Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Personal life

Since she ran for the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016, Omar has been dogged by questions about her personal life. Those questions have been covered in reliable news sources. The questions surround the authenticity of her marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Curiously, the article made no mention of this fairly significant issue in Omar's life and career. Furthermore, the "personal life" section muddied up the waters by failing to distinguish between confirmed data and Omar's assertions. Accordingly, I have revamped the "personal life" section, which now reads as follows:

Omar was born in Somalia, then spent much of her childhood in Kenya, and immigrated to the United States when she was 12 years old. She is a Muslim.

In 2002, Omar became engaged to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi (né Aden). The couple applied for a marriage license, but the application was not finalized. Omar and Hirsi had two children together, and--according to Omar--married within their faith tradition. Omar has indicated that in 2008, she and Hirsi had a faith-based divorce. The next year, Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a British citizen. Omar has stated that she and Elmi had a faith-based divorce in 2011, and that she reconciled with Hirsi, with whom she had a third child in 2012. In 2017, Elmi and Omar were legally divorced, and Omar and Hirsi were legally married in 2018. Omar has repeatedly denied claims that her marriage to Elmi was a sham marriage entered into for immigration purposes and has asserted that such claims are based on prejudice due to her race, gender and religion. Omar, Hirsi, and their three children live in Minneapolis.

Omar's daughter, Isra Hirsi, is one of the three principal organizers of the school strike for climate in the US.

Sources

Volunteer Marek has reverted some of my edits as "controversial" without stating a policy-based objection. I have reinserted them. While I am raising these edits for discussion, I don't believe that there should be any issue with including them. In fact, given the significance of the issue, I could make the case that the article should cover these issues in greater depth. Finally, I would like to point out that I refrained from including information on the more salacious (and less well-founded) accusation that Omar's first husband was her brother. SunCrow (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Those claims aren't made by anyone of significance willing to put their name on them, and appear to be given no credence in mainstream reliable sources. What you have here is a single article repeating partisan rumors, and there appears to be no follow-up or continuing interest. I believe the matter fails WP:DUE. Similarly, we don't include in Donald Trump's biography that "Trump has repeatedly denied claims that he made the pee tape", because those claims are scurrilous rumors which even mentioning would be prejudicial and sources generally give them no credence. I could find dozens of sources mentioning the rumors, but honestly it still wouldn't be DUE absent really strong evidence that sources took it seriously. Same goes for these claims about Omar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, you are completely misrepresenting the material I offered. Contrary to what you said, I did not cite "a single article repeating partisan rumors". I cited an August 2016 piece from Fox9.com, a different August 2016 piece from the Minnesota Post, an October 2018 Associated Press report, and a Star Tribune article from June 2019. "No credence in mainstream reliable sources"? Seriously? Since when is the Associated Press not a mainstream, reliable source? "Repeating partisan rumors"? Nonsense. The questions about Omar's marital history go far beyond rumors. The Star Tribune piece, in particular, goes into depth in reviewing "investigative documents released by a state agency" following a "state probe of campaign finance violations". The Star Tribune adds that the documents "also detail the Omar campaign’s efforts to keep the story of her marriage to Elmi out of the press". "No follow-up or continuing interest"? As I said above, questions about Omar's marital history have been raised ever since she first ran for office in 2016. That is what the sources show. Your "pee tape" comparison fails because the questions surrounding Omar are not scurrilous rumors, as you would see if you read the sources I offered. SunCrow (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

No offence intended but IMO some articles such as this one that deal with controversial well-known persons tend to drift into tabloid journalism. If Omar were still a Minnesota political figure it seems more reasonable to cover her past more closely as has been done by the local news. However now since she has stepped into the national and international scene we want to include information that is being broadly covered rather than that being covered locally only. And even then one must use good sense - note for example the we do not include Melania Trump's "I really don't care" jacket that was covered by every news agency in the US and abroad as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I hear your concern. I believe that the AP story on the topic establishes that coverage has not just been local (see ). There are other national sources on the topic as well; see https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2019/07/22/omar_marriage_story_flummoxes_media_fact-checkers_480985.html, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/us/politics/trump-ilhan-omar-fact-check.html, https://news.yahoo.com/rep-ilhan-omar-stonewalling-hometown-125600938.html. Does that information satisfy you that there is national coverage? SunCrow (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@SunCrow: You claimed above that Your "pee tape" comparison fails because the questions surrounding Omar are not scurrilous rumors yet the NYT source you cite literally directly states that they are rumors, states that No proof has emerged substantiating these claims and says In 2016, a blog called PowerLine cited a now-deleted post on an internet forum that claimed Mr. Elmi is Ms. Omar’s brother. So what you are asking us to do is take a blog's repost of a deleted Internet forum post's unsupported scurrilous claims about a prominent living person and then plaster them all over that person's biography as if they merit any credence whatsoever. I repeat, there is far more coverage of the "pee tape" claims about Donald Trump, yet you will (correctly) not find them discussed in Trump's biography because they merit no credence whatsoever. In addition, both of the other proffered links are to partisan conservative websites and magazines — the Washington Free Beacon and The National Interest. The Free Beacon is not remotely a reliable source, while TNI is at best a source of partisan opinion in this case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I contest the notion that a source is unreliable simply because it's conservative. NorthBySouthBaranof, do you have a basis for saying that the Free Beacon and the National Interest are unreliable? How about the Associated Press? SunCrow (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Free Beacon article is particularly hilarious (and useless for Wikipedia) because it uses the obvious rhetorical trick of flipping the burden of evidence — the author goes at great length alleging that these rumors can't be proven false, without once mentioning that not a single shred of evidence has been produced to even suggest that they are true. The burden here is not on Omar — the burden is on anyone to show why the claim should be taken seriously. Absent any evidence whatsoever, of course media outlets are going to treat these anonymously-sourced blog-spawned claims as false. And so are we. Should that set of facts change, we can and should change with them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

It's August 2019. Where is the continuing interest? Where is the evidence that these anonymous claims of wrongdoing proffered by partisan operatives are not scurrilous rumors? You don't have any, that's where it is. What you have "evidence" of, per the Star Tribune article you cite, is that Omar wanted to keep her personal life personal by "keep(ing) the story of her marriage to Elmi out of the press." That's neither wrong, nor unethical, nor evidence of criminal behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The Fox 9 source you cite links to another Fox 9 story for discussion of the "questions" — that story says The conservative Power Line blog alleges that this is her brother -- a potential sham marriage to help the brother with immigration into the United States. Fox 9 cannot independently confirm the allegation. This confirms that the source of the claims is a partisan rumor mill blog, and that final line is telling — the TV station is disclaiming responsibility for it and explicitly stating that they can't confirm it. Fox 9 also repeatedly refers to the claim as a "rumor." Sorry, but this "rumor" spread by right-wing political operatives doesn't belong in Omar's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, you are misrepresenting both my proposed edit and the sources. I am trying to assume good faith, but you're making it awfully difficult to do so.

What you have "evidence" of, per the Star Tribune article you cite, is that Omar wanted to keep her personal life personal by "keep(ing) the story of her marriage to Elmi out of the press." That's neither wrong, nor unethical, nor evidence of criminal behavior. I didn't say it was. I am not trying to prove a criminal case against Rep. Omar, nor do I have to. I am trying to add one sentence to her Wikipedia page about a question that has affected her political career for the past three years and continues to do so to this day. The sentence I am trying to add reads as follows: "Omar has repeatedly denied claims that her marriage to Elmi was a sham marriage entered into for immigration purposes and has asserted that such claims are based on prejudice due to her race, gender and religion".

It's August 2019. Where is the continuing interest? I cited an article from 2016, an article from 2018, and an article from June of this year. June was only two months ago, right? If that's not enough for you, run a Google news search that says "Ilhan Omar marriage" and see what you get. There is plenty of continuing interest in this topic. It's absurd for you to pretend otherwise.

Where is the evidence that these anonymous claims of wrongdoing proffered by partisan operatives are not scurrilous rumors? First of all, there's the fact that the claims--first advanced in 2016--have not gone away and continue to be covered in mainstream media. Second of all, there's the Star Tribune piece (did you read it?), which asserts: (a) that "Omar and Elmi [husband no. 1] used a Columbia Heights address on [their] marriage application. Three months later, Hirsi [husband no. 2] used the same address to obtain a business license for his One-on-One Cafe Lounge"; (b) that Omar filed joint tax returns with Hirsi in 2014 and 2015--during which time she was still legally married to Elmi--and has "declined to say anything about how or why" this happened; (c) that Omar "created a 'crisis committee'" in 2016 to deal with the claims that her first marriage was a sham (if there's nothing but "scurrilous rumors" here, why the need for a committee?); and (d) that Omar's 2017 claim that she had "no contact with Elmi after their 2011 separation" appears to be contradicted by multiple social media posts, some of which were later scrubbed. The National Interest piece quotes an editor at the Star Tribune as follows:

"Our public records searches determined that in at least one period after she married Elmi, all three (Omar, Elmi and Hirsi) used the same address in Minnesota. It raises questions about the nature of the relationship if she is living with both the person she’s married to and her eventual husband..."

"What’s really made it hard is that she’s been unwilling to address any of these questions. That has fueled the controversy. We quoted her at length to say that these were mere accusations, that they were unfair, and that she shouldn’t have to address them. Be that as may, there was an undisputed instance of her filing her taxes improperly. And if you’re in Congress, you should explain that to your constituents..."

Do you have any reason to believe that the Star Tribune editor is a "partisan operative"? If not, you should rethink your comments. SunCrow (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, listen to yourself. You sound like a Pizzagater, putting 1 and 2 together to get "there's a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza restaurant which doesn't even have a basement." You just listed a bunch of disparate facts, literally none of which are proof (or even evidence) of a sham marriage (you do realize that relationships are a complicated thing in the 21st century, right?) as if putting string between all of these clippings makes anything more than abstract art, and then have the gall to say that a politician putting together a team to respond to rumors during a political campaign is somehow suspicious. (You should probably read our article about crisis communication.) You are welcome to come back here when there is literally any actual evidence of wrongdoing. "Three people had the same address once!!!!!" and "she created a committee!!!!!" is... not evidence, as both the Fox 9 and The New York Times have aptly concluded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, take a breath. You sound like someone who is trying really, really hard to sanitize a Wikipedia page. Remember what we are doing here. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a criminal proceeding. I don't have to prove that there is "actual wrongdoing" on Rep. Omar's part, and I'm not attempting to. Furthermore, I am not attempting to add text asserting that she did something wrong. The text I have proposed reads as follows:

Omar has repeatedly denied claims that her marriage to Elmi was a sham marriage entered into for immigration purposes and has asserted that such claims are based on prejudice due to her race, gender and religion.

The issue is whether the controversy over her marital history--which has continued for three years and made national news--is notable enough for inclusion on this page. I maintain that it is. I further maintain that if she were a Republican, there would be an entire paragraph on the issue. SunCrow (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to open an RFC to get broader opinions if you disagree with the emerging consensus here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

SunCrow, I didn't read the whole comment but I checked the sources. In my opinion this should not be included because the sources say that the source of the rumors is a conservative blog which is not reliable. I know she responded to the allegations and all that stuff but still this is a trolling stuff and issues and I think it should have no place in Wikipedia even in the talk page. I have considered closing this discussion because it seems like a violation of BLP. Also from what I saw in the source, the guy she married to has a different father name and lives in England and has returned to England after they got divorced.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, thank you for your comment. I would respectfully suggest that you take a closer look. SunCrow (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically what NBSBof said. This just like a back handed way of sneaking in fringe conspiracy theories - by writing "so and so denied this conspiracy theory" because it'd obviously be objectionable to put in the conspiracy theory straight up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, bologna. Please read through my response to NorthBySouthBaranof above. This is not a fringe conspiracy theory. SunCrow (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

No, worse — it's an unevidenced rumor claiming that the biographical subject of this article is guilty of a federal felony. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, bologna. Reread the sentence I proposed and stop putting words in my mouth. SunCrow (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Everyone commenting here besides you has rejected your proposal, so you can either open an RFC or drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you would argue your position honestly, NorthBySouthBaranof, I wouldn't have to spend so much time rebutting you. SunCrow (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to declare what is or is not an "honest" argument, actually. You are taking simple factual statements and prepending them with "Omar has stated that...", attempting to cast doubt where none exists. Not much a surprise that such a maneuver has garnered zero support thus far. Zaathras (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Zaathras, you should have taken a closer look at the sources before you commented. If you had, you would have seen that every source that I cited in my proposed edits has one thing in common: When discussing Rep. Omar's marital history, they have no information on her chronology as to when she was married within her faith tradition and divorced within her faith tradition EXCEPT the information contained in Rep. Omar's 2016 statement on the issue. That is why I attempted to preface that information with "Omar has stated that..." If the sources rely only on Omar's statements, the encyclopedia should reflect that. I was not "attempting to cast doubt where none exists"; I was merely being faithful to the sources. SunCrow (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your assuption that we have not read the material you keep fighting for day after day is meritless. My position has not changed since August 9th, what you are doing is casting aspersions on Rep. Omar, by trying to insert "she said, "according to her" everywhere. Zaathras (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Zaathras, not so. I am trying to make the encyclopedia better. You are trying to sanitize it. Cut it out. SunCrow (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well put. This is not a gossip or fringe site. O3000 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I am not trying to make it one, either. SunCrow (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that the "reliable" sources have it that the accusations are baseless[1], so, per WP:BLP, we are supposed to leave the whole thing out. Perhaps someday the "reliable" sources will catch up to the "unreliable" ones. Until then, we accept Omar's statement as truth. My suggestion to User:SunCrow is to accept it for what it is, giggle inwardly, and move on.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Adoring nanny, with respect, I have to disagree. The NYT fact check you cited does NOT say that all the accusations against Rep. Omar regarding her family history are baseless. It does say that the President's nonsense comments about her were baseless, and it says that no basis has been found for the allegation that she was married to her brother; however, none of that has nothing to do with my proposed edits. As to the question of whether her marriage to Mr. Elmi was legitimate or whether it was a sham for immigration purposes, the NYT fact check is silent. I am not willing to let this go. The encyclopedia should be truthful. The truth is that there are unanswered questions about Rep. Omar's marital history. Those questions are notable, they are reliably sourced, they have been raised for several years, and they belong in the encyclopedia. SunCrow (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I am reinstating a few edits that were unjustifiably reverted some days ago. As I commented above, when discussing Rep. Omar's marital history, no source I have seen has any information on Rep. Omar's chronology as to when she was married within her faith tradition and divorced within her faith tradition EXCEPT the information contained in Rep. Omar's 2016 statement on the issue. Therefore, when the article mentions Omar's non-legally-binding marriages and divorces, the article should be clear that the sources are relying only on Rep. Omar's own representations. If anyone can find a source that confirms her account, I will back off on this. Unless and until there is one, I would challenge any editor to find any reason other than WP:POV and WP:IDONTLIKEIT to remove my edits. SunCrow (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Yahoo news source says "according to marriage certificate" I don't find anyone disputing Omar or her marriage certificate accounts except some lame conspiracy theories. It seems like scare quoting to say "according to Omar".--SharabSalam (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you are absolutely 100% incorrect. Please look at the source (https://news.yahoo.com/rep-omar-filed-joint-tax-175510010.html). The reference to the marriage certificate has to do with her civil marriages. My edits have to do with the religious marriage ceremonies and divorces "within her faith tradition". This is not scare quoting. My point is that there is no corroboration of Rep. Omar's account of these ceremonies and divorces other than her own representations. The encyclopedia should reflect that. SunCrow (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the encyclopedia should reflect that. It's like when someone says that he is 30 years old, we shouldn't say according to him he is 30 years old unless we have other reliable sources that disagree with what he is saying. What you are saying is that Wikipedia shouldn't state what Omar said in its voice but in Omars' voice but that would be the case only if we have conflicting reliable sources per WP:YESPOV--SharabSalam (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, it would be nice if you'd admit that your assertion about the Yahoo! piece was mistaken. Putting that aside, if this Wikipedia article uncritically repeats Rep. Omar's narrative about her relationship history in Wikipedia's voice, then it should also include a sentence stating that Rep. Omar's narrative has been drawn into question because there was a period of time where she, Hirsi, and Elmi were all using the same address, and because Rep. Omar has made no attempt to explain this. SunCrow (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think the point where you "back off" (using your words) is going to come sooner rather than later, as repeatedly coming back every few days to add material against consensus s likely frowned upon here. Zaathras (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Zaathras, I have not encountered you before, but I am already growing weary of your snarky attitude. I'm going to have to get some third-party involvement here if editors' partisan sympathies continue to get in the way of resolving an obvious WP:BLP issue. This is ridiculous. SunCrow (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly invited you to start an RFC on the issue; your evident lack of desire to do so implies that you don't want your bluff called. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No, NorthBySouthBaranof, it does not imply that at all. I have not started an RfC because I don't have a lot of confidence in the editors that have been editing this page. I have not yet had time to start a different Wikipedia process to resolve the issue. SunCrow (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@SunCrow: - if you really don't have a lot of confidence in the editors that have been editing this page then that seems to be a compelling reason to have an RfC. starship.paint (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe the only BLP issue is the one you keep trying to introduce, one that I and many others keep removing. The person above who noted that this is like using "scare quotes" is 100% spot-on, actually. Zaathras (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Bologna. SunCrow (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

An unimpeachable source stating the obvious

Peter Beinart,'Netanyahu Banned Omar And Tlaib Because The Occupation Must Be Hidden To Survive,'The Forward 15 August 2019 Beinart begins by noting that 'most establishment American Jewish leaders think Israel’s decision to bar Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar from visiting the West Bank was, in the words of The Democratic Majority for Israel, “unwise.” But behind that, he notes of those who criticize the ban that

They’ve never stood in a Palestinian village that receives a few hours of water per day and seen swimming pools in the settlements nearby. They’ve never visited the village of Beit Ur al-Fauqa, home to Rashida Tlaib’s grandmother, where according to a 2015 report, local children waded through sewage channels to reach a high school enclosed by the separation barrier on three sides. American Jewish leaders think Netanyahu is a fool because they don’t realize how much he has to hide. He’s not a fool. He may have barred Omar and Tlaib partly because Donald Trump asked him to. He may have felt the stunt would appeal to right-wing voters in Israel’s upcoming elections. But he likely also understood that if Omar and Tlaib brought the American media with them to the West Bank, they might begin to puncture the cocoon that he and his American Jewish allies have worked so hard to build.

I can't see this referred to on the page, though a 2018 article by Beinart is there. Consider adding it.Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I would also note that Netanyahu's bluster gets 118 words, whereas Tlaib's reply gets 42. The usual I/P sense that balancing the viewpoints means anything more than a third of what an Israeli spokesperson states, coming from a Palestinian, is WP:Undue.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani - Tlaib or Omar? What key point of the response is missing? starship.paint (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess this page is now a forum, merely stating that Beinart is unimpeachable doesn't make it so. That is your opinion. And just to show you the greatness of the US, and the Forward, here's something you'll never see in Palestinian media, dissenting opinions, here's a different opinion piece from the same newspaper, 'Israel Was Right to Ban Tlaib and Omar'. I suggest all read this piece. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you keep skipping the blood libel part. [2] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• 'Israel has every right to refuse entry' Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your edits have become an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Please stop violating WP:BLP by using extremely tenuous attachments between the subject of this BLP and blood libel and terrorism. O3000 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

stop harassing me now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

S.J. If you want Ari Hoffman as a reliable source, then write a wiki bio. He's at the beginning of his career. Beinart is one of the most authoritative voices on the American Jewish scene. As to 'forum', I am proposing a source, and justifying its inclusion. If contested, I reason why. That is not foruming.

Starship. I mentioned Beinart because (a) he is extremely influential (b) and he states that the real purpose of the bans, he mentions not only Tlaib but also Omar, was to cut in the bud trips that, being by American Congresswoman, would have thrown the spotlight on the West Bank occupation. His view of course, but it is fairly obvious that such a concern exists for both Trump and Netanayahu. That point should be in the article, though it is immaterial whether Beinart or someone else be cited for it.

I don't know what 'blood libel' has to do with the travel ban. I will note that the women in question are not interested in travelling to Israel. Israel controls all the access points to a territory it has no legal right to, and from which the two congresswomen's families came. What is being denied is simply the right of anyone, esp. foreign Palestinians, to visit their forebears' homeland (unless they (a) have detailed talks with the Democratic Majority for Israel members (b) spend some time talking to Israeli security officials in Israel (c) underwrite formal declarations of principles about Israel as a premise for getting a visa to Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

All 3 of the above opinion pieces should stay out. It's not as if there is a dearth of material on this subject. Plus that article on the blood thing, first I’m not sure if Forward is reliable, I’ll have to check. Second, which Israeli official quoted the blood thing as a reason to deny Omar? starship.paint (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

of course the Forward is reliable, why shouldn't it be? As for why it should be mentioned, it goes to the organization credibility. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, it seems reliable. Now, that blood thing seems appropriate for a Miftah article. I don’t think it should go in this one. The link hasn’t been established. starship.paint (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I originally deleted this section under WP:FORUM, it was reverted. You would have to ask Nishidani as to why he thinks this belongs. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The Forward is reliable. If you have (a) an area specialist (b) writing an opinion piece (c) which contains an interpretation or insight (into the politics of the ban) then it is worthy of mention. Nathan Thrall is a much cited 'opinionist', often included for these reasons. To reject insightful opinion pieces while including coverage of the usual political blahblah by parties to a dispute is to privilege rhetoric over analysis. We all know, whatever our respective standpoints, that political spin rarely has much to do with the primary reasons for a decision, or with facts, as opposed to responsible analysis by long term observers. Wiki has immense coverage of political soundbites, in the I/P area, but is very short on intelligent analysis. The policy on opinion pieces is intended to avoid clutter of aimless viewpoints, not repress analyses by people with strong publishing records, articles and books, on the topic in question. Those who have the latter qualifications, are more properly, experts rather than opinionists.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: - proof that Beniart is a leading expert in this field please? starship.paint (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

'This field' contextually refers to American-Jewish political relations. In the normal wikiworld, an M.Phil in International Relations at Oxford University, a two year stint as Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, being the author of three books, one on Israel and Zionism in particular, though controversial (Stephen Walt, On ‘The Crisis of Zionism’: Why you should read Peter Beinart Foreign Policy 24 June 2012), and writing regularly for the New York Times, - much of his work being related to Israel in the modern world are guarantees enough.(important centrist political figures like Clinton and Naomi Chazan thought his 2012 book on Israel of high value). Beinart is one of the most prominent American liberal Zionist intellectuals (p.600), so it is not as though one were citing some just-so opinionist from outside the fold.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's more on Miftah, [3] Read how they celebrated terror, so while some might complain, as always, dealing with an organization such as this is not something you would want to do. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The National Review is a partisan source and the start of the article clearly shows that the article is the author's personal opinion. O3000 (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

And what part of the Forward's Opinion section doesn't show that Beinart's Opinion article isn't his opinion? Plus, being a partisan source does not mean it's not a RS, in addition, they included links to those entries showing Miftah celebrating the terrorist attacks. But again, this whole section is a FORUM, but apparently it's allowed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The article that you used criticized Washington Post and New York Times articles and used as sources twitter feeds, including that of the Washington Times. This article is not close to RS. O3000 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

And criticizing the NY Times or Washington Post is not allowed? Again, it's an opinion piece, same as Beinart, which is also an opinion piece. The world is learning more about Miftah hour by hour, but I am not sure why people are defending that organization. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia goes, I don't care what the world is "learning" about from sources that are clearly not RS. You can argue about Beinart. But the way to do that is to argue about Beinart -- not bring to the table such a terrible source. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to cite one or two noteworthy responses to the ban, but this is a low-level international incident and so there are more noteable resposes (members of congress, presidents etc.) we should cite instead. The coverage indicates that the primary reason for blocking the visit was Trump's tweets. The Miftah stuff shows up as a post-hoc justification, but I don't see reliable sources indicating that it was actually a major factor in the decision to prohibit the trip. Nblund ^talk 17:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: - from the evidence you provided, it seems that yes, Beinart does have some expertise, although I'm not too sure whether he is at the absolute top tier of experts (a PhD and many scholarly articles would have helped). If you add his opinion, I personally wouldn't revert, but perhaps other editors will. starship.paint (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't a high estimate of Beinart's work, - much of what he states has been known by informed commentators sdince the 1980s, but assumes importance because it recurs as a point of view relatively novel in the ideological tradition he is part of -and I/P articles or those touching on that crisis rarely, to the grief of this encyclopedia, use top-tier sources. They use newspaper reports of middling reporters. The problem here is not Beinart/non-Beinart. The problem is that coverage of the incident, which should perhaps run to three or four lines,- (a) Ihlan Omar, together with Tlaib were banned, the chief details =1/2 of the para (b) Israel (not Netanyahu) cited security issues) though part of the reason was US politics (Trump); it has been suggested that the ban reflected other concerns - a desire not to allow the Palestinian cause a platform. As we have it, the para is mainly about Netanyahu's projected perception. As such it isd incompetent and POV. I can't contribute other than make suggestions, since I withhold ncontent additions since Framngate began. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"Member of a clan"

I have removed the statement that Omar belongs to the Majeerteen clan from Northeastern Somalia. Saying that someone is a member of a clan implies active interest or involvement, and Omar hasn't lived in Somalia in decades. Additionally, the single source supporting the statement is an opinion column published in The Bulwark written by Ann Marlowe, who does not appear to be a recognized expert and whose Twitter bio says Original, mainly open source anti-kleptocracy research. Before, rock criticism & COIN analysis. I believe to make a statement about a living person, we need something more than a single opinion column from an "open-source anti-kleptocracy" researcher and former music critic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Somali clan membership is an ethnic identifier not some kind of club. Every Somali belongs to a clan and it is a strong part of Somali culture. You are misunderstanding what it means to be part of a Somali clan (I assume you are a non-Somali, obviously). So your statement on implying active membership is simply wrong. As a Somali I can tell you that she indeed belongs to the Majeerteen clan from Puntland / Northeastern Somalia. The statement is completely true. She even visited places like Garowe and Gaalkacyo and addressed the people there as her people (in the Somali language - I speak Somali). Wadaad (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I see that you have left it in the early life section but removed it from the personal life section. I guess that is fine, but please let it stay in the early life section as she truly belongs to this clan and has visited Puntland several times while she was an adult (clearly implying kinship there). Wadaad (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I left it in the "Early life" section because whether or not her father is a member is a different issue. OK, I get what you're saying - but do we have better sources for saying she's a member of this clan than an obscure op-ed columnist? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

They are mainly in the Somali language. That's the issue, but the statement is correct. I will try to find additional sources, but for now the current listing only in the early life section should suffice. Wadaad (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wadaad: - if they are reliable sources it doesn't matter what language they are in. Just cite them, write in the reference that the language is Somali. starship.paint (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wadaad: There is no good reason to give information about the clan in the article. This article is about Ilhan Omar. I expect that when the reader read "A tribe of partial Yemeni ancestor" he would say: what? I wasn't looking for information about her tribe!. Also a lot of tribes in Africa, Asia etc are originally from Yemen or from the Arabian peninsula in general so I think the information is trivia and wouldn't serve the article subject and Ilhan Omar is not like a Sheikh or a tribal leader that the tribe means much to her. Most modern day people dont really care about tribes and stuff like that and as far as I know people in Africa arent that tribalist. Buttom line this information about her tribe is trivia.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: it is not trivia as it says a lot about her ancestral origins and possible loyalties/ties. For example, her position on the Yemeni civil war may be influenced by her having Yemeni ancestry. Perhaps her passion for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict may also be explained in part due to her being part Arabian. Secondly, in the Somali culture clan affiliations are very important (see Somalis#Clan,_family_and_social_stratification). Wadaad (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wadaad, That's original research. You are saying that her political views are influenced by her ethnicity/tribe? What about Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul and many many other congresspersons. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity and this is a BLP violation because this is a baseless accusation and a prejudice against Omar. I am now more convinced that the coatrack content about her tribe should be removed. Maybe only mention the name of the tribe and that's it.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: She belongs to those communities and it is her origin. The statements I made in the article are purely factual. Only in this talk section did I make a loose connection to her Arab roots being possibly connected to her views on Middle Eastern conflicts. I did not make that connection in the article. This is just my casual observation. I am not a Republican or a political opponent of hers whatsoever. Wadaad (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Wadaad, I don't care whether you are a republican or not. That's not my business and it's not going to change my opinion. All I am saying is that we don't need to say anything about her tribe except maybe it's name. We already have an article about that tribe.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: For her father, the Majeerteen, only the name was mentioned. For her mother, the Benadiri, a qualifier of it being an ethnic minority population is placed because they are an outgroup in Somalia not considered to be native similar to how Europeans view(ed) Jews or the Romani.Wadaad (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems an innocent enough fact, Somaliawise, just unfortunately drenched in connotation, Americawise. As long as it's reliably sourced in the article and without added "explanation", I don't see the problem. Beyond people making of it as they will, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I still have a feeling that the content about the tribe in general should not be here. It is now in the early life section in the context of talking about her father which does not seem good in my opinion because as I said this article is about Ilhan Omar not the partial origin of her tribe but I think it is better now than before when the information about her tribe was in the personal life section.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Somalis are stratified by clans (see Somalis#Clan,_family_and_social_stratification). She is a Somali, hence, it is relevant. Wadaad (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wadaad, Jews, Arabs also care about tribes yet we don't often find that in their articles especially if they are a congressperson.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

For Somalis it is a rather significant identity marker. Also, it is just one small sentence, no need to make a make a mountain out of a molehill. Wadaad (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No it is not. There is no reason for that information which suggests that Ilhan Omar is some sort of a tribal person or that funny explanation of her policy regarding the Arab world. It's funny that you think Ilhan Omar is against Saudi Arabia because of her tribe. 80% of Saudi Arabian tribes are from Yemen like Shammar, Murrah, Azd etc etc. Even in Yemen in South Yemen are supporting Saudi Arabia. I guess that any tribal thing shouldn't be in this article which is mainly about the Somali-American congresswoman and not about her tribe.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Also what does "an ethnic Somali" means? Huh!? Why using the term ethnic? Why this race science content in her article?--SharabSalam (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If we are going to mention the tribe why not mention her blood group? It's an important thing. Just use common sense and you will see that all information about the tribe should be removed.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant because she is a Somali and Somalis are stratified along clan lines. Secondly, the statement is purely factual and therefore should and will be included. Wadaad (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You just say things like if you didn't see what I said above. You repeat the same thing again and again. I have told you to use common sense not everything that is factual and permitted to be added is going to be added in this article. Somalis are not more than Arabs where there is more tribalism than in Somalia and yet no one mention these things.. e.g Mohammad Salah from Ghally tribe.. do we mention that? Even if sourced, should we? Nope.. Stop the Byzantinian discussion and don't repeat the same excuse, "it is factual" and "Somalis care about their clans".--SharabSalam (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

“ Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. ”

WP:COMMON--SharabSalam (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

And BTW, "Should and will be included"? That sounds like a wishful thinking.--SharabSalam (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be a Yemeni who has no clue about Somali culture. Somalis identity with their clans first and foremost before anything else as their primary identity marker. I already provided you the link above. Secondly, you seem to be politically motivated to hide her ethnic background. This is Ilhan Omar herself stating that her parents do not belong to the same ethnicity: My mother and father came from different sides of [Somali] society and were not supposed to meet and marry. My mother is ethnically Yemeni and my father is ethnically Somali. Starting from min 09:05: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc-e0dCU1h4&t=9m05s You tried to hide this fact by removing the factual statement 'ethnic Somali' and 'a community of partial Yemeni descent'. Kindly stop the disruptive editing and stop making such a big issue about a minor statement about a politician's ethnic background when it is purely factual.Wadaad (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... Again you are citing the Somalian culture which has nothing to do with this article. It's the repeated argument and now you are making personal attacks please comment on the content not on the editor. Also changing the title of the section shows that you are trying to move the goalpost.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sigh... First of all it is Somali, not Somalian. This again shows you know absolutely nothing about Somalis. She is Somali and this very much has a lot to do with her early life section. Stop your disruptive behavior and stop wasting our time with your trivial remarks. Wadaad (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I endorse Wadaad's position. Her heritage is relevant for the Early life section. starship.paint (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding the banning thing to the lead

Ekomik, please only add notable and not recent content about this biography of living person to the lead. See WP:BLPLEAD.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Prior Miftah Trip

I removed this sentence from the Banned from Israel section (in 2016, Israel approved a visit by five U.S. Representatives to Israel that Miftah co-sponsored, although this was before Israel enacted its anti-BDS law") At first, I added that the prior trip was prior to Israel's anti-BDS legislation, so there really is no comparison, but then there really is no point to including it in the article and we can lose the sentence to make the paragraph smaller. I don't really care either way, but I know we try to keep these articles as short as possible. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I don't know why you are keen on keeping this in, the paragraph already includes Miftah. Prior to the anti-BDS legislation, Israel had to let in US Representatives. So there is no comparison. Now that there is legislation, they were able to utilize this law and ban them. Letting them in was to have been an exception. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, reliable sources say that one of the excuses Netanyahu the head of Israel rejected Omar because he accused Miftah of "having members who support terrorism against Israel". Your addition "...although this was before Israel enacted its anti-BDS law" is orignial research(edit conflict).--SharabSalam (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Firstly, I don't think we should include it because it was a co-sponsorship. Secondly, it's not original research. Israel's anti-BDS legislation came into being in 2017, their trip was in 2016 and that is why I included the ref, the NY times piece. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow... It's like you didn't read what I said above..

I told you Netanyahu didn't cite the BDS law when talking about Miftah!! You are the only one who is doing this!. Netanyahu accused Miftah "having members who support terrorism against Israel".--SharabSalam (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, Yes, he did cite BDS. [4] "In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel." I'm not sure what your issue is. (Not sure why you ignored the BDS angle) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to keep this sentence in, as I said, you can keep it in, but I don't think it's needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Then this should be clear in this article that Netanyahu also accused Miftah of being a supporter of BDS. It wasn't there. Thats why I reverted.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It should not be removed because the law is not known for most of readers..--SharabSalam (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph do we have a source of when was the law enacted? The law was approved in 2011 per this article Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott--SharabSalam (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

  SharabSalam, the law was enacted in 2017. Read the nytimes article I put in. You are thinking of a different law.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 11:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I am confused. The article is talking about this law ➤ Israel Anti-Boycott Act? Was that the law Netanyahu was referring to? But that's a U.S. law and it doesn't ban someone who supports the BDS from entering Israel. I think the author of that article was confused. Do we have unrelated to Ilhan Omar sources about this law? Even in Hebrew.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam, No, it's this law, Amendment No. 28 to the Entry Into Israel Law Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

However, Israel [| originally allowed Omar to come, in July, and that was months after number 28]. This argument would make sense if not for that; now the remaining logical defense is to say "but we didn't know about Myftah in July". It's not our job -- just our talkpage, and never mainspace, hobby -- to judge either weird logical acrobatics coming out of Israel's govt or Tlaib/Omar's even more stunning feats, we just give the info as it is.--Calthinus (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, to be clear, they were going to be granted permission to enter Israel, since as you said, the law prohibited them from entering, but the law also allowed exceptions. In the end, Israel did not grant an exception. So there is nothing out of the ordinary. The article was written after 28, specifically because Israel needed to grant an exception to Tlaib and Omar and that was what Israel was debating whether or not to grant exceptions. The prior trip of Miftah's was before the Amendment 28. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Tim Mynett

What is the justification for this revert?[5] The affair with Tim Mynett is all over the media at this point.[6][7][8][9] I could see waiting when only the "unreliable" sources had noticed, which was the case a few weeks ago [10][11]. But the "reliable" sources have caught up. So why do we need to wait? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Because of WP:NOTNEWS, and because it deals with the divorce of a non-public figure from his wife, who is also a non-public figure. The alleged affair may or may not be a legitimate story, but it's clear that very little is known about this issue and there's no way to know whether it will pass the WP:10YT. Sometimes even complete bullshit manages to get some bemused coverage in semi-respectable news outlets. The best approach is to give it a bit for the news cycle to settle in before we rush to add stuff, especially when it is sensitive and involves non-notable figures. Nblund ^talk 03:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We are not a tabloid. Please go review WP:BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note this was added again by another user. I've removed again. I realize this is inside the WP:1RR window, but I believe WP:BLPREMOVE would apply given the conversation here. Nblund ^talk 15:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

This is covered by numerous sources. It involves a man associated with her campaign and the allegations were filed in court by a named individual, so it’s more than a rumor. It’s worth a mention. 18:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waters.Justin (talk • contribs)

Just because an individual is named in relation to a single event doesn't really make them the sort of public figure whose divorce proceedings are worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. At this point, its difficult to tell whether this story is something of real significance, or if it is more in line with the dozen or so other scandalous claims about Omar that are also excluded from this entry. We have no meanigful response from Omar, no responses from other members of her party, nothing from lawyers, and nothing from Mynett. Until we have enough information to tell readers how and why this is significant, then we don't have any business adding it to the article. Nblund ^talk 18:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you are saying that if Omar, the DNC, Omar's lawyer, and Omar's alleged affair partner just ignore this story, you will never see it fit to include in the Wiki? This apparent dependence on Democrats speaking on a subject before you consider it legitimate suggests an inappropriately motivated editorial stance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.136.106 (talk • contribs)

I'm saying that we don't have enough coverage or commentary to conform to the bare-minimum standards of WP:NPOV. What we have is "breaking news" coverage without any meaningful secondary analysis. Nblund ^talk 19:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)