Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

NPOV issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2021

The intro has the sentence:

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

Please change this to:

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

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

NO ADDITIONAL SOURCES ARE REQUIRED SINCE THIS IS A REWORDING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unexplained reversion

NightHeron, I'd love to hear how this edit was WP:UNDUE and biased. The paragraph right above it goes to great lengths to make her primary victory seem like a big win. Why is it not noteworthy to point out her general election victory was the biggest underperformance in the country? The source is reliable and neutral, and I can find more if you'd like - but if you want to be consistent, seems like the rational solution is to ditch the primary section as well. Toa Nidhiki05 21:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

For one thing it's blatantly misusing the source; the source says There are a slew of factors that likely impacted Omar's race, including a third party on the ticket, a supremely well-funded Republican opponent, and the fact that she was virtually guaranteed to win reelection and Experts chalked up much of Omar's underperformance to pro-marijuana legalization third parties, which recently achieved major party status and made it onto the ballot this year. The pro-cannabis candidate in Omar's district won 10% of the vote, most, if not all, of which pollsters say would have gone to Omar - it constantly emphasizes these factors throughout, yet you added it without that vital context, in a way that falsely implied that that performance said something about her when the source repeatedly says the opposite. And with that context taken into account, it seems like trivia, especially for her bio. Conversely, while the source you added specifically and repeatedly notes that that performance was because of factors unrelated to Omar herself, the coverage of her primary performance connects it directly to her and her politics and underlines its significance in light of that - the context is completely different. --Aquillion (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Take that out and she still ran behind him in the district by a wide margin. You can make whatever excuse you want, but this yet again emphasizes how certain editors on this page refuse to allow any content that might possibly present Omar in a less-than-favorable light; if being the absolute worst performing House Democrat relative to Biden isn't a big deal, I dunno what is. But since the consensus is against trivia, I'll make the appropriate change. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You should perhaps slow down (I was adding a specific comparison to the coverage of her primary win. Regarding Take that out and she still ran behind him in the district by a wide margin, this is your personal WP:OR and has no relevance, but the source also says But Democratic operatives and Minnesota politicos told Insider that Omar's underperformance was largely in line with down-ballot Democrats across the state, who underperformed Biden particularly in the suburbs and Tim Lindberg, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota Morris, said Omar was hurt most by the pro-marijuana third-party, which siphoned votes from Democrats across the state, and the significant money and negative messaging leveraged against her. Biden outperformed down-ballot candidates across the state, so your personal speculation about what you feel it ought to mean that Biden still outperformed her if you subtract the third-party votes is completely off-base, especially when the source you're using specifically contradicts your gut feelings on the matter. Obviously many editors here have strong feelings about Omar (you have made it clear repeatedly that you want more negative material in the article, yes); I can understand how strong feelings can sometimes make it easy to leap on one sentence from a source that seems to confirm your biases, without reading the entire thing. But you should perhaps take a step back and reread the source you added clearly - it definitely doesn't support your interpretation at all. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You're more than happy to add those excuses for her lousy performance in the article if you'd like, or you can just pretend it didn't exist. I assume you're going for the latter. Toa Nidhiki05 22:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Toa Nidhiki05, First, the section title "Unexplained reversion" is misleading, because my edit summary gave two explanations. (1) The biased wording, in violation of WP:NPOV, is obvious. You deleted the word "perhaps" in paraphrasing the source (which suggested uncertainty about whether it was really the "biggest" difference in the country between Biden's lead and the local Democrat's lead), and you also changed the emphasis in the source concerning the reason behind the reduced margin of victory: thanks to a 3rd party candidate and well-funded GOP rival. (2) In politics a victory of 2.5 to 1 is considered a big landslide, especially under the unusual circumstance of a 3rd party opponent as well as a well-funded opponent. It's hard to make a case that Omar's margin of victory was either surprisingly large or surprisingly small, so it's WP:UNDUE to say much one way or the other about the 64%-26% margin. NightHeron (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Something can be a landslide and a disappointment. Winning Kansas by 10 as a Republican would technically be a landslide; it would also be a disappointing. Winning a seat that gave 80% to Biden with only 64%? That's another example. Toa Nidhiki05 22:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's several more sources:

• FiveThirtyEight: "there are other factors that could explain some of her underperformance too. Perhaps scandal: In 2019, Omar was accused of having an affair with her campaign consultant, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars her campaign has paid the consultant’s — who is now her husband — company became the subject of a campaign-finance complaint.3 Perhaps xenophobia: Omar was born in Somalia and is one of only three Muslim members of Congress, and many of Johnson’s attacks on her had racist undertones."
• Seattle Times: "Down-ballot election losses — and a likely Republican-controlled Senate — should push Democrats to carefully assess their priorities. Activists like Rep. Omar are lobbying Biden to embrace their agenda. But look carefully at down-ballot races. Omar underperformed Biden in her district by 70,000 votes."
• Fox News: "Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar underperformed in the 2020 vote compared to President-elect Joe Biden by the largest percentage in the country, according to election analysis newsletter The Cook Political Report. Omar received 64% of the vote in Minnesota's 5th District while Biden received 80% -- the largest gap in election performance between a Democratic representative and the Democratic presidential nominee in the U.S., according to Cook Political Report editor Dave Wasserman."
• MSN: "In terms of raw numbers, Biden won 328,617 votes to Omar's 255,816 in her own district. That's a difference of 72,801 voters who supported Biden but declined to vote for their incumbent U.S. House candidate. Omar won nearly 12,000 more votes in 2018 than her 2020 total, despite 2018 being a non-presidential election year that saw smaller turnout in her district."

Running 24 points behind your party's candidate at the top of the ticket is not normal and is noteworthy. Toa Nidhiki05 22:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So... an opinion piece, a blog, an attempt to use Fox for politics, a cherry-picked statement from a source that cites many other factors, and another source that notes that the extreme nature of the difference was because of a third-party challenger. Come on. As I said, above, you've been pretty outspoken about wanting to add more negative material to the article, but the obvious weakness of the position you're trying to argue here only undermines that larger case - if this is the best you can come up with, I think it's pretty clear that your broader complaints are groundless and that the fact that you keep hitting a wall when you try to add stuff that (as you've repeatedly said you desire) presents Omar in a a less-than-favorable light have failed because you're trying to push things you feel are unfavorable towards her far past the point of neutrality or what the sources can support. --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No, an analysis from an expert website on the topic (538), a piece from Seattle Times, a quote from Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report (a RS on this subject), and MSN. Meanwhile one of the sources used in the primary bit is literally from Fox News (in fact, I count three uses of Fox overall in this article), so try again mate. If you'd rather object to the reliable sources than the merit, it's clear you aren't actually willing to discuss. Toa Nidhiki05 22:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources:

• University of Minnesota "Omar ran 15.7 points behind Biden in her district – more than twice the deficit of any other Gopher State U.S. Representative since (at least) the 2000 cycle... following an expensive 2020 primary battle against Antone Melton-Meaux in which she became just the seventh incumbent since the DFL merger in 1944 to fall short of winning 60 percent out of nearly 300 renomination attempts, Rep. Omar won just 64.3 percent of the November vote – a notable 13.7-point drop in support from two years prior. But that tells only part of the story. Smart Politics examined the last 79 times in which Minnesota U.S. Representatives ran for reelection since 2000 and compared their support with that received by their party’s nominee at the top of the ticket (the vote for president in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 and the vote for governor in 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018). Out of these 79 contests involving incumbents, Omar’s 2020 performance ranks at the bottom – and no other incumbent is even close."
• Cook Political Report: "The biggest underperformance of the top of the ticket by a House Democrat was by Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-05), who won by 38.5 points as Biden won the district by 55 points. The biggest underperformance of the top of the ticket by a House Republican was by Rep. Jim Hagedorn (MN-01), who won by 3.1 points as Trump carried the district by 10.1 points."
• Patch: "Joe Biden won over significantly more voters in Minnesota's Fifth Congressional District than Rep. Ilhan Omar, unofficial voting numbers show. Biden won 80.02 percent of voters, while Omar won 64.27 percent."
• Star Tribune: "Biden won the White House thanks in no small part to huge turnout in urban cores like Omar's district, which picked him over Trump with 80% of the vote. But not all of those voters went down their ballot and filled in the circle for Omar, who beat a Republican opponent in the DFL stronghold by 64% of the vote. A Legal Marijuana Now Party candidate in the Fifth District won nearly 10% of the vote."

Toa Nidhiki05 23:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Presenting raw data without interpretation in order to prove a point is a classical example of POV pushing. It ignores the fact that in her first run Omar outperformed her Democratic predecessor and that voters would feel comfortable voting for a Marijuana Party candidate knowing that Omar would win regardless. Getting 64% in a three way race isn't exactly a squeaker. One interpretation is that Trump was so unpopular, that Biden was able to draw Republican votes away from him. Also the fact that Republican spending increased from $23 thousand to $12 million may have helped them somewhat. If you want to get into the details of the race, then all the information has to be there. TFD (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Intro sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's one with wording revised:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times Square protest

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

Diff for reference [5]. I agree 100% with cutting that meaningless protest and cruft quote. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)