Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Marriage controversy

There seems to be a brewing controversy about Ilhan Omar's marital status. I see in the article's history that there has been some edit warring related to this, so I think a discussion here is warranted. This article in the Star Tribune says there is a marriage discrepancy that clouds Ilhan Omar's campaign. The article says that "Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in Eden Prairie, according to their marriage record" and that "Minnesota courts have no records of Omar and Elmi filing for divorce." However, the article implies that Ilhan Omar has referred to Ahmed Hirsi, the father of her children, as her husband. The original reports of this contradiction arose from what would be generally considered an unreliable source by Wikipedia's BLP standards, but the issue is now being addressed in reliable sources, such as the Star Tribune article noted above. Is it appropriate to add content related to this controversy to the article. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The previous edits that introduced this were not backed by reliable sources and worded in a non-neutral manner. So long as it is well sourced and maintains a neutral point of view, I see no harm in including information on the marriage controversy. Also note, though, that a source is only a source for what it says not what it implies, as it is not our position, as editors, to draw conclusions from sources. (see WP:SYNTH) -- Sjrct (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Star Tribune article contains reporting on the following things:

• what some bloggers wrote
• the results of a public records request for marriage licenses and divorces for Ilhan Omar.

The conclusion that anything deserving the word "controversy" has happened fall entirely in the first category, and the second category is a random collection of facts. This is very far from inclusion-worthy. (Why editors at the Strib thought "PowerLine blogger makes allegations; we fail to substantiate them" was a good idea for an article is unclear to me.) --JBL (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

But the Star Tribune's investigation has substantiated part of the issue: marriage license showing marriage to one person, and campaign claiming marriage to another person. That's presumably why they thought it was worth reporting on. Deli nk (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The idea that "X was at some point married to Y but is now in a committed long-term relationship with Z" is controversial in the US in 2016 is not plausible, even for values of X that include politicians and other public figures. If there's an actual story here, the Strib article is not it -- there is no way to contextualize the facts in the article in an encyclopedic way while avoiding "some blogger wrote." Maybe at some point the Strib will have a reporter do some actual reporting, and then there might be something to write about. --JBL (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got it wrong. X is claiming to be married Z, but is actually married to Y. If X is a politician, that's a news story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.195.202 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, JBL's point that the article is essentially reporting on what a blog wrote remains. I would agree that such an article does not substantiate reliable information. Even though they perhaps turned up some unusual things with respect to her marriage license history, the only information that would cause this to be a controversy is the allegations of a few bloggers, which certainly does not seem sufficient to me to be notable enough for inclusion. If there are additional secondary sources that elevate this to the point of actual controversy, I would not be against inclusion, but as it stands now, I agree with JBL that this should not be included. Sjrct (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There is now a second Strib article, also with no evidence of any reporting. I still don't see anything worth adding to this article. (I suppose we have enough sources to support "she lives in Minneapolis with her three children and their father" or something.) --JBL (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

CityPages initially reported (see here: [1]) that the rumor began on the PowerLineBlog. However, the PowerLineBlog clarifies (see here: [2]) that it actually first appeared on a forum known as the "SomaliSpot". I think it should be mention due to the amount of press it received, its currently one of the highest searched things about Ilhan Omar, and how she took the time to comment herself on this issue (see here: [3]). AcidSnow (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The United States Supreme Court has also responded to the flase claims that they would be investagationg Omar (see here: [4]). Any thoughts JBL, Sjrct, and Edgeweyes? AcidSnow (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the US attorney, of course. I am willing to discuss any proposed language with an open mind, but my basic instinct is the same: the natural thing to write based on these sources is "some bloggers said X, which is false" and I don't feel like that belongs in an encyclopedia article. --JBL (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

To me, this source just seems to further assert the unsubstantiated nature of the claims surrounding her marriage history. I agree with JBL that false rumors are in a general case not encyclopedic content, but there is a decent amount of press coverage so I could see potential for inclusion if the phrasing was suitably NPOV. Given that this is a BLP article and such a topic could easily induce contention, I would also further agree with JBL that the wording of such an addition should be proposed before inclusion. Sjrct (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Political positions?

Pretty rare to see a wikipedia article on someone running for political office which does not mention any of their political positions. Is her religion really the only thing interesting about her? 71.182.237.133 (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The article has existed for less than a week. This being Wikipedia, you could add a paragraph about her political positions yourself! --JBL (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source that could be helpful for this: [5] --JBL (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

tweet

thanks Victuallers (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"Arab" etc.

This edit describes Omar as "Arab" and gives her name in Arabic, with what looks like very thin sourcing to me. I would like to get a consensus about this here.

It also illustrates that we currently have only one picture (the infobox image is simply a cropped version of the other) -- are there others out there somewhere? Edit: This is not quite true, we have two different but essentially identical photos, take from the same viewpoint at the same event. A different photo would be much preferable for one of the two. Is there one out there somewhere?

We could also discuss the Cedar-Riverside versus West Bank descriptor; if both are sourced, the official neighborhood name seems clearly preferable to me. --JBL (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Arab America indicates that she is the first Arab American state representative in Minnesota [6]. However, this is not something empirical like here actual Somali ethnicity, so I'm okay with dropping it. The Arabic name was because Arabic is a co-official language in Somalia (an Arab League state), her country of birth. Anyway, West Bank and Cedar-Riverside are the same place, so the latter works fine as well. As to the files, they are similar but one is in profile whereas the other shows her actual face. They also appear to be the only licensed files of her available, so they'll have to do. Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A note about the material in this article related to the Arab-Israeli content

By decision of the Arbitration Committee, such material may not be edited anywhere by IPs or by editors with less than 500 edits and (not or) 30 days. They may use talk pages to discuss such material. I mention this because Ajackson12 has been told this by another editor, and it's possible more new editors might try to edit such material (which can be reverted on sight). Doug Weller talk 11:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This material used to be incorporated in a natural way into the "Early career" section -- one major part of Ajackson12's edits here and elsewhere has been creating new sections in order to draw attention to his pet issues. It would be much better to restore the original arrangement (no "Controversy" section, no section with just one subsection, integrated presentation). However, since you've just warned IP editors off, I will not do it myself. --2601:142:3:F83A:38B5:1FB:ECC2:25CB (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just made a bunch of edits that include merging this material into other sections, along the lines suggested by the IP. --JBL (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this tweet of hers going to be added to this page? --1.136.111.100 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's already in there. "Tenure and political positions," paragraph 2, section 1. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Marital Status

She has vehemently denied that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is her biological brother. The news story cited contains this denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loadedonloaded (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

The sentence "She is distantly related to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the first Somali member of parliament of a European country." is not sourced and should be removed. No replacement is needed. Yazsh1234 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done per WP:BLPSOURCE. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

IPs and editors with less than 30 days and 500 edits may not edit material relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute

I'm adding this because it's clearly an issue in the article. This is part of the discretionary sanctions regime at WP:ARBPIA. Such edits can be reverted without counting as ordinary reverts. Serious problems over this can be reported to WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Female mutilation controversy

For the large part, this section appears to be a media-generated controversy. As we know, WP tries to avoid this sort of thing. I am deleting this newly-added section for discussion here on the talk page. IMO, it is for the most part not appropriate for this BLP. Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There is already some discussion above. I think you actually overstate the significance by calling it “media-generated controversy”. I agree with the removal. —JBL (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I may have overstated it (I'm not sure...), however please note that I said largely generated by media, not totally. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Ilhan Omar is Not the First Refugee in the House

In the lead it refers to Ilhan Omar as the first refugee elected to the House. It would be accurate to say that she is the first Muslim refugee elected to the House, but Tom Lantos (Holocaust survivor) and Joseph Cao (refugee from Vietnam) were both elected before she was. Ssrk419 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)ssrk419

Well it said, Muslim former refugee when I just checked it but I edited that to say Somalia. The way it was worded made it look like we were saying that she was a refugee from "Muslim". I do not object if another editor wants to change it if in fact, she is the first Muslim refugee from anywhere to be elected... but I don't even know how to research if that is correct. And I a not sure how someone's religion should be listed there without being superfluous.TeeVeeed (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

false-accusations of antisemiticism

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.

---

February 2019 was rife with false accusations; a tweet in self-defense by Ilhan, the (acronym) "AIPAC" single-word tweet can in no way be construed as anti-anything, as it is not even a coherent statement in the English language. The article (being locked) does not reflect the absurdity of the allegations and accusations, and must be improved.126.243.85.139 (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Ilhan has never been accused of "antisemiticism" (sic.).--Calthinus (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we mostly fixed it, but any improvements are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM to discuss the subject's comments and our opinions about them. @My very best wishes:, your insistence on repeatedly restoring these off-topic comments is disruptive and unhelpful. I'd appreciate an administrator's opinion here; we have both an IP making off-topic commentary, and an experienced editor who refuses to allow this section to be removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The IP is talking about Ilhan OMar (the subject of this page) and she/he suggests to improve this page. Therefore, this is valid comment. If you do not like it, that's fine, but not a reason to remove the comment. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No. The IP is discussing the comments themselves, disputing the characterization of the comments in the media and by other public figures, and arguing that this article should reflect their opinion. That's not how Wikipedia works, and that's not what talk pages are for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Err....."their" opinion? In what way does writing an acronym in twitter or whatever constitute an opinion? Furthermore, if one were so quick to throw around (yet) unsubstantiated accusations, a quick statistical audit of the deletions, contributions, and other "edits" made from your username may well result in indications that Wikieditor19920 is predominately engaged in editing of Noahide-ethno associated articles moreso than general contribs thus may well fall within the scope of Single-Use account, unless you operate several wikipedia accounts or are a member of some army of socks. There was no arguement, merely indication. Please lets try not to be too quick or too judgemental.126.243.85.139 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, wonderful. I'm so glad this editor clarified that they are here to make productive contributions to this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

"Malicious Israeli software" eclipsed by "online army of twitter trolls" within context of cybercrime.

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed the near-verbatim material on both the Ilhan Omar article and the Jamal Khashoggi article.126.243.127.89 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Omar article: "Saudi Arabia has used an online army of Twitter trolls to harass Omar and other critics of its regime. tendency of some editors to plunk context-free quotes together, even when sources provide meaningful context. --JBL (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC) @Joel B. Lewis: Thanks for your efforts in that section. However, I'd ask that you re-include the Omar's assertion that Israel "hypnotized the world", as that is the most relevant and (to many) offensive part of the tweet. Furthermore, I'd ask that you remove the reference to the "pro-Israel community" as it gives an incorrect scope to who was criticizing her. The issue was not that the tweet was anti-Israel, but that it was perceived as antisemitic. Even saying "Jewish groups" would be more accurate and proper than "pro-Israel community".Zekelayla (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately, most sources do not attribute the criticisms, but the phrase "pro-Israel community" is drawn directly from one of the cited sources. If you can find your alternative in a source of similar or better quality, we could consider it. What is most offensive is obviously not a reliable indicator of what is encyclopedic. There are many possible snippets of tweets to quote, I would be happy to hear more opinions on this question. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Regarding sources, I provided numerous in this talk thread. Particularly noteworthy were the more recent NYT op-ed by Bari Weiss and the Forward op-ed by Jilani, a Berkeley academic.Zekelayla (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC) It seems that you agree that this tweet controversy merits inclusion. If it is to be included, the relevant (i.e. controversial) portion(s) should be quoted so that the reader gets a sense of what was controversial. There were 2 quite controversial parts of the tweet, "hypnotized the world" and "evil doings". If only one of these is to be quoted (and, to be clear, I think they both should be), it should clearly be the more controversial one, since that more clearly conveys to the reader what was controversial. The more controversial part is "hypnotized the world". Therefore at least that part should be quoted.Zekelayla (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC) @Joel B. Lewis: Additionally, if we are including her de minimis comment that her wording was "unfortunate", we should also note that she accused her critics of Islamophobia and/or bad faith, as those comments were repeated and more forceful. I would make these edits myself, but I don't have the 500 edits required for Israel/Palestine. Zekelayla (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) It would be undue to add more copy to this issue. People that want more info may read the refs that we offer. Gandydancer (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC) The previous attempts to include this were so decontextualized as to be incomprehensible. Any similar treatment is obviously a no-go. Probably two sentences would be needed to include the word "Islamophobic", including most of a full-sentence quote. This almost totally insignificant "event" is already pushing it as far as length is concerned. --JBL (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I would be equally happy for the quote "unfortunate" to be removed. With this included with not further context, it gives a misleading impression of how conciliatory she was.Zekelayla (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC) The current version [7] is bizarre, because it does not include that she wrote that Israel "hypnotized the world", which is the entire reason she is being accused of antisemitism. In response to concerns about quoting her at length, I would note that there does not appear to be any problem with quoting her at length in the Venezuela section. That being the case, why is it suddenly problematic here? Adoring nanny (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC) You are more than welcome to shorten the Venezuela section quote (which was just added, and not by me) as far as I am concerned. --JBL (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC) The point remains that "hypnotized the world" is the key part of the tweet to quote, and it is not what is quoted currently.Zekelayla (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Cutting and chopping the tweet is entirely unnecessary—it should be included in full, and to do otherwise is to misrepresent what was said. As another editor noted, some of the arguments here are utterly hypocritical—there are numerous, lengthy quotes of her already on the page, but suddenly editors express concern about length when dealing with comments that are decidedly more controversial. The editor who suggested that it's our job to "extract the meaning" of something is apparently unfamiliar with WP:SYNTH being prohibited. I've restored the quote and re-written the section to accurately convey what prompted the controversy, the criticism, and her response to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC) @Wikieditor19920: Since I was the target of the previous accusation of hypocrisy, I must therefore be the target of this accusation. It was entirely false before, it is still entirely false, and I request that you retract it immediately, per WP:NPA. Also, apparently you don't understand the difference between "extracting meaning from a source" and "creating new meaning by filling in gaps left by different sources", but I do, and none of my editing here constitutes a violation of SYNTH, so you should retract that comment as well. (Your substantive contributions are fine, but you shouldn't be a complete asshole even while making reasonable substantive contributions.) --JBL (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC) @Joel B. Lewis: Double standards are always hypocritical, including saying a full quote "is never necessary" in the context of a controversial remark but ignoring the abundant use of lengthy quotes elsewhere. Calling an argument hypocritical, as opposed to attacking an editor personally or name-calling (see "asshole"), isn't a WP:NPA, so perhaps you should either re-read my comment or re-read that policy. You stated that, the role of authors of an encyclopedia is to extract the meaning from sources and present it to readers. This is incorrect, per WP:SYNTH. It's not our job to inject our own analysis into a source's meaning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC) @Wikieditor19920: The phrase "is never necessary" does not appear on this talk page except in your comment, nor in edit summaries on the last 500 edits to the article or talkpage. Yet you've put it in quotation marks, apparently attributing it to me. Maybe you should rethink your approach here? --JBL (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Excuse me for paraphrasing—you said Quoting tweets in full is a stupid idea 99% of the time. I don't see how a tweet is any different from any other type of public statement, and they're certainly treated the same by the media and other WP:RS. I think you honestly sound a little deluded accusing me of personally attacking you and calling me a "complete asshole" in the same breath. Perhaps you should calm down. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Ah, I see: by "paraphrase" you mean "distort and exaggerate in order to criticize". As I said above, I think your edits were ok, so probably I do not hold views that are incompatible with them. Once that's sunk in, you can strike through all the unwarranted personal remarks in your comments, at which point I will happily agree that you are not acting like an asshole and strike through my own comment. --JBL (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Again, my criticisms are about the arguments and are not personal. However, I've gone ahead and struck the quotation marks from my comment. Seems like we're in agreement about the actual changes to the article, so that's some progress right there. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, great, a thing which was true from the beginning is still true -- "progress". Please never address me again (particularly not in veiled ways, as above) unless absolutely necessary -- dealing with assholery is a real drag, even when it's not coupled with total incompetence. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC) If this is how you react to criticisms of your arguments, you need to develop thicker skin. See your talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC) References @Joel B. Lewis: You are restoring a near word-for-word copy-paste from a USA Today article with this revert [8]. Without an in-text attribution, this comes close to WP:PLAGIARISM, which is why I rewrote it. If you think you can do better, go right ahead, but try using something different from what was actually written in the article. See below: Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC) USA Today In another tweet, she said conservatives jumped to the conclusion she was being homophobic "because the Right thinks being homosexual is 'compromising.'" The former version of article Omar rejected the inference, writing that critics jumped to the conclusion "because the Right thinks being homosexual is 'compromising.'" Omar's most recent comments on this controversy are her most substantive to date, and should probably supersede those quoted on the page: https://www.thedailybeast.com/ilhan-omar-addresses-anti-israel-comments-on-daily-show Zekelayla (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Is The Published Reporter RS?

This source is used in the I-P section: https://www.publishedreporter.com/2019/01/27/pelosi-gave-coveted-seat-on-house-foreign-relations-committee-to-member-with-documented-history-of-anti-semitic-and-anti-israel-remarks/

It is a rather vituperative op-ed. Surely there are better sources to use? The Forward op-ed for instance. (Though that is not as current) Zekelayla (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Zekelayla, you can always ask at WP:RSN. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG - "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is for any kind of article, and we need to be even more careful in a WP:BLP. Eperoton (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes

I've added pending change to the article although frankly I think it could use WP:ECP. Doug Weller talk 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I was thinking of asking for semi-protection (too WP:INVOLVED to do it myself), but hopefully pending changes works. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: we can see if anything useful gets accepted. If not, and particularly if non-ECP but auto-confirmed editors are a problem, ECP. Doug Weller talk 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For some reason that didn't work. I tried a again but failed. Twinkle showed that it had worked which is odd, but I went ahead and set it through Twinkle successfully Doug Weller talk 06:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversies section

So far, Omar's various controversies have been handled in the political positions section. However, it is common for elected officials to have a controversies section separate from the political positions section. The antisemitism controversy and the Lindsey Graham controversy seem a better fit for a controversy section. They are not about political positions per se, but rather about rhetoric which stirred controversy. Zekelayla (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Controversy sections are not recommended, according to at least one well-regarded Wikipedia essay, WP:NOCRIT. Both of the issues you mentioned above are already in the article. I agree that sub-headers should make the page easier to navigate, but there are better ways to handle controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link. Zekelayla (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify: vague "controversies" sections are not recommended, but specific subheaders covering a topic that might be controversial are perfectly appropriate. @Muboshgu: Can you explain a bit more clearly this revert, specifically what the MOS:LAYOUT issue is? That policy doesn't set any hard rules, and even though it says Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading., the section in question has two lengthy paragraphs and one short one. The latter two are specifically about allegations of anti-semitism, which stem from her comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What you said is basically what I said in my edit summary: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." The Israel-Palestine section has two paragraphs (however lengthy you think they are, I think they're standard size) and sentence that I wouldn't call a third paragraph. That doesn't need to be subdivided. And I completely agree that "controversy" sections, one place to pile in all sorts of negative stuff, is inadvisable. Better to discuss anything controversial in the appropriate place for full context. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't know any article where individual racist comments are placed in a section about political positions. wumbolo ^^^ 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, I don't see any "racist comments", and I say that as a Jewish person. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu Her comments were ethnically insensitive at a minimum, as she herself acknowledges. At any rate, this controversy doesn't fit comfortably in a section on "political positions". Zekelayla (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Zekelayla, it fits in just fine in the "Israeli-Palestinian" section as her comments were about AIPAC which lobbies for pro-Israel policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The controversy was about alleged anti-semitism, not Israel/Palestine per se. Zekelayla (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree w/Zekelayla & Wumbolo — seems obvious. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: You are repeatedly removing a subheader and insisting that commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is equivalanet to allegations of antisemitism. This makes no sense. It's time for you to engage in the D in WP:BRD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Conflicting date information

Official biography states born in 1981 but age 17 in the year 2000. Other sources have birth dated 1982, different sources have her immigrating to the US in 1995 and 1997, age 12. Gruberm5 (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gruberm5, the official Congress.gov bio says October 4, 1981. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes thank you, but it's the only source that has that date while other reliable sources have her born in 1982, which lines up more accurately with all other date info such as being 12 when she immigrated to the US in 1995 & being 17 in the year 2000.

Primary sources

The subject's tweets, as cited in the section on her Israel and AIPAC comments, are primary sources and should be used with care to avoid undue weight. I'd suggest not citing these tweets and also removing any text not supported by reliable, secondary sources.

Similarly, the press releases from Nancy Pelosi and the JDCA that criticize Omar are likewise primary sources and shouldn't be used, as they don't satisfy BLP requirements to use secondary sources for "criticism and praise". Any thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Statements, even statements made on Twitter, can be cited, quoted discussed here when they are cited, quoted, discussed in WP:RS media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not always the case. Trial transcripts, for instance, are the kind of primary sources that should never be used in biographical articles. More generally, Wikipedia has different sourcing requirements than news sources, because Wikipedia is not a news source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

We shouldn't be linking directly to tweets. The issue of weight is more straightforward, however, when we look to the WP:SECONDARY sources that have covered the tweets, statements, etc. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

Regarding the revival of the JDCA quote, which I don't think anyone is trying to add anymore (something simultaneously critical of both Omar and Trump... doesn't stand a chance), secondary non-editorial sourcing was actually supplied, thus this is kind of irrelevant and moot, and I do wonder why it was even mentioned... --Calthinus (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Because secondary coverage of primary sources doesn't count as an endorsement of the entire contents of that source. See also WP:BLPEL: Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. What goes for the External links section should also apply to the references, especially when the source doesn't add any meaningful content. The JDCA's website clearly does not meet reliability standards for BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the External links guideline have absolutely nothing to do with citations in the body of the article. This is directly from the policy page: This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela section

This is how the Venezuela section should be written up:

• In January 2019, amid the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Omar condemned the Trump administration's decision to recognize Juan Guaidó, the leader of the Venezuelan national assembly, as the new president of Venezuela, send $20 million in humanitarian assistance to Guaidó's government, and threaten action if Nicolas Maduro, who also claimed to be president of Venezuela, resorted to violence to stay in power. She said that this was a "U.S. backed coup in Venezuela" and that Guaidó was part of the "far-right opposition" (Guaidó's party is considered centrist or center-left). Her position was out of sync with that of the most congressional Democrats and Republicans, who had condemned what they described as a "sham election" conducted by Maduro.

References

Editors keep edit-warring out the text contextualizing her fringe commentary about the Venezuela situation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What about the fact that she was also criticized for tacitly supporting the incumbent/dictator, according to [at least https://www.jpost.com/International/Congresswoman-Omar-slammed-for-supporting-Venezuelas-brutal-regime-578748 one reliable source?] Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not how it should be written for at least three reasons.

1. The sources do not support the claim that she condemns the things you are claiming she condemns. The sources given say "she said this, which we think must mean this other thing". Wholly unsuited for BLP.

2. We shouldn't be playing "gotcha" in Wikipedia articles in regards to statements of party ideology classification (e.g. "x congressman claimed Bernie Sanders was a socialist, but is policies are actually social democratic")

3. That a politician's policy position is accepted by <50% of their fellow party members is not mentioned in typical "political position" sections, and its inclusion here would be highly selective.Masebrock (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Masebrock. With particular emphasis on point 2: that's synthesis in its purest form. --JBL (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The source covers Omar's assertion and explains that it's false. It's not synthesis at all. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

(2) It's not "playing gotcha" - it's explaining to readers that her classification of the party is false, just as we would explain that various Trump statements are false. (3) it's actually very common to mention when a politician bucks his/her party, because that is very notable (RS certainly find it important enough to mention). Just see the Walter B. Jones Jr. page which has been active today. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans don't rely on WP:OTHER for content. Just stick to what the sources say and don't introduce any of your own facts or research to make a point. That would be WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is what I think the other two editors are getting at. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

No "own facts or research" has been introduced. The text is strictly based on what's in the sources. I addressed the WP:OTHER arguments made by the other users, because they were simply blatantly false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I would have gone with wording other than "out of sync," which sounds like editorializing, but now that I've read the sources, it's clear that what you wrote is supported. I agree this is better than what's currently in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

On many other policy position's of hers (free college, medicare for all, aboloshing ICE, ect) she bucks her party majority. But only on Venezuela do we describe her position as "out of sync"? That can't help but feel rather selective.Masebrock (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Because RS mention it as notable. And supporting "free college, medicare for all, aboloshing ICE" are clearly not fringe positions within the Democratic Party. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, are you going to address issue #1, that these sources do not actually provide evidence for their claims of what she believes? Masebrock (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There are two RS that are cited and the text mirrors those sources. Can you please explain which part you believe is unsourced? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't like the wording "out of sync" and it would be preferable to include her quote rather than an editors paraphrase, but the sources does say: The position of Gabbard, Khanna and Omar is not shared by a majority of Democrats in Congress, including congressional leaders. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, who traveled to Venezuela in 2017 and met with Maduro, said Maduro followed through with a “sham election” to pack a constituent assembly with his supporters, making this week’s action necessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your text does not mirror the source. She did not actually say she condemns the things you are claiming, and even the Miami Herald article, doesn't say she actually condemns them. The second paragraph of the article reads as, "here is what she said condemns, and here is what we think it means", and your interpretation on Wikipedia conflates the two. That the Miami Herald clumsily tries to pass off their least-charitable interpretation of her statements as her position, should give pause to us categorizing the article as a RS in this regard. An honest investigation of nuances of Omar's position should probably start elsewhere.

Let me break your wording down, claim by claim, to make my point clear:

You write "Omar condemned the Trump administration's decision to (1.) recognize Juan Guaidó, the leader of the Venezuelan national assembly, as the new president of Venezuela, (2.) send $20 million in humanitarian assistance to Guaidó's government, (3.) and threaten action if Nicolas Maduro, who also claimed to be president of Venezuela, resorted to violence to stay in power."

Your texts presents these as three things she supposedly condemns. The sources provide sufficient evidence that she condemns the first claim, and no evidence she condemns the second, and the third being an inappropriate extrapolation (no evidence she said anything in regards to the military of Venezuela "resorting to violence", this is putting words in her mouth).Masebrock (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

"Your text does not mirror the source." This is what the Miami Herald says: "Three members of Congress, California Rep. Ro Khanna, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, have released statements condemning the U.S. action in Venezuela, which so far amounts to the recognitio of Guaidó, $20 million in humanitarian assistance to the Venezuelan opposition and the threat of further action if Nicolas Maduro, whom the administration sees as an illegitimate president, resorts to violence." I stick to what the source says. If the source is wrong, point to alternative RS that phrase it differently or contradict this language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You do not stick to what the source says, because you omit the critical words "which so far amounts", that indicate the author is switching from describing her beliefs to explaining what he believes the broader situation to be. If an article says "Tom says he likes pizza, which is the worst food imaginable" we don't get to say on Wikipedia "Tom says he likes the worst food imaginable". You are confusing the claims of Omar with the claims of the author.Masebrock (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Those three things are not "what the author believes," they are what's happening. It is not a switch to opinion, it is describing "the U.S. action in Venezuela." They are the same thing. Parabolist (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this particular argument. If the author writes "Tom says he likes pizza, which is a round food" (fact!), we don't say on Wikipedia "Tom says he likes round foods". To add context in the Wikipedia voice, we would normally say something like "Tom says he likes pizza.[1] Pizza is a round food.[2]" to make it clear that Tom did not actually say he "likes round foods".Masebrock (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

These analogies don't make any sense and aren't helping. The phrase "U.S. action in Venezuela" is composed of the recognition, the aid, and the threats. They are the actions that the U.S. has taken in Venezuela. You keep implying there is some extrapolation or bridging here, when there is not. If the suggested text was using the source to say "Omar condemns U.S. foreign policy," this would be in line with what you're saying, but it is not. Parabolist (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Two issues:

1.These are not the only actions the U.S. has taken in regards to Venezuela. This is trivially easy to demonstrate this with reliable sources. For instance, the U.S. is imposing sanctions in Venezuela as well. The author is simply incorrect on the merits here, and we should not be parroting his incorrectness in the Wikipedia voice.

2.There's the question of ambiguity. Do we assume, again in the Wikipedia voice, that when Omar condemns "U.S. actions in Venezuela", she is condemning every possible action, including humanitarian aid? That's like writing "Bolton condemns the Chinese marching band" when Bolton says he "condemns China". That the Miami Herald article choose to interpret her views in cartoonishly un-charitable ways does not mean that we should repeat the same mistakes.Masebrock (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Masebrock here; we shouldn't be insinuating (because that's what it was) that Omar opposes things like humanitarian aid or responding to violence based off a single source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1RR is now in effect

Looking at the articles for Kamala Harris and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez I realised that they'd been put under 1RR and it seemed sensible to add that here. I'm not totally convinced about "Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." which the others have, but am willing to add it if it will help in the future. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The situation with WP:BRD in the Venezuela section of late has certainly been annoying. After B and R, my understanding is that we are supposed to see D before material is re-inserted, not immediate re-insertion accompanied by simultaneous D that fails to address my concerns, no matter how clearly I describe them.Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal

Ilhan pointed out that "Juan Guaidó's claim to the presidency was not supported by Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal". I feel like it should be clarified that the Tribunal was named by a lame duck Assembly, the appointment was carried out with several irregularities and the justices do not meet the requirements for holding office and that new justices were named by the current National Assembly, which in turn were persecuted by Maduro's government. I am fully aware of the problems with coat racking and undue weight, but I think this context is essential so the reader won't misunderstand that Guaido's claim isn't legitimate and of the current institutional crisis. Maybe a note could be included? --Jamez42 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm wary of WP:SYNTH here, not to mention tarring Omar and Maduro with the same brush, which would be a severe breach of WP:BLP. If it requires that much clarification from sources that aren't about Omar's statements, then maybe we should just omit the whole thing as just another newsy tidbit of no lasting significance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: If other editors are okay with that, I agree that would be a good solution. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)