment, "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry". That is not OR. That is what she does - according to her. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy I would support adding a general paragraph on her views with Israel/Jewish related things being only one sentence. Down to work on such a section in my sandbox if you want/have sources/ideas to incorporate.--Calthinus (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nblund Okay I did misunderstand you. That is a good point that it's not clear if she supports or opposes AIPAC etc -- that could probably be fixed. But I want to point out that this is an incredibly unfair metric of comparison. Literally anything about Donald Trump is more notable than literally anything about Ilhan Omar -- one is the president of the most powerful country in the world -- and all these very notable things have to compete for inclusion in Trump's lede. In fact, if we were to include all the notable controversies concerning Trump in the lede , which might include, zoom in... (1. sexual assaults assault charges each of which is its own controversy, 2. "grab them by the p****", 3. imitating that reporter, 4. ripping off Polish workers, 5. relations with mafia, 6. hiring discrimination, 7. reportedly hiring illegal immigrants, 8. anti-Semitic "sheriff star", 9. Russiagate, 10. firing Comey within Russiagate, 11. business relations with totalitarian regimes, 12. business relations creating conflicts of interest -- let me take a breath -- 13. tax returns, 14. use of twitter in relation to professionalism, 15. frequency of untrue statements, 16. suspiciously Russophile foreign policy, 17. engaging in Soros conspiracy theories the day after the Pittsburgh attacks, 18. and actually sour relations with pretty much every minority in the US and the growth of white supremacist movements under his watch while he defunds programs to combat hate, 19. and how could we forget the border wall, 20. and the shutdown, 21. and the revolving door cabinet, 22. but not to forget quarreling with US allies and 23. criticisms from and bad relations with basically all living past presidents, 24. and then the bone spurs, 25. and the classist "small" million dollar loan, 26. did I mention Helsinki... ok I think I can stop now... oh wait there's so many I"m forgetting the most important ones like 27. the Muslim travel ban, 28. the trade war with China, 29. the trade war with everyone others, 30. Iran, 31. Jerusalem, 32. Paris Agreement and inaction on global warming, ok actually stopping now)... As you can see basically every one of Trump's controversies is going to be more notable (more press) than Omar's and they have to compete for inclusion, so we end up with just the general racism issue, the Russian investigation, and the border wall. Additionally, I don't know if the sexual assault victims would honestly be happy about being mentioned in his lede, I suspect not. Instead the relevant metric is the notability of the controversy relative to the other things that would go into the lede. Omar is known for basically four things at this point : (1) her current position -- already covered, (2) her background -- already covered, (3) hijab in Congress motion, (4) this.--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes if we have a source saying that she has made opposing lobbyists in general a core part of her platform, it could warrant mention, and you could persuade me to include that. --Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: are you seriously going to quote the dictionary at me to try and separate criticism and controversy, especially after you quoted For a controversial individual or organization, it is likely that many sources have criticized the person or the group. A well-sourced summary of these criticisms should appear in the article at me earlier? Pull the other one. This controversy was over a tweet that people called anti-Semitic. That's not the same as any old disagreement, like the proper spelling of "aluminium". This was a directed criticism that prompted an apology in response. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, yes, just like you can't change the rules, you can't change the English language. One quote from a wiki policy page -- which readers generally don't read -- does not change the meaning of the word controversy. The proposed version doesn't even mention the debatably anti-Semitic tweet, it merely mentions that she made controversial statements, without saying what they were -- so how is this relevant? For all the reader knows at this point in the article it could be that she declared a crusade against mayonnaise and the mayo lobby was offended :) (I would support this crusade/jihad against mayonnaise very passionately). If you just want to argue with me because I"m a very punchable guy, you can do so without wasting public talk page space on my talk page, where it won't waste everyone else's time, and you can truly annihilate my blasphemy against mayonnaise. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Suggestion A supporter of the Boycott, Divestement, Sanctions campaign against Israel, Omar's position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and criticisms of American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbyists have drawn some controversy and accusations of bias, characterizations which Omar has disputed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Suggestion Two An outspoken critic of Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns, Omar has expressed support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction campaign and criticized American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. Some of her comments on the subject have prompted accusations of bias, which Omar has disputed or apologized for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No to both, because this is cherry-picking and unduly emphasizing negative coverage about a living person. Please see comments by Nableezy above - that could be something reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: And how would you suggest they be amended? A reminder that repeatedly objecting to other editors proposals without any constructive suggestions or references to policy could be construed as WP:STONEWALLING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I believe the statement  Please see comments by Nableezy above - that could be something reasonable is what's called a "constructive suggestion". Care to retract that accusation? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 I actually don't like this, I don't think her support of BDS is itself notable enough for inclusion in this case, as the controversy has centered around her comments about AIPAC. In fact her support for BDS has been tepid at times, she has mentioned she has "reservations", so maybe its not the best thing to put in the lede. --Calthinus (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for views paragraph going off Nableezy's idea -- a rough sketch of what to include -- 1 sentence for Israel/AIPAC/Jews related stuff, 1 sentence for Saudi stuff, 1 sentence Dem Socialist and related things (universal healthcare, minimum wage raise, tuition for those from families making less than 125 grand -- these go together, it can be slightly longer than others), and lastly 1 sentence for immigration views. Other issues are very specific (LGBT rights, Venezuela) and hard to group into another sentence.--Calthinus (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will draft a new version. Hopefully one that doesn't place too much on the "Jews related stuff" as to make other editors uncomfortable. Her other policies have not received as much coverage as her commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I've found at least one source to draw from, the Cut.

A progressive, Omar supports access to a living wage, affordable housing and healthcare, student loan debt forgiveness, the protection of DACA, and the abolition of ICE. She has strongly opposed the immigration policies of the Trump administration, including the travel ban. As a member of the congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, Omar has also been an outspoken critic of Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns and expressed limited support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction[11] campaign and criticized American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. Some of her comments on the subject have prompted accusations of bias, which Omar has disputed or apologized for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Support but Wikieditor19920 I think to shorten the "Jewsrael" part of the paragraph, we can reduce the middle of the third sentence to ... Foreign Affairs Committee, Omar has been an outspoken critic of Israeli government policy, expressed limited support for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction[12] campaign, and criticized pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. -- this both reduces it and cuts one possibly contentious aspect, namely the word "influence" which can be interpreted as a dogwhistle (and has, in George Soros' lead). Actually also, not sure how to fix it but many critics don't necessarily accuse Omar of bias but do take issue with her commentary and the last sentence is kind of missing that (it says only accuse her of bias -- perhaps called her statements bigoted -- less personal?) --Calthinus (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, though I don't think the term "Jewsrael" is one that should be used on talk pages. Honestly, I disagree with at least some of your suggestions. Influence is exactly what she was criticizing. I went with bias over bigotry or antisemitism even though the sources provide more support for the latter two as a compromise. They are essentially synonyms in this context. Here's how the NYT put it: Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 There's no difference for me between bias and bigotry in this context. I didn't even realize I replaced it. Re influence, an easy way to fix it then is to say "what she sees as the influence of" -- that way we are not using Wikipedia's voice to factually assert anything (implicitly or not) about said "influence". --Calthinus (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I think the wording you proposed addresses that well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks -- not trying to make things more complicated, but her statement on the Monroe Doctrine is possibly also valuable for describing her overall foreign policy vision ([13]), but on the other hand I am struggling to find secondary sources on that.--Calthinus (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Drmies said, "The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article; this isn't one of them". My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Is that based on the sources, or your personal opinion? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at BLP pages of other members of the United States House of Representatives, you will see that the leads almost never describe their personal views (even though they do have views described in sources). On this page and a couple of other pages we have way too much coverage on the personal views and controversies, even in the body of the pages. This is WP:Recentism and skewing the content. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not about about identifying her personal views. First, these have been reported as her views on policy. Second, for a politician who has been embroiled in a nationally covered controversy, their openings should and usually do address it in the lead. It's improper to dismiss or diminish this controversy, and the current iteration of the page presents a real NPOV problem: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, these are about stupid twitter nonsense, not about policy. Stupid twitter nonsense seems really important for 15 minutes and then, because it is stupid twitter nonsense and not connected to anything substantive, it goes away. This happens over and over and over again. NPOV absolutely, completely, 100% does not require that "there was a controversy about a tweet" headlines end up in the lead section of any article, ever. Your reading would put NPOV in direct contradiction of its supplement Recentism; this is not a defensible perspective. --JBL (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Wikieditor19920's suggested change would be an improvement, but my view is that we still can't really tell whether or not this is a sustained controversy or just another short-lived media firestorm. There probably isn't any wording that will fix that fundamental problem. If the editors that want this want to start an RFC or solicit additional views at the BLP noticeboard, maybe that's worthwhile - but I strongly suspect that the outcome will still be "no consensus" at this point. I'm open to revisiting this in a few weeks if the story is persistent. Nblund ^talk 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Nblund. I've inserted the first half of the paragraph on her views, but left out the section on Israel. I'd just like to say that no editor, no matter how well versed in policy, can predict the future, so I think we should be making content decisions over the information we already have available and not what may or may not be true in several weeks. I also disagree with the supposed distinction between a controversy that's the result of a "media firestorm" versus a legitimate one. We can assume that any "real" controversy would unquestionably be followed by intense media coverage, so I think it's sort of inappropriate for editors to be expressing personal opinions over what's real versus what isn't. Any issue that's received this degree of coverage should be treated seriously, and not dismissed as "twitter nonsense." (What's the difference between a tweet and, say, a remark in an interview, or a press release? WP:RS don't appear to treat them any differently.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is about unverifiable speculation being inserted into articles, not about whether to take a "wait-and-see" approach to controversies of an extremely recent nature. It's reasonable to wait for sources to evaluate the incident in retrospect, so we don't end up disproportionately focusing on such events in the article. We're not under deadline here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait for what, exactly? There's a difference between a cautious approach and filibustering, particularly when we already have substantial WP:SECONDARY coverage such as:

• The New York Times, Ilhan Omar Apologizes for Statements Condemned as Anti-Semitic
• The Washington Post, Rep. Omar apologizes after House Democratic leadership condemns her comments as ‘anti-Semitic tropes’
• CNN, Omar: 'I unequivocally apologize' after backlash over new Israel tweets
• JPOST, The 'antisemitic' actions and consequences of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar
• Forward, Ilhan Omar Tweeted Something Anti-Semitic. Again.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's reasonable to wait for sources to evaluate the incident in retrospect, as I stated in the comment you just replied to. Reading people's actual words can really help with understanding what they mean. And two of your sources there are opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are generally unreliable for statements of fact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, and each of these pieces addresses the incident after the fact. Retrospectively. In addition, the NYT mentions the previous allegations of anti-semitism that arose from the "hypnotized" comments revelations. The controversy over her position + comments RE: Israel-Palestine is not limited to the AIPAC remarks and has already received significant coverage. Your condescending dismissals do little to address the glaring WP:NPOV issue that's currently afflicting this article, both in what it omits and how editors have strayed from the sources in describing the controversy and her stances (prime examples: "Allegations of antisemitism" has now become "Lobbying," her views on Israel are notably absent from the lead). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I took it for granted that "in retrospect" would be understood to mean more than 24 hours after the incident. For inclusion in the lead, something like a few weeks would be preferable, as Nblund suggested. The material recently added to the lead is about her policy positions. The AIPAC tweet kerfuffle was not about policy, although she used it to articulate her views on the influence of lobbyists. Please indicate where "allegations of antisemitism" against Omar (the subject of the article) are given weight in reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times

• Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
• Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury.

CNN

• 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 Washington Post

• The anti-Semitism accusations against Omar predate her short political career, which began with a 2016 successful run for a state legislative seat. Before Sunday, her accusers pointed most squarely at a 2012 tweet claiming that “Israel has hypnotized the world” — prompting her to apologize this month. She has also expressed sympathies with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to apply economic pressure to change Israeli policy toward the Palestinian population — a movement that pro-Israel forces say is rooted in anti-Semitism.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the article is Ilhan Omar, not "Tropes in Ilhan Omar's tweets". Talking about "allegations of antisemitism" in a BLP article implies that the subject herself has been labeled anti-Semitic. Such allegations should also be attributed, not just free-floating. Currently, there aren't any such allegations described in the article. Since you're obviously an expert on lead section guidelines, I'm sure you're aware that we shouldn't be putting important information in the lead that isn't described in the article body. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Has her twitter account developed some sort of AI that enables it to push out controversial tweets without her involvement? Accusing her of using anti-semitic tropes is a hair's breadth from an accusation of antisemitism, which the article does currently address. If it's been somehow whitewashed since I last read it, that section should be revised to better reflect the sources above. And the NYT and WaPo were much more explicit about the accusations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you argue about? Everyone agreed with your latest version of this para in the lead [14] I think. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead is still missing her views/comments on Israel-Palestine. I proposed this to be included in the third paragraph: As a member of the congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, Omar has also been an outspoken critic of Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns and expressed limited support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction[15] campaign and criticized American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. Some of her comments on the subject have prompted accusations of bias, which Omar has disputed or apologized for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, there is no consensus to include such version. Please start an WP:RfC about it if you think this is really important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, because a small group of editors shouldn't decide that they know better than the sources and disregard the relevant policies. I'll give it a few days. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your comment proves my point; "a hair's breadth from an accusation of antisemitism" is not actually an accusation of antisemitism. When referring to Omar, the NYT article uses the phrase "anti-Semitic tropes" five times, including direct quotations; "anti-Semitism" occurs once. The emphasis here is on the words, not the person. If you follow the link in that article from battling charges of anti-Semitism, you will see where it says: Almost daily, Republicans brashly accuse Ms. Tlaib and Ms. Omar of anti-Semitism and bigotry, hoping to make them the Democrats’ version of Representative Steve King as they try to tar the entire Democratic Party with their criticism of the Jewish state. So these are described as largely politically motivated accusations unrelated to the "Benjamins" comment (which she hadn't even made yet). "Relevant policies" here include WP:No original research, which says we shouldn't go beyond what sources explicitly say, especially in a contentious BLP article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I know time-wasting is one of your specialties, but none of this is relevant, and your suggestion of WP:OR is false. It's easy to throw around the term contentious BLP article to WP:STONEWALL the discussion, but the primary contention, that she has faced allegations of antisemitism for her position & comments on Israel ("bias," as I phrased it in my proposal), is entirely consistent with the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so certain. Lots of people have "faced allegations" of plenty of things, including anti-Semitism. The issue is who is alleging those things and how it matters to the biography of the person in question. You can call that time-wasting if you like, but I happen to believe in Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You are dissembling and wasting other editors' time by raising non-issues and ignoring reasonable responses; the allegations have already been attributed to reliable, secondary sources like those above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiple experienced editors have offered good faith arguments on both sides of this issue. It's quite normal for editors to disagree about what belongs in the lead paragraph and/or disagree about the definition of a "prominent controversy". Some editors object to this kind of material even in the article body. I disagree on that, but it's not a radical or wholly illegitimate position. There are a number of paths forward from here, but no one is stonewalling and "no consensus" tends to be the modal outcome of contentious issues. Nblund ^talk 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The first part of what you said is reasonable—however, I would have trouble accepting as a legitimate position any attempt to entirely purge any mention of a heavily reported-on controversy from an article. However, it seems that now Ewen Douglas is objecting to noting her views on Israel in the lead alongside on other subjects, even without mention of controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone suggest that we entirely purge any mention of either Omar's statements about Israel or the reaction to her tweets. Could you provide a diff for that one? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The "diff" is actually right above my comment in this thread; This was in response to Nblund's suggestion that Some editors object to this kind of material even in the article body. I disagree on that, but it's not a radical or wholly illegitimate position. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words, no one has suggested this. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis:Perhaps it's a good idea to kill bad idea even when it's suggested hypothetically. What the lead is still missing, however, are her views on Israel, with or without any mention of controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Revised proposal for addition to third paragraph in lead

• Omar has been outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, criticizing Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns, American advocacy for Israel, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. She has also expressed limited support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction campaign.

To account for the concerns of other editors about the mention of controversy and WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE, I've omitted any mention of criticism or apologies. This is her position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as has been reported in the sources, and it would follow her position on other key issues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a ref (preferably several) for the characterization of Omar as "outspoken"? I'm not seeing anything like that in the article, although I can imagine a source describing her that way. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

This was in-part my own summarizing, but USA Today does quote someone calling her "outspoken." Roll Call also described her that way, specifically with regards to her stance on Israel. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes This is sourced, factual, non-controversial, and accounts for the concerns expressed on this page; please explain your justification for removing it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

The subject's tweets, as cited in the section on her Israel and AIPAC comments, are primary sources and should be used with care to avoid undue weight. I'd suggest not citing these tweets and also removing any text not supported by reliable, secondary sources.

Similarly, the press releases from Nancy Pelosi and the JDCA that criticize Omar are likewise primary sources and shouldn't be used, as they don't satisfy BLP requirements to use secondary sources for "criticism and praise". Any thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Statements, even statements made on Twitter, can be cited, quoted discussed here when they are cited, quoted, discussed in WP:RS media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not always the case. Trial transcripts, for instance, are the kind of primary sources that should never be used in biographical articles. More generally, Wikipedia has different sourcing requirements than news sources, because Wikipedia is not a news source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't be linking directly to tweets. The issue of weight is more straightforward, however, when we look to the WP:SECONDARY sources that have covered the tweets, statements, etc. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

Regarding the revival of the JDCA quote, which I don't think anyone is trying to add anymore (something simultaneously critical of both Omar and Trump... doesn't stand a chance), secondary non-editorial sourcing was actually supplied, thus this is kind of irrelevant and moot, and I do wonder why it was even mentioned... --Calthinus (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because secondary coverage of primary sources doesn't count as an endorsement of the entire contents of that source. See also WP:BLPEL: Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. What goes for the External links section should also apply to the references, especially when the source doesn't add any meaningful content. The JDCA's website clearly does not meet reliability standards for BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the External links guideline have absolutely nothing to do with citations in the body of the article. This is directly from the policy page: This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA

Are the elements of this article that are focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area subject to ARBPIA? Specifically the 1RR? Because there has been a decent amount of reverting over it. nableezy - 16:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller as the admin that instituted pending changes here, you mind making a determination on this? I honestly have no idea how the 1RR applies anymore. And if it does apply, at least to that material, do we need the edit notice? nableezy - 21:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I don't know if there's ever been an attempt to apply 1RR to only part of an article. Maybe that needs to be asked at WP:ARCA? It's clear that 500/30 applies and if that's relevant maybe we need ECP. My question is whether we have reached a point where it's reanable to say that the entire article should be placed under the sanction regime. I don't know, I haven't been watching it in enough detail. 1RR always requires an edit notice. Doug Weller talk 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally dont think the entire article should be covered, but Ive been wrong before. nableezy - 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...but then we would have to change the rules...and the rules are more than complicated enough as it is. My 2 cents: when ARBPIA notice is place (as it is here), then assume 1RR for the whole article. (But I hope admins use common sense, and don't censor editors for reverts clearly outside ARBPIA stuff), Huldra (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Just to clarify—if a 1RR notice is not applied to the page, are editors still expected to assume that the 1RR applies? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just personally with this in mind from this point forward I won't revert twice in 24 hrs and think it would be productive if others did the same.--Calthinus (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: that's what I was implying when I said 1RR always requires an edit notice. There isn't one at the moment. There would have to be both an edit notice that you see when you try to edit and an announcement at the talk of this talk page about the restrictions. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA applies but not 500/30. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting date information

Official biography states born in 1981 but age 17 in the year 2000. Other sources have birth dated 1982, different sources have her immigrating to the US in 1995 and 1997, age 12. Gruberm5 (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gruberm5, the official Congress.gov bio says October 4, 1981. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes thank you, but it's the only source that has that date while other reliable sources have her born in 1982, which lines up more accurately with all other date info such as being 12 when she immigrated to the US in 1995 & being 17 in the year 2000.

Venezuela again

The Venezuela section should be about Venezuela, not about Elliot Abrams. The current version strays awfully far from that.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The section is not on Venezuela per se, but on her opposition to the Trump administration's (from the article) decision to recognize Juan Guaidó as the president of Venezuela and other US actions.[78] She said that this was a "U.S. backed coup in Venezuela" and that Guaidó was part of the "far-right opposition". It is more about US actions in Venezuela than Venezuela itself. This being the case, and given the widespread media coverage of her opposition to Abrams being appointed the "Special Representative for Venezuela", it certainly seems relevant to the section as it exists. I reworded it to be more neutral and added non-partisan sources, as you requested in the summary of your revert.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiple problems here. First of all, regardless of the situation at the Atlantic as a whole, the Atlantic article in question is highly partisan. A more-neutral treatment, that looks at both sides, can be found in Vox[16]. Secondly, the article as it stands frankly reflects that bias by going into depth on Abrams past sins. Surely conditions in Venezuela are more relevant.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, The Atlantic qualifies as WP:RS and Raymond Bonner is a respected investigative journalist involved in reporting on/from El Salvador, making this a high quality source on the subject. And secondly, as I already explained to you, this section is on Omar's position on US policy in Venezuela, not specifically on the conditions in Venezuela. That's what makes her criticism of the newly appointed Special Representative for Venezuela, and especially his past actions in the region, absolutely WP:DUE. Feel free to add Vox as a source though.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I know this is probably what you mean, @Adoring nanny:, but we shouldn't get into the complexities of the Venezuela situation in this article beyond what's needed to clarify Omar's position on it. That would be straying towards coatracking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I restored these materials because the events mentioned (including his denial of the El Mozote massacre and his involvement in Iran-Contra) were the highlight of the exchange between the two, and are referenced throughout mainstream media on this event. It is WP:DUE material. Adoring nanny has failed to prove that The Atlantic is an unreliable source and therefore should be removed. It is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia (see here).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether the Atlantic is OK, it's whether that particular article is a good source. I'd suggest that when a plethora of RS are available, which is certainly the case here, it's more appropriate to avoid sources that describe only one side of a controversy, and to instead use sources that describe both sides, per WP:NPOV.Adoring nanny (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a good source, from a reputable publication and a highly respected Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist. And you did more than remove a reputable source, you also deleted swaths of text which pertained to Omar's objection to Abrams, and the highlight of their exchange.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You keep repeating that like a mantra. Would you address my actual concern, as described above?Adoring nanny (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with the source, for reasons stated. It appears to me to be a case of WP:Idontlikeit. And how can there be two sides when Abrams was proven wrong on the issue the article covers in the first place? He played apologist for death squads and was proven wrong, and Omar refreshed our memories by calling him out on this because he is in a position to do it again in Venezuela.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"How can one cover both sides?" Vox makes a start. National Review [17] goes further, as presumably does the book to which that article is sourced. In particular, the way you have phrased it makes it seem as if the reports were universally accepted as credible at the time. That's simply not the case. Note also that, in your own characterization immediately above, you described Abrams as an "apologist" for death squads. But the evidence presented only shows that he was initially wrong. Does being wrong about something make one an "apologist" for it? In light of Munich, was Neville Chamberlain an "apologist" for Hitler? Should the New York Times be viewed as "apologists" for genocide, given that they have, for two separate genocides, failed to act on early reports that were in fact correct? Holodomor Holocaust And how should Wikipedia characterize Bill Clinton, whose administration did not call the Rwandan genocide a "genocide" at the time, even though the information available to them was indisputable at the time?[18] Obviously, going into any such issues in a way that is fair to Abrams would involve looking at what he knew at the time, whether or not he was in a position to stop it at the time, what he did when he found out, and a whole bunch of other issues that are not appropriate for Omar's article.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The U.S. was directly involved in backing and training the forces involved in massacres in El Salvador and Guatemala, where as Clinton, to use one of your examples, was not training or financing Rwandan death squads, but I'm not going down this rabbit hole. That National Review article was full of unbelievable omissions and distortions on the US role in El Salvador and even more so on Guatemala. Other than that it's hardly worth responding to. And that Vox article is not as neutral as you claimed it to be, especially in regards to its blatant bias against the Venezuelan government, describing it as "evil". This is not a forum so I'm not going to go over all my quibbles (of which there are many) with what you posted above. The issue that remains it seems is The Atlantic article you so vehemently object to. In addition to the reliability of the source, which has already been verified, the highly respectable journalist who authored the piece was directly involved in so far as being one of two reporters to break news of the massacre to the public back in the early 1980s, for which he was maligned by the Reagan administration and right-wing media in an attempt to discredit him and therefore minimize the atrocity and our backing of the regime who committed it, and then finally vindicated by history. So not only is the source reliable, but also notable. This is why it should remain as a source, IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Ilhan Omar’s Big Lie" in National Review is written by Rich Lowry, the magazine's editor. It's an editorial. NR often fails to separate news and opinion, and this seems like just another example of that. I wouldn't use it in any BLP article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be used as a coatrack to go after Elliot Abrams. But if it is going to do so, it should include Abrams' point of view. I've done that.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine. But I must point out that accusations of COATRACK fall flat given everything mentioned in that section about Abrams came right out of Omar's mouth, and widely reported in the media, making them notable. Now if an editor took it upon himself to include things not mentioned by Omar in the article, then that would be different.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

1RR is now in effect

Looking at the articles for Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez I realised that they'd been put under 1RR and it seemed sensible to add that here. I'm not totally convinced about "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." which the others have, but am willing to add it if it will help in the future. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The situation with WP:BRD in the Venezuela section of late has certainly been annoying. After B and R, my understanding is that we are supposed to see D before material is re-inserted, not immediate re-insertion accompanied by simultaneous D that fails to address my concerns, no matter how clearly I describe them.Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal

Ilhan pointed out that "Juan Guaidó's claim to the presidency was not supported by Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal". I feel like it should be clarified that the Tribunal was named by a lame duck Assembly, the appointment was carried out with several irregularities and the justices do not meet the requirements for holding office and that new justices were named by the current National Assembly, which in turn were persecuted by Maduro's government. I am fully aware of the problems with coat racking and undue weight, but I think this context is essential so the reader won't misunderstand that Guaido's claim isn't legitimate and of the current institutional crisis. Maybe a note could be included? --Jamez42 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm wary of WP:SYNTH here, not to mention tarring Omar and Maduro with the same brush, which would be a severe breach of WP:BLP. If it requires that much clarification from sources that aren't about Omar's statements, then maybe we should just omit the whole thing as just another newsy tidbit of no lasting significance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: If other editors are okay with that, I agree that would be a good solution. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Section header

The suggestion of using "anti-Semitic tropes" is not the same as "allegations of anti-Semitism" (diff). This is a complex issue involving different opinions about pro-Israel lobbying, politically driven condemnations, and yes, some anti-Semitic tropes. We shouldn't reduce this to vague "allegations" in the subheading. The majority of Omar's critics mentioned in the article haven't accused her personally of anti-Semitism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

whether she is personally accused isn't the issue, there are allegations of antisemitism with her or her tweets. The sources are there and it'as far more accurate than to label it as Israel lobbying which some of the tweets have nothing to do with. She has tweeted 100% antisemitic tweets and has been called out for it, it's PC enough to put in front allegations, but we certainly don't need to whitewash her even more by labeling it Israel lobbying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Her or her tweets is precisely the issue. The article is about Omar personally. Her tweets are of interest to her detractors insofar as they suggest she holds anti-Semitic attitudes, but we shouldn't jump to such a conclusion in her biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The section header should reflect what the sources have reported, and either "Allegations of antisemitism" or "Alleged use of antisemitic tropes" does that well. The use of the term "allegation" is necessary for WP:NPOV; WP:RS may characterize remarks, but not WP editors, so we simply describe them as "allegations" or "accusations." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Or we could title the section after what the text describes as being the origin of the controversy, namely Omar's comments or remarks. Sources have not focused much on "allegations of anti-Semitism" against Omar personally from what I've seen. Since we can't seem to agree on the right subheader, or even which subsection to put the paragraph about the 2102 tweet in, maybe we should just let the higher-level § Israeli–Palestinian conflict cover all of it. What do others think? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Quite simply, the beginning of the text tells that she "came under criticism for statements she made about Israel" and so on. This is is all about criticism of Israel as main header tells. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true that some (e.g., Weiss) criticized her comments in a form of explanation rather than accusation, but the distinction between calling someone's comments anti-Semitic and "allegations of anti-Semiticism" is very fine grained and one that would be heartily ignored by political opponents. I don't think it's borne out the body of RSs on the topic. "Accusations/accused of anti-Semiticism" seems to be the prevalent headlinese in this case. I don't think we'd be doing a service to WP's reputation for neutrality by deviating from this usage. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and MVBW uses one Tweet as if to label the entire section as being about Israel. It's not all about Israel, it's about her antisemitic tweets, that the first mention is about a tweet about Israel is just the first mention, and it's not really about Israel, it's using an antisemitic trope about Israel, so again, I still think allegations of antisemitism is still the right section header and getting rid of it is just whitewashing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV means that we don't take a stand on whether any tropes are anti-Semitic or not. We just report what published sources say, within BLP and WP:WEIGHT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

right, it's basically all across the spectrum that her tweets are antisemitic and there doesn't seem to be a weight or blp issue with a header labeling it as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Labeling what as such? Ilhan Omar is the BLP subject, not her tweets. I think there's a concerning tendency here to confuse the two. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The fact that the distinction is ignored by political opponents is kind of the point. I don't see why the views of Omar's political opponents should get special consideration. It's usual for news outlets to run with the most attention-grabbing headline, which are normally written by copy editors, not the authors of the article. However, in this case a greater number of headlines appear to refer to the statements as anti-Semitic, for instance in NYT, WaPo, Haaretz, JPost, and National Review. So I don't think you can say that accusations against Omar herself are the prevalent theme in headlines. (And reading beyond headlines usually reveals a more nuanced reality.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: your argument seems to be based on a misreading of the sources and some essentially meaningless distinctions; "X was accused of antisemitic comments" and "X was accused of antisemitism" are one and the same. Nor, in this case, are the allegations solely attributable to "political opponents," which, again, is a mischaracterization of what's been reported.

The New York Times

• Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
• Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury.

CNN

• 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 Washington Post

• The anti-Semitism accusations against Omar predate her short political career, which began with a 2016 successful run for a state legislative seat. Before Sunday, her accusers pointed most squarely at a 2012 tweet claiming that “Israel has hypnotized the world” — prompting her to apologize this month. She has also expressed sympathies with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to apply economic pressure to change Israeli policy toward the Palestinian population — a movement that pro-Israel forces say is rooted in anti-Semitism.

WP:NPOV requires we don't dilute what's been covered by WP:SECONDARY to make something more or less juicy or controversial. BLP provides specific guidelines for covering controversies: per WP:PUBLICFIGURE,

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiplereliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

In this case, that means not whitewashing an "allegation of antisemitism" into the innocuous "comments about lobbying." Certain editors may claim that charges of bigotry against an elected official are not particularly notable, but such a subjective assessment should have little to no impact relative to what the sources report, especially with this degree of coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the subject and the subject's statements are being conflated. One is a person, the other is not. Saying that someone tweeted something anti-Semitic is not the same as saying that someone is anti-Semitic. For comparison, if I say "White Men Can't Jump", that statement might be considered racist without implying that I am a racist person. "X was accused of antisemitic comments" is a bit of phrasing I haven't come across in this instance; sources have generally been careful to separate discussion of the tweets from any "accusations" or "allegations".

The "charges of anti-Semitism" that the Times says Omar has been "battling" are described in this article as mostly politically driven. The paragraph you quoted from The Washington Post appears about 3/4 of the way through the article, following a much longer discussion of the "tropes", along with generalized exhortations from various figures to reject anti-Semitism, with no special connection between the latter and Omar implied. There's also a mention of a Republican-sponsored House resolution that mentions Omar and Tlaib along with the Charlottesville rally and the Pittsburgh massacre. Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is a separate issue. Unless we have people outright saying that Omar's support of BDS makes her anti-Semitic, we shouldn't be suggesting that's the reason for any accusations.

As I said, it's a complex situation. However, these sources seem to give weight to the statements and the general political climate over the person. This is where I think it's important to closely follow WP:BLP and write conservatively, not slapping labels onto people just because some partisan critics do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This reasoning defies both common sense and the wording in the sources; the NYT and WaPo do not constitute "partisan critics." Following BLP means addressing the controversy according to the guidelines I cited above and closely adhering to the sources, which describe allegations of antisemitism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say NYT and WaPo were partisan critics. I showed where they describe partisan criticisms by others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems quite clear, per mainstream sources such as NYT and WaPo (as well as cross the aisle political comments - Democrats to Republican), that Omar herself has been criticized for use of antisemitic language/tropes/tweets/etc. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a section header there at all? Yall pick the strangest battles to have. nableezy - 16:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there are better hills to die on. It's a fact that many accused Omar of using antisemitic tropes, but many also steered clear of explicitly accusing her of antisemitism (read Pelosi's tweet). I suspect that is intentional and consequential: groups like Jstreet, criticized the comments while also decrying the lack of nuance around the antisemitism accusations. There's not really a clear policy here, and ultimately I don't see why "comments on lobbying"/"accusations of using antisemitic tropes"/"accusations of antisemitism"/no header are clearly better or worse here. Nblund ^talk 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with Israel. It's antisemitic tweets and tropes that we're talking about. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - and the sole reason it got any attention and coverage was the antisemitic trope angle. Omar's tweets (as other freshman congresspeople) are rarely a subject of interest.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That does not answer my question, not even a little bit. nableezy - 18:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly it has something to do with Israel, it was a subsection of the "Israel-Palestine conflict" section, after all. Lots of analyses have framed this as a part of a larger debate over the Democratic party's positioning on Israel-Palestine and Republican efforts to use this as a wedge issue. I doubt the tweet would have generated the same kind of coverage if it didn't raise broader questions about partisan politics in the U.S, and I'd be willing to wager that story, rather than her tweets, will be the more historically significant aspect of this debate. Nblund ^talk 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rather than framing this as a "hill that other editors are choosing die on," why don't you ask yourselves why you're continuing to object to a reasonable proposal? Subheaders indicate different topics. Her position on the Arab-Israeli conflict is distinct from allegations of anti-semitism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not actually objecting - I'm saying I don't see a clear argument for preferring one sub-header over another or for preferring a sub-header at all. I'm impressed by the degree of certainty you're able to glean from the MOS guidelines, but I actually think that the conventions around article structure are pretty ill-defined. In general, I think gaffes rarely matter in the long term, and it's probably better to err on the side of "whitewashing" rather than giving too much weight to a potentially short-lived scandal. Nblund ^talk 19:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying—I hope that you will be willing to compromise in that case. The MOS guidelines indeed give an enormous amount of leeway; I was making more of an appeal to general practices across Wikipedia (separate topics under separate headers) and, IMHO, common sense (Israel-Palestine position=/=alleged antisemitic tropes). And "whitewashing" is actually something we should not do. It's necessarily not an editors job to characterize the this as a "scandal" or "gaffe" or however you want to call it—that's something that should be done by the sources, just as WP:WEIGHT is determined by the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If its a subheader then it is not separate. nableezy - 20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: While I don't agree that the terms are all equally good (or bad), I do think erring on the side of no header is preferable to collapsing the whole issue to the simple "allegations of anti-Semitism", which misses the nuance. If it ends up being tied into a broader debate about Democrats and Israel, then it may be worth giving its own subsection, but for now I think writing conservatively is our best bet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 22:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC))

• I'm sorry, but labeling it as "controversial statements" is whitewashing it. Her tweets were widely condemned as antisemitic across a broadrange of RS. There is no Wikipolicy that is preventing us from having a header that calls that out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they were not. nableezy - 22:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that facts are blinding you. But for everyone else that is here, we don't need to whitewash this article. Her tweets have rightly been condemned and should be stated as fact, which is the RS and BLP policy. That it makes Nableezy upset is irrelevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Facts are blinding me? Im upset? Nope, and nope. Her comments were called antisemitic by a number of politicians and in some opinion pieces. They were not however "widely" called antisemitic by reliable sources, despite the dishonest claim above. nableezy - 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I don't believe anyone has suggested labeling the subsection "controversial statements". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

They were widely called antisemitic by a large cross-section of RS, by a large cross section, much larger than we usually require for an article to be included. That we don't have it in this article is whitewashing. It is now labeled, "controversial remarks." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, not true. nableezy - 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, that you say that obviously doesn't make it true. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Same for you. Reliable sources have reported that her remarks have been called antisemitic by others. They have not however called the remarks antisemitic themselves. This is pretty basic, if you dont understand that Im not sure how else I can explain it. But here, which reliable sources have called her comments antisemitic? nableezy - 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Then you need to read more. I'm not your library. You can even do a simple google. But I'll do you a favor and highlight a few, but I do find it shocking that it seems that you seem to be defending her tweets. Here's Politico calling her comments antisemitic, [19] here's SE Cupp, calling her to be held accountable for her antisemitic tweets, [20], here's local Minnesota CBS affiliate TV, [21], AOL, Omar apologizes for antisemitic tweet, [22], here's one where Jewish leaders in her district had to talk to her about her cavalier attitude about antisemitism [23]. Again, not sure why you seem to be defending her tweets. Furthermore, you know very well that's not how RS works. Her tweets were widely condemned as antisemitic and should be labeled as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SE Cupp is a columnist, not a reliable source for facts only her own opinion. Your local Minnesota news source has anti-semitic in quotes, meaning it is saying those words are somebody elses. Besides the headline, AOL (yahoo news) only quotes others saying anti-semitic. The Twin Cities source says to many, the remark went beyond a critique of money’s influence in politics and evoked the anti-Semitic myth that Jews seek to control the world via money. You see the difference between a source reporting that others are calling something anti-semitic and the source itself doing that? nableezy - 23:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Were her tweets antisemitic? And again, it's irrelevant, we have RS. Please stop posting and replying to me, I've had enough.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? Are you asking for my personal opinion? Because we have a policy on the use of talk pages for discussing personal opinions. My personal opinions, and yours, are not relevant here. Do you understand my point on sources attributing who said what is anti-semitic instead of making those charges themselves? And sorry to say but if you have enough you can leave. Asking people not to discuss something is likewise not an appropriate use of a talk page. nableezy - 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: with all due respect, you're talking about sources that you seem to have utterly disregarded to read. This is from the New York Times: Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury. Sir Joseph is correct in his assessment that WP:SECONDARY sources have characterized the remarks anti-semitic, so you're off base here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That outdent kinda messes things up, given there are comments below it that now appear to be responding to your comment, but no, you are adding on to what the source says. The NYTimes says "played into anti-Semitic tropes", not that it was anti-semitic full stop. The NYTimes, and most other reliable sources, generally are more careful than that. nableezy - 04:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no other way for me to insert my comment. "Full stop," the NYT is quoted as saying that her comments drew on antisemitic tropes. I've added nothing to that. And yet, you are lecturing Sir Joseph about the sources and telling him that none of the WP:RS have termed her remarks anti-semitic when they in fact do just that. And even if the NYT didn't had decided not to add it's own analysis (which they did, and I agree that's unusual ), the other viewpoints that have called her remarks anti-semitic would still be WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is, you just continue the indent. But, yes, you very much are adding on to what the Times says. They say "played into anti-semitic tropes." Meaning alluding to anti-semitic themes or expressions. You say they reported her comments as anti-semitic. They did not. Also, I did not say none. Sir Joseph claimed that reliable sources across the spectrum have condemned her comments as anti-semitic. Now the Politico article he posted does in fact, in its own words, say the comments were anti-semitic. But by and large reliable sources have said X, Y, and Z have said they were anti-semitic. They have not largely said they were themselves. nableezy - 05:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference in meaning between calling her remarks "playing into antisemitic tropes" and "antisemitic." I appreciate your acknowledging you were wrong about Politico, which similarly said Omar's comments touched upon a long-running, and particularly ugly, thread of the anti-Semitic movement — that Jewish money fuels backing for Israel in the United States and elsewhere. So "by and large," we have two highly reliable sources that explicitly refer to her remarks as anti-semitic, and a plethora of other RSes reporting on others' who have. In both cases, the allegations satisfy WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If words have any meaning at all, then yes, there's a difference between "playing into tropes of X" and "being X". If a gay man plays into the perception that he's straight for whatever reason (getting a job, avoiding harassment, etc.), does that mean he is straight? Of course not. One is about effect, the other is about essence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your analogy. The NYT said her remarks were antisemitic. No one asserted that they said that she was. I find it remarkable that you're both throwing around terms like WP:OR while simultaneously trying to extrapolate from the NYT piece and the above quotes something other than its plain meaning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Where did NYT say, in their own words, that Omar's remarks were "anti-Semitic", full stop? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is a difference. The Times did not say what you continue to say they said. You are indeed extrapolating, and you are the one commiting OR. The NYTimes did not say her comments were anti-semitic. If they did please bring a quote where they actually said that, not one that you think actually really really means that, but one where they say it. And I did not acknowledge I was wrong, what are you talking about? I never said Politico did not say that, and there still has not been any evidence for the claim that reliable sources are largely calling her comments anti-semitic. They are reporting on who did, not doing so themselves. The NYTimes did not say what you continue to say they did. nableezy - 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The two of you are engaging in a level of hairsplitting that's nonsensical. What do you believe the NYT means when they say Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury.?

Can you please stop outdenting for no apparent reason? There are comments below you and the outdent makes the thread completely unorganized. Anyway, Im pretty sure I answered that question, and it very much is not hairsplitting. You are engaging in OR, making implications that the source did not make. To answer the question, again, what the NYT actually says is that Omar's comments allude to, or bring up, anti-semitic themes. Not that they were themselves anti-semitic. If you can show where the NYT actually called the comments anti-semitic then please do. If you cannot then kindly stop misrepresenting what the Times said. nableezy - 20:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what WP:OR is. A comment that draws on "anti-semitic themes," your words, or played into anti-Semitic tropes the NYT's words, is an anti-semitic comment. Are you trying to be ironic or are you honestly arguing otherwise? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I assure you I am not misunderstanding anything. You are again making implications the source does not. If the NYT wanted to call the comments anti-semitic they would have. They did not. If you want people to give you an assumption of good faith and believe you are being honest with your arguments you should return that favor. If you can bring a quote from the NYT that actually says what you wished they would say, that the comment was anti-semitic, then bring that quote. Making implications from what they actually wrote however is textbook OR. nableezy - 20:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as this discussion is concerned, WP:OR doesn't strictly apply to talk pages, so perhaps you do need to re-read that policy. I really don't have anything else to add to this; my description of the NYT characterization of her remarks is completely accurate, as was Sir Joseph's, and the quotes vindicate this position. And even if you want to ignore direct evidence contradicting your position and pretend that the NYT didn't call her remarks anti-semitic (they did, see the quote above) they cite numerous others who do. So back to the original purpose of this section, the sub-header "Allegations of antisemitism" or "Alleged use of anti-semitic tropes," either is supported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

lol, sure, it does not apply to talk pages, but if you are engaging in OR on talk pages you are violating NOTFORUM. Anyway, I obviously disagree with you, and you seem to be making some rather absurd claims. There has been no direct evidence contradicting me, that would consist of a quote from the Times saying her comments are anti-semitic, something that has been requested of you and you have failed to provide. Again, your quote does not say what you claim it does, that is plainly true. I dont really see how you can pretend otherwise, if they wanted to say the comments are anti-semitic they would have, and you would then be able to quote where they did. Finally, allegations of anti-semitism is plainly a poor section title, as I have not seen many sources or people even accusing Omar of being antisemitic, which is how such a section heading would read, while there have been people that have said her comments were. Thats a distinction that matters. Either way, I am in favor of no sub-section at all. I still dont see the point here. She has made a number of comments about Israel, Palestine, and the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Some of those have drawn scrutiny. That is all one section. nableezy - 22:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, and my "absurd claims" are supported up by sources, and your "absurd" claims are that when the NYT says her comments "drew on antisemitic tropes" (emphasis added), they're not really saying her comments are anti-semitic. Editors are expected to apply sense, and I think your analysis falls a bit short in that respect—but like you said, we can agree to disagree. A discussion of sources and their meaning, even if we disagree, is not WP:OR either way. I'm in favor of "Alleged use of antisemitic tropes" or "Allegations of antisemitism," other editors are in favor of no subheader at all, and plenty are fine with "Controversial remarks" (which I am also fine but not happy with) so we can call that a compromise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No, when the NYTimes writes "played into anti-Semitic tropes" (you really should be accurately quoting the sources are citing), it is saying "played into anti-Semitic tropes". You can continue to draw inferences from that, but that is your own personal problem. In fact, the NYT doesnt even support use of anti-Semitic tropes. It supports that her comment reminds people of said anti-semitic beliefs, but not that they were themselves. You may not make claims stronger than the source does, that is expressly prohibited by WP:OR. I dont even think controversial remarks should be used as a section. We dont do criticism and praise sections, and thats what that essentially is. Cover the controversy with the remarks. The end. nableezy - 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: I can shed some light here. I have seen Wikieditor19920's behavior at the Steve King article, and I find it interesting that there, he was arguing against calling King's remarks anti-Semitic. He was doing this by using original research and synthesis, in large amounts, to the point where an administrator had to warn him that he would be blocked if he continued. Here, he's arguing in favor of including "anti-semitic" with similar OR and synthesis, and coincidentally, King is a far-right politician while Omar is a Democrat. So it seems that the subject's political leaning determines which way Wikieditor19920 will argue, much more than actual reliable sources do. It's safe to say there's a definite POV being attempted. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: I made no such argument on that page. Make another false personal attack, or keep following me around to pick fights, and we'll end up at WP:ANI. Addition: And by the way, what in the hell are you even talking about? I'm positive absolutely none of that happened. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

:: Your statement here is false as well. You tried to remove instances of the term anti-semitic here and here again. So your empty threats of ANI, which you've attempted to deploy before, are quite funny to me; in fact, I IMPLORE you to go to ANI, right now, quickly! Do it! I would very much like to see the admin response to your nonsense. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. There, I suggested entitling a section that consisted entirely of criticism by the ADL, an organization known for combating anti-semitism, "Criticism by Anti-Defamation League." The nature of the criticism is implied. I've advocated for something similar on other pages, and if that were the case here, I'd push for the same thing. However, at this point I'd really just appreciate it if you would back off and go away instead of trying to start some childish dispute with me. My interest is in content, not you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your own edit shows that it wasn't just about ADL criticism of King. You seem to be saying we should call it "anti-Semitism" when the NYT alludes to Omar playing into "anti-Semitic tropes", but not when the ADL and others accuse King of making "antisemitic and offensive" statements himself and promoting "white supremacy and anti-Semitism". Funny how that works. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat it for you since you missed it: The nature of the criticism [by the ADL] is implied. You're aware of my position on this, because we had a similar discussion at Linda Sarsour. However, let me know when you start making the same arguments over "nuance," "scandal of the day," and "writing conservatively on BLPs" when addressing charges of bigotry/antisemitism/etc. at Steve King. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would I do that? I haven't been involved with editing that article at all before adding a couple refs yesterday. If you want to delete the section entirely, that's fine with me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

All of this crossfire aside, I'm personally fine with controversial remarks. The issue I personally have is that an essentially American issue (AIPAC plus offended American Jews vs Omar and supporters) is forced under the section "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". It is informed by the latter, but not part of it. I'd rather have it as a separate section -- under a title like "AIPAC" or "AIPAC and other lobbying" -- and honestly, we don't even need "controversial remarks" as a subsection within that.--Calthinus (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

While that title is vague (one might say to the point of meaninglessness), it's better than saying Omar has been accused of "anti-Semitism", full stop. Unless this turns out to be more than just another scandal-of-the-week, I think no header at all is preferable. A similar situation came up with Sarah Jeong several months back (there were some controversial tweets, a political backlash, calls for a resignation, an apology, a carefully worded institutional response, and a media circus that came and went). Consensus was not to make a separate section on the issue, with many users arguing based on WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTNEWS. I think the same logic applies here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

::: I'm fine with controversial remarks as well, in line with Calthinus points. Also agree that no header is preferable, as was done at Sarah Jeong, as Sangdeboeuf pointed out. Seems like this story has already disappeared. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, it's inappropriate to group allegations of anti-semitism with the subject's position on Israel. "Criticism," "Alleged use of anti-semitic tropes," or "Controversial remarks" each indicate the beginning of a separate distinct sub-topic and one of these is necessary here. However, I, too, am fine with Controversial remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It was about her comments on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United states. And regardless, your own edits (eg this or this) place that as a sub-section of her views on Israel. If it is a subsection you are saying that it is directly related. nableezy - 20:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear that a subsection under Israel-Palestine is what I was talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier post, I don't think "Controversial remarks" is a good section header. "Controversy" sections on Wikipedia are, well, controversial. Labeling a section or subsection with controversial doesn't actually tell the reader anything about the nature of the the controversy. If it isn't noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the lead (I don't think it is), then it's probably not noteworthy enough for its own header. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't like it either, honestly, and if everyone's "fine with" or opposed to it but no one's happy, then it should go. I've replaced it with two far more specific subheaders that make no mention of controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry guys, but "Controversial remarks" is a ridiculous sub-title. It tells nothing about content. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been removed. Controversial remarks is out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• If Vox had a Ilhan Omar’s tweet revealed core truths about anti-Semitism in America] (and "Omar’s tweet was a pretty clear example of the first kind of anti-Semitism" in the body) - we certainly can have a section header specifying this. A large chunk of mainstream media have antisemitism in the title. The whole controversy was over the antisemitic nature of the tweets - not over any aspect of Omar's view. The sole reason this got any attention - were the widespread accusations of antisemitism (which led to the Democratic leadership denouncing this). Our section header should inform the reader - and follow mainstream coverage her - in including antisemitic/antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We will not get consensus for such a subheader. I think "Comments on AIPAC" and "Remarks while in state legislature" may do the job. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know we wrote subheadings based on the wording of a single published source. But anyway, please point out where in that article Omar herself is accused of anti-Semitism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources, most sources, ran with antisemitic/antisemitism in the title. As for Vox - I quoted above where they called Omar's tweet antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Good thing we cite articles written by journalists, not headlines written by copy editors. And calling Omar's tweet anti-Semitic isn't quite the same as calling Omar herself anti-Semitic, now is it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The headlines dont exactly matter. The piece by Beauchamp reads like a column, he writes in the first person for some of it (Plenty of Jews who are critical of the Israeli government, including me, found her comments offensive.), and it makes a leap that her tweet did not make. He wrote played into centuries of conspiracy theories about Jewish money corrupting Western politics, while Omar did not write one word about Jewish money. nableezy - 01:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct—we don't go by headlines, though obviously they give us an idea of what to expect. In all of the articles I've seen, and that have been provided here, the tweets are either described as anti-semitic, or quote others characterizing them as such (House Democrats, Jewish advocacy orgs, etc.). It's really a tedious bit of WP:WIKILAWYERING to say these allegations of anti-semitism were about her comments and not "her"—the analogous "it was the knife that did it, not my client" wouldn't exactly have landed you on the Dream Team. None of the articles say Ilhan Omar is antisemitic—of course, that would be irresponsible, and impossible to prove, since journalists are not mind readers. However, one can be the subject of an allegation of anti-semitism, or racism, or bigotry in general, based on their actions or statements—in this case, tweets. And that's precisely what's occurred here, and we have more than enough WP:RS to document it.

I also want to make another more general point; her comments were not about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, per se, but about U.S.-Israeli relations. Not everyone about Israel can or should be categorized as part of the conflict in that region. I think that "Comments on U.S.-Israel relations" would adequately cover both tweets: the 2012 one about hypnosis and the 2019 one about AIPAC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, her comment was about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the support of US politicians by and large for one side of that conflict. It was in response to Glenn Greenwald tweeting out this article and writing GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. nableezy - 03:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

AIPAC is an American organization that lobbies on behalf of Israel, and her criticism, "It's all about the Benjamin's," was about US support for Israel being influenced by lobbying, supposedly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That support relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 04:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but this remark specifically ties into Israel–United States relations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I dont really see what you are arguing here. nableezy - 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If mainstream news outlets had wanted to say Omar was personally accused of anti-Semitism, they would have. They mostly focused on the specific statements instead. That's significant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Significant in what way? I really don't know what you're trying to get at here. What's noteworthy is that two of the sources (NYT and Politico, possibly more) explicitly characterized the remarks as anti-semitic in their own words. And @Nableezy:, what I was arguing, I thought pretty clearly, was that the sub-subsection should be subtitled "Comments on Israeli-U.S. relations." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Significant in that they don't give weight to personal accusations against Omar, unlike what you seem to suggest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

They indeed note accusations of anti-semitism against Omar—in this instance, for her remarks. See my explanation above for an explanation of why the distinction you're alleging doesn't hold true. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of "alleged" to describe Trump supporters using anti-Semitic tropes and Steve King supporting white nationalists/supremacists

I don't understand why the word "alleged" is used in that paragraph - both things are documented. King's support of white nationalists and supremacists is in the lead of his article, and quite well-sourced there. I propose the word "alleged" be removed from that paragraph. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

My reversion was unrelated to the use of alleged. I've explained it on your talkpage.  samee  converse  14:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

:: Yes, saw it, thank you very much. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Striking through sockpuppet edits. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow—how wonderful. I was about to report this editor myself for their belligerent conduct (I was probably too generous in not having done so already). TY, @Doug Weller:. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind also striking his comments under Section header? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk archiving

This page is now at over 260 KB and getting longer by the day. Should we add automated archiving for discussions older than say, 30 days? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)  Implemented —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC) * Reduced to 14 days. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

should the article mention Glenn Greenwald in the twitter quote section?

y/n126.243.124.11 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hydro dot net

Looks like I was wrong, and Wikieditor19920 was right, about this page being a target of abuse by hydro dot net: [24] [25]. The IP does indeed fall within the range of suspected addresses, and the pattern of edits is similar. I've archived the offending threads. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong, and Wikieditor19920 was right Wow, this is music to my ears! Thanks for taking care of that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't get too used to it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"Qualified" support

The lead currently says she expressed "qualified" support to BDS. While one word sense would have this meaning conditional support (not exactly what happened, she has said various kind of incompatible things), the other more common word meaning here would be "justified". This is an NPOV vio. I am removing the sentence for now. Frankly I don't think it really belongs in the lede anyways as BDS is not a central part of her platform. Please discuss here. Cheers all.--Calthinus (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Qualified in this context means limited or "with reservations." This is largely supported by the sources, so I'm not clear what you believe the NPOV issue is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the thing. You need to explain what exactly the "qualified support" means. One can do it in the body of text, but not in the lead. So, I agree here with Calthinus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Her support can be characterized as "qualified" in the lead, and more details may be supplied in the body of the article. There could very well be a better way to do this, so I'm fine with the two of you reworking it, but I don't think the problem is POV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

At the very least use something like "tepid" because as I illustrated above, qualified has a problematic double meaning here. But I really don't see why this has to be in the lede at all -- this page isn't about BDS and Omar has not made BDS a central part of her platform, so why take up precious lede space bringing it up? --Calthinus (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my error, 500/30 is an Arbitration remedy but not part of Discretionary Sanctions

That was probably wishful thinking on my part. They're separate things. So our ARBPIA discretionary sanctions cover the relevant material in this article, but 500/30 and a 1RR exemption does not. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what about the 1RR exemptions for {{American politics AE}}, including Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I was referring only to the ARBPIA notice. That prevents IPs from editing and unlike the situation that you refer to, reverting IPs under that is not considered edit-warring no matter how often it is done, as they simply are not allowed to edit. Under AP you can revert without it counting as your 1 revert, but must not editwar. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments on AIPAC

My very best wishes some of your recent edits[26][27] to the section on her comments about AIPAC resemble inappropriate WP:SYNTH. To change the article to read Democratic leaders criticized Omar for tweets that pro-Israel groups in the US are pushing "allegiance to a foreign country" and that their money spent by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was a motivation for some American politicians' support of Israel. is not accurate.

The NYT described her comments as insinuating money spent by AIPAC was the main motivation for Pro-Israel support, saying: Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In that same vein, Politico said: Freshman Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar ignited a new controversy on Sunday night when she suggested GOP support for Israel is driven by campaign donations from a prominent pro-Israel group. The way you've reworded this sanitizes this, and trying to account for what you think she meant does not justify contradicting what the sources say. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that was actually a fair summary of multiple sources, such as that. But welcome to improve, not problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually hadn't seen this. So there are new remarks. This seems to be a separate issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think my link above was about the same. That one, however, is a new and developing story. This can be rephrased and expanded in the body of page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The NYT covers her remarks at a recent town hall-like event. That's separate from her tweet a few weeks ago. The CNN story is indeed distinct from either of those. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that changing appeared to imply to implied sanitizes anything; that actually makes the statement there stronger. Specifying that the group is pro-Israel seems to match what your quote from the source says (in fact, it only identifies the group as "a prominent pro-Israel group" in that quote.) Both of those parts of this change seem uncontroversial - in fact, I would argue that specifying that the group is pro-Israel is essential, since the source emphasizes it and it's necessary to understand what's being discussed. I assume your objection is to the addition of the word 'some' and changing "the primary motivation" to just "a motivation". But "the primary motivation" isn't really supported by that quote, either. I feel that the previous version drastically overstates her comments. How do you feel about contributed to American politicians' support of Israel? EDIT: Did you mean to link to different diffs? The diff you linked to are a very different (and much more minor) change than the one you quoted. I wouldn't support changing to the quote, but I do think the changes I mentioned from the diffs are worth including. We simply don't have support for the sweeping primary, we do have to identify what AIPAC is (both because the source focuses on it and because it's necessary for the section to make sense), and provided we fix the issue with primary, the rest seems entirely uncontroversial given that there's no real debate about that aspect of her implications. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not understanding my point, and you are making the same mistake that My very best wishes did in your proposed revision. I'm referring to how the Wiki article treats her remarks, not AIPAC. The sources, like the NYT and Politico, both said that her remarks implied that money spent by AIPAC was "fueling" or "driving" American support for Israel. The WaPo put it like this: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership on Monday condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar for suggesting that Israel’s allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle, an extraordinary rebuke of a House freshman in the vanguard of the party’s left flank. There's a difference between support being "driven" or "fueled by" money, and money being a "contributing factor," language which I have not seen in the sources and appears to be your and My very best wishes own independent analysis. We're required to stick to the what the sources have said and not introduce WP:SYNTH, and that means not sanitizing or making the comments more innocuous or watered down. By the way, why isn't the original tweet included? That should also be added. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

But 'fueling' or 'driving' is not the same as saying that it is the primary thing fueling or driving support for Israel; it can also be parsed as saying that it is simply a factor fueling or driving it. If we're going to be as cautious as possible, we should go with a close parsing - fueling American politicians' support of Israel. Saying or implying that she said it is the primary thing driving it clearly goes beyond what the sources say, at least with the sources we have here. Also, since you didn't object to specifying "pro-Israel" per the source or to changing appeared to imply to implied, I assume you're all right with those? (I can't see any reason at all that you'd object to the second one, and the first one is clearly a relevant characterization present in all the sources, one necessary for the dispute to make sense and worth mentioning at the top of a section so readers starting that section will have some idea of what's being discussed.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillon: No. Fueling or driving cannot be "parsed" to "a factor," that's called WP:SYNTH, or just bad paraphrasing. Her saying that money spent was a primary motivation for support ("All about the Benjamin's") is closer to the meaning conveyed in the sources. This section should also not have been cut down to remove the original tweet or description of the exchange that led to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that 'fueling' or 'driving' can be parsed to primary, and your "all about the Benjamin's" is going even more afield into WP:OR, since you're trying to interpret and characterize her statements yourself; but I can understand your objection to "a factor". What do you think of my proposal to use a relatively close paraphrase of was fueling American politicians' support of Israel? This avoids quantifying the intensity or extent to which it was fueling it beyond what the sources say, whether playing it up or down. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure "parse" is the right word here, and WP:OR is a restriction on what can be placed into articles, not a policy to stifle or inhibit talk page discussion, so you can put the baton away. I would agree with a close paraphrase like you suggested just now. Much better! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism accusations in lede

The fact that Omar has faced accusations of anti-semitism has been extensively covered by reliable sources (NYT, NBC, ABC, WSJ, Bloomberg, WaPo, USA Today--I can't find a single reliable source that hasn't covered it extensively), is addressed in the body, and is certainly due for the lede. Much of the disagreement with including it basically amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Omar has vehemently denied the accusation, of course, and her denial is also due in the lede. But I found it quite odd that this lede didn't even reference what has dominated RS coverage of the subject since her election, and amended it as such. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Like the AIPAC comments, which drew swift condemnation that died down just as swiftly, this is another recent media circus that's out of proportion to the lead and the whole body of coverage of Omar. Just because multiple news outlets have all reported the same story within a day or two of one another doesn't make it a significant part of a person's biography (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and all that). See the discussion under § Lead above. The current article text names a total of two people who have criticized Omar's comment about "allegiance to a foreign country". Describing this in the lead as coming from "Democrats and Republcans" doesn't reflect what the body says. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The controversy has clearly not "died down swiftly," and this latest controversy is coming just on the heels of the last one. A multitude of reliable sources reported on the AIPAC comments, including the NYT, and those same sources are now reporting on the latest "foreign allegiance" comments. Allegations of antisemitism against a public figure, particularly an elected official, are indeed notable, and that's why the Times and a series of national outlets have focused on the issue. Every reading of policy gives this issue substantial WP:WEIGHT on that basis, and addressing it in the lead would be well in proportion to the three paragraphs already dedicated to these controversies in the body of this very short article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead is as of now clearly undue, it shows Omar's criticism of AIPAC and Israel while not showing the full story of the criticism of the tweets and statements in question. It is undue and outrageous. It is also preposterous to say that her criticism of AIPAC is due for the lead but then exclude her antisemitic tweets. It is also not just two people who condemned her and her tweets, they were condemned by the entire House Democratic leadership. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I added one sentence, but I think it can be fixed up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not our job to put the entire "full story" in the lede. This is extensively covered by RS over the course of months, so WP:RECENTISM is entirely nonsensical. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it sounds like you're saying the lead should be expanded on. Is this the case? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed. No consensus seems especially likely here, and I really doubt that anyone is going to solve the problem by fiat. I'm skeptical that an RfC will lead to consensus, but it's the logical next step. Nblund ^talk 20:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus that the lead should be expanded and it's you who doesn't want it added. As I mentioned, it certainly is not due to say she is critical of Israel and AIPAC and then not mention that she has received criticism for her statements on her tweets and statements about that. You are the one editing out of consensus here. If you want to whitewash her tweets, that is your prerogative, but then I removed her stance on Israel and AIPAC as well to balance out the lead. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:It's no one's prerogative to whitewash anything, and I don't think you properly understand what WP:DUE means. Her views on Israel have been covered extensively in WP:RS, more so than her other policy positions, so this information carries more than enough WP:WEIGHT to be noted in the lead alongside her other views. I advocated also covering the tweets in the lead, but other editors objected, so that text represents a compromise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: Here's the previous discussion - there's a roughly even numerical split between editors, all of whom have offered some good faith policy-based explanations for their positions. That's not a consensus. This edit seems WP:POINTY to me - clearly you agree that her views on Israel are noteworthy, so why are you taking hostages? Nblund ^talk 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you can't say that "Omar is against Israel and has made statements against AIPAC" but not include that her statements have also been met with condemnations and allegations of antisemitism, that is UNDUE, and moreso, her tweets and statements are more covered in the article than her statements. She is far more noteworthy because of her tweets and condemnations of those tweets. To not include that her tweets and statements have been met with bi-partisan condemnation is ludicrous. And previous discussions are irrelevant, it's now March, we've had more tweets and more condemnations. This is now more NOTEWORTHY and DUE for inclusion in the lead. This is more of what the story is. I have no issue with including her views on Israel, but I find it you are the one taking hostages that you are not willing to include that her statements are being met with condemnation. Here for example, will be yet another condemnation, on Wednesday, [28]Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:I agree with you about the tweets, and I believe you are doing more harm than good with this particular revert. Nblund is exactly right; your only justification for removing her views on Israel is because it doesn't also mention something you believe should be mentioned. I implore you to self-revert here. The process will play out, and I assure you that this article will not be whitewashed, but efforts have to be made to assuage the concerns of all editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead has to be DUE. Right now, it's DUE since someone else edited it. We can work on it from there. My point remains, and I stand by it. You can't say Omar is critical of Israel and AIPAC without mentioning her tweets and condemnation of those tweets as a direct consequence of those tweets. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right that her positions on Israel are only part of the story. However, it's easier to build off content that is already there, and the consensus-building process for covering contentious material is inherently slow-moving. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Header changes

I strongly oppose these these changes on WP:NPOV grounds; not everyone criticizing her has called it antisemitic, and the "dual loyalty" part is an interpretation by some of her critics, not something we can just use as a section header. Section headers are required to be neutral, and these are not. We can (and should) report the most serious accusations in the section, but repeating such WP:POV language as part of the header should only be done when strictly necessary for eg. WP:COMMONNAME reasons, and here it clearly is not. --Aquillion (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere in my edits did I say "everyone" called the remarks anti-semitic. But both Republicans and Democrats--including in leadership--have used that term, and the wording reflects that. Being told your comments are antisemitic by the party leaders of both major parties seems pretty significant to me. As for the section header, I'd be amenable to changing to to something along the lines of "foreign allegiance comments" to avoid WP:POV issues, though I think the substance of that section is otherwise perfectly NPOV and due. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Alleged use of anti-semitic tropes" would also be accurate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think people need to stop adding whats in the news and wait and see if anything actually ends up being an important part of her biography. She made a comment that a congressman criticized. She has since responded. So what? nableezy - 06:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh but don't you see? She's clearly just as bad as Hitler and Stalin combined. When will the sheeple finally wake up? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What a cute way to dismiss alleged antisemitism - fortunately something doesn't have to rise to the level of mass genocide to raise the concerns of most well-intentioned people, including the reliable sources that have reported and commented on the subject's "remarks." This is already an important part of her biography, and I find it distressing that the two of you rehash the same arguments each time this comes up (and each time it carries less weight). Significance is determined by what's reported on in the sources, not the judgment of editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh you seem to be misreading my remarks. My argument remains the same, we should not be rushing to include every single time some news article talks about Omar. Yesterday there was an article about a congressman tweeting about her tweet. Why does that matter? Wednesday's vote, now that is something that actually matters, if the house passes some resolution about her then yeah obviously that belongs in her biography. But you seem to think that every time a politician criticizes something that somebody who disagrees with their political views says that this needs to be added here. It does not. That is exactly what WP:RECENTISM cautions against. You are treating this as though it is a repository of news articles about Omar. It is not supposed to be. Things that actually matter, yes, they should be included. But you cannot seriously say that you know what matters and what should be given weight an hour after politico writes an article about it. nableezy - 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This snarky response really isn't warranted. A ton of reliable sources have covered this issue extensively over several months. We can debate the best format in which to include it, but the snark/assuming bad faith is not a good look from you. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You added something that happened yesterday yesterday. Several months, please. nableezy - 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed some excessive quotations and restructured the headings. I'm really not sure why her comments on AIPAC would be placed in a separate subsection from her comments on Israeli lobbying in general - but I'm not married to that structure if there's some reason here that I'm missing. Nblund ^talk 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your "trimming" consists of removing entire chunks of the story and removing sourced information. I'm fine with cutting the fat, but you took big bits of meat there with it. I'm curious why you don't demonstrate the same level of concern for quotations throughout the article, where there are many areas with quotations that can be removed without altering the presentation of facts. I would appreciate it if you'd perform at least a partial self-revert here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The trim was needed and please refrain from making further snarky "I'm curious" comments when you don't like another editors actions. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Another editor tagged that particular section as including too many lengthy quotes - so I tried to address that issue. If there are other sections with similar problems, feel free to tag them or fix them yourself. I'm open to alternative suggestions, but I don't know exactly what you want me to add in - I trimmed the quotes but retained the gist of criticisms from both Nita Lowey and Elliot Engel. Is it really essential that we quote Elliot Engel's entire 46 word tweet rather than simply paraphrase him? Nblund ^talk 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A tag just reflects one editor's judgment (Sangdeboeuf), so I would still be careful; such a change requires some sort of rationale. I think your revisions to Engel's tweet was solid; I do believe that at least a portion of the Lowey statement should be restored, particularly because it involved an exchange with the subject. I would also advocate quoting the subject's tweets to Lowey. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You expressed curiosity regarding why I made this edit, and I've explained it. If you have more questions, feel free to take them to my talk page. Omar's response wasn't in the previous version either, and I'm not quite sure how Lowey's argument is all that different from Engels. What exactly is missing that can't be covered with a paraphrase? Nblund ^talk 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I raised any further questions about your explanation, and I believe I also praised your reworking the Engel quote. Their arguments are certainly different and seem to represent different perspectives. I see a brief, half-quote as being far more informative than just saying she was critical. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

To my mind, Lowey and Engel's criticisms are important because they are coming from relatively high-ranking Democrats, not because the tweets themselves are especially interesting. I don't know what the key line would be, but I'm fine with you adding some portion of the quote back in if you have something in mind. Nblund ^talk 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Tennessee Star"

I want to point interested editors to this discussion of the source Tennessee Star, which is used in this article. The source was established in 2017 and generally seems to be a PAC-funded activist site masquerading as a local news source. If information sourced to it can be found elsewhere, more reliable sources should likely be substituted. If information from it cannot be found elsewhere, consider marking its claims as dubious. Thanks! —Collin^{t c} 17:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. I've removed that source. I especially liked the Politico story where the site is described as a "Tennessee Breitbart". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I earlier removed a reference to the Minnesota Sun, described as a "carbon copy" of the site, from the same section as a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Looks like my instincts were correct. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

disparity between "Saudi Twitter Trolls" and "AIPAC Twitter Trolls"

The article needs to balance the two high-profile twitter incidents which have effected the career of Ilhan Omar; the phenomena of viral twitter furore should not be depicted differently between the Saudi-related instances and the AIPAC-related instances, as that would seem BIASED.126.163.95.142 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

latest revert

@ModerateMike729: beyond the latest revert being a blanket revert that also undid several non-contentious issues, your edit is so wildly non-NPOV that I fail to see how it is not a BLP violation. You include two full paragraphs of criticism of her comment on March 3rd and include exactly 9 words from her spokesman as a response when he was not even referring to that comment, and couldnt have been as that response is from March 1st. How exactly do you think it acceptable to include two people making accusations against her but not even include her response? nableezy - 23:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, if I am not mistaken you are pretty well past the 1RR here. nableezy - 23:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation—you should read up on what BLP is before making unfounded accusations against other editors. The sourcing is based on WP:SECONDARY from the most reliable outlets in the country, and it only states that she's been accused of antisemitism. No claims are made about the subject that are not backed by a multitude of reliable, independent sources. And a single revert of multiple actions still counts as a single revert. I have no problem adding her response if there is one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You really need to tone down your condescension, I think I been here a bit longer than you and I dont need a reminder on what WP:BLP says. Heres a quote for you:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

Including criticism about a tweet without even including her response is in fact giving disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint. Pretending that a statement made on March 1st is a response to criticism made on March 3rd is just a lie. And the 1RR is violated because, hello, the user had earlier made other reverts (eg here restoring a section header including "antisemitism"). Maybe you should read up on BLP yourself, seeing as how this was just a revert to your edit. nableezy - 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You certainly have quite a history in this editing area, but I think your assessment of what constitutes a BLP violation is off. Who is the WP:FRINGE viewpoint, exactly? The NYT? The material never refers to her as antisemitic, and only addresses allegations. The short quotes of Democratic congresspeople who criticized her have received extensive coverage, and I'm not clear that she's actually issued a response. Don't frivolously throw around accusations of BLP violations, which are characterized by use of poor sources, original research, or bad information; this material is well-sourced, contains no original research, and verifiable (that she has been accused of antisemitism is not in question). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to respond to somebody it would be nice if you responded to what they actually wrote. nableezy - 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah yes, my "wildly NPOV" decision to...add several sentences from reliable sources about a contentious topic that has gotten extensive coverage in literally every single major media outlet in the country? If you'd like to elaborate on her response you're welcome to. And it's far more than "two people" accusing her--thank you for pointing that out. We ought to include comments from the Democratic leadership including the recent resolution condemning anti-semitism, comments from the Republican leadership, condemnation from a list of Jewish civil rights groups, and from a range of pundits on both sides of the aisle. Next time I"ll be sure to more thoroughly include the range of criticisms aimed at Omar. ModerateMike729 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You restored two paragraphs about one tweet, and included as a response a statement made two days prior. Next time, try to follow NPOV. And hopefully keep in mind the space-time continuum goes in one direction, at least so far. nableezy - 23:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be glad to expand the coverage to her range of comments perceived as anti-semitic beyond "one tweet." Thanks for the suggestion. I've started an RfC so we can get input from other editors. ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede?

Would editors support the inclusion of the following sentences (or something similar--feel free to suggest changes) in the lede: Omar has been accused of antisemitism by both Democrats and Republicans as well as Jewish civil rights groups for comments about Israel which they said perpetuated the antisemitic canards that Jews have dual loyalty, a charge which Omar has denied. There are a large range of secondary sources that corroborate this: WaPo, NYT, NYP, NBC, or whichever others editors see fit. ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include. Extremely well-sourced, highly due, and most of the objections amount to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If editors think we should include an elaboration on Omar's denial, I'm fine with that although the nitty gritty should be kept to the body. ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Agree with your reasoning until the last sentence. You should revise your comment to indicate the antisemitism is alleged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment You're right. I removed that line. WP:AGF.

• Comment I think something about the anti-semitic trope accusations is due in the lead, at least at this juncture, because these controversies have accounted for the majority of coverage Omar received in RSs since her election. However, I think this particular proposal is too long for the lead and unduly focuses on one of the three episodes. Eperoton (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment ModerateMike729: RFC postings should be neutrally worded - this notice includes a statement of your own preferences and asserts that your preferred version is well-supported by the sources. In the interest of making sure this RfC doesn't get bogged down in procedural disputes, I would suggest just removing the editorial commentary and rephrasing this to ask a straightforward question. Also — this really should go without saying — please don't insinuate that other editors are Nazis. Nblund ^talk 00:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include. Stories about this come out constantly. Here are five from the NYT. [29] [30] [31]. [32]. [33]. How much evidence does one need?Adoring nanny (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - Largely agree with User:Eperoton, something can be included, this specific proposal no though. nableezy - 00:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. The anti-semitism allegations are one of the two most noticeable things about her term thus far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  The idea that the amount of heat this woman has generated over anti-semitism will not be relevant ten years from now is insulting. And, if that should be the fortunate case, then the lead can be rewritten when/if needed. The lead now should conform with WP:LEAD, and one of the two main controversies generated by her is not in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Clearly a notable portion of her political career to date, and seems to be the most widely covered aspect so far making this WP:DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Wait and consider the 10 year test. It's possible that editors are correct that "The majority of coverage" from newspapers is related to this issue, but that's not necessarily dispositive here: Duncan Hunter has probably received more coverage for vaping during committee hearings than he did for his indictment - but the vaping is clearly far less significant from an encyclopedic perspective. Similarly, Hank Johnson's fears about Guam capsizing are probably the most widely covered story of his tenure, but I seriously doubt anyone thinks that gaffe belongs in the lead of his entry. Gaffes rarely make the lead paragraph unless they are career-changing, and we aren't there yet. We can't really explain why or how this is important for her bio because there really haven't been any meaningful consequences beyond some bad press so far. Nblund ^talk 18:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• The US House of Representatives will now as of Wednesday pass the second resolution because of her, condemning antisemitism. That's certainly passing the 10 year test. That's certainly passing the majority of coverage. She's been in office only three months and this is what she is famous for. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• And this dates back to 2012 with her "hypnotized" comments back then - which also got quite a bit of coverage over the years.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: are you sure? She made those comments in 2012, but I don't actually see any coverage of them until she ran for Congress. Certainly there hasn't been significant coverage of these events until very recently. @Sir Joseph: the House is considering a simple resolution that indirectly rebukes Omar without naming her. For context: the House has passed 43 simple resolutions in about 36 legislative days. There's a decent chance that the average House member has passed more simple resolutions than they've had bowel movements in the 116th Congress. So lets not get too crazy calling this a historic event. Nblund ^talk 00:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's right, when was the last time the House passed two resolutions concerning antisemitism because of a member? These are not just "simple" resolutions. Let's not try to downplay anything. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Simple resolution" is the technical term for this kind of legislative document - it distinguishes them from concurrent resolutions, which have to pass the Senate. It's the easiest bill to pass, and it has no legal weight. I'll grant you that there's something unusual here, but the first resolution was the result of some legislative hocus pocus, and none of the coverage treats it as anything more. There's a real risk that we're misleading readers by documenting this kind of political theater like its substantively meaningful. Nblund ^talk 02:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well - it has been covered since July 2018 at least - JTA, July 2018, TOI, July 2018, Forward July 2018. So - at the minimum - it's been a major point of coverage for the past 9 months. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Disparaging comments about Israel might be expected to be noticed by Israeli and Jewish-focused outlets. A handful of such stories doesn't make it a major point overall. At the time Omar was a state legislator and running for U.S. Congress. Was there any major coverage in the American press before November/December 2018? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but I suggest you strike the above. The Forward is a rather large national American publication, implying otherwise is unseemly. State legislators generally don't get covered nationally (heck - they barely get covered state-wide - typically they have very local publications) - and here she was. Most congressional candidates (or freshmen congresspersons) don't get national coverage. Omar's national coverage - e.g. AP wire in November, is mainly over antisemitism. In Minnesota sources pre-dating November - e.g. September 2018, or CNN in August 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead sentence of The Forward: is an American periodical published in New York City for a Jewish-American audience. What is unseemly about calling a source whose homepage title is The Forward: News that Matters to American Jews "Jewish-focused"? And rather large? Where do you pull this stuff from? Here is what an actual source says: NPR: The Forward is a small publication with a Jewish-American audience. nableezy - 15:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

In that November AP story, the anti-Semitism accusations are directed at Linda Sarsour, not Omar, who in fact had plenty of national coverage as a state legislator – she was on the cover of Time magazine in September 2017, and has been profiled by The Guardian (2016), Pacific Standard (2017), Associated Press (Jun. 2018), CNBC (Aug. 2018), and The New Yorker (Aug. 2018). There's nothing in these sources about her 2012 comments or any anti-Semitism accusations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, you say that these are disparaging comments about Israel. No, they aren't. Her tweets and statements were rightly condemned as antisemitic because they were disparaging to Jews. Secondly, if in ten years you want to redo the lead you can redo the lead, but this is what is notable and noteworthy for Omar now. and it's darnright insulting to not have this in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read and internalize WP:BLP. To th point, she did not say one word about Jews. nableezy - 19:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Wikieditor19920: I'm sure you understand how RfCs work well enough to know that unilaterally declaring a consensus and inserting your preferred wording after 24 hours of discussion is not going to fly. Even the "yes" voters don't agree on an appropriate wording yet. This doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to a consensus, and continuing to add in a disputed wording makes consensus even less likely. This is counterproductive. Please self revert and leave the lead alone until we have some kind of resolution here. Nblund ^talk 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone agrees the material is relevant to the opening. If you think the wording can be improved, by all means go ahead and make changes. Perfection is the enemy of progress; the text and wording of any sentence is never "perfect" when it enters and article and is always subject to change. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Everyone agrees"? Did you just miss my "wait" vote? Most of the editors who have previously participated in this discussion still haven't weighed in - are you just sort of assuming they've suddenly had a change of heart? I'm not trying to be condescending here, but are you familiar with how RfCs work? Nblund ^talk 19:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It's just hardly opened and way too soon to start making statements such as "everyone agrees". Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support mention of accusation of using antisemitic tropes -- not "antisemitism accusation". Imo, this title asked the wrong question. I would argue that both the 'hypnosis' and 'dual loyalties' accusations have been accused of being such, and thus should be combined in the lede -- i.e. has been accused of using antisemitic tropes<refForDualLoyaltyControversy><refForHypnosisControversy>. Perhaps a list of six or so word summaries in a parenthesis-- not a whole paragraph. I think Eperoton and/or Nableezy may be in agreement with this roughly, based on their comment, but shouldn't speak for them. --Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

specifically, I'm imagining something along the lines of: Omar has been accused by various sides of using antisemitic tropes in her speech<refs><here>, a charge which she denies., possible parenthesis before the comma but can't think of a good parenthesis wording at the moment. --Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

yeah, mostly. I said a very long time ago I dont have a problem adding something like that to the lead. What I do have a problem with is the users that seem intent on making this article The latest in the antisemitism allegations against Ilhan Omar. nableezy - 20:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A very sensible suggestion in my opinion, if all articles could expound upon blanket accusations of '-isms' like this, then Wikipedia's quality would vastly improve. If consensus favors this being included in the lede then I think we should at least explain the context in a way similar to what Calthinus is proposing. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Include Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should address should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The allegations of antisemitism against Ilhan Omar following a series of incidents, mostly her remarks, have received extensive from reputable, independent sources like the NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, AP, and numerous others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include and work on wording. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Do not include. Something might be included, but not the text suggested above. This is a complex controversy, for example this must be included, but it is not reflected in the suggested text. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The article you linked has nothing to do with allegations of antisemitism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, it is exactly same story. That's the point: one must describe both sides of the controversy. Describing only one side or part is Wikipedia:Libel and against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. A racist attack against the subject in Virginia has nothing to do with allegations of antisemitism against her for her remarks on Israel and Israel supporters. It seems more like you're trying to juxtapose something where she is the victim with something where she's the alleged offender, and I find that kind of argument pretty questionable as far as WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is connected according to the source. It tells: Friday's incidents came as Omar has come under criticism from members of both parties for suggesting that pro-Israel groups effectively buy off politicians and push allegiance to a foreign country.. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A couple of the sources on the allegations of antisemitism mentioned the Virginia incident as happening to coincide in terms of timing, they did not insinuate that they were related, and it would be WP:SYNTH for you to suggest or imply as much in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, this is a complex controversy and a developing story that needs to be properly described in body of page, prior to including this to the lead. For example, according to her [34], "the tactic of labeling critics of Israel as “anti-Semitic”—particularly Muslim ones like her—is designed to end substantive debate about U.S. policy toward the Jewish state.". Well, but this is actually happening, even here, in WP. It should not. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – @Wikieditor19920: Please wait until the RfC is closed until you implement any result of it. If you think it's a foregone conclusion, get some admin or uninvolved editor to close it. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mojoworker: You actually removed text that is not the subject of this RfC regarding her policy positions on Israel. I'd appreciate it if you performed a partial revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And I'm happy to wait for more opinions, but you clarify where in policy it says that no changes may be made until an RfC is formally closed? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Mojoworker is right. According to WP:BLP a contentious disputed text should be included only if there is consensus to include. That means one should wait the closing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude from lead. Recentism and undue weight. Unless/until someone can find a reliable source indicating that this is a central theme of Omar's tenure or something. R2 (bleep) 22:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

There have been four[35][36][37][38] articles in the NYT covering the antisemitism accusations against the subject, along with a host of other stories by just about every other national media source—I won't list them out here, but frankly, calling the content WP:UNDUE has little basis. And WP:RECENTISM is not a blanket ban on covering recent events. It's far more nuanced than that, and it's a mistake IMHO to throw around WP:RECENTISM as if it can always be cited as a justification for removing something that's ongoing or in the not-too-distant past. This article already has several paragraphs dedicated to this controversy in the body, and it's perfectly appropriate per WP:PROPORTION and MOS:LEAD to note it in the opening. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think WP:RECENTISM applies here. It's about giving undue weight to recent events relative to the body of RSs. When a significant proportion of coverage the subject has received in RSs is about recent events, giving them significant weight is due. Eperoton (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You two might not think WP:RECENTISM or WP:UNDUE apply, but clearly there are a whole bunch of editors here who disagree with you, and I am part of that crowd. The proposal is that if we are to make an 8-sentence summary of Omar's biography, one of those sentences should be devoted to charges of anti-Semitism. I understand the topic has received plenty of recent coverage, but that doesn't mean that the topic will be considered quite so biographically significant ten years from now. R2 (bleep) 18:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude - per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and the fact that the phrasing actually misrepresents sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • These votes that cite policies without explaining how they apply (they don't require exclusion) should not be taken seriously. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP requires that we document what the sources say. And editors have provided enough sources to show that the line is perfectly WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's actually UNDUE to not include in the lead. Without her tweets and statements, she'd barely be notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      • A lawmaker who unseated a 44-year incumbent in her first primary, became the first Somali American in Congress and one of the first two Muslim women in Congress, successfully sought to overturn a 181-year rule banning headwear in Congress, has been profiled by the BBC and The New York Times, and was on the cover of Time magazine, would "barely be notable"? Are you sure about that one? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        • And all that is in the lead, and she would have stopped receiving news coverage for that. Are you really saying that her tweets and statements are not DUE for inclusion in the lead? At this point in time, this is what is making her notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
          • That's actually not how notability works. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Include - This has become a major issue over the last month. It's not a recent issue, it's an ongoing one that has recovered and is continuing to receive coverage. The lede should reflect that. Toa Nidhiki05 02:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude from the lead section and recommend that editors who don't understand the part the West Virginia state Republican Party has played in this latest incident educate themselves. Only half the story has been reported by most "reliable sources", and this has provided a wonderful opportunity for Democratic Party leadership to show that it is equally opposed to racism and Islamophobia in the Republican Party and antisemitism in the Democratic Party. Yes, and the law, in its majesty, equally forbids the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing loaves of bread. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude - WP:RECENT, POV, BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude- Per WP:UNDUE and the various other policies mentioned by others. AcidSnow (talk)
• Exclude: fails 10YR test; undue at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude for now; WP:UNDUE for the lead. We don't include every controversy about a lawmaker in the lead just because it occupied a few news cycles. None of the sources support the idea (which many people are arguing above) that this is a major part of what makes her notable. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude If this becomes a defining part of her tenure, maybe, but so far this seems like an attempt to report how big a storm is from inside it. Parabolist (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment A lot of the arguments on this page are suggesting WP:RECENTISM somehow means that Wikipedia articles may not reflect recent or ongoing events. This is not the case. WP:RECENTISM is a far more nuanced policy, and it is not a reason to ignore or exclude events that have been developing for weeks or months. The policy itself states ...in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Every indication in the degree and depth of reporting on this—and the nature of an elected official facing accusations of bigotry-is notable. We should not be ignoring reams of coverage in making decisions over content, opining on whether a controversy is legitimate, or misinterpreting policies like WP:DUE which are based on what's been reported in reliable sources. This type of approach is unfortunate and will stifle any further debate on the matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Except this is about the lede, where we have to be the MOST vigilant about those issues. If this was arguing for erasing the content from the body, I'd be more sympathetic, but it is not. Parabolist (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Correct, and there is a specific policy that deal with how a lead should be structured and written, MOS:LEAD, and it notes that prominent controversies should be noted. This is a prominent controversy by any objective assessment of how it's been treated by authoritative sources like the NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

And it also cautions against giving undue attention to less prominent controversies. Neither term has a clear-cut definition, and many widely covered controversies do not appear in the lead of a person's bio. If this were a matter of simply citing the right policy, we wouldn't need an RfC, but ultimately this does require some editorial judgement about the nature of the coverage and the likelihood that this will have lasting significance. Nblund ^talk 23:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• include wording Needs some attention but it’s ceetainly not WP:UNDUE when so many WP:RS outlets have reported on it Darryl.jensen (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude Mostly because it would be WP:UNDUE in the lede but also like others said, it should be held off until we see what comes of it. No problems with it in the body. Elspamo4 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Exclude as others have pointed out, its undue weight. And the attention that the accusations of anti-Semitism have received are sort of proving her point about the outsized role that Israel and charges of anti-Semitism have in our politics. Also the claims that she said Jews have dual loyalty are innaccurate - to some degree the charges of anti Semitism are a straw man, see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangabandhu (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Our job isn't to determine whether we personally think her point is being proven or not, or take sides in the debate. Rather, we report on what reliable sources are saying. As you said, they are giving it plenty of attention. Similarly, whether or not those accusations are really "strawmen" isn't for us to determine--a huge number of highly reliable sources are telling us that Jewish advocacy groups as well as politicians believe she perpetuated anti-semitic stereotypes. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for proving the opposite. Her tweets and statements were rightly condemned as antisemitic. IS there a reason you didn't sign your comment condoning her antisemitic tweeting? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Kindly stop violating WP:BLP. It applies to every page on Wikipedia. Your personal views on her are utterly irrelevant, and you would be wise to keep them personal. nableezy - 19:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, that's a surprisingly unconstructive comment from a normally constructive veteran editor. R2 (bleep) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing unconstructive about it. I am just sick of editors downplaying her tweets. Her tweets and statements were condemned as antisemitic, and BLP does apply and BLP says I can say they were rightly condemned as antisemitic. We don't need to whitewash her tweets. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

All valid concerns, but there is a lack of AGF and a dose of personalization in those comments. I don't mean to distract from the RfC, so I won't comment here further. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree Sir Joseph should tone it down, and so should Nableezy. I'm all for vigorously arguing policy points, but policy requires we discuss the subject in a detached, non-personal way. On the other side, Sir Joseph also has a point: it's pretty tiresome—and equally inappropriate—for editors to remark on whether or not the tweets were or were not antisemitic, and their opinions on why the tweets were not problematic. Too many of the arguments on this page are ideological and only make a passing reference to policy, without any thorough analysis (or explanation) of how it applies or the body of sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That does not apply to one word I have written on this talk page, and I dont appreciate the smug ping. I have nothing to tone down. nableezy - 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed wordings

• My view is that this is still too recent and too uncertain to include in the lead at this point, but - if included - I do think that any mention in the lead should include: some sense of the time frame (early 2019), the important/surprising critics (e.g. Democratic leaders and Jewish groups), and the gist of the comments (criticizing the influence of groups like AIPAC). We should also steer clear of saying she has been "accused of antisemitism", because many of her critics have carefully avoided directly accusing her of antisemitism. Something along these lines might be workable: In early 2019, Omar came under fire from House Democratic leaders and a number of Jewish groups for Tweets and public comments that criticized the role of pro-Israel lobbying groups in the U.S. Critics alleged that the comments invoked antisemitic stereotypes, a claim which Omar disputed.Nblund ^talk 17:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While I prefer my wording above because it specifically addresses the "dual loyalty" charge, I certainly think this language is an improvement from including nothing in the lede and don't have any strong objections to it otherwise. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• This needs to be reflected in the summary. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Why does it need to be? I'm certainly potentially open to it, but would like to hear your rationale as I think WP:RECENTISM issues could be even bigger there. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that we need something in the lead and I strongly support Nblund's version. Gandydancer (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC) PS: Maybe "was criticized by" sounds more encyclopedic than "came under fire"? Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I would also support Nblund's version. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well right now there seems to be more support for excluding it from the lead entirely in the RFC, so this is a bit premature. And, oh by the way Wikieditor19920, that is why you, and other editor involved in the discussion, dont claim a consensus a day into it. The RFC runs for 30 days, we can determine what to do when it is closed by an uninvolved user then. nableezy - 22:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinions may change if more agreeable wording is presented, and consensus is not necessarily a vote count. Additionally, an RfC doesn't have to remain open for 30 days, nor is formal closure required if editors are willing to collaborate and find a middle ground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Vatican's political position should be removed

I tried to remove the following but was reverted:

The Vatican did not agree to mediate in Venezuela, saying that conditions that had been agreed in earlier negotiations (open a channel for humanitarian aid, hold free elections, free political prisoners, and re-establish the constitutionally-elected National Assembly[82]) had not been followed, according to a February 7, 2019 private letter addressed to "Mr. Maduro" from Pope Francis.[83][84][85]

Why would we be adding the Pope's opinion to Ilhan Omar's article? Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Seems WP:SYNTHy in context, since neither that statement nor its sources mention Omar. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, there has been no support for keeping. The source must mention the connection - this one does not. I'll remove it again. Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)