Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

revert to trump and personal life sections

The phrasing added in the personal life section is either POV or OR (In addition, she apparently violated both US and Minnesota law by filing joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015 with Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi would require some source showing a conviction for some violation of the law, She says that in 2011 she and Elmi had a ... casts doubt on the reporting that she had a faith-based divorce, which no source has casted any doubt on). The material on the Trump tweet misrepresents the situation entirely, as several sources explicitly say the video was altered. nableezy - 20:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


Respectfully disagree. The AP article, previously cited several times in the article, clearly states: "filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law" and there is no question or dispute that Omar did so. Not all law is criminal, and conviction isn't necessary for civil violations like IRS code. How would you propose a neutral inclusion of her (undisputed) filing tax of joint tax returns with a person to whom she was not legally married while legally married to someone else?

As for the video, common sense should suffice. The video wasn't "altered" in any commonly understood use of that term; it's inflammatory and prejudicial. Even the source with the "altered" headline makes clear that the only "edit" was the trimming down of the clip to an extremely short piece. No other changes were made to the video. And in terms of "context" -- it's the only description of the terrorist attacks, and nothing else in the entire speech qualifies that description in any way. All video is edited, and by these terms, literally every single video referenced on Wikipedia would be "altered". The use of the word is pure POV, regardless of source, and gives the false impression that the video was somehow "doctored" to give an impression contrary to the truth, which it clearly does not. There was outrage over Omar's description of 9/11 as "some people did something" -- and that's precisely how she described it in the speech, period.

And why have you removed the explication of the motivation for the rally? It's abundantly clear that it was not solely in protest of Trump--indeed, the previous citations make clear that much, if not the majority of the complaints were with Democratic politicians who failed to support Omar sufficiently, allegedly for racism, sexism, et al. This is directly quoting Omar and the organizers from the event itself. What part of that do you take issue with? Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Does the AP source say, explicitly, that Omar violated the law? Where? As far as the Trump pieces, if a reliable source says the video was altered and no reliable source disputes that it is altered then on Wikipedia the video was altered. I see no reason to engage in a debate based on OR. The sources say the video was altered, and you provide no sources that dispute that. You also took factcheck.org saying

We could not find that Omar has commented directly on the accusation that her words trivialized the attack, but she retweeted several defenders who said her comments were being manipulated and used out of context.

to source Omar has not directly defended her characterization of the September 11 terrorist attacks. That isnt quite what is reported, and either way serves to poison the well for the rest of the paragraph. The cited source on the protest (Essence) says nothing about the protest being against what they describe as racism, Islamophobia, sexism, and anti-immigrant sentiment from both Republican and Democratic politicians. It in fact directly says that [t]heir mission: demand that Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer formally disapprove of Donald Trump’s treatment of Rep. Omar and the incitement of violence against the Congresswoman. nableezy - 21:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


The AP article expressly says Omar violated the law: "she had filed joint tax returns with her husband years before they were legally married and at a time when she was married to another man" and "filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law" -- how much clearer could that be? Can you more clearly explain what why you immediately deleted a neutral and topical edit?

As to the video -- the purpose of Wikipedia is to accurately convey information, not to blindly quote the headline from a single source, which may itself be biased. How was this video "altered" in a different way than every other snippet of video? Including a word like "altered" in this context implies that the video is in someway inaccurate, which it clearly is not. To include "altered" in this article is not neutral or accurate.

And as to the rally, you're correct, their mission is rooted in their disappointment with Democratic leaders. In the actual quotes I provided (and there are numerous other sources), it's abundantly clear that they're accusing the Democrats of Islamophobia, racism, sexism, and nativism. So you deleted an entire passage that clarified the actual reason for the rally was not simply "Omar blamed Trump and his allies for inciting Americans against both Jews and Muslims" as the original entry stated. This was not a POV issue -- I neutrally cited actual interviews with the women where they explicitly state their real reasons for the rally. Can you explain again why you deleted it? Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

What I would like is the AP directly accusing Omar of breaking the law. For the video, how is it altered? Editing a video does not typically imply intending to mislead as was the case here. As far as the rally, we typically prefer secondary sources over primary ones, and regardless the interview doesnt actually support most of what you included. It, for example, does not say anything about people protesting against racism, and only once discusses racism in explaining Omar's remarks (the line If you can’t find one, get another. And this is the, this is the fungibility that is at the heart of racism that Ilhan Omar was discussing when she said that some people do something, and all of us lose access to civil liberties.) nableezy - 04:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to assume you're operating in good faith here, but I'm at a loss to understand much of what you're saying.

1. The AP isn't "accusing" anyone here—it is simply stating the fact that Omar broke state and federal laws. It couldn't be clearer. This is a continuous paragraph of two sentences, "Omar and her husband, Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi, filed joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015 — before they were actually married and while Omar was legally wed to another man... filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law." There are numerous other sources with the same information.

Question: are you saying the AP did not report that Omar broke state and Federal laws?

2. The most accurate and unbiased statement is that this was an extremely short snippet of video taken from a longer one. It's not at all clear that there was an attempt to "mislead" anyone. Omar didn't make any other statement during the speech that contradicted or changed the meaning of her characterization of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Again, if the definition of "altered" is that video is edited in order to show only some part(s) of it, then all video is "altered". Would it be correct to say that footage of the moon landing was "altered"? Of course it's technically correct, but that would impute some sort of nefarious intent and would clearly violate NPOV. What happened here was that a "sound bite" or short clip of Ilhan Omar's speech, the only part of it where she referred to 9/11, was posted. The video, other than being edited in the exact same way as all video is edited, was otherwise unaltered. EVERY single short piece of video has been edited in the exact same way.

Questions: How and in what way did this video "mislead" anyone? All video is edited (or "altered") in the same way as this one was -- simply hitting start and stop on a video camera is doing the same thing -- so how is pointedly describing this video as "altered" compared to EVERY other video referenced throughout Wikipedia not POV?

3. Omar states that "the thing that upsets the occupant of the White House, his goons in the Republican Party, many of our colleagues in the Democratic Party, is that–is that they can’t stand, they cannot stand, that a refugee, a Black woman, an immigrant, a Muslim, shows up in Congress thinking she’s equal to them." A host of articles quote her on this (especially the Democrats not backing her more strongly) as THE primary reason for this rally.

Question: is or is not Omar accusing the President, the Republicans, and many Democrats of racism, sexism, anti-immigration sentiment, and Islamophobia?

nableezy is correct. AP does not accuse Omar of breaking the law. In the United States, people are not considered to be guilty of criminal offences unless convicted. For news media and even internet web-sites, there is the risk that claiming someone is guilty of a crime before conviction can prejudice a future trial, which is contempt of court, or result in damages for defamation. AP therefore has carefully avoided doing this. Whether or not they have however, Wikipedia articles cannot accuse people of committing crimes. Editors can get banned for doing that. By the way, learn to sign your posts and to indent. TFD (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Slow down, because this is a mess from both ends. It's extremely well established first amendment case law that a news agency, reporter, so on, can 'accuse' anyone of committing a crime if they report a conditional: 'if' X did Y, then X would/could be guilty of Z. There isn't any sort of debate on that point. People can just argue over whether or not this formulation is an accusation or not. That's an entirely linguistic debate, not one of legal principle. It's also in no way whatsoever contempt of court. That's a discretionary bench ruling by a magistrate, and has nothing at all to do with a news source saying the above. Nor, and this is really important, can it be defamation. That claim too is just flatly wrong. If fact, it's an extremely common first amendment issue. A news source reports there is circumstantial evidence (Y) of a crime (Z) . It's reported that if Y is 'true' (or collaborated to be more precise) then X would/could be guilty of Z. That's exactly what the AP did and it's exactly what news sources do all the time. Both sides here seem to be making up bits that fit their narrative instead of informing themselves on the facts, no offense.
  • Take a look at my suggestion here and tell me what people think about folding this into a larger section on Omar being targeted by Trump, since it seems to be a recurring thing that has been covered as such by sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Unfounded rumor about marriage" section is not NPOV?

Why, NorthBySouthBaranof? soibangla (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the sourcing and WP:DUE threshold for potentially-negative material about a WP:BLP is higher. The sources here are entirely debunking it and noting it's groundless, and they don't really indicate any sort of sustained coverage. Based on that I'd tend to say it's undue right now - it's just not a significant part of her biography. If anything, the coverage seems to make it more about Trump than about her. --Aquillion (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I tend to disagree that it's just not a significant part of her biography after Trump's comment yesterday. Before that, sure. But now it's DUE. And I'd prefer that you did not remove it four minutes after I opened this topic. Please restore it. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean, this is a WP:BLP, so it's natural to be cautious. And I feel that automatically treating any internet rumor Trump mentions as relevant to the subject is a bit WP:UNDUE - again, the coverage seems more about Trump than about her. At the very least I'd want to wait per WP:RECENTISM and see how coverage develops. We could possibly also create a more specific section about Trump's focus on her and give it a sentence (or less) there; that would be both closer to WP:DUE and would avoid the WP:BLP concerns from giving so much focus to a rumor. I'm fairly sure there's a lot of sources now talking about Trump's fixation with her as a general topic, enough to support a section; and most sources (like these) reference that. Even then, this would be a tiny part of that section, just a mention that Trump has also brought up internet rumors about her without evidence - we probably don't need to go into detail on the precise rumors, since that's not the important part. The fact that she is a frequent target of Trump is an important part of her biography, yes. Most of the individual content of those attacks isn't so individually relevant. Basically, the story here is "Trump launches another attack on Ilhan Omar based on some random messageboard postings", not "random messageboard postings about Omar exist and here's what those posters said"; your section was structured in a way that put the focus on the latter aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
You're addressing DUE here, but it was tagged for NPOV, that's what I asked about. It's a big deal when a POTUS legitimizes as "fact" what was previously just another rumor about her life. Now it's a DUE aspect of her BLP. soibangla (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
First, I removed it for WP:DUE issues; I can't speak to the other objection, although realistically placing undue weight on something negative is also a WP:NPOV issue. Second, I disagree that the POTUS focusing on rumors makes them, themselves, a WP:DUE aspect of her biography, or that it legitimizes them or anything of that nature. What that does is make the fact that she was targeted by the president part of her BLP, since that's the focus of coverage. If you wanted to argue that it made the rumors themselves relevant on their own, we'd have to wait and see if there's additional coverage unrelated to the president's attacks using them. --Aquillion (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:DUE is a section of WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Aquillion and VQuakr have ably addressed the issue here - I adopt them as if restated personally. We're talking about completely-unevidenced rumors dredged out of the anonymous depths of the literal worst and least credible that the right-wing blogosphere has to offer. By foundational policy, we are not a news outlet, we avoid trafficking in sensationalistic scandalmongering and we can afford to wait and see before simply republishing anonymous partisan smears - particularly ones so deeply personal and damaging as an allegation of marrying a sibling to commit immigration fraud. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Trump repeated a false claim does not make it WP:DUE. It requires substantial coverage. TFD (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It has been extensively covered. Google news on: trump omar brother a lot of talk soibangla (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The thrust of the edit is not the rumor itself, but that the POTUS has now legitimized the rumor as "fact." soibangla (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
But the story is about Trump's use of racism and zenophobia. See for example the firstg story I got using your seaarch: "How Trump distorts facts to make Ilhan Omar seem like an enemy to the US" TFD (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The edit is not about racism and xenophobia. It's about how a POTUS has legitimized a rumor as a "fact," and that's why the topic has now become DUE. soibangla (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Trump's actual words were that there was “a lot of talk about the fact that [Ilhan Omar] was married to her brother,” and that he was “sure that somebody will be looking at that.” He wasn't actually legitimizing the rumor as fact - he was spreading the rumor. This is something he often does. Trump quote [1]; Trump often spreads rumors, [2] Llewkcalbyram (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
He was both asserting it as fact and spreading it as rumor, but now it's a rumor with the imprimatur of a POTUS asserting it as fact. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimized" in this context. The POTUS, himself, is obviously not a reliable source for things outside his opinions and positions - what the POTUS says and does tends to be significant, but we take our cue for how we cover that from secondary sources. And the secondary sources here are not "here's some rumors about Ilhan Omar", it is "Trump is attacking Ilhan Omar with lies again", which is very different. Like I said, I'd support a section titled something like "Targeting by Donald Trump" or the like, where this might deserve a sentence; but I don't think it justifies a section on the rumors themselves, because that isn't really the focus of coverage. Or, in other words, if you think that these rumors are now "legitimized" to the point where they're noteworthy distinct from the story of Trump targeting Omar, just wait a bit and we'll see if separate coverage appears. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
IMO it's best to stay away from the area for now. The story is moving too fast, and WP:RS contradict each other.[3][4]. In light of WP:BLP and WP:WIKIVOICE, the only sensible decision is to leave it alone. As more sourcing becomes available, which it will, that might or might not change.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The content does not need to be removed per WP:BLP. Even though it's a private matter, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says that allegations that have been covered in reliable sources should be made note of. In addition to the other sources, The [New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/us/politics/trump-ilhan-omar-fact-check.html] has "fact-checked" these claims and thus given them attention. WP:WIKIVOICE concerns the writing and presentation, and requires that an allegation or accusation be attributed, not removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What does it matter if she married her brother? How is that immigration fraud? Should be covered under the 14th amendment.--Sandvol (talk) 16:46CDT, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Heritage and Nationality

The current opening sentence is: Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (born October 4, 1982) is a Somali-American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2019.

It would be more precise to say: "Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (born October 4, 1982) is a Somali-born American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't generally do that; where someone was born is not really important enough for the first line of someone's biography. Compare Arnold Schwarzenegger - "Austrian-American actor". Dan Crenshaw - "American politician." Norma Torres - "American politician." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Should probably just say American politician and talk about being born in Somalia later. nableezy - 06:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Per MOS:ETHNICITY this "should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.". It definitely doesn't belong in the first sentence. I would retain (second paragraph) - "she is the first Somali-American, the first naturalized citizen from Africa, and the first non-white woman elected from Minnesota," - as this is relevant to her notability (and the sentence indicates why) - but it doesn't belong in the first sentence. Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be an acceptable compromise on notability. I see that the change has already been made. Jguttenburg (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I prefer Somali-born American because her notability was entirely achieved in the U.S. Also, Omar probably lost her Somali citizenship by becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. But I think her place of birth is very important to her story, routinely mentioned in articles about her, and therefore should be given prominence. TFD (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with TFD's assessment of notability, however, I'm concerned that other editors might see this as having some kind of anti-immigrant stance, especially in regards to recent claims made in the House of Representatives' recent resolution, which claimed the President said: "...that members of Congress who are immigrants or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants, do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America."

While it does differ from NorthBySouthBaranof)'s very well-supported examples (thank you for being so detailed). I do believe my initial wording to be the most succinct, and (in light of Icewhiz's valid consideration) to be especially relevant and notable, not only in light of future paragraphs in the article that highlight her national origin as significant, but because of the recent Congressional resolution on impeachment of the president. However, I will defer to others as to the appropriate wording. Jguttenburg (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Omar is an American politician - elected to represent the American people. While "Somali-born American politician" is perhaps better than "Somali-American politician" - both wordings suggest that Somali (or Somali-born) are adjectives that apply to her role in the US congress. I would posit they do not. We can cover the achievement of being the first Somali-American congresswomen further down in the lead - however we should not be seen as suggesting that this is relevant to her contemporary role (it certainly has garnered commentary - of some note - but commentary should be treated separately). Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I generally agree with Icewhiz. Her being born in Somalia is certainly relevant and should be included early on, but that isnt a relevant adjective to politician. A slightly different example, Barack Obama, says simply American lawyer and politician, and then says first African American ... . Raul Ruiz (politician) says American politician, then later born in Mexico. Pramila Jayapal says American politician, then first Indian-American ... . Mazie Hirono however says Japanese-born. Adriano Espaillat also says Dominican-American politician. I realize I gave examples that go against my position (I think those are wrong), just trying to be complete. nableezy - 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
So long as it is mentioned early on, I am fine with that. TFD (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think "Somali-born American" is the clearest and should be in the lead sentence. If it's good enough for Melania Trump... -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It should be removed from Trump as well. Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "Somali-born American" is fine on both pages, agree with MelanieN. This is just an important info because it appears in a number of publications about her. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia rules for biographies are clear that place of birth and/or previous nationalities are not included in the lead unless relevant to notability and are even more specific in that they state that the nationality included in the lead is the one under which the individual became notable. Omar became notable as a U.S. Citizen and furthermore as an American politician and not in Somalia (which she left as a child). She may likely not even have Somali citizenship any longer.Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Three points. (a) No, the place of birth is usually included. (b) This is not "ethnicity". There are many different ethnic groups in Somali. (c) This has been a matter of different recent controversies, was noted in a large number of sources, and therefore should be included. This is not a negative information about the person and extremely well sourced.My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the birth place is not usually included. See WP:Ethnicity. Quote: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • This is an obvious case when the place of birth is highly "relevant to the subject's notability." This is the first case in US history when a Somali-born women was elected to US Congress. This is not my opinion, but something a lot of RS tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I still agree with your point. While she maybe the first Somali-born woman elected to Congress, her Somalian birth has little to do with her achievements and/or notable position as a congresswoman. Her notability occurred entirely in the US as a US citizen. I think it would be more reasonable to suggest its inclusion in the lead if somehow she was still involved with Somalia in some notable way. After all, there are other politicians who are "firsts" in this way who do not have their ethnicity and/or national origins in their leads. Rashida Tlaib is the first American of palestinian descent elected to Congress yet we do not put her ethnicity in her lead. Simply being born a different nationality is not justification for inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your comparison is not a good one. Tlaib was born in the United States to Palestinian immigrants, while Omar was born in Somalia, then emigrated here. Somali Americans are a notable and sizable diaspora in the United States. Zaathras (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Section on Omar being targeted by Trump

This was mentioned above, but it seems worth spinning off into its own discussion. I feel the article could use a section on the way Omar has generally been targeted by Trump; this would avoid putting WP:UNDUE weight on any one of the false or misleading claims he made about her, while reflecting the way his attacks on her are increasingly covered. This would also serve as a place to put most of the Trump stuff without having it overwhelm the article (or as a place to give it the coverage it's WP:DUE, as appropriate, since it could become a major part of the article depending.) Here's some sources that seem relevant:

  • USA Today, "Fact check: Trump’s false claims about Rep. Ilhan Omar"
  • Factcheck.org, "Trump’s False Claims About Rep. Ilhan Omar"
  • LA Times, "Q&A: Rep. Ilhan Omar is a favorite Trump target. What’s going on?"
  • The Guardian, "How Trump distorts facts to make Ilhan Omar seem like an enemy to the US"
  • Time, "How Rep. Ilhan Omar Rose From Refugee to Trump's Top Target"

There's a lot more sources about individual incidents, of course, but I feel it's important to find news sources that support the broader theme of "Rep. Ilhan Omar has been particularly targeted by Trump" or the like to avoid WP:SYNTH issues; we can include incidents there provided the sources generally put it in the context of this larger pattern. We'd also have to come up with a neutral title for the section that nonetheless gets across the basic thrust of coverage. Then we could mention more minor incidents like the one in the section above here, without giving them WP:UNDUE weight and with the context appropriate to the sources. It's silly to create a separate section for every single thing Trump says about her as if they're unrelated incidents, after all, when so many sources clearly tie them together into one topic. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me. I was just following the existing structure, but maybe it needs to be refined at this point. soibangla (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully more people will weigh in, since this would involve changing existing stuff, too - definitely the "go home" section, and probably the 9/11 comments section, would both be folded into this, since in both cases the notability of the incident seems to be primarily about her being targeted by Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This approach makes sense to me. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It has become an issue of very wide interest now that Angela Merkel, considered by many to have replaced the US president as the "Leader of the Free World", has commented on the incident and come out in support of Omar. [5] It seems to me that at this point we should have a fairly large section covering this ongoing verbal battle. Gandydancer (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The British leader Theresa May has also condemned the verbal attacks on Omar, see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48990760. The increasing international interest in the issue of the U.S. president's racism is good reason for greater wikipedia coverage. NightHeron (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Maybe a sentence is justified per WP:RELAR, but these sources are about Trump (and a WP:POVFORK at that). I oppose this attempt to put "Trump's falsehoods about this subject" on every Wikipedia article. I suggest reading Nancy Pelosi for an example of an encyclopedic article – Trump's comments about X are only included on X's page if X's replies to Trump are also included (and those are included only if they are WP:DUE). wumbolo ^^^ 11:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It is largely because of Trump's attacks on her and her eloquent responses that Omar has become extremely well known throughout the U.S. and abroad, far more so than most U.S. congressional representatives. She would be notable otherwise, but not to the same degree. So the conflict with Trump belongs in her biography. NightHeron (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
A freshman representative suddenly launched into international view. How can we omit the reason? O3000 (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Because she is a U.S. Representative? Stop providing excuses for Trump's comments. wumbolo ^^^ 12:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Say what? O3000 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
While you can mention diplomatic responses, U.S. articles should have a U.S. focus. wumbolo ^^^ 12:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
So, articles about members of Congress can't mention international ramifications? Besides, I said nothing about including international responses. And assume good faith. I don't even know what you mean by Stop providing excuses for Trump's comments. Where have I ever done anything of the sort? O3000 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Minutes after lecturing me about something I didn’t do, focus on international events, you add a cite to an Israeli source with a political slant with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict discussing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions behind a paywall. O3000 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Source for suggested edit

"Megan Rapinoe criticizes ‘Send her back’ chant and Trump during Charlotte appearance"; could also be edit to related article about Trump.https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/scott-fowler/article232807607.html#storylink=topdigest_latest— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

The line that states that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the "leader of the free world" is both wrong (It's traditionally been the US President) not-sourced, and inflammatory. This is a unabashedly politically biased article... It's true that Trump misquoted Omar, but many of the things Omar has said have been deemed to be anti-Semitic, inflammatory, and racist by the US House of Representatives among others, yet this never appears in the article. Omar has simultaneously been criticized from many other angles as well. 31.154.47.226 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Done The statement as actually made in the article, not as you quoted out of context, is true but unnecessarily argumentative. But, the U.S. House did not deem her statements as anti-Semitic or racist, and this is a WP:BLP violation. Please be careful when discussing living persons. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

No background provided for the "go back" remarks

Ihan Omar has been credibly accused of tax and immigration fraud, as noted in several major publications. There is no mention of those allegations in the article. To dedicate an entirely separate (and new) section without explaining the background of the those remarks is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

[citation needed]. Be aware that defamatory claims about living people need to be supported by reliable sources. What are these "credible" accusations and who is "credibly" making them? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jguttenburg: If you do not support these claims in the next hour, I'm going to hat this thread as a violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: An hour is not a reasonable time frame for a request, as not everyone is constantly at their computer. If you have questions, feel free to ask them, but don't presume to place demands on other people's time.
  • The Minnesota Sun is a partisan blog with a misleading name that's actually based in Ohio per their own contact information and has no reputation for fact-checking, accuracy or anything else - so that's not a reliable source and cannot be used here.
  • City Journal is also a partisan magazine; the article you cite is a first-person opinion column written by a conservative blogger from Power Line. Opinion columns are not acceptable sources for claims about living people.
  • The other two sources use the word "fraud" only in repeating what the sources state are claims made by "conservative pundits" and random conservative Twitter users. Again, that's insufficient to justify inclusion of such claims in a Wikipedia biography. We don't include every claim made about Donald Trump by random people on Twitter either. None of this adds up to "credible accusations" of criminal behavior, and as such, I'm hatting this thread. Please review WP:BLP - we have a policy-based obligation to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and an avoidance of sensationalism. Your demand that we include claims that Omar is guilty of federal felonies based upon nothing more than speculation, rumor-mongering and angry partisan tweets is categorically unacceptable. Other sites such as Conservapedia may welcome such nonsense; that's up to them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If an allegation is to be included in the article, it must have been reported on by reliable sources—whether someone was "credibly accused" is not the issue. Also, unhatting this discussion—if this is a bad idea, no reason it can't be discussed, and the hatnote was probably in violation of WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Sets A (reliable sources) and B (right-wing blogs)

Instead of getting information from right-wing blogs and searching reliable sources to see if they have picked up on them, it's better to begin with reliable sources and report what they say. As the Venn diagram shows, while sometimes what they report is the same, in most cases it is not. TFD (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Which sources initially picked up on a story is irrelevant. Once something has received mainstream coverage, it becomes WP:DUE. Such sources serve to correct the record, and that's why the latter are citable on Wiki and not the former. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Every year, newspapers cover what the president has on his Thanksgiving table, and what his family gets each other for Christmas. Editors should use discretion as to what is relevant to a biography. Just "I saw it in the news" isn't enough. Zaathras (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Suppose that your only source of news was Poultry Times, which gave prominent coverage to the presidential turkey pardon.[6] You go from article to article to ensure that issues considered important to people interested in poultry are covered. You would find a lot of disputes about weight, since poultry issues do not get the same coverage in mainstream media as they do in poultry magazines. To contribute constructively to non-poultry related articles, you'd be better to stop reading the magazine or stop contributing to those articles. TFD (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Zaathras: is absolutely spot on. Which sources initially picked up on a story is irrelevant: The Drudge Report broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal. While I've heard about the allegations from a number of sources, the examples I provided were those I found at the top results of a google search, due to NorthBySouthBaranof's imposed time constraints. I agree that it's important to strike a balance when major news sources cite "anonymous sources" or politically biased sources. However, based on the current structure of the article, there doesn't seem to be a way to address the controversy, and I'll defer to others on how the accusations should be addressed.

15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Section "Democratic Congresswomen should "go back" to their countries"

The article says: "On July 14, 2019, President Trump tweeted that four Democratic congresswomen of color including Omar should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough."

The actual tweet said "So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

The tweet does not specify that it is referring to "four Democratic congresswomen of color" - that is an assumption that was made by people who see racial implications in the tweet, but not by people who think the tweet was written to exclude racial implications. ANd asking "why don't they go back" feels less harsh than that they "should go back."

I suggest rewriting that sentence as "In a tweet on July 14, 2019, President Trump asked "Progressive Democrat Congresswomen," presumably including Omar, "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough." "

I will add that revision because it seems to improve neutrality. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Llewkcalbyram: - Trump admitted he was referring to the four congresswomen: [7] So great to see how unified the Republican Party was on today's vote concerning statements I made about four Democrat Congresswomen. starship.paint (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • My worry is that "four congresswomen of color" assumes they were singled out because they are POC, when they have also identified themselves as a group ("the squad")- a group of four congresswomen who all happen to be POC.
    • The cited article did not actually report that Trump "admited" he was referring to the four congresswomen; the closest the article comes is in quoting a tweet: "So great to see how unified the Republican Party was on today's vote concerning statements I made about four Democrat Congresswomen. If you really want to see statements, look at the horrible things they said about our Country, Israel, and much more. They are now the top, most visible members of the House Democrats, who are now wedded to this bitterness and hate. The Republican vote was 187-4. Wow! Also, this was the first time since 1984 that the Speaker of the House was ruled Out of Order and broke the Rules of the House. Quite a day!" Again, people will disagree whether or not this is a racist statement since it does not include explicit racist elements or language. 2605:A000:1505:17B7:F8B9:2222:C465:845C (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no doubt who he was talking about; in his Wednesday speech he specifically named all four of them. He does appears to be attacking them as an identified group (a group which has been repeatedly named and criticized by Fox News; in fact his first tweet was inspired by something on Fox and Friends). He does not point out that they POC, although it is certainly no coincidence that they are, and in fact his "go back to your countries" line (when only only one is actually from another country) is a classic example of Perpetual foreigner logic. Bottom line, I agree with the changes made by Llewkcalbyram and Soibangla. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
But I needed to partially revert the Soibangla, as it also deleted 2 named refs used later in the article, didn't use the proper cite template, and used countries where the actual term was places. Let's keep our quality up to snuff.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting that Omar is not accused of making false and misleading statements; I don't understand this. For instance, she claims that the president is racist and hate-filled and the like but these are subjective opinions and not provable empirically. "She alleges ..." would be much more objective. Additionally, this section needs to add a number of "alleged" words. For instance, a statement reads, "[Trump] misrepresented comments [Omar] made in 2013, falsely claiming that Omar had praised al-Qaeda." Because it is impossible to prove that Omar has never praised al-Qaeda, or to prove pretty much any other negative, the wording of such statements presents a prejudice on the part of their author(s).

You're working with a high school debate club level of logic here. Contrary to what you might have learned in high school, the burden of proof for a factual claim lies upon the person making it (and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence); unless Trump has proof that Omar has praised al-Qaeda (he doesn't) then we treat his claim as false. There is no burden on Omar or her defenders to find some "disproof" of Trump's false claim; as you do accurately note, proving a negative is difficult.
On the other hand, Omar's opinions of Trump as a racist and hate-filled are well-founded in voluminous evidence; from "fine people on both sides" of a white supremacist rally to building concentration camps for refugees. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Bias

Article only includes positive feedback sources. Heavily biased Kevin6543225 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have examples, please provide them. I have posted a message on your talk page that provides links to policies and guidelines. It may be that you have a complaint against Wikipedia in general, which relies on mainstream media for news. If so, that is best addressed in policy discussions. TFD (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is so bias it’s almost comical. Why is her 9/11 comment “some people did something” downplayed in the “Threats, Conspiracy Theories and Harassment” section? Lottasmells (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

How is this biased? In what direction? O3000 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
They probably think its too left wing judging by the comment regarding 9/11 about being "downplayed". Imo, on this point, it should be kept the way it is -- that section is not encyclopedic to begin with, the last thing we need is more innuendo from any side.--Calthinus (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Time in Dadaab

The article says that Ms Omar spent "four years in a Dadaab refugee camp" and in the next paragraph it says that the family first arrived "in New York in 1992". Dadaab refugee was constructed in 1992, so there's some inconsistency there. Mastetson (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I can only find one cite that says she arrived in 1992. She says she arrived at the age of 12, which could be 1995. I would imagine it was a confusing time and perhaps we should just be less precise in the dating. O3000 (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
According to an article in The Guardian, "Omar fled the civil war in Somalia with her family in 1991 and spent four years in the Utange camp, near the Kenyan coastal city of Mombasa, before arriving in the US with her six brothers and sisters under a resettlement programme."[8] Omar's website says, "Born in Somalia, Ilhan and her family fled the country's civil war when she was eight-years-old. They lived in a refugee camp in Kenya for four years before coming to the United States, eventually settling in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis in 1997."[9] The Dadaab camp incidentally opened in 1991, not 1992.[10] The Utange camp closed in 1995.[11] So most likely Omar spent 1991-1995 in the Utange camp before travelling to the U.S. We should change the article to reflect what is said in The Guardian. TFD (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_10&oldid=1079503461"