Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

ARBPIA

Are the elements of this article that are focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area subject to ARBPIA? Specifically the 1RR? Because there has been a decent amount of reverting over it. nableezy - 16:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller as the admin that instituted pending changes here, you mind making a determination on this? I honestly have no idea how the 1RR applies anymore. And if it does apply, at least to that material, do we need the edit notice? nableezy - 21:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I don't know if there's ever been an attempt to apply 1RR to only part of an article. Maybe that needs to be asked at WP:ARCA? It's clear that 500/30 applies and if that's relevant maybe we need ECP. My question is whether we have reached a point where it's reanable to say that the entire article should be placed under the sanction regime. I don't know, I haven't been watching it in enough detail. 1RR always requires an edit notice. Doug Weller talk 21:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally dont think the entire article should be covered, but Ive been wrong before. nableezy - 22:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...but then we would have to change the rules...and the rules are more than complicated enough as it is. My 2 cents: when ARBPIA notice is place (as it is here), then assume 1RR for the whole article. (But I hope admins use common sense, and don't censor editors for reverts clearly outside ARBPIA stuff), Huldra (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Just to clarify—if a 1RR notice is not applied to the page, are editors still expected to assume that the 1RR applies? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just personally with this in mind from this point forward I won't revert twice in 24 hrs and think it would be productive if others did the same.--Calthinus (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: that's what I was implying when I said 1RR always requires an edit notice. There isn't one at the moment. There would have to be both an edit notice that you see when you try to edit and an announcement at the talk of this talk page about the restrictions. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA applies but not 500/30. Doug Weller talk 17:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hydro dot net

Looks like I was wrong, and Wikieditor19920 was right, about this page being a target of abuse by hydro dot net: [1] [2]. The IP does indeed fall within the range of suspected addresses, and the pattern of edits is similar. I've archived the offending threads. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong, and Wikieditor19920 was right Wow, this is music to my ears! Thanks for taking care of that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't get too used to it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my error, 500/30 is an Arbitration remedy but not part of Discretionary Sanctions

That was probably wishful thinking on my part. They're separate things. So our ARBPIA discretionary sanctions cover the relevant material in this article, but 500/30 and a 1RR exemption does not. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what about the 1RR exemptions for {{American politics AE}}, including Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I was referring only to the ARBPIA notice. That prevents IPs from editing and unlike the situation that you refer to, reverting IPs under that is not considered edit-warring no matter how often it is done, as they simply are not allowed to edit. Under AP you can revert without it counting as your 1 revert, but must not editwar. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of "alleged" to describe Trump supporters using anti-Semitic tropes and Steve King supporting white nationalists/supremacists

I don't understand why the word "alleged" is used in that paragraph - both things are documented. King's support of white nationalists and supremacists is in the lead of his article, and quite well-sourced there. I propose the word "alleged" be removed from that paragraph. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)  User blocked as sockpuppet

My reversion was unrelated to the use of alleged. I've explained it on your talkpage.  samee  converse  14:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, saw it, thank you very much. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Striking through sockpuppet edits. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow—how wonderful. I was about to report this editor myself for their belligerent conduct (I was probably too generous in not having done so already). TY, @Doug Weller:. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind also striking his comments under Section header? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Section header

The suggestion of using "anti-Semitic tropes" is not the same as "allegations of anti-Semitism" (diff). This is a complex issue involving different opinions about pro-Israel lobbying, politically driven condemnations, and yes, some anti-Semitic tropes. We shouldn't reduce this to vague "allegations" in the subheading. The majority of Omar's critics mentioned in the article haven't accused her personally of anti-Semitism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

whether she is personally accused isn't the issue, there are allegations of antisemitism with her or her tweets. The sources are there and it'as far more accurate than to label it as Israel lobbying which some of the tweets have nothing to do with. She has tweeted 100% antisemitic tweets and has been called out for it, it's PC enough to put in front allegations, but we certainly don't need to whitewash her even more by labeling it Israel lobbying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Her or her tweets is precisely the issue. The article is about Omar personally. Her tweets are of interest to her detractors insofar as they suggest she holds anti-Semitic attitudes, but we shouldn't jump to such a conclusion in her biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The section header should reflect what the sources have reported, and either "Allegations of antisemitism" or "Alleged use of antisemitic tropes" does that well. The use of the term "allegation" is necessary for WP:NPOV; WP:RS may characterize remarks, but not WP editors, so we simply describe them as "allegations" or "accusations." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Or we could title the section after what the text describes as being the origin of the controversy, namely Omar's comments or remarks. Sources have not focused much on "allegations of anti-Semitism" against Omar personally from what I've seen. Since we can't seem to agree on the right subheader, or even which subsection to put the paragraph about the 2102 tweet in, maybe we should just let the higher-level § Israeli–Palestinian conflict cover all of it. What do others think? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Quite simply, the beginning of the text tells that she "came under criticism for statements she made about Israel" and so on. This is is all about criticism of Israel as main header tells. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's true that some (e.g., Weiss) criticized her comments in a form of explanation rather than accusation, but the distinction between calling someone's comments anti-Semitic and "allegations of anti-Semiticism" is very fine grained and one that would be heartily ignored by political opponents. I don't think it's borne out the body of RSs on the topic. "Accusations/accused of anti-Semiticism" seems to be the prevalent headlinese in this case. I don't think we'd be doing a service to WP's reputation for neutrality by deviating from this usage. Eperoton (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and MVBW uses one Tweet as if to label the entire section as being about Israel. It's not all about Israel, it's about her antisemitic tweets, that the first mention is about a tweet about Israel is just the first mention, and it's not really about Israel, it's using an antisemitic trope about Israel, so again, I still think allegations of antisemitism is still the right section header and getting rid of it is just whitewashing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV means that we don't take a stand on whether any tropes are anti-Semitic or not. We just report what published sources say, within BLP and WP:WEIGHT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

right, it's basically all across the spectrum that her tweets are antisemitic and there doesn't seem to be a weight or blp issue with a header labeling it as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Labeling what as such? Ilhan Omar is the BLP subject, not her tweets. I think there's a concerning tendency here to confuse the two. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: The fact that the distinction is ignored by political opponents is kind of the point. I don't see why the views of Omar's political opponents should get special consideration. It's usual for news outlets to run with the most attention-grabbing headline, which are normally written by copy editors, not the authors of the article. However, in this case a greater number of headlines appear to refer to the statements as anti-Semitic, for instance in NYT, WaPo, Haaretz, JPost, and National Review. So I don't think you can say that accusations against Omar herself are the prevalent theme in headlines. (And reading beyond headlines usually reveals a more nuanced reality.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: your argument seems to be based on a misreading of the sources and some essentially meaningless distinctions; "X was accused of antisemitic comments" and "X was accused of antisemitism" are one and the same. Nor, in this case, are the allegations solely attributable to "political opponents," which, again, is a mischaracterization of what's been reported.

The New York Times

• Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
• Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury.

CNN

• Omar's statement came on the heels of one from House Democratic leadership calling on Omar to apologize for comments they said included "anti-Semitic tropes."

The Washington Post

• The anti-Semitism accusations against Omar predate her short political career, which began with a 2016 successful run for a state legislative seat. Before Sunday, her accusers pointed most squarely at a 2012 tweet claiming that “Israel has hypnotized the world” — prompting her to apologize this month. She has also expressed sympathies with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to apply economic pressure to change Israeli policy toward the Palestinian population — a movement that pro-Israel forces say is rooted in anti-Semitism.

WP:NPOV requires we don't dilute what's been covered by WP:SECONDARY to make something more or less juicy or controversial. BLP provides specific guidelines for covering controversies: per WP:PUBLICFIGURE,

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiplereliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

In this case, that means not whitewashing an "allegation of antisemitism" into the innocuous "comments about lobbying." Certain editors may claim that charges of bigotry against an elected official are not particularly notable, but such a subjective assessment should have little to no impact relative to what the sources report, especially with this degree of coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, the subject and the subject's statements are being conflated. One is a person, the other is not. Saying that someone tweeted something anti-Semitic is not the same as saying that someone is anti-Semitic. For comparison, if I say "White Men Can't Jump", that statement might be considered racist without implying that I am a racist person. "X was accused of antisemitic comments" is a bit of phrasing I haven't come across in this instance; sources have generally been careful to separate discussion of the tweets from any "accusations" or "allegations".

The "charges of anti-Semitism" that the Times says Omar has been "battling" are described in this article as mostly politically driven. The paragraph you quoted from The Washington Post appears about 3/4 of the way through the article, following a much longer discussion of the "tropes", along with generalized exhortations from various figures to reject anti-Semitism, with no special connection between the latter and Omar implied. There's also a mention of a Republican-sponsored House resolution that mentions Omar and Tlaib along with the Charlottesville rally and the Pittsburgh massacre. Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is a separate issue. Unless we have people outright saying that Omar's support of BDS makes her anti-Semitic, we shouldn't be suggesting that's the reason for any accusations.

As I said, it's a complex situation. However, these sources seem to give weight to the statements and the general political climate over the person. This is where I think it's important to closely follow WP:BLP and write conservatively, not slapping labels onto people just because some partisan critics do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This reasoning defies both common sense and the wording in the sources; the NYT and WaPo do not constitute "partisan critics." Following BLP means addressing the controversy according to the guidelines I cited above and closely adhering to the sources, which describe allegations of antisemitism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say NYT and WaPo were partisan critics. I showed where they describe partisan criticisms by others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems quite clear, per mainstream sources such as NYT and WaPo (as well as cross the aisle political comments - Democrats to Republican), that Omar herself has been criticized for use of antisemitic language/tropes/tweets/etc. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a section header there at all? Yall pick the strangest battles to have. nableezy - 16:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there are better hills to die on. It's a fact that many accused Omar of using antisemitic tropes, but many also steered clear of explicitly accusing her of antisemitism (read Pelosi's tweet). I suspect that is intentional and consequential: groups like Jstreet, criticized the comments while also decrying the lack of nuance around the antisemitism accusations. There's not really a clear policy here, and ultimately I don't see why "comments on lobbying"/"accusations of using antisemitic tropes"/"accusations of antisemitism"/no header are clearly better or worse here. Nblund ^talk 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with Israel. It's antisemitic tweets and tropes that we're talking about. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed - and the sole reason it got any attention and coverage was the antisemitic trope angle. Omar's tweets (as other freshman congresspeople) are rarely a subject of interest.Icewhiz (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That does not answer my question, not even a little bit. nableezy - 18:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly it has something to do with Israel, it was a subsection of the "Israel-Palestine conflict" section, after all. Lots of analyses have framed this as a part of a larger debate over the Democratic party's positioning on Israel-Palestine and Republican efforts to use this as a wedge issue. I doubt the tweet would have generated the same kind of coverage if it didn't raise broader questions about partisan politics in the U.S, and I'd be willing to wager that story, rather than her tweets, will be the more historically significant aspect of this debate. Nblund ^talk 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Rather than framing this as a "hill that other editors are choosing die on," why don't you ask yourselves why you're continuing to object to a reasonable proposal? Subheaders indicate different topics. Her position on the Arab-Israeli conflict is distinct from allegations of anti-semitism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not actually objecting - I'm saying I don't see a clear argument for preferring one sub-header over another or for preferring a sub-header at all. I'm impressed by the degree of certainty you're able to glean from the MOS guidelines, but I actually think that the conventions around article structure are pretty ill-defined. In general, I think gaffes rarely matter in the long term, and it's probably better to err on the side of "whitewashing" rather than giving too much weight to a potentially short-lived scandal. Nblund ^talk 19:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying—I hope that you will be willing to compromise in that case. The MOS guidelines indeed give an enormous amount of leeway; I was making more of an appeal to general practices across Wikipedia (separate topics under separate headers) and, IMHO, common sense (Israel-Palestine position=/=alleged antisemitic tropes). And "whitewashing" is actually something we should not do. It's necessarily not an editors job to characterize the this as a "scandal" or "gaffe" or however you want to call it—that's something that should be done by the sources, just as WP:WEIGHT is determined by the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If its a subheader then it is not separate. nableezy - 20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: While I don't agree that the terms are all equally good (or bad), I do think erring on the side of no header is preferable to collapsing the whole issue to the simple "allegations of anti-Semitism", which misses the nuance. If it ends up being tied into a broader debate about Democrats and Israel, then it may be worth giving its own subsection, but for now I think writing conservatively is our best bet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 22:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC))

• I'm sorry, but labeling it as "controversial statements" is whitewashing it. Her tweets were widely condemned as antisemitic across a broadrange of RS. There is no Wikipolicy that is preventing us from having a header that calls that out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they were not. nableezy - 22:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that facts are blinding you. But for everyone else that is here, we don't need to whitewash this article. Her tweets have rightly been condemned and should be stated as fact, which is the RS and BLP policy. That it makes Nableezy upset is irrelevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Facts are blinding me? Im upset? Nope, and nope. Her comments were called antisemitic by a number of politicians and in some opinion pieces. They were not however "widely" called antisemitic by reliable sources, despite the dishonest claim above. nableezy - 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: I don't believe anyone has suggested labeling the subsection "controversial statements". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

They were widely called antisemitic by a large cross-section of RS, by a large cross section, much larger than we usually require for an article to be included. That we don't have it in this article is whitewashing. It is now labeled, "controversial remarks." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, not true. nableezy - 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, that you say that obviously doesn't make it true. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Same for you. Reliable sources have reported that her remarks have been called antisemitic by others. They have not however called the remarks antisemitic themselves. This is pretty basic, if you dont understand that Im not sure how else I can explain it. But here, which reliable sources have called her comments antisemitic? nableezy - 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Then you need to read more. I'm not your library. You can even do a simple google. But I'll do you a favor and highlight a few, but I do find it shocking that it seems that you seem to be defending her tweets. Here's Politico calling her comments antisemitic, [3] here's SE Cupp, calling her to be held accountable for her antisemitic tweets, [4], here's local Minnesota CBS affiliate TV, [5], AOL, Omar apologizes for antisemitic tweet, [6], here's one where Jewish leaders in her district had to talk to her about her cavalier attitude about antisemitism [7]. Again, not sure why you seem to be defending her tweets. Furthermore, you know very well that's not how RS works. Her tweets were widely condemned as antisemitic and should be labeled as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

SE Cupp is a columnist, not a reliable source for facts only her own opinion. Your local Minnesota news source has anti-semitic in quotes, meaning it is saying those words are somebody elses. Besides the headline, AOL (yahoo news) only quotes others saying anti-semitic. The Twin Cities source says to many, the remark went beyond a critique of money’s influence in politics and evoked the anti-Semitic myth that Jews seek to control the world via money. You see the difference between a source reporting that others are calling something anti-semitic and the source itself doing that? nableezy - 23:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Were her tweets antisemitic? And again, it's irrelevant, we have RS. Please stop posting and replying to me, I've had enough.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, what? Are you asking for my personal opinion? Because we have a policy on the use of talk pages for discussing personal opinions. My personal opinions, and yours, are not relevant here. Do you understand my point on sources attributing who said what is anti-semitic instead of making those charges themselves? And sorry to say but if you have enough you can leave. Asking people not to discuss something is likewise not an appropriate use of a talk page. nableezy - 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: with all due respect, you're talking about sources that you seem to have utterly disregarded to read. This is from the New York Times: Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury. Sir Joseph is correct in his assessment that WP:SECONDARY sources have characterized the remarks anti-semitic, so you're off base here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

That outdent kinda messes things up, given there are comments below it that now appear to be responding to your comment, but no, you are adding on to what the source says. The NYTimes says "played into anti-Semitic tropes", not that it was anti-semitic full stop. The NYTimes, and most other reliable sources, generally are more careful than that. nableezy - 04:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's no other way for me to insert my comment. "Full stop," the NYT is quoted as saying that her comments drew on antisemitic tropes. I've added nothing to that. And yet, you are lecturing Sir Joseph about the sources and telling him that none of the WP:RS have termed her remarks anti-semitic when they in fact do just that. And even if the NYT didn't had decided not to add it's own analysis (which they did, and I agree that's unusual ), the other viewpoints that have called her remarks anti-semitic would still be WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is, you just continue the indent. But, yes, you very much are adding on to what the Times says. They say "played into anti-semitic tropes." Meaning alluding to anti-semitic themes or expressions. You say they reported her comments as anti-semitic. They did not. Also, I did not say none. Sir Joseph claimed that reliable sources across the spectrum have condemned her comments as anti-semitic. Now the Politico article he posted does in fact, in its own words, say the comments were anti-semitic. But by and large reliable sources have said X, Y, and Z have said they were anti-semitic. They have not largely said they were themselves. nableezy - 05:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no difference in meaning between calling her remarks "playing into antisemitic tropes" and "antisemitic." I appreciate your acknowledging you were wrong about Politico, which similarly said Omar's comments touched upon a long-running, and particularly ugly, thread of the anti-Semitic movement — that Jewish money fuels backing for Israel in the United States and elsewhere. So "by and large," we have two highly reliable sources that explicitly refer to her remarks as anti-semitic, and a plethora of other RSes reporting on others' who have. In both cases, the allegations satisfy WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If words have any meaning at all, then yes, there's a difference between "playing into tropes of X" and "being X". If a gay man plays into the perception that he's straight for whatever reason (getting a job, avoiding harassment, etc.), does that mean he is straight? Of course not. One is about effect, the other is about essence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your analogy. The NYT said her remarks were antisemitic. No one asserted that they said that she was. I find it remarkable that you're both throwing around terms like WP:OR while simultaneously trying to extrapolate from the NYT piece and the above quotes something other than its plain meaning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Where did NYT say, in their own words, that Omar's remarks were "anti-Semitic", full stop? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes there is a difference. The Times did not say what you continue to say they said. You are indeed extrapolating, and you are the one commiting OR. The NYTimes did not say her comments were anti-semitic. If they did please bring a quote where they actually said that, not one that you think actually really really means that, but one where they say it. And I did not acknowledge I was wrong, what are you talking about? I never said Politico did not say that, and there still has not been any evidence for the claim that reliable sources are largely calling her comments anti-semitic. They are reporting on who did, not doing so themselves. The NYTimes did not say what you continue to say they did. nableezy - 16:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The two of you are engaging in a level of hairsplitting that's nonsensical. What do you believe the NYT means when they say Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury.?

Can you please stop outdenting for no apparent reason? There are comments below you and the outdent makes the thread completely unorganized. Anyway, Im pretty sure I answered that question, and it very much is not hairsplitting. You are engaging in OR, making implications that the source did not make. To answer the question, again, what the NYT actually says is that Omar's comments allude to, or bring up, anti-semitic themes. Not that they were themselves anti-semitic. If you can show where the NYT actually called the comments anti-semitic then please do. If you cannot then kindly stop misrepresenting what the Times said. nableezy - 20:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what WP:OR is. A comment that draws on "anti-semitic themes," your words, or played into anti-Semitic tropes the NYT's words, is an anti-semitic comment. Are you trying to be ironic or are you honestly arguing otherwise? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I assure you I am not misunderstanding anything. You are again making implications the source does not. If the NYT wanted to call the comments anti-semitic they would have. They did not. If you want people to give you an assumption of good faith and believe you are being honest with your arguments you should return that favor. If you can bring a quote from the NYT that actually says what you wished they would say, that the comment was anti-semitic, then bring that quote. Making implications from what they actually wrote however is textbook OR. nableezy - 20:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as this discussion is concerned, WP:OR doesn't strictly apply to talk pages, so perhaps you do need to re-read that policy. I really don't have anything else to add to this; my description of the NYT characterization of her remarks is completely accurate, as was Sir Joseph's, and the quotes vindicate this position. And even if you want to ignore direct evidence contradicting your position and pretend that the NYT didn't call her remarks anti-semitic (they did, see the quote above) they cite numerous others who do. So back to the original purpose of this section, the sub-header "Allegations of antisemitism" or "Alleged use of anti-semitic tropes," either is supported. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

lol, sure, it does not apply to talk pages, but if you are engaging in OR on talk pages you are violating NOTFORUM. Anyway, I obviously disagree with you, and you seem to be making some rather absurd claims. There has been no direct evidence contradicting me, that would consist of a quote from the Times saying her comments are anti-semitic, something that has been requested of you and you have failed to provide. Again, your quote does not say what you claim it does, that is plainly true. I dont really see how you can pretend otherwise, if they wanted to say the comments are anti-semitic they would have, and you would then be able to quote where they did. Finally, allegations of anti-semitism is plainly a poor section title, as I have not seen many sources or people even accusing Omar of being antisemitic, which is how such a section heading would read, while there have been people that have said her comments were. Thats a distinction that matters. Either way, I am in favor of no sub-section at all. I still dont see the point here. She has made a number of comments about Israel, Palestine, and the pro-Israel lobby in the US. Some of those have drawn scrutiny. That is all one section. nableezy - 22:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, and my "absurd claims" are supported up by sources, and your "absurd" claims are that when the NYT says her comments "drew on antisemitic tropes" (emphasis added), they're not really saying her comments are anti-semitic. Editors are expected to apply sense, and I think your analysis falls a bit short in that respect—but like you said, we can agree to disagree. A discussion of sources and their meaning, even if we disagree, is not WP:OR either way. I'm in favor of "Alleged use of antisemitic tropes" or "Allegations of antisemitism," other editors are in favor of no subheader at all, and plenty are fine with "Controversial remarks" (which I am also fine but not happy with) so we can call that a compromise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No, when the NYTimes writes "played into anti-Semitic tropes" (you really should be accurately quoting the sources are citing), it is saying "played into anti-Semitic tropes". You can continue to draw inferences from that, but that is your own personal problem. In fact, the NYT doesnt even support use of anti-Semitic tropes. It supports that her comment reminds people of said anti-semitic beliefs, but not that they were themselves. You may not make claims stronger than the source does, that is expressly prohibited by WP:OR. I dont even think controversial remarks should be used as a section. We dont do criticism and praise sections, and thats what that essentially is. Cover the controversy with the remarks. The end. nableezy - 00:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I can shed some light here. I have seen Wikieditor19920's behavior at the Steve King article, and I find it interesting that there, he was arguing against calling King's remarks anti-Semitic. He was doing this by using original research and synthesis, in large amounts, to the point where an administrator had to warn him that he would be blocked if he continued. Here, he's arguing in favor of including "anti-semitic" with similar OR and synthesis, and coincidentally, King is a far-right politician while Omar is a Democrat. So it seems that the subject's political leaning determines which way Wikieditor19920 will argue, much more than actual reliable sources do. It's safe to say there's a definite POV being attempted. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)  User blocked as sockpuppet

@Ewen Douglas: I made no such argument on that page. Make another false personal attack, or keep following me around to pick fights, and we'll end up at WP:ANI. Addition: And by the way, what in the hell are you even talking about? I'm positive absolutely none of that happened. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your statement here is false as well. You tried to remove instances of the term anti-semitic here and here again. So your empty threats of ANI, which you've attempted to deploy before, are quite funny to me; in fact, I IMPLORE you to go to ANI, right now, quickly! Do it! I would very much like to see the admin response to your nonsense. Ewen Douglas (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. There, I suggested entitling a section that consisted entirely of criticism by the ADL, an organization known for combating anti-semitism, "Criticism by Anti-Defamation League." The nature of the criticism is implied. I've advocated for something similar on other pages, and if that were the case here, I'd push for the same thing. However, at this point I'd really just appreciate it if you would back off and go away instead of trying to start some childish dispute with me. My interest is in content, not you. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your own edit shows that it wasn't just about ADL criticism of King. You seem to be saying we should call it "anti-Semitism" when the NYT alludes to Omar playing into "anti-Semitic tropes", but not when the ADL and others accuse King of making "antisemitic and offensive" statements himself and promoting "white supremacy and anti-Semitism". Funny how that works. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat it for you since you missed it: The nature of the criticism [by the ADL] is implied. You're aware of my position on this, because we had a similar discussion at Linda Sarsour. However, let me know when you start making the same arguments over "nuance," "scandal of the day," and "writing conservatively on BLPs" when addressing charges of bigotry/antisemitism/etc. at Steve King. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would I do that? I haven't been involved with editing that article at all before adding a couple refs yesterday. If you want to delete the section entirely, that's fine with me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

All of this crossfire aside, I'm personally fine with controversial remarks. The issue I personally have is that an essentially American issue (AIPAC plus offended American Jews vs Omar and supporters) is forced under the section "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". It is informed by the latter, but not part of it. I'd rather have it as a separate section -- under a title like "AIPAC" or "AIPAC and other lobbying" -- and honestly, we don't even need "controversial remarks" as a subsection within that.--Calthinus (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

While that title is vague (one might say to the point of meaninglessness), it's better than saying Omar has been accused of "anti-Semitism", full stop. Unless this turns out to be more than just another scandal-of-the-week, I think no header at all is preferable. A similar situation came up with Sarah Jeong several months back (there were some controversial tweets, a political backlash, calls for a resignation, an apology, a carefully worded institutional response, and a media circus that came and went). Consensus was not to make a separate section on the issue, with many users arguing based on WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NOTNEWS. I think the same logic applies here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with controversial remarks as well, in line with Calthinus points. Also agree that no header is preferable, as was done at Sarah Jeong, as Sangdeboeuf pointed out. Seems like this story has already disappeared. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, it's inappropriate to group allegations of anti-semitism with the subject's position on Israel. "Criticism," "Alleged use of anti-semitic tropes," or "Controversial remarks" each indicate the beginning of a separate distinct sub-topic and one of these is necessary here. However, I, too, am fine with Controversial remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It was about her comments on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the United states. And regardless, your own edits (eg this or this) place that as a sub-section of her views on Israel. If it is a subsection you are saying that it is directly related. nableezy - 20:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear that a subsection under Israel-Palestine is what I was talking about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To clarify my earlier post, I don't think "Controversial remarks" is a good section header. "Controversy" sections on Wikipedia are, well, controversial. Labeling a section or subsection with controversial doesn't actually tell the reader anything about the nature of the the controversy. If it isn't noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the lead (I don't think it is), then it's probably not noteworthy enough for its own header. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't like it either, honestly, and if everyone's "fine with" or opposed to it but no one's happy, then it should go. I've replaced it with two far more specific subheaders that make no mention of controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am sorry guys, but "Controversial remarks" is a ridiculous sub-title. It tells nothing about content. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been removed. Controversial remarks is out. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• If Vox had a Ilhan Omar’s tweet revealed core truths about anti-Semitism in America] (and "Omar’s tweet was a pretty clear example of the first kind of anti-Semitism" in the body) - we certainly can have a section header specifying this. A large chunk of mainstream media have antisemitism in the title. The whole controversy was over the antisemitic nature of the tweets - not over any aspect of Omar's view. The sole reason this got any attention - were the widespread accusations of antisemitism (which led to the Democratic leadership denouncing this). Our section header should inform the reader - and follow mainstream coverage her - in including antisemitic/antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

We will not get consensus for such a subheader. I think "Comments on AIPAC" and "Remarks while in state legislature" may do the job. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know we wrote subheadings based on the wording of a single published source. But anyway, please point out where in that article Omar herself is accused of anti-Semitism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources, most sources, ran with antisemitic/antisemitism in the title. As for Vox - I quoted above where they called Omar's tweet antisemitic.Icewhiz (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Good thing we cite articles written by journalists, not headlines written by copy editors. And calling Omar's tweet anti-Semitic isn't quite the same as calling Omar herself anti-Semitic, now is it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The headlines dont exactly matter. The piece by Beauchamp reads like a column, he writes in the first person for some of it (Plenty of Jews who are critical of the Israeli government, including me, found her comments offensive.), and it makes a leap that her tweet did not make. He wrote played into centuries of conspiracy theories about Jewish money corrupting Western politics, while Omar did not write one word about Jewish money. nableezy - 01:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct—we don't go by headlines, though obviously they give us an idea of what to expect. In all of the articles I've seen, and that have been provided here, the tweets are either described as anti-semitic, or quote others characterizing them as such (House Democrats, Jewish advocacy orgs, etc.). It's really a tedious bit of WP:WIKILAWYERING to say these allegations of anti-semitism were about her comments and not "her"—the analogous "it was the knife that did it, not my client" wouldn't exactly have landed you on the Dream Team. None of the articles say Ilhan Omar is antisemitic—of course, that would be irresponsible, and impossible to prove, since journalists are not mind readers. However, one can be the subject of an allegation of anti-semitism, or racism, or bigotry in general, based on their actions or statements—in this case, tweets. And that's precisely what's occurred here, and we have more than enough WP:RS to document it.

I also want to make another more general point; her comments were not about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, per se, but about U.S.-Israeli relations. Not everyone about Israel can or should be categorized as part of the conflict in that region. I think that "Comments on U.S.-Israel relations" would adequately cover both tweets: the 2012 one about hypnosis and the 2019 one about AIPAC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No, her comment was about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the support of US politicians by and large for one side of that conflict. It was in response to Glenn Greenwald tweeting out this article and writing GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. nableezy - 03:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

AIPAC is an American organization that lobbies on behalf of Israel, and her criticism, "It's all about the Benjamin's," was about US support for Israel being influenced by lobbying, supposedly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That support relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 04:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but this remark specifically ties into Israel–United States relations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I dont really see what you are arguing here. nableezy - 07:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If mainstream news outlets had wanted to say Omar was personally accused of anti-Semitism, they would have. They mostly focused on the specific statements instead. That's significant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Significant in what way? I really don't know what you're trying to get at here. What's noteworthy is that two of the sources (NYT and Politico, possibly more) explicitly characterized the remarks as anti-semitic in their own words. And @Nableezy:, what I was arguing, I thought pretty clearly, was that the sub-subsection should be subtitled "Comments on Israeli-U.S. relations." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Significant in that they don't give weight to personal accusations against Omar, unlike what you seem to suggest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

They indeed note accusations of anti-semitism against Omar—in this instance, for her remarks. See my explanation above for an explanation of why the distinction you're alleging doesn't hold true. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism accusations in lede

The fact that Omar has faced accusations of anti-semitism has been extensively covered by reliable sources (NYT, NBC, ABC, WSJ, Bloomberg, WaPo, USA Today--I can't find a single reliable source that hasn't covered it extensively), is addressed in the body, and is certainly due for the lede. Much of the disagreement with including it basically amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Omar has vehemently denied the accusation, of course, and her denial is also due in the lede. But I found it quite odd that this lede didn't even reference what has dominated RS coverage of the subject since her election, and amended it as such. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Like the AIPAC comments, which drew swift condemnation that died down just as swiftly, this is another recent media circus that's out of proportion to the lead and the whole body of coverage of Omar. Just because multiple news outlets have all reported the same story within a day or two of one another doesn't make it a significant part of a person's biography (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and all that). See the discussion under § Lead above. The current article text names a total of two people who have criticized Omar's comment about "allegiance to a foreign country". Describing this in the lead as coming from "Democrats and Republcans" doesn't reflect what the body says. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The controversy has clearly not "died down swiftly," and this latest controversy is coming just on the heels of the last one. A multitude of reliable sources reported on the AIPAC comments, including the NYT, and those same sources are now reporting on the latest "foreign allegiance" comments. Allegations of antisemitism against a public figure, particularly an elected official, are indeed notable, and that's why the Times and a series of national outlets have focused on the issue. Every reading of policy gives this issue substantial WP:WEIGHT on that basis, and addressing it in the lead would be well in proportion to the three paragraphs already dedicated to these controversies in the body of this very short article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead is as of now clearly undue, it shows Omar's criticism of AIPAC and Israel while not showing the full story of the criticism of the tweets and statements in question. It is undue and outrageous. It is also preposterous to say that her criticism of AIPAC is due for the lead but then exclude her antisemitic tweets. It is also not just two people who condemned her and her tweets, they were condemned by the entire House Democratic leadership. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I added one sentence, but I think it can be fixed up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not our job to put the entire "full story" in the lede. This is extensively covered by RS over the course of months, so WP:RECENTISM is entirely nonsensical. ModerateMike729 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it sounds like you're saying the lead should be expanded on. Is this the case? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This has already been extensively discussed. No consensus seems especially likely here, and I really doubt that anyone is going to solve the problem by fiat. I'm skeptical that an RfC will lead to consensus, but it's the logical next step. Nblund ^talk 20:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus that the lead should be expanded and it's you who doesn't want it added. As I mentioned, it certainly is not due to say she is critical of Israel and AIPAC and then not mention that she has received criticism for her statements on her tweets and statements about that. You are the one editing out of consensus here. If you want to whitewash her tweets, that is your prerogative, but then I removed her stance on Israel and AIPAC as well to balance out the lead. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:It's no one's prerogative to whitewash anything, and I don't think you properly understand what WP:DUE means. Her views on Israel have been covered extensively in WP:RS, more so than her other policy positions, so this information carries more than enough WP:WEIGHT to be noted in the lead alongside her other views. I advocated also covering the tweets in the lead, but other editors objected, so that text represents a compromise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: Here's the previous discussion - there's a roughly even numerical split between editors, all of whom have offered some good faith policy-based explanations for their positions. That's not a consensus. This edit seems WP:POINTY to me - clearly you agree that her views on Israel are noteworthy, so why are you taking hostages? Nblund ^talk 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you can't say that "Omar is against Israel and has made statements against AIPAC" but not include that her statements have also been met with condemnations and allegations of antisemitism, that is UNDUE, and moreso, her tweets and statements are more covered in the article than her statements. She is far more noteworthy because of her tweets and condemnations of those tweets. To not include that her tweets and statements have been met with bi-partisan condemnation is ludicrous. And previous discussions are irrelevant, it's now March, we've had more tweets and more condemnations. This is now more NOTEWORTHY and DUE for inclusion in the lead. This is more of what the story is. I have no issue with including her views on Israel, but I find it you are the one taking hostages that you are not willing to include that her statements are being met with condemnation. Here for example, will be yet another condemnation, on Wednesday, [8]Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:I agree with you about the tweets, and I believe you are doing more harm than good with this particular revert. Nblund is exactly right; your only justification for removing her views on Israel is because it doesn't also mention something you believe should be mentioned. I implore you to self-revert here. The process will play out, and I assure you that this article will not be whitewashed, but efforts have to be made to assuage the concerns of all editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead has to be DUE. Right now, it's DUE since someone else edited it. We can work on it from there. My point remains, and I stand by it. You can't say Omar is critical of Israel and AIPAC without mentioning her tweets and condemnation of those tweets as a direct consequence of those tweets. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right that her positions on Israel are only part of the story. However, it's easier to build off content that is already there, and the consensus-building process for covering contentious material is inherently slow-moving. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Header changes

I strongly oppose these these changes on WP:NPOV grounds; not everyone criticizing her has called it antisemitic, and the "dual loyalty" part is an interpretation by some of her critics, not something we can just use as a section header. Section headers are required to be neutral, and these are not. We can (and should) report the most serious accusations in the section, but repeating such WP:POV language as part of the header should only be done when strictly necessary for eg. WP:COMMONNAME reasons, and here it clearly is not. --Aquillion (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere in my edits did I say "everyone" called the remarks anti-semitic. But both Republicans and Democrats--including in leadership--have used that term, and the wording reflects that. Being told your comments are antisemitic by the party leaders of both major parties seems pretty significant to me. As for the section header, I'd be amenable to changing to to something along the lines of "foreign allegiance comments" to avoid WP:POV issues, though I think the substance of that section is otherwise perfectly NPOV and due. ModerateMike729 (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Alleged use of anti-semitic tropes" would also be accurate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I think people need to stop adding whats in the news and wait and see if anything actually ends up being an important part of her biography. She made a comment that a congressman criticized. She has since responded. So what? nableezy - 06:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh but don't you see? She's clearly just as bad as Hitler and Stalin combined. When will the sheeple finally wake up? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

What a cute way to dismiss alleged antisemitism - fortunately something doesn't have to rise to the level of mass genocide to raise the concerns of most well-intentioned people, including the reliable sources that have reported and commented on the subject's "remarks." This is already an important part of her biography, and I find it distressing that the two of you rehash the same arguments each time this comes up (and each time it carries less weight). Significance is determined by what's reported on in the sources, not the judgment of editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh you seem to be misreading my remarks. My argument remains the same, we should not be rushing to include every single time some news article talks about Omar. Yesterday there was an article about a congressman tweeting about her tweet. Why does that matter? Wednesday's vote, now that is something that actually matters, if the house passes some resolution about her then yeah obviously that belongs in her biography. But you seem to think that every time a politician criticizes something that somebody who disagrees with their political views says that this needs to be added here. It does not. That is exactly what WP:RECENTISM cautions against. You are treating this as though it is a repository of news articles about Omar. It is not supposed to be. Things that actually matter, yes, they should be included. But you cannot seriously say that you know what matters and what should be given weight an hour after politico writes an article about it. nableezy - 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This snarky response really isn't warranted. A ton of reliable sources have covered this issue extensively over several months. We can debate the best format in which to include it, but the snark/assuming bad faith is not a good look from you. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You added something that happened yesterday yesterday. Several months, please. nableezy - 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed some excessive quotations and restructured the headings. I'm really not sure why her comments on AIPAC would be placed in a separate subsection from her comments on Israeli lobbying in general - but I'm not married to that structure if there's some reason here that I'm missing. Nblund ^talk 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Your "trimming" consists of removing entire chunks of the story and removing sourced information. I'm fine with cutting the fat, but you took big bits of meat there with it. I'm curious why you don't demonstrate the same level of concern for quotations throughout the article, where there are many areas with quotations that can be removed without altering the presentation of facts. I would appreciate it if you'd perform at least a partial self-revert here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The trim was needed and please refrain from making further snarky "I'm curious" comments when you don't like another editors actions. Gandydancer (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Another editor tagged that particular section as including too many lengthy quotes - so I tried to address that issue. If there are other sections with similar problems, feel free to tag them or fix them yourself. I'm open to alternative suggestions, but I don't know exactly what you want me to add in - I trimmed the quotes but retained the gist of criticisms from both Nita Lowey and Elliot Engel. Is it really essential that we quote Elliot Engel's entire 46 word tweet rather than simply paraphrase him? Nblund ^talk 18:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A tag just reflects one editor's judgment (Sangdeboeuf), so I would still be careful; such a change requires some sort of rationale. I think your revisions to Engel's tweet was solid; I do believe that at least a portion of the Lowey statement should be restored, particularly because it involved an exchange with the subject. I would also advocate quoting the subject's tweets to Lowey. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You expressed curiosity regarding why I made this edit, and I've explained it. If you have more questions, feel free to take them to my talk page. Omar's response wasn't in the previous version either, and I'm not quite sure how Lowey's argument is all that different from Engels. What exactly is missing that can't be covered with a paraphrase? Nblund ^talk 20:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I raised any further questions about your explanation, and I believe I also praised your reworking the Engel quote. Their arguments are certainly different and seem to represent different perspectives. I see a brief, half-quote as being far more informative than just saying she was critical. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

To my mind, Lowey and Engel's criticisms are important because they are coming from relatively high-ranking Democrats, not because the tweets themselves are especially interesting. I don't know what the key line would be, but I'm fine with you adding some portion of the quote back in if you have something in mind. Nblund ^talk 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)