Talk:Ilhan Omar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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)
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 [[1]]. --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 [[2]] : a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views. Here's Cambridge [[3]]: 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" [[4]]. And yes, because I need secondary coverage for my talk page statements, enjoy the reading [[5]] [[6]] [[7]]. 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[8] 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[9] 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 ([10]), 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:

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.


  • 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 [11] 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[12] 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[edit]

  • 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)
Outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could mean either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, or neither. And even with more direct characterizations of Omar as "outspoken" from the likes of The Hill and The Washington Post, it's still an opinion, like calling her "frank" or "candid". It might be clearer and more neutral to say something like, A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has spoken against Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns... What do others think about it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 Implemented the above wording pending any objections. Also, there's no need to Wikilink Israel and Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Israeli settlement all in the same sentence. One link to the most specific topic is preferred. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
No objections, the addition makes sense--thanks for the suggestion. However, the wording is a bit redundant--a frequent critic of Israel, but also outspoken about settlement policy? Could we drop that first clause and just say she's objected to Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns, or is that too tight? ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I assume this edit implies an objection, so I've tried A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns... as a compromise. "has been outspoken" is still a value judgement, so "denounced" is both more concise and more neutral. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Include- It is established that targeting just Israel is anti-Semitism add to the fact that she also attacked the Jewish Eliott Abrams on his loyalty96.67.10.107 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This makes it all the more absurd that the controversies regarding her commentary on the conflict are not mentioned. A month later, this is still the most prominent element of her public profile, and will likely be for some time. Here's the latest example from the New York Times:
That more strident support has now been greeted with more strident opposition, most obviously from Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, the first Muslim woman elected to Congress. She has been widely condemned for peddling anti-Semitic stereotypes about the undue influence of Jewish lobbies over policy or that call into question Jews’ national allegiance.

Her political positions on Israel as as noteworthy as the criticism that they have provoked, and we should not mention one without the other. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Did we not just have an RFC over including what you are now attempting to include? You see any consensus for that in the RFC? nableezy - 20:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
1) My recent edits[13][14] to the lead did not fall under the subject of the RfC you are referring to. 2) That RfC is still open, and it's perfectly within mine and anyone else's purview to continue to cite additional sources and add to the discussion, as I just did above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure this NYT article implies the anti-Semitism controversy is the most prominent aspect of Omar's profile. The article is about anti-Semitism in general, and the recent Omar controversy is a topical illustration of some aspects of that (not mentioned until halfway through the article). Using an article focused specifically on anti-Semitism to determine what is and isn't noteworthy about Omar's bio seems like an example of the composition fallacy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
When all you have is a hammer etc. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

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

I find that there is consensus to include some mention of this in the lead section at this time, but no consensus about a specific wording or how extensive the mention should be. While many of those favouring excluding the information cite the recentism policy, this does not prohibit coverage of recent events - significant events should not be excluded simply because they are recent. I also find consensus that this is a significant element of the subject's career to date. If the significance decreases over time then this discussion can and should be revisted - I would suggest though to wait at least a year or until there is another significant event they are involved with. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
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.

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. [15] [16] [17]. [18]. [19]. 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)
Not sure why you keep saying that, her tweets were condemned as antisemitic by Pelosi and the House Leadership, among others, and those tweets were deleted by Omar, and she apologized for those tweets. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:39, 7 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 [20], "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)
Please do not clutter my !vote. Extended discussion can be had down below. R2 (bleep) 18:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There have been four[21][22][23][24] 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)
The controversy involves comments dating back to 2012. That was almost seven years ago, and yet it's still something of interest, so this almost certainly will be of lasting significance. Whitewashing this from the lead is completely inconsistent with policy and detracts from the quality of this article. Readers' first impression based on this bare-bones opening will be that they will be best served learning about the subject elsewhere. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Which is fine, since Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and we have to be especially catious with BLPs. If readers mostly care about the latest scandals involving public figures, there are plenty of other sources for that information. Since many claims here revolve around notability, it seems wise to wait for published sources to evaluate the significance of this in hindsight. Most sources on her 2012 remarks appear to be from late 2018/early 2019, so that's not a sign of enduring significance yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
This has been the subject of at least four NYT articles over the two months. Selectively omitting negative information and disregarding prominent sources may be fine with you, but it has nothing to do with compliance with WP:BLP and creates a serious WP:NPOV issue. MOS:LEAD makes very clear this information should be noted in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, one of those articles ("Glorified and Vilified, Representative-Elect Ilhan Omar Tells Critics: 'Just Deal'" by Sheryl Stolberg, 30 December 2018) says nothing about anti-Semitism, canards, or tweets referring to Israel. Where does MoS say to include everything reported by the Times anyway? WP:BLPSTYLE specifically says: keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced. That's also part of NPOV. The events are recent and ongoing; see today's coverage by NBC and Politico. More is sure to come; it's prudent to wait and see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The article you cited makes multiple references to her position on Israel as a target of criticism, and the follow-up articles focus on her alleged use of anti-semitic tropes and the fallout in Congress, including this one today. I don't see it as prudent to disregard WP:NPOV and omit any mention of her positions on Israel or the antisemitic trope controversy from the lead; If we're going to be consistent, prominent controversies must be addressed in the opening. That's policy, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a way to do this without raising BLP concerns or presenting the subject in an unduly negative light—I think if this RfC had been opened at a later time, or if the proposed wording had been slightly different, editors may have weighed in differently. I agree with your last point about there being more to come; My hope is that the arguments and positions of WP editors will evolve as well to account for that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll also add that I've seen no justification for this iteration of the "wait and see" argument. Wait for what, exactly? For everyone to move on and lose interest? This is denying the opportunity for editors to craft the invaluable "first draft," which is a positive aspect mentioned under WP:RECENTISM. Each time the subject makes a new set of remarks, the argument remains the same, and certain editors insist that, no matter how many sources are provided, and how neutrally the explanation is worded, it presents a WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP violation (it doesn't). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
...references to her position on Israel as a target of criticism are not the same as accusations of anti-Semitism, though there is certainly an ongoing push to conflate the two, here and elsewhere. The issue of MOS:LEAD (not the only relevant guideline; see MOS:BLP as well) hinges on the meaning of prominent controversy, with room for opinions on both sides. Such disputes do not imply that anyone is "censoring" or disregarding WP:NPOV, which actually states discussion of ... criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance ... This is a concern especially in relation to recent events... I think that pretty well describes the current situation. "First drafts" are the wrong way to go. Per WP:BLP, The idea that it is okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape does not apply: biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. If people do indeed lose interest in this, that's a sign that it doesn't belong in the lead section at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
...references to her position on Israel as a target of criticism are not the same as accusations of anti-Semitism, though there is certainly an ongoing push to conflate the two, here and elsewhere. This is entirely unfounded, and I would suggest you retract it. The allegations of antisemitism are clearly laid out in the sources. And also, MOS:BLP supports inclusion in the lead: When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. This policy assumes that prominent controversies will be addressed in the lead. What is being proposed is a single sentence to address the controversy. The significance of this controversy is clearly established by the way this has been treated by reliable sources; that "room for opinion" does not allow for you or anyone else to opine on what consitutes a legitimate controversy. WP:DUE requires each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources., not speculation and fast-and-loose assessments of cherry-picked pieces. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The allegations of antisemitism are clearly laid out in the sources. Yes, except for the one I specifically named. MOS:BLP also says Well-publicized recent events ... should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable.Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:37, 8 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)
  • 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 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
Do you really think that popular claim of anti-Semitism somehow proves anti-Semitism? She has never said that Jews hold dual allegiance, she said that members of Congress are pressured to hold allegiance to Israel, which this whole episode is a great example of. From the article I linked above, which you either didn't read or don't care to acknowledge <quote>The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being.</quote>Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
That's your opinion, not Omar's who actually apologized for her prior tweets. And you keep bringing in Israel, which I don't thin I mentioned. She was criticized for several tweets and statements, not just one. I also urge you to actually watch the C-Span replay before you call out those who are criticizing her as disingenuous. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:01, 8 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)
Hello, her tweets aren't anti-Semetic. I say that as someone who identifies as Jewish. I hold dual allegiances to the US and common sense. You might check out how Wikipedia has handled the many baseless charges of anti-Semitism against Noam Chomsky, which merit one line, in passing: "His criticism of Israel has led to him being accused of being a traitor to the Jewish people and an anti-Semite". Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 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)
  • Exclude as written. If there is agreement in the future to include something, Nblund has made a proposal that I think is reasonable.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Include obviously very WP:DUE. All of the proposed wordings are fine summaries of these events that have continued coverage, but the best would be the one which mentions the allegations that are the most prominent according to reliable sources. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Include - to most people in the U.S. (and the world), she's only known for one thing at this point, and this is it. The wording could be improved to be a little more unbiased - I put my suggestion below - but I think it would be silly not to include the antisemitism allegations in the intro. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is a highly notable, but currently developing story. We should see how it ends, then properly describe it in the body of the page, and only after that summarize and include it to the lead. One question: what is the actual subject of the story? I bet this is not just "antisemitic accusations", but US-Israel politics. Another question: were these accusations something justifiable or they reflect badly on the reputations of accusers and others involved? - per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reply Thank you for this reasonable analysis. To answer your first question: The topic we are addressing on this page are her alleged use of antisemitic tropes. That would mean the statements themselves, the reaction, and her response, and any other related developments. As to your second question, which is undoubtedly loaded, that kind of opinionated speculation is not appropriate for discussions about this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I simply clarified why this should not be included in the lead right now. The actual story is developing [25] and is not just about "antisemitic accusations". My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It shouldn't be included in the lead because it's part of a bigger story? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Because it is not properly described yet in the body of the page.My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude for now, especially in the formulation proposed; although it's the news story du jour, it does not seem to be a significant enough part of her biography or notability as to be due so much space in the lead right now. Even if one disagrees with that, the RFC is still clearly, as Parabolist put it, "an attempt to report how big a storm is from inside it", when it naturally seems bigger than it is because it's in the news for the moment: but we have to avoid recentism, because we are not news. -sche (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude Looking through the wise prism that is the 10 year test, the only thing we are likely to remember and note is Who voted 'no' on the resolution to condemn bigotry, anti-Semitism while Omar voted yes. There is no deadline. If this is truely notable enough, time will tell. In the meantime, a significant number of sources indicate we should be cautious.[26][27][28] The situation being what it is, forgive me but I am not ready to even imply that Omar, arguably a Semite herself, is an anti-Semite in the lead section of her BLP.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a red herring. I watched the debate. They voted no for principled reasons, I urge you to actually read up on why they voted no or actually contact them and ask. And antisemitism only applies to Jews, not to Muslims, as you can see from the antisemitism page. Further, nobody is asking to label her an antisemite, just putting her tweets and comments in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Your argument that antisemitism is especially reserved for jews has convinced me. I have changed my vote to Present.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: So your argument for exclusion is based on a) a misunderstanding of the definition of antisemitism and b) your personal opinion that allegations of antisemitism against the subject are not noteworthy, despite how they've been treated in the sources. Apparently you forgot this from WP:DUE: 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. And "Jews" is capitalized, by the way. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude. The whole thing is fuzzy enough already anyway, but even if this weren't it's undue for the lead. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude for now; long-term significance is still in question, so the section in the body should be sufficient for now. In my opinion, the story is too complicated to describe in the lead; I really don't think "some say Omar's comments are anti-Semitic; she and some others deny this" sums up the story satisfactorily, and anything more than two sentences in the lead would definitely be undue. Davey2116 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Include. Our article is telling us that the 2012 comment that "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel", particularly the notion that Israelis had "hypnotized the world," was criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes. This continues to be an important part of her notability in 2019 due to more recent comments she has made. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude Too recentist and undue. This is not the kind of information a politician is primarily known for, especially when those accusations are quite unsubstantiated - heavily debated and among RS and arguably fueled by the lobbyists she criticized. It'd make the lead ridiculous to read in 2035ridiculous to read by 2035. Sure, George H. W. Bush was widely condemned for being a war criminal, and where is such information we certinly don't include that in that lead?. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 23:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Most of us have less of an ability to envision the year "2035". Smile.png Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
So the controversy is basically "all about the Benjamins" in your view? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Impressive way of construing another editor's view. Wow. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 22:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Tsumikiria—as two editors have already responded to your post please "strike-through" your comments if you wish to change them. This is outlined at WP:REDACT. I've restored your post to the form it was before the two of us responded to it. But please feel free to alter it using the strike-through method of making changes. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 23:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude per NBlund and WP:RECENTISM. Also the actual proposed wording is obviously a total no-go (independent of the question of whether some discussion should be in the lead); the version proposed by NBlund below is much better. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Include: per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. This is a prominent controversy.--Never Forget 2701 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude leave it for the body. Magherbin (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Include. I've seen articles on other politicians that list gaffes that could be attributed to anti semitism in the lede. Omar repeated common anti-semitic myths such as dual loyalty to the point that the House had to pass a resolution clearly targeted at her condemning hate. Shouldn't WP be more proactive in combatting blatant anti-semitism disguised as the ten year rule??? Kilometerman (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude as written; Omar was not personally called an anti-Semite by all the groups named. The sources I've seen put much greater weight on accusations of anti-Semitic comments or rhetoric. No opinion on whether a differently worded mention of the controversy should go in the lead section, but personally I find the arguments to exclude based on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS to be more convincing than saying simply that it's been reported in RS, so it's DUE. Due weight involves the entire body of sources on a subject, not just the most recent ones. We should know more about whether the controversy is central to her notability six months to a year from now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed wordings and additional discussion[edit]

  • 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)
  • I prefer Nblund's version to the original one, but I think it makes it sound like only a few groups were criticizing Omar. So here's my suggested re-wording: Starting soon after taking office in the House of Representatives, Omar began to receive widespread criticism for public comments she has made, notably on Twitter, criticizing Israel and pro-Israel lobbying groups in the U.S. Critics have alleged that the comments invoke antisemitic stereotypes, a claim which Omar has disputed. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gandydancer: I agree that "came under fire" is not great wording, but I didn't want to use the word "criticized" twice in the same sentence - but I'm the last person who should be weighing in on stylistic points. Korny O'Near: I think that it's important to give a rough sense of who her critics were and where they were coming from per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The story is developing, but much of the coverage has noted that this dispute pits older/more centrist Democratic leadership against younger and more left-leaning pols - that divide would need to be reflected in the language. Nblund talk 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and the "generational divide" here also makes the phrase "widespread criticism" misleading. Do we also mention the "widespread support" she's received? How do published sources characterize the issue? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
"Widespread support" is not what's described in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Theres another problem with these drafts, it implies that its just Omar disputing these claims. But it is not, eg [29]. nableezy - 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I admit that "widespread criticism" is a little vague, but on the other hand singling out just House Democratic leaders implies that, for instance, Republicans haven't objected, or politicians outside the House. For what it's worth, a web search on "ilhan omar widespread criticism" returns quite a few notable sources, including this analysis in the Washington Post and this Star Tribune article, which both use that exact phrase about the reaction to Omar. It should also be noted that "widespread criticism" doesn't mean that everyone is criticizing her. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
My problem with these proposals is not in saying who is criticizing her, but rather in pretending that Omar is by herself objecting to the claim that her comments are antisemitic. Sanders is saying the same thing, that the accusations of antisemitism are attempts to stifle legitimate criticism. Saying all these people are condemning her, and she disputes that makes it appear that her position has no support besides her own. That is not the case. nableezy - 20:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
How about "a claim which others, including Omar, have disputed"? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Fine by me. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The majority position in the RFC seems to be, so far, to exclude it from the lead entirely. My position is we let the RFC play itself out and see if there is even a consensus for inclusion in the lead at all (which tbh does not seem too likely at this point). nableezy - 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
RfC isn't about majority support Toa Nidhiki05 22:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
And who said it was? nableezy - 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Both the Washington Post and Star Tribune articles are from mid-February and describe the "Benjamins" tweet, which was not a direct rebuke of Israel. The proposed wording seeks to include her "hypnotized the world" and "allegiance to a foreign country" remarks as well. I don't think we have the sources to describe "widespread" criticism of all her statements, yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
All of these statements were criticized for drawing on anti-semitic tropes. We have more than enough sources to show that criticism came from many different corners: Democrats, Republicans, advocacy groups, etc. I don't like terms like "widespread" generally, but anyone advocating for that wording would certainly have the sources to support it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Great. Which are they? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
They've already been linked. WP:SHOWME. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Here's The Forward saying she was "criticized in the national media" for "hypnotized the world", and here's Vox saying "allegiance to a foreign country" created a "firestorm". Are those good enough? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to find sources that support a given framing for each individual remark (although "firestorm" is still pretty vague). I'd suggest looking at a wider selection of sources that examine the controversy as a whole, for instance:
  • "Ms. Omar’s comments about American Jews and Israel drew bipartisan rebukes in recent weeks, culminating Thursday with a House vote condemning anti-Semitism and other forms of hate" (NYT 3/8/19)
  • "Omar’s remarks managed to outrage most of the American Jewish establishment and spark a battle of words within the Democratic Party" (Haaretz 3/8/19)
  • "Omar's comments -- on the heels of a tumultuous week that saw her comments on pro-Israel lobbying shake up Congress" (CNN 3/8/19)
  • "Omar’s criticisms of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, which left Republicans and more than a few Democrats fuming" (Vanity Fair 3/8/19)
  • "For the second time in as many months, the freshman Minnesota Democrat has provoked contentious debate on Capitol Hill over rhetoric that many lawmakers — including senior Democrats — view as anti-Semitic" (NPR 3/7/19)
  • "...recent comments Omar made related to Israel that sparked criticism, including from fellow Democrats" (CNN 3/7/19)
  • " Wednesday afternoon, the uproar over Ms. Omar had spread beyond the House, to the White House and the Senate" (NYT 3/6/19)
  • "Provocative comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota have thrust the Democrats into an uncomfortable debate ... It's at least the third time she has forced older, pro-Israel Democrats who run the House into awkward territory over U.S.-Israeli policy" (AP 3/6/19)
The general theme here is that the controversy has mostly happened on Capitol Hill and that the criticism has come mostly from other lawmakers, which "widespread criticism" doesn't convey. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I would likewise recommend you not cherry-pick quotes to support your argument and misrepresent what's been reported. A thorough analysis of all of the sources reveals criticism extended well beyond Capitol Hill:

If you're going to quote sources and talk about "general themes," you shouldn't present such an incomplete picture. Now I actually agree that "widespread criticism" is inappropriate, as clearly some have come to her defense. However, the remarks themselves were certainly widely characterized in the sources as anti-semitic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you just cherry-pick three quotations while lecturing me about cherry-picking? Yes, one can find criticism beyond Capitol Hill for any given statement. Not surprising in our media-saturated culture. But the sources that examine the entire controversy largely frame the issue as a congressional dust-up. Since we are debating what wording, if any, to use in the lead section to characterize all of Omar's recent comments, we should stick to sources that do the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Just to quell any further doubts in the completeness of my picture, here are some more recent articles that take a look back at Omar's last few weeks:
  • "Omar has courted controversy with provocative remarks that some say invoke anti-Semitic stereotypes ... Omar faced yet another firestorm last week" (WaPo 3/10/19)
  • "Ms Omar ... sparked turmoil within the Democratic caucus with her criticisms of Israel and suggestions that Israel’s supporters wanted lawmakers to pledge 'allegiance' to a foreign country" (The Independent 3/9/19)
  • "The new lawmaker sparked a weeklong debate in Congress as fellow Democrats said her comments have no place in the party ... It wasn't her first dip into such rhetoric" (US News/AP 3/7/19)
I'd say the specifics here still focus on the congressional turmoil. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
And a few more:
  • "In the nation’s capital, Ilhan Omar drew an intense backlash ... She was accused by some lawmakers and prominent Jewish groups of anti-Semitism and playing on toxic anti-Jewish stereotypes" (NBC 3/10/19)
  • "The freshman congresswoman, one of only two female Muslim lawmakers in the House, first sparked outrage last month ... Some Jewish lawmakers and organizations condemned her latest comments" (Haaretz 3/10/19)
  • "Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ... [said] that she did not believe Omar's intent 'was to cause any offense' when she made remarks that were widely denounced by critics as anti-Semitic" (The Hill 3/10/19)
Apart from the last source, which only mentions the "allegiance" quote and isn't directly about Omar, the focus here is on Congress and Jewish organizations rather than wider criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This is helpful research, but I don't think the fact that news coverage has mostly focused on Congresspeople and Jewish organizations indicates that much - if there's a news story about someone in Congress saying something potentially anti-Semitic, those would be the two groups any journalist would go to first for comment. The descriptions in the quotes you found, I think, indicate that the perception is that the criticism is in fact widespread and not confined to Washington, D.C. Terms like "uproar", "firestorm" and "widely denounced", which are not being used in the context of these groups, seem to indicate that this is a widespread thing, even if most or all of the specific examples given are from lawmakers and Jewish groups, and some pundits. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Right, exactly. It's a problem to cite a couple of sources and say "look, the criticism is limited to these groups" when there are other sources, like the ones I linked, indicating otherwise. However, much as I hate to agree with Sangdeboeuf (kidding!) "widespread criticism" is a poor choice of words. Clearly, there is indeed some disagreement over how to properly interpret her remarks, and she's attracted both defenders and critics. Honestly, we're not going to achieve any sort of mention at this time of anti-semitism allegations in the lead, but I think at least mentioning that she'd been "outspoken" on the issue and explaining her positions is a step in the right direction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
This controversy is still ongoing. This is likely to become a defining part of her tenure.[30] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: I think I cited a good deal more than "a couple" of sources, nor did I say that the criticism was "limited" to any groups. I said that the majority of published, reliable sources frame it as a congressional issue. According to Due and undue weight, that's what the article should reflect, notwithstanding the couple of sources you provided that might suggest otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: It's a political issue, for sure, but the fact that the forceful reactions of her colleagues in the House received substantial coverage doesn't warrant minimizing this as a "congressional issue." The controversy reverberated across the political spectrum and has been addressed by numerous commentators, analysts, advocacy groups, and others, according to the sources, so, respectfully, I think your assessment is off. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It's the job of "numerous commentators" to comment on the latest scandals. That doesn't make their commentary (A) reliable or (B) an encyclopedic concern. Ditto for advocacy groups. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: What other groups did you expect to be highly covered by RS? It kind of seems like they're just reporting on the most relevant groups--Jewish orgs, congress, etc. Are there specific other groups of people missing from the reporting that you think would make the comments more due? ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I was addressing only the proposal that we say Omar's remarks received "widespread criticism", which I think is unduly vague. I haven't taken a position on the whether to mention the issue in the lead, yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
In that case, I'm inclined to agree with you. It's quite vague. Why not just say Jewish groups and/or fellow congressmen. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: You have voted WP:DUE multiple times but your comment indicates you dont understand what that policy means. If the viewpoint of an advocacy group, commentator, or constituency of Omar’s has received coverage in reliable, secondary sources, it at least meets the basic requirement for inclusion. Your argument about what is or is not “encyclopedic” has seemingly no basis in policy and is essentially meaningless. The coverage on the controversy, which appears ongoing, is not merely a congressional affair but one of national and biographical interest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I've quoted a dozen sources above that suggest otherwise. But go ahead and provide refs of a similar number and quality that you believe support the "national" scope of the controversy. Note that the sources I provided all evaluate the response to various remarks Omar made over a period of weeks, not just any one in isolation.

As for encyclopedic content, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject") and WP:PROPORTION ("discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance") (my emphasis). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I now agree, at least for the time being. There are some proportion issues here, as I've come to accept. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf WP:PROPORTION is a defense for including this material in the lead, if that's what you're arguing against (I have no idea at this point). On viewpoints, it does not matter whether the viewpoint was that of an analyst, commentator, advocacy group, or congressperson—if it's been published in WP:RS, it satisfies WP:DUE. In fact, suggesting that the input of a Jewish advocacy group weighing in on a controversy over alleged anti-semitism should automatically be dismissed as "not encyclopedic" reflects a complete ignorance of policy. The NYT presents the controversy as revealing a "generational divide" and also examines reactions among her constituents — and guess where I found these? The national politics section. The same could be said for CNN, NBC, AP, Reuters, or any number of national outlets—that's what determines weight. Demanding that someone show you a source to prove what's already been established is disruptive and a waste of time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
...if it's been published in WP:RS, it satisfies WP:DUE. No, it doesn't, not at all. Two or three reliable sources don't have the same weight as a dozen. "Proportion" implies a numerical relationship. Still waiting for the dozen or so RS that would show proportional emphasis on any nation-wide dimensions of this scandal. Just because national news outlets reported on this doesn't make it a "national" incident any more than, say, the Moulton Falls bridge case, which was reported on in multiple national and international outlets.[31][32][33] Several of the national outlets you mention specifically focus on the fact that this was a Capitol Hill affair. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You are correct about the definition of WP:PROPORTION, and the vast majority of sources on Ilhan Omar either reference or focus heavily on her remarks on Israel and the fallout. And your other argument is simply ridiculous: A procedural vote would be a "congressional affair." Sustained attention from national, reliable outlets establishes the scope of this controversy. Additionally, coverage in WP:RS does satisfy the necessary condition of WP:DUE, and while it indeed isn't always sufficient when accounting for disagreements/lack of consensus, there comes a point where the degree of coverage makes it indisputable that something must be given adequate space in the article under the WP:NPOV guidelines. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see some proof that the "vast majority" of sources mention this, let alone focus heavily on it. That's certainly not borne out by the sources currently used in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2019 (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.

Support from white supremacists section[edit]

Rep. Omar has received support from white supremacists such as David Duke (March 7, 2019). A section should be added (like other political figures such as Trump) to indicate this. Political/public figure pages should be consistent in what sections are applied and how they are applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository for negative information regarding any living person, especially an active politician. This is really some bottom-of-the-barrel jornalism smearing the congresswoman. These individual white supremacists can choose to endorse anyone, including Republicans, as an act of trolling or smear. This does not make the endorsed automatically condemnable. Without the strongest source support, such information is undue and synthetic, and should not be included at all. Other editors would have removed your comment on sight as well, as this is borderline libelous. Tsumikiria 🦙🌉 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"Support" is a vague term, and The Washington Times is a highly questionable source, generally considered partisan on race-related matters; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Omar has indeed received support from white supremacists (specifically David Duke), and it has been reported in reliable sources: The Jerusalem Post, Forward, Israel National News, The Atlantic, and CNN. Seems worth a mention to me.

Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned, several references discuss it. But not too excessively, as unlike e.g. Donald Trump and Steve Scalise, Omar did not comment on this so WP:PUBLICFIGURE still needs to be followed. wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Wumbolo, lolololol, the former Grand Wizard of the KKK isn't supporting a Somali-American politician who is the antithesis of everything he stands for. Let's try to use some critical judgment here, beyond just noticing that a Google search of "David Duke Ilhan Omar" produces only sources with significant right wing biases. So Duke tweeted that Omar is "the most important member of US Congress"... that's not support! Even with a heart emoji. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu Wumbolo rightly filtered out those unreliable sources and has only linked to reliable ones on this page, and, oh, look, there are plenty! Perhaps you should at what he's linked rather than offering your own assessment of what qualifies as support. She expressed a sentiment that was widely regarded as anti-semitic, and he offered a gesture of support. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, I did not notice that line with the sources, but it was Toa Nidhiki who presented them. I clicked the CNN link, Duke is mentioned at the very bottom of the article. This is the sort of sourcing that you think merits inclusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
TIL The Forward, a left-leaning progressive magazine, and The Atlantic, a liberal outlet, are right-wing. The more you know I guess! Toa Nidhiki05 01:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I actually don't like this guilt-by-association stuff on any page, so I'm going to agree with leaving it out. However, I also acknowledge there could be an argument made for inclusion. WP:DUE says that a viewpoint that has received coverage in reliable sources is noteworthy, though I'm more leaning towards characterizing this as WP:FRINGE based on the entire body of sources addressing it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
How is it fringe? These are all reliable and not right-leaning outlets. This article is honestly whitewashing this entire situation, and it's a very bad look. Toa Nidhiki05 01:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
* Why should it be left out? Unsolicited endorsements are included in other politicians pages and featured prominently. Wikipeida is suppose to be not bias so the pages of public figures should be treated equitably. The endorsement did in fact happen. That is a fact which is not of dispute thus it should be included as other unsolicited endorsements are on Rep. Ilhan's page. Pretty straightforward. 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
There was no "endorsement". The Grand Wizard of the KKK isn't going to endorse a black woman. Wikieditor19920 is right that to add this would violate WP:FRINGE. Those mainstream sources make barely a mention of Duken talking more broadly about the alleged anti-Semitism. When I typed "David Duke Ilhan Omar" into Google, the top results I got were Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, and some other unacceptable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
But he did. It's written right there in the sources. And once again, the sources he gave are not right-wing. Kilometerman (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Literally none of the presented sources say he endorsed her. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu is obviously right and the idea that this non-event (Omar gets mentioned in a tweet!) should be mentioned in the article is laughable. --JBL (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Both "pp-vandalism" and "pp-pc"?[edit]

That's redundant and contradictory at the same time. One of those should probably be removed. Geolodus (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Geolodus, if there is so much vandalism that it overwhelms pending changes, then dual protection is warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
So, how does "dual protection" as you called it even work? It is not mentioned on any official guideline I've read. Geolodus (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Voluntad Popular[edit]

My recent edits were motivated by Joana Haussmann's opinion piece in the New York Times, in which she clarifies that Guaidó comes from Voluntad Popular and defines itself as social democrat. This was also affirmed years ago by Lilian Tintori, Leopoldo López's wife. Carlos Curbelo is not the only person that considers the party as such, and to assert this I added that VP is a part of Socialist International. Luckily, now that this has been brought to the talk page, there could be a discussion on how to improve the wording of the statement. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Using ideas from a published opinion piece without crediting it is WP:PLAGIARISM, I believe. In any case, what does this have to do with Omar? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This is regarding the Venezuela crisis section, since she has defined Juan Guaidó has a "far-right" opposition leader. These ideas are not expressed solely by Joana, and the reference that quotes Carlos Curbelo even states that "Guaido’s party includes the first transgender congresswoman elected in Latin America". My point is that there should be a balance in the article between the "far-right" definition and the politic position of the party. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NPOV doesn't say we need a counterpoint to every opinion to "balance" the article. We go by what the majority of reliable sources say. If there is a published, reliable source that contrasts Omar's description with the party's own, please provide a citation. The page at Socialist International (A) doesn't seem to exist, (B) apparently has nothing to do with Omar, and (C) would not be a reliable source anyway. I've restored the previous wording. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not just "the Republican politician Carlos Curbelo" claiming she got it wrong. From this Politico article: 'To call the opposition, as Omar did, "far right," is absurd. True, American presidents in the past have supported rightist autocrats in Latin America, from Augusto Pinochet in Chile to the military regime in Brazil. But Guaidó is a socialist...' Looks like Omar truly did get this wrong, and our wording probably needs to change somewhat. Mojoworker (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree somewhat. The Miami Herald says Curbelo "pointed out" that Popular Will is described as center-left, which implies a broader agreement with that view. But the Politico piece is an opinion column; we'd need a stronger source to describe Guaidó as a socialist vis-a-vis this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For now I changed the wording showing that Omar "described Guaidó as far-right". I think it emphasizes that this is her statement and solves the problem with undue weight. If there are sources needed for the political position I can look for them afterwards. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Democratic socialism[edit]

Are we sure Refinery29 is a reliable enough source to officially label her as a democratic socialist? I've seen multiple sources say that she isn't a socialist. For example, see Politico.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement is attributed and appropriately contextualized, and the Politico comment ("Omar does not openly identify as a democratic socialist") seems perfectly consistent with what is written here (that Omar is not a member of and was not endorsed by DSA). So the present version doesn't seem problematic to me. --JBL (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe there is a question of whether the section title "Democratic socialism" is ideal, and whether it should be the first section under "Political posititons"? --JBL (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
If all we have is a statement by an unnamed staffer, I think it's unduly weighted and ought to go. Omar was asked on Democracy Now! if she identified as a democratic socialist, and replied simply that she considered herself "a Democrat". Also, neither Axios nor her campaign website say anything about DSA endorsements or membership, positively or negatively. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

9/11 [edited][edit]

(heading shortened wumbolo ^^^ 16:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC))
Is Omar's "some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties" comment relevant?

Apparently Omar said something along the line of some people did something to refer to the September 11 attacks at a recent convention of Muslim leaders. This has gathered some coverage rather quickly, (see Fox News, USA Today, Washington Times, CBN, etc). As with many instances of politicians saying controversial statements and then those statements being forgotten, I wanted to have a discussion about this material before deciding to edit the article. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say no. I had to watch the short clip to get any context (nevermind that CAIR is in fact not a "terrorist organization"). She said that CAIR is necessary because after 9/11, Muslims had their civil liberties infringed upon. This is accurate. Her choice of words about 9/11 seems to me regrettable, but her point remains. And in no way was her comment justifying a terrorist attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
CAIR was founded in the 1990's so this is yet one another of her false statements. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
You're right, she made an error in saying CAIR was founded after 9/11. That error doesn't make her statement any more relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
It received front-page attention in the New York Post and has elicited response from other representatives. This definitely isn’t something to be dismissed out of hand. Toa Nidhiki05 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Nobody is dismissing it out of hand. We should be wary of the New York Post, though, as it is a Murdoch rag that is hardly unbiased in its reporting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what bringing the owners of a paper up has to do with anything. The New York Post is not deprecated and there is no consensus against using it. If we’re going to discuss the ownership and bias of everything cited in this article, there’s going to be issues. What I do see here is a repeated attempt to whitewash everything Omar says that is controversial (most egregiously, not including her defining public trait - her comments widely perceived as anti-Semitic - in the lede) while immediately including things like death threats - which are bad, no doubt, but just as weak under the ten-year test that was often cited. This has received, at the very least, a commensurate level of coverage to that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
That, plus it just adds to her continued false statements. She has repeatedly made false statements either on Twitter or in real life. And if anyone else would have done it, it would have been inserted into the article right away. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a WP:PUKEFUNNEL? Maybe someone should write it. Anyhow, I like the idea that because the NY Post is not officially deprecated it must be a good source; maybe we can apply it to my personal blog, too? Here's what WP:RSP has to say: "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available." This is, uh, not a ringing endorsement.
TL;DR: try again after someone outside the right-wing echo chamber writes something about it. --JBL (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing bud, all it took was a quick google search. Toa Nidhiki05 22:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I had written a response here, but I am just exhausted by the cynical dishonesty and false outrage and am withdrawing from this discussion and unwatching again. Probably if you want this in the article you should propose a sentence on the talkpage. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, assertions like "And if anyone else would have done it, it would have been inserted into the article right away." are not helpful. No, people misspeak or have their comments taken out of context all the time. It's not guaranteed inclusion for anybody. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Some people did something and all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties" is really vague. How can you be sure that the "some people" include the terrorists, but don't also include the stupid fucks that, post 9/11, killed innocent uninvolved Muslims (and the even stupider fuckwits that killed Sikhs thinking they were Muslims)? Mojoworker (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Simple Solution (tm) would be a small, single-paragraph "Controversy" section imho.Oathed (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd say it would be more accurate to add it as a controversy in the NYPost and Trump articles. There is nothing controversial about what she said. There is much controversial about the out of context quote against a backdrop of the WTC. O3000 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The “Some people did something” part is controversial (though the NY Post cover & the Trump tweet have probably become at least as controversial as that part of the quote). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable mainly for the reaction it's getting from the right and left. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • It belongs to the article. Many Democrats defend her ("Trump's speech is violence") and many Republicans condemn her ("this somehow has to do with her anti-Semitism"), all mainly because of Trump, but also because of the New York Post cover. [34] I am seeing several major stories coming out of this incident. wumbolo ^^^ 16:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Where would it go, exactly? There is some major coverage, but a lot of that coverage is commenting on the manufactured outrage rather than on Omar herself: this this New York Times, and Washington Post stories from earlier today are both largely focused on Trumps tweet. Nblund talk 17:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
It would go to the Tenure section, just like the anti-Semitism controversy belongs to the Tenure section (unless it belongs to a top-level section). I don't know why the content is currently hidden in a "Threats, conspiracy theories and harassment" section. This POV section tries to shield Omar from any criticism, and the section seems to care more about defending Omar than sticking to WP:BLP. >99% of this POV section was written by a handful of editors, who have written <10% of the rest of the article. However, I'm not going to blame the editors for their unintended POV pushing (hence why I'm not naming them), when you have The New York Times, a generally considered reliable source on Wikipedia, having an anti-Trump and pro-Omar op-ed yesterday in their news section (which seems to have become a new normal for the NYT). You can definitely find reliable sources focusing on Trump, but there is continued coverage of non-Trump reactions to this day: BBC, CNN, The Intercept, CNN. wumbolo ^^^ 09:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Firstly, you shouldn't have it saying she was criticized and then have the quote. It should be the other way around; have the quote and then have the reactions. Also the statement "in context" sounds like it's in Wiki's voice which is editorializing. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @NorthBySouthBaranof: you reverted my edit and claim the sources say Trump selectively edited Omar's tweet. I checked the BBC article used as a ref and it make no claim. Please self-revert. He quoted her. Just like everyone else quotes people. She made the statement, he quoted the statement. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The cited source discusses how the video was edited, and several other sources (Axios, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, Japan Today, etc.) describe how the video was edited to remove context - described variously as "altered... edited without context," does not "include the context of her comments," "selectively quoted," etc. Of course I will remove nothing, but I will be happy to add these additional sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Voting History, Letters, Criticisms[edit]

Please don't use the talk page for general discussion. See WP:TALK for more information.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Bizzle26 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)04-12-19 20:38 EDT "Rep. Ilhan Omar asks judge for compassion in ISIS recruit sentencing" 11/10/2016 The 9 Minnesotan Somali men charged with planning to join ISIS are scheduled to be sentenced next week. Ahead of those court dates, 13 letters were sent to Judge Michael Davis in the case of defendant Abdirahman Yasin Daud, including a letter from state Rep. Ilhan Omar, who on Election Night became with first elected Somali-American lawmaker in the nation.Rep. Omar asked Judge Davis for “compassion” and a “restorative approach to justice,” concluding that “this ruling can set a precedent and has the potential to be a landmark case in addressing extremism.” Two of the nine men from the Twin Cities were arrested in San Diego in April 2015 in an alleged plot to buy fake passports for travel to Syria.

Rep. Ilhan Omar Voted Against Bill to Let Insurance Companies Deny Payouts to Terrorists’ Relatives 03/20/2019 While serving in the Minnesota Legislature in 2017, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) was one of two state legislators who voted against a bill that would allow insurance companies to block payouts to the relatives of terrorists. The Minneostan bill evolved in response to the federal government's similar approach to the 2015 San Bernardino terror attack. The terrorists previously had taken out two life insurance policies worth a combined total of $275,000. After they were killed in a shootout with law enforcement, the mother was to be the primary beneficiary of the policies. the federal government filed a lawsuit to seize the money, saying it planned to disperse the funds among the surviving victims and the families of those killed in the attack. "Terrorists must not be permitted to provide for their designated beneficiaries through their crimes,” said then U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker. A federal judge ruled in August 2016 that the government could seize the funds, The San Bernardino Sun reported. The Minnesota bill passed the House in a 127-2 vote. Omar and fellow state Rep. John Lesch were the only members to vote against the bill. Lesch voiced concern that the wording of the bill might give insurance companies too much discretion over what constitutes terrorism.

Claiming any mention of her own words and past voting history is immediately contributing to threats against her own life allows her to continue to speak without reprisal and without criticism. It invites her supporters to continually defend anything she says without critical examination. If people seek clarification or question the meaning behind her decision making or line of thought, she perfectly has a chance to explain her reasoning, yet chooses not to and changes the subject to double down on painting herself as a victim. If a sizeable portion of the population continues to be repeatedly disappointed by her statements, even people in her own party, she (+her Wikipedia page) must face reality and acknowledge that she is partly to blame for her inflammatory rhetoric. Her latest gaffe is an insult to the 3 Minnesotans killed on 9/11, the very state she has been elected to represent. Perhaps she should be reminded that if alive, those people would be her constituents too. Let's not kid ourselves, her speech was pre-written at the CAIR event and she deliberately chose those words on 9/11 to match her previous voting history and statements/letters regarding terrorism.

Where’s the Controversy section?[edit]

It seems that the page should have a Controversy section, similar to other politcians. -- (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Here. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no controversy section, but the information is spread throughout. The lede does not contain any criticism or negative remarks, however, as editors have not had a consensus; a large number oppose any mention of criticism or controversy, regardless of how notable, in favor of a more whitewashed "she opposes the occupation" comment. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
How would you re-phrase that? "Omar sides with the globalists at the UN?" TFD (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Time line inconsistency[edit]

If her family fled Somalia after the 1991 Civil War broke out, and spent 4 years in a refugee camp on the Congo border, how did she arrive in the U.S. in 1992? Ieatpuddin (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My bad, a refugee camp on the KENYAN border. Ieatpuddin (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead section - proposals for wording allegations[edit]

Regarding this: I've asked @Thryduulf: to clarify or modify their close, because I don't think it clarifies much or offers a reasonable summary of the debate, but, as it currently stands, there's no consensus favoring any particular wording. There was widespread opposition to this specific version in the rfc and it leaves out mention of her prominent defenders, and seems like it is vague about the nature and the extent of the comments. It may make sense to propose some options here and get a sense of what would receive wide support. Nblund talk 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've responded in detail on my talk page, but in summary I stand by my closure. It is not for me (or any other discussion closer) to mandate a way forward or to suggest a specific wording, but discussion is usually the best way to achieve consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: There should probably be an RFC for the wording that should go in the lead. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)