Talk:Ilhan Omar

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

Intro sentence

Greetings, everybody! User:NightHeron asked me to open a talk page discussion on on this edit [1]. I look forward to a productive and respectful discussion! Benevolent human (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Given how much of Ilhan Omar's public profile comes from anti-Semitic remarks, it would seem reasonable for her lede to cover that. However, sadly that will likely never be the case as, previous discussions show, any remotely critical coverage is systematically removed from the article. Toa Nidhiki05 19:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticizing the state of Israel is not anti-Semitism. Comments like any remotely critical coverage is systematically removed from the article are not helpful for productive and respectful discussion, especially considering how massive Ilhan Omar#Israeli–Palestinian conflict is.

That said, it's of enough depth that it probably should be mentioned in the lead, but I don't like that edit, specifically the charge of inciting anti-semitism. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to continue to make whatever comments I want because the level of whitewashing this article has is absurd, and it's not just in regards to her anti-semitic comments - there have been other things blocked, too. I'll continue to call out this insanity as I see it. But regardless, there have been plenty of attempts here to cover her comments. I'll dig through and find some. Toa Nidhiki05 19:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Do I have to remind you to WP:AGF? Your comments make it harder to engage in good faith, so if you're not getting compromise, it's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You should remind NightHeron of that too given his multiple, repeated, and unwarranted claims that Benevolent human is only editing here to attack Omar. I am going to assume, in good faith, that you will, Muboshgu. Toa Nidhiki05 20:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So you think that accusing someone of using "rhetoric similar to that used to justify the Holocaust" is not an attack?? Maybe you and I have different definitions of the word "attack". NightHeron (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because what you added to the lead violated WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. First, the controversy about her statements was shortlived and was only one of many aspects of her political positions. That's why just a subsubsection of the main body is devoted to it. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important points in the article, without giving undue emphasis to a relatively minor issue involving the subject's choice of words, for which she later apologized. Second, note that the main body gives a balanced summary of the reaction to Omar's criticisms of Israel, quoting leading Democrats who defended her remarks and those who opposed them. Your edit just mentions the attacks on her, and in a hugely exaggerated, inflammatory way by mentioning the Holocaust. This is OR, because you picked out a comment in the source relating to the history of anti-semitism and put it in your sentence as if the source had been referring specifically to Omar's statements. This is a misrepresentation of what's in the source. Your edit was clearly an attack on Omar, thereby violating WP:NPOV. NightHeron (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So the coverage of the anti-semitism incident was short-lived (even though it's probably the largest part of her public profile), but criticism of criticism of her (which the lede covers!) is not short-lived? Come on. The House literally passed a resolution against hate speech as a direct result of her own comments. It was only altered to not specifically focus on anti-semitism after several CPC members came out in defense of her. That's not even mentioning the campaign finance violations, which are absent from the lede, as well as the affair allegations which are entirely absent from the article despite contemporary international news coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 19:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I focused so much on inciting anti-Semitism that I didn't even notice the Holocaust mention. That is completely inappropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern here, thank you very much! You've raised a lot of good points, and I look forward to incorporating your feedback, but I wanted to first clear up a simple misunderstanding since that seems like something we can evaluate efficiently and objectively. I know the article you flagged for WP:OR is very long, but if you search through the text, it does discuss both Omar and 1930s Europe specifically. Here's the relevant reference: [2]. The points you raised to make sure that we stay balanced, give due weight, and have a neutral mode of view are also very important and I'm happy to return to them once we've cleared this up. Benevolent human (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your source mentions Nazis and other historical examples of anti-semitism in the early part of the article, then goes on to talk about criticisms of Trump for anti-semitism, and then talks about other people, including Omar. The discussion of Omar is in a different part of the article. The article did not say that Omar's comments were like justifying the Holocaust. That's your way of attacking Omar. NightHeron (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A compromise: we can just add back the wording that was originally in the article and agreed upon in a broad, highly discussed RfC in April 2019:

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.

This RfC had over 30 participants and it was advised the wording not be edited or changed until at least a year later. A handful of editors - most of whom opposed the previous RfC - later ignored this and decided to remove it in August 2019 - not even four months after the fact, and attempts to return to the actual consensus were later stonewalled by those same users. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That so-called compromise violates WP:NPOV because it gives the misleading impression that politicians were united in attacking Omar for her statements. In fact, some prominent Democrats and also some Jewish members of Congress defended her, and did not think much of the right-wing's insistence on continuing their attacks after Omar apologized for her choice of words. In fact, any discussion in the lead of the BLP needs to be balanced, and that would take more than one sentence (or else one very long sentence), which is contrary to WP:MOSLEAD and WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's one with wording revised:

Omar has been accused of antisemitism by Republicans and Jewish civil rights groups, as well as some Democrats, for comments about Israel which they said perpetuated the antisemitic canards that Jews have dual loyalty, a charge which Omar has denied and some Democrats have contested.

That should resolve all of your complaints. Toa Nidhiki05 20:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It gives the misleading impression that Jews all condemned Omar. That's false. Some Jews support her, and thought that the business about her word choice was blown out of proportion. The Jewish population in the US is quite diverse, and includes a lot of liberals who defended Omar and thought that her apology should have ended the matter. NightHeron (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Jewish groups did, in fact, almost uniformly condemn her comments, as did the entire leadership of the Democratic Party. We are not required to represent every minority group in every single sentence we put out; the wording I put is already extraordinarily generous in that regard. In fact, the article itself (which is what the lede is supposed to summarize) doesn't contain any Jewish representatives or organizations that felt her comments were appropriate. Your argument simply doesn't hold water. Toa Nidhiki05 21:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You're misstating what I said. I did not say that many Jews thought that her choice of words was "appropriate". I said that many Jews, including some political figures, accepted her apology and thought that the issue was being blown out of proportion by her enemies. NightHeron (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! NightHeron, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. The Jewish population in the US is pretty diverse, and like any group, you can find people within who can support any given position. However, Jewish civil rights groups were pretty much unanimous. ADL, Hadassah, the American Jewish committee, etc. Here's a source: [3]. Hopefully that assuages your concern, but let us know if not, or if you have any other concerns! And of course, have an excellent day. Benevolent human (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Your source doesn't support that at all. It's about Jewish groups condemning Netanyahu's decision to bar Omar's group from visiting Israel. Concerning the accusations against Omar, some prominent Jewish political figures disagreed with it. I recall that one source (mentioned in an earlier thread on this same topic) quoted a Jewish Congressman who had spoken with Omar, accepted her apology and explanation, and supported her. If accusations against Omar by Jewish groups are mentioned, then supportive comments by representatives of other segments of Jewish political opinion should also be mentioned. As I said before, a balanced treatment will probably be too long for the lead, per WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a horribly convoluted sentence, though. If a subject isn't a defining property of a biography and can't be dealt with concisely in the lead, it should probably simply be dealt with in the body. More generally, sentences of the type "X has been criticised for Y (by people that would be expected to object to Y) but has denied the claim" are usually not a good idea in lead paragraphs. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's quite literally the single most defining nature of her bio, Black Kite. We have a slew of Trump-era policies and comments in the lede. Toa Nidhiki05 00:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, thank you for the input! This is about prominent Jewish civil rights groups, you can find individual Jewish people who will support any given opinion, but again, the big organizations are at consensus on this. I don't think it's within policy to list individual people, who aren't notable. For example, some guy named Steve thinks Trump the 2020 United States presidential election, but the lead section focuses on what's covered by the big organizations and reliable sources. Black Kate: There's no WP policy to ban those types of lead sentences, you can propose one if you want through Wikipedia's policy procedures. According to existing Wikipedia policy such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section, the lead section should concisely summarize the article, and a lot of the article is devoted to Omar's anti-Semitism. Benevolent human (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

a lot of the article is devoted to Omar's anti-Semitism. No, that's wrong. There is nothing in the article that describes Omar as an anti-Semite. A subsubsection of the article is devoted to controversy between opponents and defenders of Omar over her choice of words in criticizing Israel. Your opinion on the matter is not the same as the viewpoint in the article, which has a balanced treatment (including mention of a Jewish organization that organized a counter-demonstration in her favor). None of the proposed new sentences for the lead give balanced coverage, and so none of them is a proper summary of the main body. NightHeron (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, there's your wording again. It's not about "criticizing Israel". The controversy was over her using anti-Semitic tropes about a Jewish lobby and the dual-loyalty canard. Neither of these are just "criticizing Israel" - and I think you know that. Toa Nidhiki05 00:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

PLEASE stop misquoting me. I did not say that the controversy was about "criticizing Israel". I said that the controversy was about "her choice of words in criticizing Israel". NightHeron (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because the controversy was not about Israel. It was her using two major anti-semitic cards to criticize those who support Israel. I'm quite concerned you don't seem to understand why some people, including a number of prominent Jewish Democrats and all of the House leadership, were not pleased by this. Toa Nidhiki05 00:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

you don't seem to understand... You're making an unwarranted assumption about me. Please see the first item on my user talk-page. In Dec 2019 there was a discussion here on the Omar talk-page on the same topic as this thread. Another user (who, like Omar when she made those remarks, did not understand what constitutes anti-semitic tropes) came to my talk-page and asked me to explain. I gave a detailed explanation, including an excerpt from an NPR discussion. So please don't assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. NightHeron (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well first of all, I just wanted to say that I really love seeing the tq template used. I've never seen it used before, but it's really pretty great, and you all have been employing it to great effect - it makes the conversation a lot easier to read. So thank you for that, particularly to NightHeron. Also, NightHeron, you're correct - the article talks about Omar's controversial statements and others' criticism of them as anti-Semitic, we shouldn't say just say they're anti-Semitic since that's an opinon. So we're on the same page about that, sorry for my error. That said, Toa's suggestion compromise language isn't effected by that. Anyway, it doesn't sound like we're going to get to consensus - should we do an RfC? Benevolent human (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The suggested edit misrepresents the source. Pelosi was quite clear that her anti-Semitism resolution was not aimed at Omar. Furthermore, when people are accused of anything, we are supposed to explain who has made the accusations, how credible they are and what the response is. Instead we just say Omar made anti-Semitic comments similar to the Nazis. The Nazis incidentally did not make subtle anti-Semitic remarks but were overtly anti-Semitic. Omar responded IIRC that AIPAC which does not represent most American Jews and lobbies for the Netanyahu administration in Israel. Most of the legislators who support AIPAC are not Jewish. TFD (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I know I probably won't convince you, but I please humor me for a few sentences as I try defend myself a little: The Holocaust comparison was the entire controversy, that's why there was a controversy to begin with, because she brought up tropes that were used to justify a millenia of pograms - and I hope you agree that's backed up by the source I gave. Also, I apologize for an apparent misunderstanding - I wasn't intending to reference her AIPAC comments. Anyhow, I now understand that the point of discussions such as these is to form a consensus. So assuming that I haven't convinced you, to pivot a little bit, are you any happier with User:Toa_Nidhiki05's suggested compromise? Benevolent human (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, while a few sources said that her remarks were anti-Semitic, others said they were not and contrary to the edit the leadership of the Democratic Party has not accused her of that. Toa incidentally misrepresents AIPAC as a Jewish lobby. It's actually a lobby supporting Netanyahu's administration. And the people Omar accused of dual loyalty were mostly not Jewish. Many fundamentalist supporters of Israel are actually anti-Semitic. They believe that Jesus can only return once the Jews return to Israel. In any case you can't just post an accusation made by some observers as a fact. Nor can you attribute an accusation without explaining its significance. degree of acceptance. Omar incidentally is not best known for her remarks about AIPAC. She's a black woman immigrant Muslim, which is four strikes against her for Republicans.

I notice that most of the NYT article is about accusations of anti-Semitism against Donald Trump and wonder why Toa has not tried to get them added to his article.

TFD (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I'm very open to compromise on this. If some of my wording, or the alternative wording in this RfC (Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_7) has problems, we should address them. Specifically, I'm very open to removing any wording of criticism by the Democratic leadership if that's not what reliable sources say. Here's the source that made me say this (maybe there's a later source in which Pelosi went back on it)?: [4]. Yes, we definitely can't state as a fact that Omar is anti-Semitic, since that is an opinion under dispute, although we can reference the dispute if it's notable.

Anyway, I think we're getting off track. If anybody wants to know my motivations for engaging in this dialog, you're very welcome to hit me up on my talk page. Here, we should discuss the article. Let's start here: I hear all the concerns about taking a balanced and neutral tone, which are important, but firstly do we agree at least that the controversy should be covered in the lead in some form? Benevolent human (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't agree. There are two problems, and even if we could reach agreement on balanced coverage, fair coverage would be too detailed for the lead, per WP:UNDUE. Omar's poor choice of words two years ago when criticizing Israel, for which she apologized, was blown out of proportion by her enemies. That's covered in the main body in a balanced way. It does not belong in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Again: the controversy was not about her criticism of Israel, and you know that. Continuing to insist otherwise simply makes clear the untenability of your position. Toa Nidhiki05 12:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The context was obviously that she was criticizing Israel, and speculating on the political reasons why the US was giving Israel unconditional support. NightHeron (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not at all lead-worthy, fine to mention later in the body. Perennial nitpicking, already covered by a 10 Mar 2020 RFC at Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 17#RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede?. ValarianB (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Val is right, "Not at all lead-worthy". (BTW, hats off to some pretty over-the-top defense of WP's expert efforts to keep our articles free of bias.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks we there have been two RFCs. One in 2019, which said to include it, and one in early 2020, which said to exclude it. It's been over a year since an RFC on this issue. Benevolent human (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on anti-Semitism accusations in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's been over a year since an RfC on this topic, but we've done this rodeo twice before, once in 2019 and once in 2020, with opposite results. Anti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance since then, and the section in the article body covering these accusations is quite extensive, so it's time to revisit. Two questions for my esteemed collegues: First, should we include or exclude some mention of these accusations in the lead. Second, should do we agree or disagree with the following compromise wording suggested by our esteemed collegue Toa Nidhiki05:

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.

Benevolent human (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Include and Agree. This controversy was frontpage news for a long time, and for many, it is what Omar is most known for. Notable sources pretty much always mention this when giving a bio of her (such as this one from BBC [5]). The suggested compromise language probably paints an overly rosy picture of the situation compared to my original proposal, but I'm willing to endorse it for the sake of compromise. Benevolent human (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• The proposed "compromise" wording is heavily skewed towards the accusers:

1) "by both Democrats and Republicans as well as Jewish civil rights groups" makes it sound like the whole of reasonable American society, which I doubt the personalities involved can be said to fairly represent

2) "accused of antisemitism... which they said perpetuated the antisemitic canards that Jews have dual loyalty" duplicates the accusation unnecessarily.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Per my comments above from three months ago, I think that including some sentence (or part of a sentence) on this topic in the lead is appropriate. I do not think the particular proposal is very good, and so I do not agree with it. I do not object to holding another RfC on this question, but I think that the RfC statement should be edited to remove the argumentative part (I do not think it is clear that "[a]nti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance since [2020]", and whether or not it is true I do not think it is germane to the questions being posed). --JBL (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment See: Statement should be neutral and brief: "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple." I suggest you re-write the RfC to remove the obvious bias. TFD (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As discussed above, the text misrepresents the facts, fails to give adequate weight to opposing views and is out of proportion. The proposer's reason for a new RfC ("Anti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance since then") is contrary to policy. We emphasize facts and opinions based on the weight they are given in reliable sources, not our perception of their importance. TFD (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Criticizing Israel has been taken by some to be the same as anti-Semitism, but they are not the same. Onceinawhile's comments are on point, and the RfC as written is indeed biased as TFD says (current anti-Semetic attacks have nothing to do with what Omar said more than two years ago). We could add something to the lead, but not that sentence. Honestly, I think trimming the recentism from the Israel-Palestine section may be a better use of our attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Not a valid RFC, per TFD, so if at first you dont succeed ... . Beyond that, an RFC is one of the discussions in the ARBPIA topic area that require extended-confirmed status, and the opening editor has 261 edits, making him or her not eligible to participate. nableezy - 23:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Nonsensical. Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism seems is itself a smear tactic. We should not parrot these kind of mudslinging. Dimadick (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Notice the rhetorical trick being players here by opponents, who choose to ignore the wealth of reliable sources on the matter and instead insist in their own opinion it's "non a big deal because she's criticizing Israel". Last I checked, talk of a Jewish lobby and dual-loyalty were two of the biggest anti-Semitic canards out there, right up there with blood libel. But regardless, none of the personal opinions here matter - it's the defining trait of her time in office and without a doubt the single most prominent thing known about her foreign policy stances nationally. It's ludicrous not to at least include a mention of a controversy that led to immediate condemnation from her party's leadership. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  The canard is in how you are discussing this. There is a Jewish lobby, which Walter John Raymond defined as a conglomeration of approximately thirty-four Jewish political organizations in the United States which make joint and separate efforts to lobby for their interests in the United States, as well as for the interests of the State of Israel. Comparing that to blood libel? Nonsense. As for the "dual loyalty" thing, I agree with this op-ed. She never accused American Jews of having "dual loyalty". Ilhan Omar certainly didn’t say that Jews have dual loyalty. For instance, in one of the tweets that got people so worked up, Omar said, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” You’ll notice she didn’t say or even imply anything at all about Jews. She said that she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true. Many on the right have called for her to be removed from that committee (see here, or here, or here, or here). Her argument, to repeat, isn’t about how Jews feel about Israel, it’s about what is being demanded of her. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Anti-Omar editors have been repeatedly bludgeoning this talk page to force more and more space to be devoted to accusations of anti-semitism, and they've tried multiple times to put it in the lead. This is a BLP, not an attack-page. NightHeron (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per esp. Muboshgu's comments above. The allegations about "dual loyalty" are simply misrepresentations of what Omar said, and are certainly not notable enough to appear in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There is already a sentence in the lead describing her as "a frequent critic of Israel". That is true, and it's enough. Criticizing the actions of the government of Israel is not at all the same thing as being antisemitic, although some people try to conflate the two. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The text misrepresents the facts and fails to give adequate weight to opposing views. Also, as MelanieN states, "a frequent critic of Israel" as the lead presently states is enough. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Has there been a major new event regarding alleged antisemitism since the conclusion of the 2020 RFC? If not then this proposal is dead on arrival, as nothing newsworthy has happened that should alter the consensus reaches last year. ValarianB (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hard no Criticism of Israel isn’t anti-Semitism. That is a logical fallacy. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There is nothing like anti-Semitism in her comments, being critical is not the same with anti-Semitic. Sea Ane (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The text is misrepresenting the facts.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose; simply not a sufficiently major aspect of her biography. When something is just "critics say..." with nothing else backing it up and no non-opinion sources treating it as factual, it requires a lot of coverage to go in the lead of a high-profile BLP; I'm still not seeing that here. If we listed every such accusation made against a politician by their political opponents, the lead of every political BLP would be nothing but a wall of negative accusations. If anything, we are devoting far too much text to it in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Some anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East is anti-Semitic when it's deeply steeped in the regional history of conferring an implied inferior status to non-Muslims under Shari'a. More directly, the colonial era and deep indignation at British and international recognition of an "Arab right of self-determination in Palestine" under the British Mandate. As for the range of anti-Semitic "canards" being invoked in present times, the fear and intolerance is because these criticisms (Jewish lobby, etc) have often preceded the rise of anti-Semitic political parties, ideologies and anti-Semitic violence (pogroms). However, American political culture has for centuries tolerated many types of difficult political speech that would have turned violent in other places. I'm in agreement with JBL and TFD that the RfC was not well-formulated. Spudlace (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As stated above, criticism of Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism. Even if we felt like we have to report the accusations themselves, they're not relevant enough to her career to be in the lede. Claims that these accusations are far and away the most relevant aspect of her biography are laughable. In addition, I genuinely don't understand what "Anti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance since then". Unfortunately, anti-Semitism has been around for thousands of years and I doubt it changed in any significant way in the last 12 months. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - whether or not she's anti-semitic is irrelevant; the issue is that this kind of analysis/accusation does not generally belong in the intro, which should provide a neutral, straightforward summary. (Actually, the same goes double for that embarrassing last sentence in the intro, "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, harassment..." - you could add that sentence to the article of just about any politician in the world. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Notice how many voters here are not actually engaging with the sources on the matter, but are instead saying in their opinion that she was not anti-Semitic. These votes should be ignored as they aren’t actually following our guidelines on voting; your personal opinion doesn’t matter, what does is what reliable sources say. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Part of your reasoning for Support was "it's the defining trait of her time in office", a clear statement of personal opinion. Rather than invalidate all opinions, I think it's a good-faith assumption that there's an unspoken disclaimer along the lines of "I think most of the reliable sources support the opinion that..." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• In response to nableezy, this is related to Omar's alleged attitudes towards American Jews, not things in the Middle East. Benevolent human (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Your proposed addition specifically calls out "dual loyalty". How is that not about the Middle East? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, can you point out where Omar used the term "Jewish lobby?" TFD (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. A search for anti-semitism in Omar's BLP shows it occurs 10 times in the text. Out of curiosity, I looked at Donald Trump's BLP and found that the word occurs zero times (although two sources in the references, [222] and [819], concern his anti-semitism). Trump's use of anti-semitic tropes was more extensive (see [6]), and, unlike Omar, he never apologized for it. So why would editors who say they are concerned that Anti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance come after Omar (a relatively minor political force in the US) and ignore the anti-semitism of a much more powerful political figure? Could it be that the real issue for them is not anti-semitism, but rather Israel? That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem. NightHeron (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, let me caution you here about minding BLP on talk pages, and so we can't say Trump dislikes Muslims. We can point out that his travel bans were targeted towards majority Muslim countries, but we can't say what you said. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu: Thank you. I've struck through that phrase. NightHeron (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In any case, you're correct the Donald Trump article should cover his alleged anti-Semitism. I can't edit that article since I'm not extended confirmed, but I'm including some references here in case anyone else wants to take that up (although it's worth noting there wasn't anywhere near as much media coverage as for Omar). [7][8] Benevolent human (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Benevolent human, best to take those to Talk:Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion continues here. Benevolent human (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note: My comment above is relevant for this discussion, since, as Nableezy pointed out, the fact that this RfC is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means that WP:ARBPIA should apply. Indeed, ARBPIA defines the scope of the EC-protection to be "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" (emphasis added). The broad context for the efforts to focus on alleged anti-semitism in this article is really Israel, not the question of whether or not a congressperson from Minnesota is anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Gandydancer:, I think you may have accidentally voted twice. Benevolent human (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Benevolent human: could you please rephrase the RfC to be more neutral? I propose cutting the first few lines, before "First...", and then continuing with something like "First, should we include some mention of accusations of antisemitism against Omar in the lead?" and the remainder unchanged. I like that you suggested include/exclude as !vote options but it seems most people have defaulted to support/oppose. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @NightHeron: you recently reverted Benevolent human's edit of the RfC statement. Would my proposed language above, or something similar, address your concerns about other editors having already responded. I think we can find a happy medium that removes the non-neutral language and doesn't touch parts that !voters have already responded to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Benevolent human, Firefangledfeathers: I reverted Benevolent human's well-intentioned removal of part of the RfC prompt. It's too late for that, per WP:TALK#REPLIED, which, at least as I interpret it, means that you can't change what the RfC asks once the RfC is well underway. 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

For example, how would the closer interpret Muboshgu's and Nableezy's votes/comments? NightHeron (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(ec) To me, the harm of the non-neutral preface to the main questions outweighs the harm of removing the original context of the current discussion. And I think we could mitigate the context harm by attempting to preserve as much of the replied-to parts of the statement as possible and by, perhaps, pasting the original comment somewhere lower in the discussion for reference. I concede that these suggestions are out-of-the-box and I think I've made my case as much as I care to; let's see if anyone agrees. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of reliably sourced content

It appears NightHeron reverted a reliably sourced edit of mine with no actual resonating. During her 2020 primary, Omar’s campaign received international coverage for a poorly-conceived flyer which targeted Jewish donors to her primary opponent. I’d love to hear why this edit was undue. Toa Nidhiki05 02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron can of course speak for himself, but my guess is WP:UNDUE as stated in the edit summary. See his comment immediately above for context. Not everything that is reliably sourced belongs in the encyclopedia. We need to be careful not to pile on when there is a partisan media frenzy, and to observe e.g. WP:10YEARTEST. Generalrelative (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The story appeared in Vice News and was picked up in several U.S. Jewish and Israeli publications, but not in major mainstream U.S. media. The Vice article says, "The mailer references three Jewish donors, plus “Michael, a donor from Scarsdale, New York.” However, it says that she got the names from articles in MinnPost[9] and BuzzFeedNews.[10] Those are the only names of big donors that the articles provided. Note that two of them are billionaires (including the CEO of Blackstone) while another is a multi-millionaire. None of the donors live in the state. There is no evidence that Michael from NYC is Jewish. Not everyone from NYC is Jewish - both AOC and Trump are from NYC. In order to include it we would need coverage in major media and an explanation of why it was anti-Semitic. Editors should be watchdogs, not bloodhounds. We should ensure that the article includes all major issues that appear in mainstream major U.S. media. We should not spend time searching obscure publications for dirt on politicians we oppose. In fairness I have taken this approach for a range of politicians across the political spectrum. It's not our role to bring attention to information that the best sources ignore. TFD (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

TFD, I know we are often at loggerheads at each other to one degree or another, but taking a step back from that, I genuinely do admire the clarify of your thinking and the lucidness of your prose, particularly your last few sentences. Anyhow, I agree with you, unless it's covered by a mainstream source, it shouldn't go in. So I checked to see if it was covered by one of the green sources in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. It looks like it is: [11]. So that should resolve the sources issue, although that still leaves us to think about due weight. Benevolent human (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. But the criterion for high profile people I believe is not coverage in a reliable source but coverage in the vast majority of major reliable sources. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Due and undue weight is important. Considering that each major publication has run countless articles about Omar, it's hard to justify adding material that they largely ignore when the criterion for inclusion is extensive coverage in major sources.

While some might mention that mainstream sources are biased, policy does not allow us to correct those biases. In my opinion, any BLP will be biased since the writers must decide which facts and opinions to emphasize.

TFD (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The lack of widespread mainstream reporting on this speaks to why this isn't really due. There's nothing here. Not worth including, in my opinion. Parabolist (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know that Jewish media, Israeli media, and Vice are considered to not be mainstream or reliable here. I’ve gone ahead and removed another item in the article that was cited exclusively to Vice. Toa Nidhiki05 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's why I referred to major U.S. mainstream media. By that I mean most of them. If a story about a high profile person is largely ignored by them then it lacks weight for inclusion.

I noticed you removed mention of people demonstrating support of Omar at a demonstration against her, saying "Per talk, Vice is not a mainstream source. Removing content exclusively citing to Vice here as no mainstream sources covered this."[12] But the protest against her was never reported in major U.S. mainstream either, yet you have left it in the article. I notice too that the source says that although the organizers expected 10,000 people, attendance was in the hundreds. You made no attempt to add that to the article either. When you apply policy selectively, you appear biased against the subject.

Also, I suggest you drop the sarcasm. It creates a combative atmosphere, which hinders progress in improving articles.

TFD (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t add the section in question. All I did was remove a source that was deemed not mainstream or relevant. If you have an issue with something, you can feel more than free to edit it yourself. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In a section about a demonstration that received no coverage in major mainstream U.S. media, you removed material that was positive about Omar, and left in material that was negative. That is clearly biased editing, which is against policy. You should not use different criteria for inclusion depending on whether the material is favorable or unfavorable. TFD (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm still undecided what to think of this and don't have strong opinions on this matter yet. One thing jumps out at me though: I know Omar is a US politician, but is there a policy justification for only caring about whether something is in mainstream US media, rather than reliable sources more generally? I couldn't find it in existing Wikipedia policy. Benevolent human (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Balancing aspects continues, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

For high profile people in the U.S., the body of literature is dominated by major mainstream media. While something mentioned in a specialty or foreign publication may be significant to its readers, its lack of coverage in major U.S. mainstream media shows that they believe it is not significant to their readers.

Just as Wikipedia articles should not make issues less important than they are in major sources, they should not make them more important. In this case, inclusion of the New York protest would weigh the article more negative than if a reader were to peruse articles in the New York Times, CNN or other major media.

Of course many notable people are almost if never covered in major media. For example, your local city councilor would be mostly covered in local media. So coverage there would be sufficient to establish weight. Similarly, for tiny far right groups, weight could be established by coverage in niche publications devoted to them.

So what do we do if the main sources ignore an important story? We ignore it because the policy says that sources determine what is important, not Wikipedia editors. Every editor is free to ask mainstream media to give greater coverage to issues they find important and readers are free to go to sources that reflect their own ideology.

TFD (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be a minor brouhaha from largely-Jewish sources. There is 100% NOT a problem with being a Jewish-oriented source, but, it does speak to the idea that the event in question was considered trivial by the rest of the Reliable Source Universe. ValarianB (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well argued. I'm okay leaving it out then. Benevolent human (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate undue-tagging

Toa Nidhiki05: Please remove the undue-tag from the section on the SSRC study of Islamophobic attacks. It was picked up by mainstream sources (in addition to the NY Times, which published the opinion piece); see, for example, the news story in the Washington Post [13]. The SSRC is a mainstream NGO that's best known (I believe) for providing grants for social science research. NightHeron (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I will not be removing the tag as the text violates the page's clear and consistent WP:DUE and WP:RECENT standards. This survey was a tiny blip on the news radar and has no long-term notability; does not meet the WP:10YEARSTEST. Toa Nidhiki05 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added several more references to the section, showing that the study was not the only source saying she is the target of hate speech. I think the "undue" tag can be removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of removing it. All you’ve done is add a Washington Post and NYT summary of the study as well as a separate piece from the Guardian saying she’s been the subject of hate speech, which is already mentioned in prior sections. This study will not be relevant in ten years and it is undue to include it as its own section, and likely include it in the article at all. From my own searching, NYT and WaPo appear to be perhaps the only outlets that have even mentioned it, and one of those mentions was an op-ed from the authors of the study - not independent coverage, really. There’s been zero attention towards it since its initial publication. Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

That's incorrect. I added a WaPo news article about an entirely unrelated incident of hateful rhetoric towards her, and a Guardian op-ed citing many instances. Neither of them are related to the study. The NYT summary was already in the article. Re she’s been the subject of hate speech, which is already mentioned in prior sections, I agree that the issue is raised separately in several previous short sections, and perhaps they should be combined into a summary section on the subject, in which the study would be one paragraph - not its own subsection. Anybody have any thoughts on that? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The survey may be a "tiny blip", but hate speech targeted at Omar is surely a part of her biography that will pass the 10-years-test. It is not undue to focus a small section on the topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem stands that there is no indication this survey is notable... at all. Literally one source independent of the writers covering it. This page isn't even allowed to have details on her election campaigns - how on earth is a random survey nobody reported on notable? Toa Nidhiki05 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Several editors disagree with you. You need to step aside right now. That's how this place is supposed to work. Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No, I don’t, and no, it isn’t. We’re having a discussion - join it or back off. Toa Nidhiki05 23:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

May I put in a request that everyone desist from personalized comments (the use of the imperative voice, etc.)? No need to respond, please just let's not. --JBL (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The "blip" illustrates a particular kind of manipulative, dishonest hate speech typically directed against Omar. Thus I think it belongs in the article, and the tag should be removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am drafting a way to combine all those little subsections - some of which are on minor points - into a couple of more general categories like "Threats" and "Hate speech". I'll bring it here for discussion before implementing. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Times Square protest

This protest was attended by only a few hundred people and the quote by Joe Diamond, who is pretty much a nobody, is not appropriate. To include info in this bio we need more media discussion than the amount that this protest generated. I am removing this paragraph. Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Diff for reference [14]. I agree 100% with cutting that meaningless protest and cruft quote. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I can't be the only person who is getting a little bored with this article popping up on my watchlist, usually because a couple of editors have added something negative about Omar (or removed something positive) and other editors have reverted it. I would point out that one of the DS that this is under is BLP, and persistently attempting to shoehorn negative material into a BLP is probably not a good idea. And I would have thought that people would know by now not to use Fox News in a political BLP. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Anytime a Congressman or Congresswoman's statement causes significant controversy, it merits direct mention in this encyclopedia article. This statement from Omar, designed to promote a false equivalency, is no exception. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I’d absolutely love to hear how being slammed by an ambassador from another country and members of your own party over comments equivocating the US with the Taliban isn’t notable. Toa Nidhiki05 11:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Times of Israel has a fit, random Israeli politician has a fit, and a random moderate Dem is "outraged". I'm sure by now Fox and Friends has had a field day with this too, until the next cicada attacks President Biden or he slips up a set of steps. You, judging by your track record of being on the losing end of pretty much every RfC and discussion that comes along on this talk page, are hellbent on getting every daily criticism of Omar slammed into the the article. Trying to paint a 24-pt margin of victory as a flop was particularly charming, and snide comments like "Editors here have long ago discarded the idea that criticism of her for any reason can be included in any meaningful sense" are just disruptive. And those examples are found by only going back ONE archive hop. ValarianB (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Israeli ambassador to the US is a “random” figure. Next thing you’ll tell me is that the 12 Jewish Democrats who are demanding she clarify her comment are also “random”. Meanwhile we quite literally have a section in this article devoted to covering literally just a random guy that put up a mean banner at a convention (and got called out by the state GOP in the process), something that's gotten virtually no media attention since the week after it happened. ”Randomness” sure seems like a very convenient way to write off stuff you don’t want in an article. It's also quite interesting that you claim the The Times of Israel "had a fit" when this is, in fact, a news article covering a current event, not an opinion one - unless you think Israeli media is somehow inherently unreliable or that it's a right-wing outlet (which it isn't), I'm not sure how that comment is productive to the discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 12:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If it is generally only Israel complaining, then, yes, it is pretty much irrelevant to Ilhan Omar's biography. No different from China raising a stink every time a US Senator visits Taiwan. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that any and all news outlets in Israel are representative of the views of the government and that half the Democratic Jewish caucus are Israeli. Thanks for letting me know, ValarianB! I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The comparison would be to Rep. Omar's 2018 remarks which earned widespread coverage in numerous sources, and is important to mention in the article body (not in the lead, another argument which you have been on the wrong end of frequently). This does not rise to that. Also, do you find sarcasm to be an effective communication tool, or does it tend to just contribute to an overall deteriorating atmosphere on in the American Politics and Arab-Israeli topic area? ValarianB (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I do find sarcasm to be an effective response in responding to absurdity, yes. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A ton of sources have just picked up the story:

• Hareetz - 'Islamophobic Tropes Are Offensive': Ilhan Omar Slams Jewish Critics
• Business Insider - Rep. IIhan Omar accuses her Democratic colleagues of 'harassment' and invoking 'Islamophobic tropes' about her comments on US opposition to war crimes investigations
• Newsweek - Ilhan Omar Defended by Progressive Jewish Groups After Controversial Israel, U.S. Remarks
• New York Times - Ilhan Omar Again Sets Off a Fight Among Democrats
• New York Post - House Democrats knock Omar over tweet equating US, Hamas, Taliban
• Fox News - Dem infighting reaches new level after Omar calls colleagues' criticism 'islamophobic'
• NBC News - Group of House Democrats condemn Rep. Omar for remarks about U.S., Israel, Hamas and the Taliban
• CBS News - 11 House Democrats object to Ilhan Omar's comments on Hamas and Israel
• The Hill - Omar says she's getting death threats over comparison of US and Israel to Hamas and Taliban
• Axios - Jewish Democrats clash with Ilhan Omar after comments on U.S. and Israel
• USA Today - 'Offensive': House lawmakers rebuke fellow Democrat Ilhan Omar for equating US, Israel with Hamas, Taliban
• The Guardian - Omar receives death threats as lawmakers condemn her comments
• The Washington Post - Jewish Democratic lawmakers condemn Rep. Ilhan Omar over ‘offensive’ tweet equating U.S. and Israel to Hamas and Taliban
• Minneapolis Star-Tribune - Omar tweet faces pushback from Democrats
• POLITICO - Ilhan Omar calls out fellow Democrats for criticizing her as new controversy flares

Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that generally happens with news cycles. And yes, 12 members of her party, a party with 219 house representatives, have said they disagree with her. Horrors. nableezy - 14:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your insightful contribution to this discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wish I could say the same? Even sarcastically it would be lacking imo. nableezy - 20:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with nableezy, and I suspect this is just a news cycle flare-up. That said, my crystal ball skills are lacking and probably shouldn’t be in charge of what’s included in the article. For now, I’d support a short mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That's reasonable for now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

House Leadership weighed in, so it's not just 12 members of her party. https://ijr.com/pelosi-dem-leaders-denounce-omars-false-equivalencies-us-israel-hamas/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, an admission that you are intentionally disruptive. Interesting. As for the content, still essentially in WP:NOTNEWS territory, as they're all repeating the same exact thing. Wait a few days, see what develops. ValarianB (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that the issues in this latest edit are substantially different from past ones. It should have been obvious that it would generate the same arguments and the outcome would be the same. Are we going to do this every time Omar says something about the Middle East? TFD (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If the issue receives a lot of coverage in reliable sources, then it meets criteria for inclusion per WP:DUE. The concern has been that it hasn't received enough coverage to date to meet this threshold. But yes, if mainstream media continues to saturate this issue with coverage, then we may need to revisit our assessment for due weight. Benevolent human (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

IT's not just Israel, the House Democratic leadership also came out with a statement against Omar. The fact that it takes a miracle to insert anything even remotely negative into this article is just more proof of the failure of wikipedia. https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-seeks-to-quell-uproar-over-omars-latest-comments-195000783.html Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's another source that might be better: https://ijr.com/pelosi-dem-leaders-denounce-omars-false-equivalencies-us-israel-hamas/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

She also walked back her remark, which itself is noteworthy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That statement isnt "against Omar", and again there is yet no demonstration that this will have any lasting impact. This remains a single news cycle with nobody being able to judge what weight it should or should not be given. nableezy - 21:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As has been stated over and over ad nauseum, noteworthiness depends solely upon the degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources in relation to overall coverage of the person. So when you say, "I’d absolutely love to hear how being slammed by an ambassador from another country and members of your own party over comments equivocating the US with the Taliban isn’t notable," "House Leadership weighed in, so it's not just 12 members of her party," "She also walked back her remark, which itself is noteworthy," you are explaining why it is important to you, but that is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it should be in the article. This is not a forum for discussing Ilhan Omar, but for discussing changes to the article. These types of discussions are a distraction. TFD (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

“We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. “We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. ..I asked [Secretary of State Antony Blinken] where people are supposed to go for justice.' Axios reports she was referencing U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court conducting investigations of potential war crimes in the Gaza conflict and Afghanistan.

That, rather than the equivalency spin sold in so many newspaper reports, is what she said. All one could get for this BLP article from those remarks is that she thinks the principles of accountability in courts of justice should be invariable, applied impartially, whether those accused of committing atrocities are the Taleban, Hamas, the USA or Israel or whoever. It's the ancient principle no one would challenge: 'No one is above the law'.To report it otherwise would be to distort what is a simple affirmation of International Law, which it is hard to imagine any legal mind anywhere would challenge. The International Court of Justice at present is examining both Hamas and Israel with regard to charges that both engage in gross abuses of the Geneva Conventions. Similar moves are being made against Australian soldiers for the known atrocities their special forces committed in Afganistan. So the uproar in so many articles has nothing to do with what she thinks: not that the USA is interchangeable with the Taleban, or Israel with Hamas. but that all four should be judged for their respective acts of belligerence by the same neutral criterion. Not a scandal. The edits proposed want to highlight, not her views, but the news spin about this, which is inaccurate and focused on 'reactions', not on the substance.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani: Per WP:RS, the "news spin" is exactly what we want to highlight. We want to highlight the consensus of mainstream, reliable sources if our goal is to follow Wikipedia's policies. Benevolent human (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. We don't do that here as explained. When the up-and-coming PM of Israel Naftali Bennett stated years ago

I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

It hit the news cycle, but proved to be enduring, hence notable, since it is revived often ever since (unlike this, for the moment flash in the pan) and therefore is included in his wikibio.

We give it a sparse two lines. The whole quote and a source that says it was 'widely condemned', and even assert it is alleged (it happens to be exactly he said), simply because he backtracked. There is no jumping at the fish frenzy of partisan comment. The bare bones. That is the model for such remarks, and in the present case, one would have to quote the whole of the tweet, rather than excerpts cited by critics. But to repeat, affirming that the principles of international law should be applied impartially to all parties charged with violating them is not a noticeable personal opinion. It is the default view of all lawyers. Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

See Balancing aspects: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." It doesn't say we should add everything that makes news. TFD (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, totally agree. But if there comes a point where this becomes not a news story but a pattern of statements, _and_ if mainstream reliable sources denote it as a pattern of statements that is significant and give it prominant coverage, then it should be included in some way as part of that noteworthy pattern. No? Benevolent human (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't use the term "pattern of behavior" as if Omar were a misbehaving child. That term is inappropriate to describe someone who is expressing outrage at human rights violations by Israel that are implicitly condoned by the US. Her outrage is shared by much of the mainstream media internationally; see, for example, the BBC's report on the children killed in Gaza [15]. NightHeron (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Benevolent human (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Good point. It's important that we remember to avoid US-centric bias. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hit me up on my talk page if you want to talk about the politics of the underlying situation; I'm happy to chat about that if you'd like. I agree with TFD that here is the place to talk about what Wikipedia's policies say about what should be included in the article. Benevolent human (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Including this story would mean including all parts of the story, what she initially said (that all parties should be held to the same standards), the criticism, the criticism of that criticism (AOC for example calling it "vilification, intentional mischaracterization"), the clarification (not walking back as claimed above), and the statement from leadership that despite the mischaracterization above as coming out against her was a "ok thanks for clarifying now lets move on" (see BBC: House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a rare joint statement with leaders of the chamber's committees seeking to quell the party unrest.) and including all of that would mean a solid paragraph about what seems to have already dropped out of the news cycle and has had and will have no impact on anything besides the pulses of those who see Omar's name in the news and think her Wikipedia biography is the place to prove the case against Omar. If this has any sustained coverage can be revisited, but for now there is literally nothing to include in the article about this. It doesnt even merit an additional sentence in the remarks on Israel section. nableezy - 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As per Nableezy, and others. There's simply no warrant here for mentioning this. Move on.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

New information

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

result: PROCEDURAL: 2nd illegitimate RfC by same user in less than 2 weeks, per 5.b.1 of ARBPIA. NightHeron (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

---

We have reached a consensus here that information should go in the article to the degree that mainstream reliable sources cover it, per policy. We disputed whether to include Omar's stereotyping of American Jews in the lead on the basis that it was a news story that may have been given short-lived coverage, but we now have continuing coverage of these events over a year later:

• "Omar’s tweet is the latest among her frequent criticisms of the Israeli government that drew ire from lawmakers of both parties who have condemned them as perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes." - Washington Post [16]
• "Her Twitter comment in 2019 that support in Washington for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby” kicked off weeks of fighting that ended in a resolution on the House floor condemning bigotry and anti-Semitism. The comments played into anti-Semitic tropes that have 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." [17]

Per 5.b.1 of ARBPIA, I am therefore opening a new RFC whether, in light of this new information, some mention of criticism of Omar's alleged stereotyping of American Jews unaffiliated with Israel should be mentioned in the lead. Benevolent human (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. That was not the consensus reached above. The consensus reconfirmed the long-standing policy that wiki is not a tabloid recycler of recent blips in the news cycle. I see you give the Washington Post's absurd spin on this, that her remark was a classic medieval anti-Semitic trope about Jews as moneylenders, and not a catchy tweet summarizing what two of the foremost political scientists in the US John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have minutely documented (in a book everyone in Washington has read), as a more responsible journalist Ben Ehrenreich argued (Ben Ehrenreich 'This Is What the Beginning of a Real Israel Debate Looks Like,', New Republic 15 February 2019).

In short, given that whatever either of the 2 Muslim congresswomen say regarding the I/P conflict gets almost invariably an hysteric wave of 'reactions', quoting these incidents compels per NPOV/BLP expansion to at least a paragraph for each. I've no problem personally with analyzing thoroughly each such tweet per sources (all sources), but doing so would mean we would get massive expansion of this page, from being about her, to being about her and Israel, precisely what the real consensus above decided to avoid. Eventually, one would require a strong neutral depoliticized analysis reviewing these incidents collectively, rather than a dozen paragraphs to-and-froing each tweet or comment, which is the precedent the proposal here is trying to establish-Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Just in case editors are unfamiliar with the context of her references to AIPAC and $100 dollar notes, I'll supply it:

‘AIPAC’s success is due in large part to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda and to punish those who do not, based mainly on its capacity to influence campaign contributions. Money is crucial to campaign elections, which have become increasingly expensive to win, and AIPAC makes sure its friends get financial support so long as they do not stray from AIPAC’s line. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby Penguin Books 2007 p.154.

As the two scholars clarify, what AIPAC does is nothing unusual. All communities and power interests have lobbies, just that, in their view, this particular one had flourished without any one taking the trouble to analyse it.

When a Muslim Congresswoman states that obvious reality in a punchy phrase, all hell broke loose, though one could hear it in a lecture at Yale or ChicagoU by those authors or many other authoritative figures, with no recrimination or public scandal ensuing. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support I am under no illusions users will allow this, but it's pretty damn clear this is notable at this point, several years on, and a defining trait of her public image. Toa Nidhiki05 02:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DUE. Benevolent human (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aipac incident continued

Section bloat, of the kind we frown on. Following on the previous section, I would note that this is grossly undue, covering every tweet, response made by the usual partisan line-up of politicians and journalists. I think that kind of detail is useless, but won't excise it. What is important is that a very clear overview of the context from which her remark arose, and mention of the furious media showcasing of it, without any regard for that context, take precedence. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

my edit was reverted as controversial. I was told to take it to the talk page by an editor who hadn't noticed that I already had, unlike the reverter who, rather than join the conversation, just excised the indispensable paragraph which tells the reader in what context her remark was made (by a Republican senator who attacked her over her position on Israel three months after making, according to the source, an anti-Semitic attack on three Jews. So, explain yourself. I'm not an expert but your edits over the past day look like they have broken the 1R rule per ARBPIA3. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit is grammatically poor, incredibly bloated, and relies on a single opinion piece rather than reliable news coverage. It is not Wikipedia’s job to go to pains to try and justify her comments - which virtually no reliable sources did. Toa Nidhiki05 16:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage Generalrelative to revert their attempt to force this content into the article while discussion is ongoing. This page is under 1RR and per BRD, contested edits should be discussed rather than having an edit war. Toa Nidhiki05 16:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI I have given no indication of my gender. As to the rest, please see the conduct warning I posted on your talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, I would strongly encourage you to revert your edit, as this page is under 1RR and our bold, revert, discuss policy requires contested edits be left out of the article while discussion is ongoing. If you don’t, I may have to request this page be protected. Toa Nidhiki05 16:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Nishdani's edit was fine, and I would have reverted you as well. Feel free to discuss your concerns here. ValarianB (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05 you write:

Your edit is grammatically poor, incredibly bloated, and relies on a single opinion piece rather than reliable news coverage

Assertions.

• It was grammatically complex, not 'poor' except for people who read twitter perhaps and not books.
• Incredibly bloated. Oh really. The original text you prefer reads:

In an exchange with the journalist Glenn Greenwald in February 2019, Omar tweeted, "It's all about the Benjamins baby" in reference to American politicians' support for Israel and invoked the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Those 26 words are followed by two paragraphs with 509 words of insinuations she was anti-Semitic or lame defenses )(no smoke without fire). So you think we should muzzle her by brevity of reportage, and pass the megaphone to the political commentariat that smothers her words in innuendo. This is a BLP article. One mustn't do that.

Ehrenreich's article is an 'opinion piece'? No. Four days into the instantaneous news cycle, Ehrenreich stepped back and analysed the furore, providing (a) the whole context within which she made that remark and ( b) the larger context, Mearsheimer and Walt's book is known to everyone in those circles, and stated. by now uncontroversially, a reality which, if alluded to by a Muslim woman, becomes horrific, anti-Semitic, hostile. Ehrenreich, unlike most of those journalists writing articles for a deadline in the 24/7 news cycle, has an intimate knowledge of the I/P conflict, he's been all over that territory, written an outstanding book on it. And, yeah, he's Jewish.

Finally, the text you restored, which I had expanded because of its inadequacies, had several flaws, which appear to have escaped your attention.

• It was not an exchange, but a response to Greenwald’s prompt.
• There was no link to what Benjamin means ($100) (This is a global encyclopedia)
• The Guardian gives the tweet with punctuation:'It's all about the Benjamins, baby'. Other sources don't punctuate. Since you are apparently a grammatical precisian, you should have evaluated the noticeable difference in meaning.
• There was no link to the fact she simply quoted a line from a popsong.
• She did not invoke AIPAC in that ‘exchange’ with Greenwald, as the earlier text asserts.

YOu observed none of this, ignored the obvious defects of the text I emended, and in reverting, excised details that are crucial for any reader wanting to know what she meant by the remark. So, it is evident that you prefer the distortion, and that means you should not be editing BPL articles. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

No, your edit is not "grammatically complex". It has a slew of glaring typos and errors, including:

• Misspelling "Republican" as "Republioan"
• Improperly placed dashes
• Spelling "hip hop" as "hiphop" and linking to an entirely different article
• Not including a space after a period
• Italicizing "AIPAC"
• Not italicizing The Israeli Lobby and linking it to an entirely different page that is not the book
• Using apostrophes instead of quotes
• "paying American politicians to be pro-Israel"

To put it bluntly - the grammar here is horrendous. It's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Moreover, your edit quite literally dwarfs the entire rest of the section in size. Ehrenreich's piece is, in fact, an opinion piece, which means it is not authoritative for statements of fact. Your attempt to tie this claim into something McCarthy said is frankly ludicrous and is not mentioned in any reliable source beyond one opinion piece, which is again not reliable for statements of fact. The citation itself is also formatted incorrectly. It seems to me like you are going to pains to try and justify her comments, which is not the role of this encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 19:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

'blunty'. Learn to spell before you venture to accuse others of solecistic practices. The rest of your screed is just blather.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Well that's not very nice, or very productive. Are you not interested in discussing your edit? Toa Nidhiki05 19:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't expect niceness from me if I detect an abuse of wiki protocols, editing behaviour that appears to support the smearing of people. I explained my edit. In bullets. You ignored 95% of them. It's you who ought to explain yourself. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I've attended to most of your grievances listed above. But you should look up the word 'grammar' in a dictionary. Orthographic slips, lack of consonance in the use of italics, minor punctuation or mark-up matters etc., have nothing to do with grammar. Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RFC

We have discussed how information should go in the article to the degree that mainstream reliable sources cover it, per policy. We disputed whether to include Omar's stereotyping of American Jews in the lead on the basis that it was a news story that may have been given short-lived coverage, but we now have continuing coverage of these events over a year later:

• "Omar’s tweet is the latest among her frequent criticisms of the Israeli government that drew ire from lawmakers of both parties who have condemned them as perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes." - Washington Post [18]
• "Her Twitter comment in 2019 that support in Washington for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby” kicked off weeks of fighting that ended in a resolution on the House floor condemning bigotry and anti-Semitism. The comments played into anti-Semitic tropes that have 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." [19]

Having addressed procedural concerns about the previous RFC, I am therefore opening a new RFC whether, in light of this new information, some mention of criticism of Omar's alleged stereotyping of American Jews unaffiliated with Israel should be mentioned in the lead. Benevolent human (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. This editor's third RfC in 2 weeks asking for the reversal of a consensus of earlier discussions is again illegitimate, this time for a different reason. (The OP made over 200 quick edits in the last 24 hours so as to be able to start an RfC related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but apparently neglected to read WP:RfC first.) According to policy, the RfC statement must be a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. The above statement is neither brief nor neutral. NightHeron (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like Wikipedia:Gaming the system. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I'm taking a class and had a day off today since I finished my work early, so was able to spend the day on Wikipedia. This is the third RfC because people kept closing them illegitimately (custom is that they're open for 7 days). As I explained on ANI, ARBPIA never applied to this situation since this has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict. Benevolent human (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

So that's some wikilawyering there. WP:AGF says If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. NightHeron has substantiated their doubts. This repeated pushing POV in RFCs is WP:TEND. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I hold you all in the highest respect, but I don't really agree with these allegations (see my earlier post). This RfC prompt appears similar to others. For several weeks, we've been avoiding the issue at hand through these ad hominem attacks and we should now come to a decision on this question one way or another. Benevolent human (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support This incident was headline news at the time, and continues to be mentioned in headline news articles today, years later. Regardless of where you stand on the debate as to how to interpret Omar's remarks, the controversy is one of the things that is most known about her. Benevolent human (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Benevolent human, I wrote in reply to your previous RfC, "See: Statement should be neutral and brief: "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple." I suggest you re-write the RfC to remove the obvious bias. [21:41, 1 June 2021] TFD (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The same RfC was already presented and one more article makes no difference. The material is undue and tendentiously written. TFD (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I am concerned that the same RfC or substantially same RfC is being presented over and over in order to get the desired result, which is to include contentious statements in a BLP that Ilhan Omar engages in anti-Semitism on Twitter. We must be extra cautious when including contentious statements per WP:BLP. Since there have been previous RfC discussions that arrived at the conclusion not to include these statements, I believe we must err on the side of caution. TrueQuantum (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment You're being mislead :(. Two RfC's were closed this month without conclusion due to claimed procedural issues. Before that, one RfC on this issue succeeded in 2019 and one failed in 2020. For reference, here is the 2019 RfC and here is the 2020 RfC. Benevolent human (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Nothing has changed regarding allegations of anti-semitism. Omar's recent statement was not anti-semitic. She said what many others have said, namely, that human rights violations are equally odious when committed by Israel or the US as when committed by the Taliban or Hamas. The parents of a child who's killed are not comforted by the knowledge that the rocket was sent by a democracy. Omar is talking about specific acts that are in violation of international law. She's not claiming any type of general "moral equivalence" between Israel/US and Taliban/Hamas. NightHeron (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Accusations of anti-Semitism are very serious and the threshold to include them here by WP:BLP standards are not met in my opinion. The fact that this has been discussed multiple times in previous RfCs only reinforces my opposition here.---CranberryMuffin (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Benevolent human, "the controversy is one of the things that is most known about her." One of the most known things about Elizabeth Warren is "Poncahontas", but we don't put that in her lead either. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)