Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Question regarding who can edit this page

The article is currently indefinite semi-protection. Semi-protection has been installed several times by several admins including User:Doug Weller, User:El C, and myself. But the notice at the top of the edit page and the talk page says "Users who edit the identified content:

  • must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure"[1]

If non-extended-confirmed users are forbidden from editing the article, why isn’t it under EC protection so that they can't? Or contrarily, if it is not regarded as needing EC protection, why are non-extended-confirmed editors told they should not edit the article, as for example here? Let’s make the rules consistent. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

My understanding, which could well be wrong, is that there is no need to protect a page unless it is subject to repeated abusive editing from non-ec editors. The 30/500 is generic for any applicable page not just those that are abused. Editors might choose to let an unqualified edit stand, I guess that's possible too.Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@MelanieN and Selfstudier: as the notice says, only part of the article is related although it isn't identified, and that's wrong. We need hidden comments in the article unless by now her whole BLP is relevant. I'm thinking maybe it is?User:El C? Doug Weller talk 18:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I do think the article needs indefinite semi-protection, which it now has, and which has been working well. I do not see a need for EC protection based on the editing history. And I find any connection with the "Arab-Israeli conflict" to be tenuous. But I am rarely involved with arbcom-type decisions, so my opinion shouldn't count for much. I just think we need to be consistent: either non-EC users are permitted to edit the article, in which case we should remove the notice that says they aren't; or non-EC users are NOT permitted to edit the article, in which case it should be under EC (not to be confused with El C) protection. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

My own view is that much greater caution should be undertaken in instituting the WP:ARBPIA WP:500-30 tenure requirement for "related content" than for "primary articles." In that sense, stretching the scope of that contradistinction, I do deem the subject as being far more WP:AP2 than she is ARBPIA (which is why I logged the semiprotection thusly). El_C 19:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Just last month a non-ec editor User:Benevolent human went so far as to appeal to ArbCom [2], claiming that ARBPIA should not apply to Bh's attempts (through two RfCs) to put a lot more emphasis in this article on the allegations that Omar's statements related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are anti-semitic. No other editor thought there was any merit in Bh's claim that ARBPIA shouldn't apply here.
In connection with Omar's statements on Israel there has been a lot of heavy-duty POV-pushing, including blatant BLP violations, such as this edit by another non-ec editor a few hours ago (one of the two I reverted) stating in wikivoice that Omar's statements were anti-semitic. I don't see anything wrong with the talk-page notice that ARBPIA applies. Having that statement makes it easier to deal with SPAs and other non-ec POV-pushers. NightHeron (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the DS notices at the top of this talk page, including the removal of the WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARB911 ones (tag overload — 4 is too many). El_C 20:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the cleanup! Now the situation is: the talk page lists DS for AP2, specifying 1RR but not EC, and DS for Arab-Israeli, no specifics. Good. The actual article lists DS for AP2, specifying 1RR but not EC - but under DS for Arab-Israeli it still spells out EC as well as 1RR. So we are ALMOST consistent now, but the article still says you can’t edit the article unless you are EC. If that's what people want, I am OK with it, but I think it should be under EC protection. If we're going to tell people they can't edit the article, IMO we should prevent them from doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Melanie, it says you can't edit the identified content (i.e. ARBPIA "related content" only), so I think it more or less aligns... El_C 20:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on anti-Semitism accusations in lead

PROCEDURAL
Procedural: the OP is not qualified to participate in formal discussions about ARBPIA (which, in my uninvolved opinion, this clearly is). In either case, there is rather strong opposition, even at this time, based on strong policy arguments about what goes in the lead of an article, about the inaccuracy of the proposed statement, and NPOV/UNDUE. I'm not going to object if someone wishes to re-open this, but in that case take the time to strike the comments from the OP, as per the discretionary sanctions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a secondary non-admin closure. No one should re-open this; it's very clearly a WP:SNOWBALL. I haven't even looked at the question, but it's very clear this is going nowhere at all.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Survey

  • Include and Agree. This controversy was frontpage news for a long time, and for many, it is what Omar is most known for. Notable sources pretty much always mention this when giving a bio of her (such as this one from BBC [3]). The suggested compromise language probably paints an overly rosy picture of the situation compared to my original proposal, but I'm willing to endorse it for the sake of compromise. Benevolent human (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The proposed "compromise" wording is heavily skewed towards the accusers:
1) "by both Democrats and Republicans as well as Jewish civil rights groups" makes it sound like the whole of reasonable American society, which I doubt the personalities involved can be said to fairly represent
2) "accused of antisemitism... which they said perpetuated the antisemitic canards that Jews have dual loyalty" duplicates the accusation unnecessarily.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Per my comments above from three months ago, I think that including some sentence (or part of a sentence) on this topic in the lead is appropriate. I do not think the particular proposal is very good, and so I do not agree with it. I do not object to holding another RfC on this question, but I think that the RfC statement should be edited to remove the argumentative part (I do not think it is clear that "[a]nti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance since [2020]", and whether or not it is true I do not think it is germane to the questions being posed). --JBL (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment See: Statement should be neutral and brief: "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple." I suggest you re-write the RfC to remove the obvious bias. TFD (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As discussed above, the text misrepresents the facts, fails to give adequate weight to opposing views and is out of proportion. The proposer's reason for a new RfC ("Anti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance since then") is contrary to policy. We emphasize facts and opinions based on the weight they are given in reliable sources, not our perception of their importance. TFD (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. Criticizing Israel has been taken by some to be the same as anti-Semitism, but they are not the same. Onceinawhile's comments are on point, and the RfC as written is indeed biased as TFD says (current anti-Semetic attacks have nothing to do with what Omar said more than two years ago). We could add something to the lead, but not that sentence. Honestly, I think trimming the recentism from the Israel-Palestine section may be a better use of our attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Not a valid RFC, per TFD, so if at first you dont succeed ... . Beyond that, an RFC is one of the discussions in the ARBPIA topic area that require extended-confirmed status, and the opening editor has 261 edits, making him or her not eligible to participate. nableezy - 23:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nonsensical. Equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism seems is itself a smear tactic. We should not parrot these kind of mudslinging. Dimadick (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Notice the rhetorical trick being players here by opponents, who choose to ignore the wealth of reliable sources on the matter and instead insist in their own opinion it's "non a big deal because she's criticizing Israel". Last I checked, talk of a Jewish lobby and dual-loyalty were two of the biggest anti-Semitic canards out there, right up there with blood libel. But regardless, none of the personal opinions here matter - it's the defining trait of her time in office and without a doubt the single most prominent thing known about her foreign policy stances nationally. It's ludicrous not to at least include a mention of a controversy that led to immediate condemnation from her party's leadership. Toa Nidhiki05 23:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    The canard is in how you are discussing this. There is a Jewish lobby, which Walter John Raymond defined as a conglomeration of approximately thirty-four Jewish political organizations in the United States which make joint and separate efforts to lobby for their interests in the United States, as well as for the interests of the State of Israel. Comparing that to blood libel? Nonsense. As for the "dual loyalty" thing, I agree with this op-ed. She never accused American Jews of having "dual loyalty". Ilhan Omar certainly didn’t say that Jews have dual loyalty. For instance, in one of the tweets that got people so worked up, Omar said, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.” You’ll notice she didn’t say or even imply anything at all about Jews. She said that she was being asked to support Israel in order to have the privilege of serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which was true. Many on the right have called for her to be removed from that committee (see here, or here, or here, or here). Her argument, to repeat, isn’t about how Jews feel about Israel, it’s about what is being demanded of her. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Anti-Omar editors have been repeatedly bludgeoning this talk page to force more and more space to be devoted to accusations of anti-semitism, and they've tried multiple times to put it in the lead. This is a BLP, not an attack-page. NightHeron (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per esp. Muboshgu's comments above. The allegations about "dual loyalty" are simply misrepresentations of what Omar said, and are certainly not notable enough to appear in the lead. Generalrelative (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is already a sentence in the lead describing her as "a frequent critic of Israel". That is true, and it's enough. Criticizing the actions of the government of Israel is not at all the same thing as being antisemitic, although some people try to conflate the two. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The text misrepresents the facts and fails to give adequate weight to opposing views. Also, as MelanieN states, "a frequent critic of Israel" as the lead presently states is enough. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Has there been a major new event regarding alleged antisemitism since the conclusion of the 2020 RFC? If not then this proposal is dead on arrival, as nothing newsworthy has happened that should alter the consensus reaches last year. ValarianB (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hard no Criticism of Israel isn’t anti-Semitism. That is a logical fallacy. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is nothing like anti-Semitism in her comments, being critical is not the same with anti-Semitic. Sea Ane (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The text is misrepresenting the facts.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose; simply not a sufficiently major aspect of her biography. When something is just "critics say..." with nothing else backing it up and no non-opinion sources treating it as factual, it requires a lot of coverage to go in the lead of a high-profile BLP; I'm still not seeing that here. If we listed every such accusation made against a politician by their political opponents, the lead of every political BLP would be nothing but a wall of negative accusations. If anything, we are devoting far too much text to it in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East is anti-Semitic when it's deeply steeped in the regional history of conferring an implied inferior status to non-Muslims under Shari'a. More directly, the colonial era and deep indignation at British and international recognition of an "Arab right of self-determination in Palestine" under the British Mandate. As for the range of anti-Semitic "canards" being invoked in present times, the fear and intolerance is because these criticisms (Jewish lobby, etc) have often preceded the rise of anti-Semitic political parties, ideologies and anti-Semitic violence (pogroms). However, American political culture has for centuries tolerated many types of difficult political speech that would have turned violent in other places. I'm in agreement with JBL and TFD that the RfC was not well-formulated. Spudlace (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As stated above, criticism of Israel is not the same as anti-Semitism. Even if we felt like we have to report the accusations themselves, they're not relevant enough to her career to be in the lede. Claims that these accusations are far and away the most relevant aspect of her biography are laughable. In addition, I genuinely don't understand what "Anti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance since then". Unfortunately, anti-Semitism has been around for thousands of years and I doubt it changed in any significant way in the last 12 months. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - whether or not she's anti-semitic is irrelevant; the issue is that this kind of analysis/accusation does not generally belong in the intro, which should provide a neutral, straightforward summary. (Actually, the same goes double for that embarrassing last sentence in the intro, "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, harassment..." - you could add that sentence to the article of just about any politician in the world. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Notice how many voters here are not actually engaging with the sources on the matter, but are instead saying in their opinion that she was not anti-Semitic. These votes should be ignored as they aren’t actually following our guidelines on voting; your personal opinion doesn’t matter, what does is what reliable sources say. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    Part of your reasoning for Support was "it's the defining trait of her time in office", a clear statement of personal opinion. Rather than invalidate all opinions, I think it's a good-faith assumption that there's an unspoken disclaimer along the lines of "I think most of the reliable sources support the opinion that..." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • In response to nableezy, this is related to Omar's alleged attitudes towards American Jews, not things in the Middle East. Benevolent human (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Your proposed addition specifically calls out "dual loyalty". How is that not about the Middle East? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Comment. A search for anti-semitism in Omar's BLP shows it occurs 10 times in the text. Out of curiosity, I looked at Donald Trump's BLP and found that the word occurs zero times (although two sources in the references, [222] and [819], concern his anti-semitism). Trump's use of anti-semitic tropes was more extensive (see [4]), and, unlike Omar, he never apologized for it. So why would editors who say they are concerned that Anti-Semitism in the US has taken on new significance come after Omar (a relatively minor political force in the US) and ignore the anti-semitism of a much more powerful political figure? Could it be that the real issue for them is not anti-semitism, but rather Israel? That is, Trump gets a pass because he's a strong supporter of Israel, dislikes Muslims, and even moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem. NightHeron (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, let me caution you here about minding BLP on talk pages, and so we can't say Trump dislikes Muslims. We can point out that his travel bans were targeted towards majority Muslim countries, but we can't say what you said. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Muboshgu: Thank you. I've struck through that phrase. NightHeron (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
In any case, you're correct the Donald Trump article should cover his alleged anti-Semitism. I can't edit that article since I'm not extended confirmed, but I'm including some references here in case anyone else wants to take that up (although it's worth noting there wasn't anywhere near as much media coverage as for Omar). [5][6] Benevolent human (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Benevolent human, best to take those to Talk:Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, the discussion continues here. Benevolent human (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Benevolent human: could you please rephrase the RfC to be more neutral? I propose cutting the first few lines, before "First...", and then continuing with something like "First, should we include some mention of accusations of antisemitism against Omar in the lead?" and the remainder unchanged. I like that you suggested include/exclude as !vote options but it seems most people have defaulted to support/oppose. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    @NightHeron: you recently reverted Benevolent human's edit of the RfC statement. Would my proposed language above, or something similar, address your concerns about other editors having already responded. I think we can find a happy medium that removes the non-neutral language and doesn't touch parts that !voters have already responded to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Benevolent human, Firefangledfeathers: I reverted Benevolent human's well-intentioned removal of part of the RfC prompt. It's too late for that, per WP:TALK#REPLIED, which, at least as I interpret it, means that you can't change what the RfC asks once the RfC is well underway. 15:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
For example, how would the closer interpret Muboshgu's and Nableezy's votes/comments? NightHeron (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) To me, the harm of the non-neutral preface to the main questions outweighs the harm of removing the original context of the current discussion. And I think we could mitigate the context harm by attempting to preserve as much of the replied-to parts of the statement as possible and by, perhaps, pasting the original comment somewhere lower in the discussion for reference. I concede that these suggestions are out-of-the-box and I think I've made my case as much as I care to; let's see if anyone agrees. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ARBPIA scope RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
That's a question that must be asked to ARBCOM directly. TFD (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC). Re-closed; TFD is correct. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


Should ARBPIA apply to allegations of whether Ilhan Omar invoked anti-Semitic canards when discussing Jewish Americans? Benevolent human (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose The controversy stems from Ilhan Omar allegedly saying that Jewish Americans who support Israel have dual loyalty to the US and Israel. Dual loyalty implies people are doing nice things for Israel since they're loyal to israel, but the US has, in part due to AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies, done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, collaboration on Iran issues, technology development, etc. Benevolent human (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed early per the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Clear, convincing, and overwhelming consensus against the proposed changes. As a previously-uninvolved party, I remind others that re-asking the same question multiple times is often considered a form of tendentious editing. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

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

  • "Omar’s tweet is the latest among her frequent criticisms of the Israeli government that drew ire from lawmakers of both parties who have condemned them as perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes." - Washington Post [7]
  • "Her Twitter comment in 2019 that support in Washington for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby” kicked off weeks of fighting that ended in a resolution on the House floor condemning bigotry and anti-Semitism. The comments played into anti-Semitic tropes that have roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury." [8]

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

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

Sounds like Wikipedia:Gaming the system. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith. I'm taking a class and had a day off today since I finished my work early, so was able to spend the day on Wikipedia. This is the third RfC because people kept closing them illegitimately (custom is that they're open for 7 days). As I explained on ANI, ARBPIA never applied to this situation since this has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict. Benevolent human (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
So that's some wikilawyering there. WP:AGF says If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. NightHeron has substantiated their doubts. This repeated pushing POV in RFCs is WP:TEND. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I hold you all in the highest respect, but I don't really agree with these allegations (see my earlier post). This RfC prompt appears similar to others. For several weeks, we've been avoiding the issue at hand through these ad hominem attacks and we should now come to a decision on this question one way or another. Benevolent human (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
[T]his has nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict — see the notices at the top of this very talk page, e.g. A portion of the article Ilhan Omar, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies resulting from four arbitration cases (see WP:A/I/PIA). There's nothing in the article about stereotyping of American Jews unaffiliated with Israel; the comments Omar was accused of anti-Semitism for were about pro-Israel lobbying, and so were directly related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Your statement that your two earlier RfCs were closed illegitimately is false. RfCs that are started in violation of sanctions (for example, by a topic-banned editor or a new editor who does not meet an extended-confirmed requirement) are supposed to be closed on procedural grounds. Otherwise the sanctions would have no meaning. Your statement that ARBPIA doesn't apply is also false. The second warning at the top of this talk-page says explicitly that ARBPIA does apply to the portions of the article related to Omar's views on the Israeli-Arab conflict. You've been given a lot of slack per WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but editors' patience is not unlimited. NightHeron (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support This incident was headline news at the time, and continues to be mentioned in headline news articles today, years later. Regardless of where you stand on the debate as to how to interpret Omar's remarks, the controversy is one of the things that is most known about her. Benevolent human (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Benevolent human, I wrote in reply to your previous RfC, "See: Statement should be neutral and brief: "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple." I suggest you re-write the RfC to remove the obvious bias. [21:41, 1 June 2021] TFD (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The same RfC was already presented and one more article makes no difference. The material is undue and tendentiously written. TFD (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am concerned that the same RfC or substantially same RfC is being presented over and over in order to get the desired result, which is to include contentious statements in a BLP that Ilhan Omar engages in anti-Semitism on Twitter. We must be extra cautious when including contentious statements per WP:BLP. Since there have been previous RfC discussions that arrived at the conclusion not to include these statements, I believe we must err on the side of caution. TrueQuantum (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment You're being mislead :(. Two RfC's were closed this month without conclusion due to claimed procedural issues. Before that, one RfC on this issue succeeded in 2019 and one failed in 2020. For reference, here is the 2019 RfC and here is the 2020 RfC. Benevolent human (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Nothing has changed regarding allegations of anti-semitism. Omar's recent statement was not anti-semitic. She said what many others have said, namely, that human rights violations are equally odious when committed by Israel or the US as when committed by the Taliban or Hamas. The parents of a child who's killed are not comforted by the knowledge that the rocket was sent by a democracy. Omar is talking about specific acts that are in violation of international law. She's not claiming any type of general "moral equivalence" between Israel/US and Taliban/Hamas. NightHeron (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Accusations of anti-Semitism are very serious and the threshold to include them here by WP:BLP standards are not met in my opinion. The fact that this has been discussed multiple times in previous RfCs only reinforces my opposition here.---CranberryMuffin (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Benevolent human, "the controversy is one of the things that is most known about her." One of the most known things about Elizabeth Warren is "Poncahontas", but we don't put that in her lead either. Gandydancer (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Because this is a crucial part of her bio and clearly still in the national spotlight, but I would recommend Benevolent human refrain from starting RfCs that are obviously not going to go anywhere. Toa Nidhiki05 00:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A brief callback of less than 200 words (just a summary of previous coverage, with no new evaluation or analysis) at the very end of a 1,300-word article does not suggest this material is particularly WP:DUE. Material in the lead should proportionately reflect all the most reliable sources about the person, not just recent news coverage. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC) edited 22:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Since Benevolent human has seemingly left notices about this RfC at exclusively Jewish-focused talk pages and WikiProjects (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here), I've gone ahead and also notified WikiProject Minnesota, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Islam, and WikiProject Discrimination, among others. Hopefully that avoids a biased outcome. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC) edited 06:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I noticed the same thing when this user posted at the noticeboard. I had edited this article in the past but took it off the wathclist at some point, and would not have known otherwise. This seems like a rather straightforward attempt at stacking the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose While generally supportive against those who seek to denigrate Israel, being a critic of Israeli policies is sometimes but not always antisemitic. The sources simply do not support a linkage prominent enough to make it a central part of Omar's biography. Let the coverage remain further on in the article. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nothing has changed since the last RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the same reasons above in that it seems politically motivated and trying to game wikipedia.Dan Carkner (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comments above --Vacant0 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per comments above. A waste of time. Carlstak (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Again? Tendentiously written text that for some reason gives an overview of historic antisemitism in a BLP's lede? Never going to happen. Also, every time a new RfC is posted the percentage of people opposing this increases. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Freelance-frank (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing has changed since the last RfC. warshy (¥¥) 16:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Nothing has changed since the last RFC. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Still not a valid RFC. Maybe read WP:RFC before opening your fourth one and actually following the requirement of a brief, neutral question. nableezy - 05:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, it is important enough to include in the lead. BLP does not necessarily apply because this is an elected official in government and per freedom of speech we are allowed to include content that is critical of such officials. 06:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • (admin comment) (a) BLP applies to all living people, and (b) free speech does not apply to a private website. Black Kite (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Black Kite: Just to clarify, by free speech does not apply to a private website, I assume you do not mean that Wikipedia does not have free speech rights, but rather than Wikipedia is not required to allow users to put whatever they want on the site with no restrictions. Is that correct? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Clearly we are going to remove, for example, blatant libel in a BLP, or even on a talk page. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That might technically be true but we need to rethink what BLP is for. BLP was meant to protect Wikipedia from being sued by the subjects of articles. Ilhan Omar suing us because we criticized her as an elected official, is not really something we would expect to happen (due to how government is not allowed to suppress speech against it) 14:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    Also you seem to be using "free speech" to refer specifically to 1st Amendment rights when I am using "freedom of speech" in the general sense. 14:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • Yes, but you don't technically have that freedom either, because Wikipedia has policies, guidelines and user consensus, so you can't simply write what you like (well, you can, but may be removed for any of those reasons). And BLP is not primarily concerned with subjects suing, it is about preventing the possibility of harm to them. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
With respect, I don't agree that the ethics and morals the Wikipedia community agreed upon for BLP subjects is because Wikipedia wants to protect itself from getting sued. That's quite a cynical view. I believe our standards for WP:BLP is because we want to be a humane and ethical community that concerns ourselves about harm to other individuals. This is especially important in our current media and social media environment, and is something I am proud about when it comes to Wikipedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Some comments moved from here to the section below

That seems more like ret-conning the justification for BLP. The reality is that BLP was indeed to minimize the possibility of litigation. Like a lot of other WP policies, Wikipedia started out without having any particular protection for BLP articles (they were treated similarly to non-BLP articles) and that only changed because people did take legal action against WP for what was said in the articles.
If there were no BLP policy, then articles that currently fall under BLP would still be governed by content policy which applies to non-BLP articles. BLP is not needed as a policy specifically for "reminding editors to behave ethically" or whatever. 22:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  • Freedom of speech does not apply to the written word, the applicable right is freedom of the press. That right belongs to the Wikipedia Media Foundation that owns Wikipedia, not to volunteers they engage to edit their articles. Also, the purpose of BLP is to protect people against harm by ensuring that policies of reliable sourcing and due weight are strictly adhered to. Although behaving ethically minimizes the risk of litigation, that is not why people should behave ethically. Even if BLP did not exist, editors should behave ethically and fairly. TFD (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The issue being discussed is whether we have an obligation to include the information under due weight and reliable sourcing policies, and I think TOA is trying to say that, provided all applicable Wikipedia policies and commonsense criteria are met (which we are now debating), failing to include the information violates some notion of fairness. I did bring up on ANI whether ARBPIA applies to this RfC a few weeks ago and no admins weighed in, but there are reasons to think it shouldn't which I discussed at the time: Essentially, the controversy was whether Omar invoked stereotypes by saying American Jews had dual loyalty to Israel. Presumably, someone with dual loyalty to Israel would seek to do nice things for Israel. But the US has done a lot of nice things for Israel that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict, such as massive, massive economic aid, admission to the Western Europe and Others group at the UN and to the OECD and cooperation on Iran matters. Anyhow, everyone has strong feelings on this discussion, but despite that I think we've all done a great job being nice to each other - so go us! Benevolent human (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Some comments moved from here to the section below

Comment. Though I have edited this article's anti-Semitism/AIPAC article even with a slight expansion, I have done so reluctantly, because I believe the whole section on her remarks about Israel and putatively about Jews constitutes a gross case of WP:Undue- Stuck with what we have, I tried at least to restore some perspective. Let us look at this analytically. I cited a source above that contrasted the inflammatory skyrocketing of accusations against her whenever she ventured to speak on the massive US support for Israel's occupation: The source cited several Republicans who had made anti-Semitic remarks or who had attacked Soros and his money.
Ihlan Omar's bio has 1,413 words minutely scrutinizing her remarks re Israel, of which half, 766 words, deal with insinuations she is antisemitic. Compare the wiki bio of the Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene, for whom the public record shows a perfervid obsession with conspiracy theories and Jews. She gets 388 words for remarks on Jews, 1367 if you count reactions (and the Republican party refuses to censure her I.e. whereas for Omar these controversies are a minor part of her political life, and yet we press for greater coverage.
The discrepancy in editorial attention is striking. A Republican's remarks on this score go unnoticed; a Democrat's are showcased. If the Democrat is a woman, and a Muslim then it's a no holds barred cramming of the page. The disparity is quite disgraceful and is one I seriously think merits reflection on what we are doing here. In a correct weighing of WP:Undue in a WP:BLP, (unless there is clear evidence of fringe lunatic figures like David Duke whose obsession with fantasies about Jews is the only thing that makes him notable because he is an influencer) we should not be devoting major space to the question of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel the coverage on those other pages is lacking, you are more than welcome to edit those pages yourself, preferably with better sources than opinion pieces. Toa Nidhiki05 19:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:BLUDGEON. Your repeated attack position re this person has obtained zero consensus. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Again, this is nothing more than a smear tactic against Omar. It should not appear in the lead, nor taken seriously. Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per undue (which, as opposed to coverage on other pages being lacking, is what Nishidani was pointing out). Ill-formed RFC, regurgitating of older RFC without reason to change that outcome. Just drop it. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ilhan has said outlandish things about the Jewish people including her most recent statement stating that Jewish members of Congress are not "partners in justice." She is absolutely as damaging and defamatory towards American Jewry as Margorie Taylor Greene. I support including a clear statement that she is known to make antisemitic statements on her Twitter and in interviews on her Wikipedia page. She has been called out by congressional leadership for her antisemitism. For any of you or even me to disagree with her own party's stance on these statements is frankly ludicrous. Add the summary. Xamgerg (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That discussion already closed, there was consensus among editors to not include this. If you have concerns about Margorie(sic) Taylor Greene, then Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene would be the place to air them. Zaathras (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" about Omar not substantiated by RS

The article claims that Omar "has been the subject of... conspiracy theories"—and there is even a section titled "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment". Yet no conspiracy theory about or involving Omar is described in the article, nor in the cited sources. While there is considerable evidence that Omar herself has trafficked in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, there are none in which she is the "subject"—and so that reference, as well as the one in the section title, should be struck. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" in question is in regards to the status of her marriage, which has been subject to some ridiculously Islamophobic remarks. ValarianB (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
But nothing about these allegations regarding her marriage is mentioned in the article—and while Wikipedia requires citation of RS for all information, there are no such citations. Isn't that an obvious problem? Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Ekpyros, this isn't a forum for you to attack politicians you may dislike. TFD (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Please assume good faith—and you can be sure I will do the same. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I did some digging through the history. It looks like the title was first added when the section included info about one poster associating Omar with 9/11. I wouldn't have characterized the issue as a conspiracy theory, and it's since been removed. I disagree with most of Ekpyros's comments, but I agree we should reword the section title and the reference in the lead to match the current content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Broken clocks, and all that... ValarianB (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, I appreciate the corrections! Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in lead

I think it should clearly be mentioned. I don't understand why my post with 4 fact checked sources considered trustworthy by wikipedia was deleted either. Furthermore, I do not understand why my statement about her meeting with Erdogan was deleted {{— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:A5DF:9670:8D92:35A2 (talk)

Look a few sections up, this has already been discussed. ValarianB (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"False and misleading claims by Donald Trump"?

This phrase in the lead in not supported by the citations. The title "Leave the US, Trump tells liberal congresswomen of color"[1] plays into Trump's inflammatory tactics by misquoting his tweet. Trump's tweet as quoted in the body of the citation suggests they "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us ..." it does not tell them to "leave the US". Not exactly the quality of reporting I would expect from WP:RS.

More to the point, even if Trump's claims about the other three congresswomen are false. The following quote in the citation "referring to Ocasio-Cortez ... Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Only Omar, from Somalia, is foreign-born. Seems to indicate that at least with regard to Ilhan Omar - the claim that she came from Somalia is true.Annette Maon (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You really think the "then come back and show us" part of Trump's vitriol was meant seriously? That he hoped Omar would fix Somalia's problems and then come back and help Trump run the country? Obviously he was being sarcastic. The RS journalists understood Trump correctly. NightHeron (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
We use the interpretation made by reliable sources. TFD (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Leave the US, Trump tells liberal congresswomen of color". AP NEWS. 2021-04-20. Retrieved 2021-10-15.

A recent revert

I cannot get the point of this revert: [10]. Cannot Zionist criticism of a Congresswoman really be included in her bio?--Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversy over Omar's statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is covered at length in the section with that title. It is UNDUE to add more about that, unless you can make a convincing case and get consensus on the talk-page that there's a need for a new subsection devoted to another critic of Omar on this issue. In addition, it's inconsistent with WP:BLP to just put in an accusation against her without any coverage of her response or responses of people who disagree with the accusation. NightHeron (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, how to put it...Omar's criticism of the Zionist country is well-known, I don't think it would be difficult to find countercriticism to the ADL's position. I do think this would be DUE, because the Israel-Palestinia issue is unlikely to leave the world scene any time soon.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a very important issue in world politics. But that's not the relevant question in determining the extent of coverage in Omar's BLP. Omar is a US congresswoman, and there are many issues where a member of Congress has much more influence than in international relations. It would be quite different if she were the Secretary of State or even a senator. It's important to note that RS, although extensively covering her statements when she made them and when she was attacked for them, do not otherwise pay significant attention to her views on world politics.
As it is, the controversy is covered extensively in her BLP, and I see no reason to expand that coverage even further. NightHeron (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Criticizing Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic, such as criticizing Black Lives Matter doesn’t automatically make a politician an anti-black racist. Trillfendi (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
(AFTER EDIT CONFLICT) OK, I'll leave it as it is, you're clearly a much more experienced editor than me. I have anti-Zionist, pro-Palestinian positions myself, so maybe its just better if I don't touch this topic, unless someone else supports the criticisms raised be my. Greetings, Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
We already have a huge big section, "Remarks on AIPAC and American support for Israel." The position Greenblatt provided is already explained in extensive detail there. Note too that although you cited the ADL, you should have cited Greenblatt since although he is the head of the ADL, he did not say he was speaking on behalf of them.
Generally, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections, since they are not neutral. Criticism should be woven into the relevant sections. In this case for example Omar made remarks, they were criticized, she defended herself and the issue was investigated. Even articles about extremely controversial people rarely have criticism sections.
FYI, Omar was speaking about AIPAC, which lobbies for the interests of the government of Israel, not Jewish people in general.
TFD (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

On November 16, 2021 an editor reverted RS material that is both relevant to the article's subsection and which has been reviewed by multiple editors and improved by multiple editors. Personal attacks are explicitly in contravention of the discretionary sanctions on this page. I urge editors to please continue to watch this page as it continues to be vulnerable to misinformation from those who are opposed to the subject as well as those who may have a connection and who are promoting the subject outside of NPOV. An article should be objective and should note what happened, what the decisions in legislation was, and the rationale for the vote as stated by the person. That is clearly delineated in wiki guidelines on post-1932 US politics and is further covered in post-1992 articles. Thank you to the editors who have much more time than I to review and protect pages from vandalism and personal attacks.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This was a 1RR violation and you should self-revert. There are other issues with your edit, but that's the most pressing one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your notification. I did not know that editing counted as a revert per 1RR. I will be more cautious and thank you for acknowledging on my talk-page that I self-reverted that. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Absent from your long edit summary and your longer message here is any affirmative explanation of why this one particular detail about the package is salient to the biography of Ilhan Omar. Probably, the reason for this is that it's not. Readers who want to know more about the legislation and are not complete morons will probably be able to successfully click on either the wiki-link or one of the linked references at the end of the sentence. --JBL (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I started a discussion and did not want to immediately jump into making bullet points to argue. If most people don't see it is as relevant, well, then I'm outvoted and I accept that. I am not someone who wants to just post a bunch of argument points. In fact, I incorporated some of the feedback from the editor who called my initial contribution "weasel words" into the wiki-link to the bill. My rationale for why it is relevant is that a) readers do not have to be, using your word here, 'morons,' to expect some summary of what the vote was about and b) the bill is about spending. I should have kept my edit summaries shorter. I acknowledge that and after taking some time to review them I can see that I was feeling a bit emotional about one of the editor's comments and I was a tad irked that you referred to my edit summary as "obnoxious" when a different editor intentionally tried to claim I was using weasel words. I never once contested how that editor thought the section would read better. I was definitely upset by that because that assumes and projects bad faith. Putting my mistake in the length of my edit summary, I think that it is relevant to say "this is the bill - this is how much the bill is and here is the reason for the no vote." At the end of the day, it isn't a big issue. My response was one of defensiveness to what I experienced as an attack and I admit that. Obviously, if consensus is that the description is not needed then that is not detrimental. SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Adding to that, the biography is about a member of US Congress and the section(s) included are the tenure in Congress and the political positions. I think the position taken is relevant including the rationale for the vote, the basic content of the vote, and the name of the bill. And, then, yes, more detailed information should be up to the individual reader to further look at. That was what I should have started as a discussion here first.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
When you start to provide details, you need to make sure they reflect the overall picture. As I understand it, Omar supported a bill with $3.5 trillion in spending. If we add that information, we need to explain what that included and what was taken out. Also, who else backed the original proposal and which Democrats voted also against the successful bill? It's probably best to explain all this in the article about the bill. if readers want detail, they can click on the link.
If we include all that information in this article, and in the articles about the handful of other progressive Democrats who voted against it, the article will become lengthy. Bear in mind this is not and will not be the only controversial bill Omar votes on.
TFD (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems like superfluous info to add to a BLP. ValarianB (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Islamophobic comments

I believe that we need to consider that we don't want to become numbed to hate speech just because it has become so common in only the last few years...the years I'm talking about are the Trump years. Consider that only a few years ago when Trump was campaigning he made some comparably very mild remarks while in Maine and we included it in our Racial views of Donald Trump article:

In August 2016 Trump campaigned in Maine, which has a large immigrant Somali population. At a rally he said, "We've just seen many, many crimes getting worse all the time, and as Maine knows—a major destination for Somali refugees—right, am I right?" Trump also alluded to risks of terrorism, referring to an incident in June 2016 when three young Somali men were found guilty of planning to join the Islamic State in Syria.

That's all it took and even State Sen. Susan Collins defended the Somali immigrants. I bring this up because I want to stress that we need to be careful not to fall in step with the growing population of those that have begun to normalize hate speech. Sectionworker (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What exactly does that have to do with Omar? Trillfendi (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

birth surname

re:

Born Ilham Abdullahi Omar

Ilhan_Omar#Early_life_and_education

Her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, an ethnic Somali
Her mother, Fadhuma Abukar Haji Hussein, a Benadiri

It looks like "Omar" originates from the father but the placement seems more like a middle name than a surname.

Is "Omar Mohamed" a double-barrelled name and there's some kind of policy where only the first half gets passed down to children?

Sister Sahra Noor conversely seems to have a surname resembling the first of the father's three names (Nur) so it's confusing. Are there articles explaining this construction? WakandaQT (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Her name in reliable sources is consistent and has been for as long as she's been a public figure; if you find a WP:RS that discusses this, then there can be a conversation of how to discuss it in the article. --JBL (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_25&oldid=1085232592"