Jump to content

Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Omar's Controversies, Where are they

1. Supports BDS, which is condemned and considered anti semitic throughout North America and Europe. 2. Made extremely anti semitic remarks, not anti-semitic tropes 3. (Redacted) 4. Her investigation for her taxes, campaign contributions

This article leaves out a lot of information. When all of the information slants 100% to one side, it usually means it was done intentionally. I can provide links from NYT, WaPo, and polls taken. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct. If you review the section above, you'll see that there was an "RfC" on this matter (I use quotes because there were actually two RfCs, the first of which resulted in consensus for noting the controversies you referenced in the lead). The above section is rife with biased votes and editors disregarding sources and characterizing her remarks as innocuous. I will probably open a discussion closure request, because WP:NPOV is clearly being disregarded. This is a contentious issue among WP editors. It is not among the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I have redacted an unsourced, unsupported, and potentially libelous claim per BLP. Do not make such claims unless you can support them with reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that your statement that BDS is condemned and considered anti semitic throughout North America and Europe is not accurate and your claim that she made extremely anti semitic remarks, not anti-semitic tropes is an opinion. Please read WP:BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It is no secret the FBI is investigating claims Omar married her brother. Here are more sources - one, two, three, four. I'm not sure why you would redact something so easily verified by a google search. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This is really one poor source repeated; and the original source specifically states that no investigation had been opened at that time. O3000 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
That happens frequently - see the Buzzfeed news scoop about the Steele Dossier. When other RS have covered the topic, it gains sourcing strength. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
None of them are good sources. And two of them use the charged word "investigating" despite the fact that there was no investigation. That's why we don't use poor sources. I suggest you redact your unfounded claim that the FBI is investigating her as it is a WP:BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
It’s literally the headline of those articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Side note to experienced editors Objective3000 and NorthBySouthBaranof, and others watching, is there a list of Wikipedia consensus approved RS? I searched before posting the above links but could not find such a list. As it is, I naturally assumed National Review and Yahoo were RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and there is no Yahoo article, there is only the National Review article mirrored on Yahoo. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no. There is a useful list at[1]. But, it's not gospel. You can also search the archives at WP:RSN O3000 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The Yahoo story is literally the National Review story... It even has the National Review’s logo at the top... Please at least skim sources before attempting to use them. NYP is not a WP:RS and neither is an interview with John Solomon (political commentator) on Fox Business. Also the National Review is not a WP:RS, your claim is for BLP purposes entirely unsourced. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying the FBI is not looking into such allegations? I’m not sure I follow you. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Read your own sources. The NYP stated that the FBI agents the anon source talked of: did not commit to opening an investigation. O3000 (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m saying none of the sources you provided here are reliable and you should have known that all along. Do you have any WP:RS or are you just wasting your fellow editors time? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider a good faith discussion to be a waste of time. Nobody is forced to participate here. I searched what I thought were RS and posted the results. You don't need to be hostile - AGF applies. I didn't even know about this topic until I saw this discussion and decided to investigate deeper. It seems to me the FBI is in fact "looking into" these allegations, but I don't know anything else about what they've found. Does it belong in the article? I think consensus should determine that, which at the moment appears not to support inclusion. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a technical point of order... Without a WP:RS its not possible to even present the argument for consensus on a BLP page, as such there is no support given either way. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Anybody can call the FBI and claim their next door neighbor killed Jimmy Hoffa. The FBI must perform due diligence and look into it. That is not an "FBI investigation". Saying there is an FBI investigation into a person without any evidence of such is a BLP violation. O3000 (talk)
The Nat Review article is also an example of a bad source with multiple bits of misrepresentation. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It is insane what progressives will do to protect their politicians. All of Wikipedia has become this way. Individuals like O3000 should be banned for their openly bias views. 2601:187:4000:C790:4DBE:B257:AA03:8712 (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on the content rather than on individual editors. El_C 11:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This information is all over the internet and covered by major news organizations. An individual is intentionaly distorting this page in order to protect their personal political beliefs. That IS part of the conversation. 2601:187:4000:C790:C04C:EE70:8CB5:5965 (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a specific suggestion? O3000 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately WP has higher sourcing standards than right-wing blogs do, so please be sure to check WP:RS before responding. --JBL (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
WhowinsIwins Wikieditor19920 Mr Ernie I would recommend waiting on putting information about the FBI investigation into the article. At this point, it isn't well sourced in sources that Wikipedia deems reliable. I do agree that the article leans in an Omar-supportive direction. I had to fight just to include reliably sourced information about her complex (to put it mildly) relationship history. SunCrow (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a typical echo chamber story. It's reported in the Blaze and the Daily Caller, then the National Review, then the Daily Post and Fox take an interest. Sometimes these stories are true and become major issues. All too often they turn out to be paranoid speculations. They only become worthy of mention once mainstream media takes notice. That must happen first, in order to provide weight for inclusion. My guess of what happened here is that someone provided what he believed was evidence to the FBI and they said they would investigate, just as they would investigate anything else reported. But it only becomes real news if the claims are deemed credible or if like birtherism it becomes a major issue for the right-wing fringe. When that happens, news media will ask Omar for comment and consult with experts to determine how credible the story is. If readers are interested in knowing every dubious claim bouncing around the echo chamber, they are free to go to their websites. TFD (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede?

Per consensus as well as WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE, the anti-semitism accusations should not be included in the lede. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Should this material, or some variation on it, be included in the lead? Based on a reading of the article, it summarizes, for reference, the middle paragraph of this section, plus this section. --Aquillion (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

There was a previous RFC about this topic, but, as noted above, it was tainted by sockpuppetry, and events have changed since then regardless.

  • Exclude. It was, comparatively, a short-lived controversy that is relatively minor compared to her overall bio; while it is occasionally still mentioned in passing, nothing about it suggests that it a significant or defining enough moment to go in the lead, and the weight given to it is disproportionate to other, comparable aspects of her bio (eg. the massive amount of harassment and threats she received in the time since.) Its inclusion in the lead is therefore extremely WP:UNDUE. EDIT: Since there's been an unusual amount of discussion here, I'll update my comment to state specifically that I don't think the sources provided below are sufficient - they're ultimately scant given how prominent Omar is today, and they largely mention this controversy in passing, without much indication that was ultimately that significant or had a major impact on her bio. They're sufficient to justify a coverage further down (which we have), but not in the lead itself. --Aquillion (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Not significant enough to be in the lead. Tradediatalk 09:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
What about Jeremy Corbyn? That's a bit of a hole in your claim.HAL333 23:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking of other US political figures who have been accused of antisemitism. Isn't it strange that the US President used blatantly antisemitic tropes, he did not (as far as I'm aware) ever apologize for any of it, it was covered in The Washington Post, CNN, and elsewhere, and there's nothing in the Donald Trump article about it? And yet some editors want to fight tooth and nail to get the accusations against Omar into the lede of her BLP? NightHeron (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I can see where you’re coming from.HAL333 03:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude – There is no evidence that she is anti-Semitic. Saying something stupid and then apologizing for it is not lead-worthy. WP:RECENTISM WP:UNDUE O3000 (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Include - Nothing has changed since the last one. Antisemtism controversies are still the defining part of her public image and the most notable part of her national profile. Additionally, I contest the neutrality of this RfC, as it makes unfounded claims the original was tainted by sockpuppetry and thus invalid. This is unacceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 13:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, there are an unusual number of blocked accounts in that RfC. And, I'm a bit surprised at the close. O3000 (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want to challenge a closure, this is not the proper place to do it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but I didn't challenge an RfC closure. Other folk are challenging this one. O3000 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Factually untrue. There actually have:
Additionally, the Minneapolis newspaper The Star Tribune noted the issues earlier this month in a profile of the upcoming primary race. These have been just in the last two months. The issue isn’t gone or dead - it’s ongoing, and it’s her defining trait in the public eye. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Two of your three sources refer only to the old statements, not to anything new. The third one concerns Omar's recent tweet about one billionaire (Cooperman) supporting another (Bloomberg). Calling that anti-semitic because both are Jewish is far-fetched. In the Democratic primary campaign Omar opposes Bloomberg but supports Sanders, who is also Jewish. NightHeron (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Your personal opinion does not outweigh what reliable sources say on the matter. Toa Nidhiki05 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, there are no reliable sources that say her tweet about Bloomberg support is anti-Semite.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I would add to that calling support for BDS anti-Semitic is highly controversial. O3000 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Controversial to whom, O3000? We don't decide what's controversial or what's not, the sources do. And SharabSalam, I've already linked the Newsweek article discussing the accusations of anti-semitism for the Bloomberg comment which also references her comments earlier this year. Arguments/votes based on provably false assertions do not/should not carry weight here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Controversial according to RS, obviously. Are you claiming that a Congressperson voting against the anti-BDS bill is an anti-Semite? Is Debbie Dingell an anti-Semite? And the Newsweek article added: Dylan Williams, the senior vice president of pro-Israel group J Street, responded to Harkov saying her comment is "exactly the kind of bad-faith, weaponized accusation that has clouded and eroded understanding of the very real threat posed by anti-Semitism." This is a BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This is all irrelevant and off-topic. The controversial comments that led to the accusations of anti-semitism referenced in the lead had nothing to do with her support for BDS. They were about her comments regarding Jewish-American pro-Israel lobbying groups, the "all about the Benjamins" and "pledge loyalty" remarks. The fact that the arguments for exclusion consistently veer off-topic instead of directly answering responses with source support is a major sign of how logically weak they are. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't bring it up. Toa Nidhiki05 linked to an article calling her one of the top 10 anti-Semites in the J Post using that as an example. Are you saying his argument is logically weak? O3000 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Since the deceptive "factually untrue" was addressed to my comment, I will reiterate the comments by others; 2 citations regarding the old, already covered Tweet, and the supposed one about Bloomberg failing to gain any traction outside of conservative talking heads. And also to respond to the comment below about "wait a year", rather than squeeze a 3rd comment into that section, that doesn't seem to be a binding decision but rather just an opinion. Zaathras (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest though to wait at least a year or until there is another significant event they are involved with.

  • Given that a year has not passed and there have not been more significant events that have raised this into question, I'm requesting a procedural close of this poorly-unformatted and non-neutral RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 15:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
A suggestion is not a reason for a procedural close. There have been eight !votes in seven hours. Calling for a close when you are the only include !vote does not look good. O3000 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
!votes do not matter. Very few are offering any sort of actual reason not to include it beyond not liking it or not agreeing with the criticisms (which is actually what happened in the first RfC, and those non-policy based !votes were wisely ignored). Interestingly, as far as I can tell, nobody from the previous extensive discussion has been notified, which is a very poor look. Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
They are all policy-based. It is completely RECENT in the lead of a BLP and does not pass the 10 years test.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Merely saying that it is non-neutral doesnt make it non-neutral. The RfC is absolutely neutral as there is no proof or sign that shows it is non-neutral.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This RfC is out of process and should be closed. Any RfC on this subject should directly reference the prior RfC and ask one of two main questions: 1) Has the anti-semitism controversy been eclipsed entirely by another controversy? The answer here would be no based on recent reporting and any editor voting "yes" should have to provide sources. 2) Has the amount of time specified in the prior RfC passed? Of course, the answer here, too, is no. The stipulated wait time for another RfC was one year.

1) The prior RfC was not "tainted by sockpuppetry." There were several dozen editors participating. If there were a couple of illegitimate accounts on either side, it is irrelevant because the consensus was never based on a vote count. I find it shocking that, all of a sudden, an editor objecting to the content finds a frivolous reason to summarily dismiss a substantial discussion. 2) Editors keep repeating the argument that the controversy has "faded." However, this is not a contention with any support in the sources. First of all, the anti-semitism controversy still created at least a plurality of the coverage she's received over the course of her career. WP:DUE is based on proportion, not the weekly headlines. Even still, this argument fails because mainstream outlets continue to reference this as recently as last week and last month. 3) A lot of the comments made by editors arguing vociferously to remove this comment are highly concerning. SharabSalam has repeatedly referenced a "right-wing Israeli conspiracy" as the reason for the accusations of anti-semitism. This has no support in the sources. NightHeron has claimed that the controversy has been "overblown" and is "political." This is not something that is supported by the sources. Other editors have said that noting her remarks were criticized as anti-semitic is basically akin to calling her anti-semitic. This is, of course, not true. Consensus is never a vote count, and this thread should be a prime example of the reason why. The most logical arguments prevailed in the prior RfC. Opinionated arguments without support in the sources should never determine content, and that shouldn't be allowed to happen here. Further, I don't appreciate some of the tactics being used by editors opposing the content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Having not participated in that old discussion, I have had to peruse some of the people involved. The RfC initiator himself was blocked as a sock, and his master sock also voted in the discussion. There are 2 "include" participants permanently blocked for unrelated things, and an "exclude" voter, user Magherbin, blocked for socking, but it appears to be unrelated to this article or even tropic area. Would you like to either revise your "either side" assertion?
The Guardian citation had a brief mention of the earlier incident, discussed in the larger context of Rep. Omar and MP Dhesi having to endure, quote, "vicious rightwing attacks" because of their ethnicity. The Newsweek citation is a fat nothingbuger that has gained no traction outside of Tucker Carlson and similar. What is far more notable is how Rep. Omar's every word is hyper-scrutinized, which ironically leads to situations like her GOP challenger being permanently kicked off Twitter. Summation, you have not proven to us who the charges of antisemitism have been sustained this past year, something which I feel would be required to classify it as "defining", thus worthy for the article opening. Zaathras (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless you can prove that the socking was determinative, which it almost certainly was not given how limited it was, there is no reason to overturn a discussion involving several dozen editors. The closure wasn't based on vote counts, and so the presence of a single duplicate vote (as you noted, the other was banned for conduct unrelated to the RfC).
You and others have made the argument that the accusations of anti-semitism are somehow not relevant anymore and no longer covered in mainstream sources. This is provably false. Whatever "context" they are mentioned in, the fact that they are still referenced as part of her public profile clearly gives the comments continued weight under any definition of WP:DUE. Even if the comments weren't being referenced regularly, they would still compose a huge portion of the coverage that she's received. But they are. And the fact that when her name comes up, the anti-semitism accusations are frequently mentioned, clearly shows that they still are one of the most noted elements of her public profile. The lead is supposed to include all of the most frequently referenced or important elements of a public figure's profile, including controversial ones, which is required by MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting the position of those who disagree with you. We're not saying that the accusations of anti-semitism are somehow not relevant anymore and no longer covered in mainstream sources. We're saying that those accusations are not of sufficient long-term importance to justify including them in the lede. If we really believed that they are "not relevant anymore," we'd be arguing to remove them from the main body, which nobody is.
Please read the source you cite from last week. That source supports my earlier statement that attacks on Omar are political and are overblown. It says that Omar has for the last year been the target of vicious rightwing attacks, not least by President Trump. Of course, there are many other sources that also support my statement, but it puzzles me that you claim my statement is unsupported by sources when it's even supported by a source that you just cited. NightHeron (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't speak for this discussion initiator, but IMO they are not suggesting the sock puppet antics invalidate the previous discussion, they are just mentioning it as one contributing factor to this new discussion. The main point is that it is not a major aspect of Rep. Omar's life. Your "provably false" harping is, itself, false, I'm afraid. Brief mentions in a source that is covering other things, e.g. the Guardian piece, do not show sustained coverage. The recent Tweet about Bloomberg is a blip that is already fading as no reputable media sources have picked up up in a major way. Contrast this to the incident from earlier this year where she came out and admitted fault, and the criticism came from all parts of the political spectrum. That's in the past now, and as time goes on, we re-evaluate the importance of issues and circumstances in the life of a BLP subject. We're at the point now of WP:UNDUE. Zaathras (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@NightHeron: The fact that you are drawing a connection between "vicious right-wing attacks" and criticism of her comments as anti-semitic from reliable sources is exactly the problem. That's an inference that YOU are making, not one supported by the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources are reporting on the accusations of anti-semitism. That's obviously not the same as your words criticism of her comments as anti-semitic from reliable sources. Sources do support the statement that the vicious rightwing attacks and the overblown accusations of anti-semitism are related. Here's an excerpt from section 6.5 of the Ilhan Omar article: He [Trump] made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar, including allegations that she had praised al-Qaeda, argued for leniency with ISIS recruits,... The crowd reacted by chanting, "Send her back, Send her back." Trump later described the crowd as "incredible people, incredible patriots" and accused Omar of racism and antisemitism. On July 19, Trump claimed without evidence that Omar and the rest of The Squad had used the term "evil Jews". NightHeron (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Zaathras: If you have to bend over backwards and redefine words to accuse another editor of a false statement, you probably shouldn't. The assertion you made was that the comments she made earlier this year have not received continued attention. However, multiple mainstream news sources continue to reference the comments as part of her public profile. That meets the very definition of sustained attention. (Provided above). If it wasn't significant, it wouldn't be mentioned. But it is. When something is repeatedly referenced by multiple reliable, well-known publications, WP:DUE is satisfied. Not that we don't already have enough material from earlier this year to satisfy that already. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I barely have to lift a finger to rebut your lamentable arguments, much less contort one's spine. Casual, sentence-long mentions of the incident as background info for an article on another subject entirely, as in the Guardian citation, are not "sustained coverage". Sustained coverage would be citations that directly speak of the old event in detail. Zaathras (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
You are applying a standard that does not reflect the relevant policies. Both publications call back to her comments in a new context. WP:DUE holds that material published in reliable sources is fit for inclusion. The fact that an event is regularly referenced back to in new coverage is a key indicator that it still holds lasting significance and is a part of the subject's public profile. It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a "new detailed piece" about her comments. Further, MOS:LEAD holds that we are to include {tq|prominent controversies}} in the lead. It is indisputable given the coverage that the anti-semitism remarks were a prominent controversy. The fact that we still have sources that discuss it shows that the consensus reached in March was correct, and it absolutely should not be removed based on the spurious grounds argued here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It is not a prominent controversy, it is a blip of a thing that happened near a year ago, and you rolled the snake eyes on getting an RfC initiated by a sock puppet, voted in by his other puppet, contributed to by at least 2 banned editors, and closed by an extremely questionable admin who judged a consensus that wasn't actually there. I am applying a standard of not only common sense but also adhering to WP:BLP (which you seem to be cavalierly ignoring), but striving to NOT label a person an antisemite for a single utterance of an antisemnitic canard. The coverage has not persisted in this since the original took place, you can't just make things up that are not there. It is best left mentioned in the body of the article, and that is all there is to it. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd suggest you drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The "snake eyes" metaphor is uncalled for. WP isn't about winning. In a discussion of 30+ people, the fact that some may have been banned for unrelated conduct is irrelevant. It is unfortunate that the editor who opened the discussion cast a sock vote, but I don't see how that invalidates a discussion that took place over several weeks and involved a wide swath of the community. I'd also suggest you retract your comment about the "extremely questionable admin." What makes them questionable, that you disagree with their conclusion?
Further, whether something is a "blip" or significant is determined by its treatment in sources, not the subjective opinions of editors. This is a fundamental policy concern that your comment misses entirely. WP:BLP does not mean purging an article of negative information, it means ensuring that all information, negative and positive, is properly sourced. The dozens of sources in major national outlets on this, from March to now, demonstrate prominence. I'm not going to respond to the combative snarky arguments or other conclusory statements. I'm content to let the arguments on this page and the sources provided speak for themselves. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Mr. 19920, your attitude and aggression in this discussion and others is the very epitome of "wp:battleground", so, kindly "cast out the beam out of thine own eye", sir. Secondly,. as I have stated on several occasions, this event was a moment earlier in the year, now past, and no longer suitable for the lead. You can't keep insinuating someone is a raging antisemite..as you are doing to Rep. Omar...without reliable sourcing to support that. This is the last time I will address you on this matter. Zaathras (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, the editor who started the previous RfC (ModerateMikayla555) is a sock of Darryl.jensen. And, the RfC originator !voted under both names. Icewhiz, and Wumbolo are also indeffed. IIRC, Icewiz by arbcom related to anti-Semitism attacks. Sir Joseph received a block one day after his !vote for accusing another editor of anti-Semitism. He was blocked again for calling a second editor anti-Semitic. How about we just stop these efforts to kill an RfC not started by a sock and see how it turns out? O3000 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, the question was asked and I answered it. And don't even think of selectively hatting a discussion again. If a discussion should be hatted, it should all be hatted -- not just the parts you don't like. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I would note that the closer says "if the significance decreases over time then this discussion can and should be revisted". There is no proof that this is still a significant notable event. And she has apologized for that. We have Trump and his political allies accusing her of being anti-semite, Trump who has said tons of racist things like according to his former lawyer he said every country that black people rule is a shithole also that black people would never vote for him because they are too stupid. Also when he said to Jews that they should vote for him to protect their wealth etc. The Trump and his political allies false and misleading accusations should not be given any weight in this BLP article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
If we all bury our heads in the sand an ignore the sources, it's easy to say there aren't any. But the simple fact is that her comments received extensive coverage in all major national outlets, and continue to be addressed by reliable and mainstream sources. This kind of reasoning doesn't relate in any way to the standards set by WP:DUE or MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it is time for you to stop insulting other editors and bludgeoning the process. O3000 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000: There is no insult in my post. Don't put words in my mouth. However this discussion comes out, there are numerous sources that covered and continue to cover the comment controversy. To base a consensus off of a lack of a sources would be to rely on something patently and easily proven wrong. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Trump accusations such as saying that Ilhan Omar says "evil Jews" or his political republican allies saying that her tweet about Bloomberg-Cooperman tweet was anti-Semite are no proof of coverage.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
That Star Tribune article just makes a passing reference (less than a sentence) to the controversy caused by tweets of last February. Hardly a strong case for inclusion in the lede. NightHeron (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
If it weren't significant, they wouldn't even bring it up. Yet in summarizing her public profile, they include the following sentence: And a series of controversial comments and actions, including tweets that were widely condemned for relying on anti-Semitic language and lingering questions about her marital history, have attracted scrutiny and criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Really? Newspapers often bring up matters that are not significant enough for the lede of a BLP -- for example, lingering questions about her marital history in the Star Tribune's sentence you quote. NightHeron (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant comparison. We have three reliable mainstream sources in this thread alone, including the Star Tribune, that all make recent reference to the anti-semitism controversy in summarizing her public profile. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Include It seems that we're going through with yet another RfC, so I'll vote despite my concerns about process. The proper standard to apply is 1) whether it is a prominent controversy and 2) whether it has lasting significance per WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD. The degree of coverage from the time the comments were made to now makes shows that it is prominent. The fact that it this matter occupies such a large portion of the article reaffirms this; the lead is supposed to be an accurate summary of said content, controversies and all. As recently as two weeks ago, mainstream outlets like the Guardian and Newsweek continue to reference her remarks in the context of her being accused of anti-semitism. This continues to be a significant part of her public profile. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Include - it belongs in the lead of the article. Adding 18:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)...as a political figure, her views carry far more weight than the views of other less notable people who are not lawmakers, and that is why I believe significant views, including how she is perceived by others, definitely belongs in the lead properly attributed. Atsme Talk 📧 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This principle you're advocating does not seem to be policy or general practice on Wikipedia. As pointed out during the above discussion, Trump has used anti-semitic tropes on several occasions, and this has been covered by The Washington Post, CNN, and other media. However, the article Donald Trump does not even include this in the main body of the article, let alone the lede. NightHeron (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Read WP:WEIGHT, see Vox article which states: "But given her previous comments, the latest remarks struck many observers as playing into well-worn anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish attachments to Israel making them disloyal to the United States. Some were no longer inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt." See WSJ article in which she Clarify: 22:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Ayaan Hirsi Ali stated: I once opened a speech by confessing to a crowd of Jews that I used to hate them." - Ali's concern being that like her, Omar was born in Somalia and was very young when she was exposed to Muslim anti-Semitism, questioning if Omar could overcome her prejudice. How the material is presented in the lead is another matter, and should be handled by qualified editors who are familiar with NPOV, WEIGHT & DUE. I see no need to debate my iVote further. Happy New Year! Atsme Talk 📧 19:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you, too. But please be careful about attribution of direct quotes. The statement from the Wall Street Journal was not her statement, but rather a statement by the author of the WSJ opinion piece, Hirsi Ali, who is also originally from Somalia and at present is a conservative critic of Omar working at the Hoover Institution. In her opinion piece Hirsi Ali confesses her own earlier anti-semitism (that's what your quote is) and speculates that perhaps Omar, before she immigrated to the US as a child, had also been exposed to a lot of anti-semitism in Somalia. Hirsi Ali's speculation is not a reason to include this material in the lede. NightHeron (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Clarifying vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just for clarification, you are voting for inclusion in the lead, correct? Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, added lead for clarity even though the RfC is about inclusion in the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 02:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Understood. I just want to ensure that we are precise given the apparent tendency of RfC's on this matter to be challenged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
What tendency? The previous RfC was started by a sock, and that isn't even the reason for this one. Name another. Your snarks and bludgeoning are not helpful. O3000 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I wanted confirmation that the vote was for inclusion in the lead. He provided it. Drop it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Didn't think you could name another. I suggest that striking your comment would have been the correct action -- as opposed to hiding it. WP:CIVIL. O3000 (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • EXclude. Hi, passing through. When you run an RfC, it behooves you to take your best evidence and make it really easy to digest. If this is a defining facet of her career, worthy of inclusion in the lede, it should have both extensive coverage in the text (to be worth paraphrasing in the lede) and for an article of this length, summative sources. What throws me is that the current article text lingers on minor details of the controversy, seemingly dragging out sentiments that could be said in a fraction of the space, giving much heat but no light, and that's before getting to the choice of sources and comparisons to the UK. The current lede language about her anti-Israel stance is straightforward enough. The claims of antisemitism because of that stance are much shakier. I'd like to see even just the best two quotes from mainstream sources that unquestionably support the diff in question—that aspersions of antisemitism are a core aspect of Omar's public profile. Because I'm not seeing that in the diff's NYT source either. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 08:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Include It seems to me that if you're going to have statements such as She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, other harassment and mention of her disdain of Israel, then her anti-semitism should be included to balance those things out. NPOV and all that. — Ched (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but what anti-Semitism? Your comment about balance seems to suggest that she is anti-Semitic and perhaps deserves death threats, conspiracy theories, other harassment. This is still a BLP and that doesn't sound like NPOV. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Ched: Omar has been accused of antisemitism. It's an accusation, not a fact. Some statements of hers from last February unknowingly (according to her apology) evoked anti-semitic tropes. Whether other statements of hers -- criticizing Israeli government policies, supporting BDS, and her tweet about Bloomberg -- are anti-semitic or not is disputed. So please do not refer to her antisemitism as if it were a fact. Also, opposition to Israeli policies under Netanyahu is not disdain of Israel any more than opposition to Putin's policies is disdain for Russia or opposition to Boris Johnson's policies is disdain for England. NightHeron (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to debate as you wish, I simply responded to a RfC and posted my view. I don't do political debates. HOWEVER - there is NOWHERE that I have "suggested" that ANYONE DESERVES death threats. Please exercise caution in your insinuations. — Ched (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

:: Wow, accusations of wrongdoing are needed to "balance out" the fact that she's received death threats and harassment? I guess I don't need to ask which side of gamergate you were on, chad. 2600:1014:B1B1:2C5E:60E3:2626:8878:E624 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Exclude per WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. The material referenced outlines the events in Wikipedia's voice, and to achieve WP:NPOV, the subsequent apologies for the remarks and the reactions to the apologies need mentioning, and that is all too muddly for the lead section. Furthermore, adding the referenced material to that specific paragraph would conflate said material with her stances on Israel, which would also violate the two latter policies I cited. KyleJoantalk 15:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Czar -- I understand that for people of a certain political perspective, this is the most important thing about Omar, but in fact it's basically a not very interesting Twitter spat that seems to have little lasting impact. The relevant policy is WP:DUE. --JBL (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Understand that your opinions about whether it was a "spat" or "interesting" are not what matters. Reliable sources treated the event as significant. It might be helpful if you refactored your argument to better reflect what WP:DUE means. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Please cease badgering everyone in this discussion who disagrees with you. —JBL (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
This would be a more balanced summary of the more nuanced discussion in the article body:
A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies. Some of her comments in public appearances and through social media have been criticized as drawing on antisemitic tropes, but Omar disavowed antisemitic tropes she unknowingly used, and progressive Jews have supported her. — wbm1058 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
’’’Comment’’’ - well done. I would support wbm’s more balanced summary if such an option became available. Atsme Talk 📧 04:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
First of all, the "tropes she unknowingly used" line is part of her statement. It is wrong to restate her apology in Wikipedia voice. I also don't know where the bit "but has support from progressive Jews" comes from. This reeks of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  1. The point is that Wikipedia is unbalanced if it says "her comments have been criticized"[who?] in a way that implies they were universally criticized, and denies the inclusion of her response to the criticism – Omar "disavowed antisemitic tropes she unknowingly used" – does putting it in quotes put it in her voice? That may not be an exact quote, but it's at least a close paraphrasing that communicates her intent.
  2. "Across the street, a smaller group of counter-protesters organized by progressive Jewish organization IfNotNow supported Omar; "I’m just sick and tired of seeing this one part of the Jewish community try to silence those who criticize Israel,” one said." — wbm1058 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
We do not need to quote her apology in describing the controversy. In fact, she didn't even offer a full apology based on what the sources reported. Earlier versions of this page noted she apologized for some remarks but not others. It is very simple: "Several of Omar's remarks on Israel have been perceived as drawing on anti-semitic tropes. Omar has apologized for some but not others." The sources are near universal in describing the remarks. It has nothing to do with whether or not some people support her.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You keep using the word "apology", implying that Omar is guilty of antisemitism. I take her response as a "not guilty" plea, and don't expect her to apologize for something she doesn't feel guilty of. Wikipedia is biased against her if it denies her the right to a response.
Sorry this isn't going anywhere. Exclude as proposed. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Color me unsurprised. No one is "denying her right to a response." The fact that she apologized was included in the original language, but sources noted (and so did the article) that it was only a partial apology. I don't know where you're getting at with this "not guilty" stuff, but it reads as if you're just being flip. Where else on Wikipedia would it be appropriate to note that a politician was criticized for a controversial set of statements, but juxtapose that with "but they didn't mean it" and "and they still have lots of support from people who like them!" Ridiculous, and not in compliance with NPOV. Further, I'd suggest you take a second look at the sources. The vast majority of them described her comments as drawing on anti-semitic tropes, near universal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
She apologized for using a Semitic trope. She did not apologize for criticizing a country. That is a right I hope all of us retain. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Enough wisecracks. Neither statement (the tweet and the "pledge allegiance" remarks at a later forum) was about Israel specifically, if that's what you're referring to. Both were about Jewish-American lobbying groups supporting favorable policies toward Israel. She apparently apologized for the tweet but not the public forum remarks. Source: NYT, March 5, 2019. That said, I'm fine with noting that she qualified her apology. Again, that was part of the original language. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
No one should have to apologize for criticizing lobbying groups. O3000 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
And here is the WP:SOAPBOX problem I've been talking about. It's nice that you have your own strong personal opinions on this matter, but your politics (nor mine, nor anyone else's) have no place in this discussion. What matters here is what the sources have covered and how they have addressed it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are the one on a soapbox. You are the one that characterized her apology as "qualified". I haven't seen any RS that says anything like what you are suggesting. O3000 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by No one should have to apologize for criticizing lobbying groups.? What policy are you referencing there? Sounds like you're saying she shouldn't have to apologize for the remarks because you think they were fine, and therefore, based on your personal opinion, the remarks aren't significant. Let me remind you ofWP:DUE which states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources...Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. As for her apology, I already provided you with a source. She said she apologized for her "wording" but reaffirmed the sentiment regarding lobbying groups. Whether you want to call that "qualified" or "partial" is irrelevant because the gist of what I'm saying, and the wording that was originally settled upon in the article, is supported by the sources. As is the fact that this is a prominent controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Whether you want to call that "qualified" or "partial" is irrelevant.... I'm not the one that used the words partial and qualified -- you are. She apologized for something she said, using a trope. She did not apologize for something else she said, criticizing lobbyists and a foreign government's actions, as do most politicians. I don't see any RS saying that makes this a partial or qualified apology. It's two different subjects. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)]
She apologized and then "reaffirmed" (another source) her criticism of AIPAC regarding the "Benjamins" tweet. The sources do not note an apology for the "dual allegiance" remarks. It is inaccurate to say she apologized for all the offending comments, so any note of an apology must necessarily be qualified to reflect that. Haaretz in its coverage last month did not note an apology for all of the remarks either. There is simply too much reliable source material spread out over too many months for a reasonable editor to argue that the ant-semitic trope allegations is not a prominent and controversial part of her public profile. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
At this point, you owe her an apology. In no way did she reaffirm her Benjamin trope. You added that. She continued to criticize a lobby and a government, as do many Jews. Enough. You don't appear to understand nuance. O3000 (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. I said she reaffirmed her criticism regarding AIPAC. She also said, "At the same time, I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry.". Source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note There is a disturbing and consistent trend among exclude votes that I hope any admin reviewing this discussion will take note of. First of all, we have extensive sources covering this controversy. Here are three 1 2 3 full New York Times pieces on her remarks earlier this year, both the "Bejamins" tweet and her remarks at a public forum later. Here is the Newsweek article referencing those same comments just last month. For anyone to make a statement like There is no evidence that she is anti-Semitic. Saying something stupid and then apologizing for it is not lead-worthy. shows not only a total disregard of what the RfC is about, it shows that an editor is willing to weigh their personal opinion over sources, which clearly and unequivocally accorded her comments WP:WEIGHT given the duration and amount of coverage in high quality, national sources. The degree of coverage her remarks garnered exceeds any other attention she has received since entering Congress for a single event. The arguments that WP:RECENTISM means it should be excluded from the lead are equally dubious. Some of the same editors making such arguments also argue that the material regarding the Trump comments, which occurred after the anti-semitism controversy, belongs in the lead. WP:RECENTISM doesn't provide grounds for excluding material, nor should it be applied so unevenly. It is very difficult to say that we are following WP:NPOV to include her views on Israel in the lead but omit the prominent controversy regarding her expressions of those views. It is a terrible shame that this discussion has become so tainted with expressions of opinion about her remarks, about the subject herself, and with overwrought comparisons to other politicians that have little relevance here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Include Because there was apparently already consensus reached to include them by more editors than are present here. Edit5001 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Right. I'll also note that this RfC seems to disregard the prior RfC, without formally challenging it, because the opening editor in the prior wrongfully cast a sock vote. In a discussion with 30+ editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Include per User:Wikieditor19920 and the fact we've already had a settled RfC on this very issue. Consensus has already been reached and continually opening RfCs like this one to try to change something that editors disagree with is an abuse of the process. Editors in this RfC also seem to have a misunderstanding of what exactly the RfC should be about. The debate isn't about whether or not Ilhan Omar is an anti-semite, the debate is over whether allegations of anti-semitism are a major enough part of her public personality to warrant one sentence in the lead. I believe that they are as demonstrated by the numerous links provided to reliable sources over a long period of time that reference her alleged anti-semitism. Another problem is that editors seem to be citing other articles to support their viewpoint that allegations of anti-semitism shouldn't be included in the lede. First of all, that's not relevant (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Second of all, the specific examples cited by editors here are very different contextually. Jesse Jackson has had a long career where he has done many controversial and uncontroversial things. Ilhan Omar on the other hand has been a representative for exactly one year at the time of writing this !vote and anti-semitism as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict has been a focal point of basically her entire political tenure.
We also can't compare Donald Trump to Ilhan Omar either. While Donald Trump has been accused of being an anti-semite there's so many accusations of racism, sexism, bigotry, ableism, and whatever else you can think of that it's impossible to put any specific viewpoint in the lede. Heck, we have Racial views of Donald Trump solely devoted to discussion about his views on race. He's also had many, many other controversies that would be the lede of many other world leaders but since he has so many it would be WP:UNDUE to put anything but the most important in the lede. Anti-semitism allegations on the other hand play a much larger role in Ilhan Omar's career because she hasn't been accused of much else. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Chess posted: anti-semitism as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict has been a focal point of basically her entire political tenure. The text does not state that she is anti-Semitic and please realize that this is a BLP. Making the extraordinary claim that anti-Semitism is a focal point of her entire political tenure is not supported by RS and should be struck. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
You're taking words out of context. The editor above also obviously referred to the anti-semitism accusations as allegations. And her stance on Israel-Palestine is the most prominent aspect of her political portfolio, as were her controversial remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment on how this RfC is going. I see two problems. (1) One editor insists on getting into long, repetitive arguments with anyone who makes a comment supporting exclusion --- a classic example of WP:BLUDGEON. This discourages other editors from participating, because most editors would rather not waste their time in a long, repetitive debate. (2) Even if a consensus were reached for inclusion (which doesn't seem to be happening), that would be followed by another long, contentious debate about what the wording should be. Already editor wmb1058 proposed a wording that in my opinion would be fine if we opt for inclusion, but that wording was immediately attacked by the same editor who's carrying on a crusade not only for inclusion but for a wording that puts the subject of the BLP in a bad light. NightHeron (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron:, how many votes have you and 03000 challenged here? I assume you're not addressing your own behavior. The main problems with this RfC are violations of WP:FORUM, with statements like "she shouldn't have been criticized," and votes based on inaccurate statements about the degree of coverage. Further, you the subject of the BLP in a bad light as if information that might be construed as negative can't be included. Our concern is a balanced representation of the sources, not shielding the subject from controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I have not challenged any !votes in this RfC. I do think editors need to take caution in making accusations against living people. O3000 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920: Nor have I challenged any !votes. Please don't make false claims about other editors.
I thought that my objection to wording that puts the subject of the BLP in a bad light was clear, but apparently you misunderstood. I was not saying she should be "shielded from controversy". In fact, I've said from the beginning that the barrage of criticism of Omar from her opponents (from Trump on down) for alleged anti-semitism is notable and belongs in the article (but not in the lead). However, there should not be wording in Wikipedia's voice that implies that she's guilty of something, such as failing to apologize for something that she should have apologized for. This has been explained to you before by other editors, but we seem to have a WP:IDHT problem in this RfC. NightHeron (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron:, the criticism of her remarks was reported in reliable sources as coming from across the political spectrum, not from "Trump on down," presumably meaning Trump and ilk. This is, yet again, another false insinuation that the criticism of her remarks was a minority or limited view. This misconception, which has unfortunately been repeated ad nauseam in this discussion, is addressed in each of the sources that have been provided here, and which you can find on your own. You are also, yet again, misrepresenting the proposal. The language in the article never, nor have any editors seriously proposed in this discussion or the last, stating unequivocally that Ilhan Omar is anti-semitic because of the remarks or that the remarks were anti-semitic. That would be an obvious BLP violation which neither I nor anyone here would agree to, so I understand why it makes a convenient strawman. But the only proposal has been to include language to the effect of Some of her comments have been criticized/perceived as drawing on anti-semitic tropes. Perhaps with additional language about an apology. If we're going to understand one another in an honest and civil way, it's time we move past the strawman arguments and address the language actually proposed and which was previously in the article for months. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The barrage of criticism came only from the right. Progressives, including Jewish progressives, generally accepted Omar's apology and did not see the need to blow everything out of proportion. The mainstream media of course covered the criticism that Omar's opponents were still harping on almost a year later, because it's a notable political strategy of the right wing. NightHeron (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The first part comment about the reaction is contradicted by the sources and the second part is, yet again, unrelated point about political parties. In a piece by the NYT Ilhan Omar Apologizes for Statements Condemned as Anti-Semitic from earlier this year, the first paragraph notes that the Benjamins tweet drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The article goes on to list criticisms from other congressional Democrats. This is the last time I'm going to warn you here about WP:FORUM and mischaracterizing the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
As usual, you're making intemperate and unjustified accusations against other editors, in this case accusing me of misrepresenting sources. No, the NYT article you cite is from last February and refers to the bipartisan criticism of some of Omar's statements that occurred before she "unequivocally apologize[d]" (her words). The same article quotes Trump (not the Democrats) as speaking after Omar's apology and calling the apology "inadequate". In my comment I was talking about the right wing strategy of continuing to harp on statements from last February, refusing to accept her apology, and hoping to get political mileage out of continuing to accuse her of anti-semitism. My statement above is correct, not a misrepresentation. The purpose of an RfC is to try to reach consensus, which is not helped by your making false accusations against other editors. NightHeron (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The reaction to her comments is what we're discussing for the lead. Your assertions about who believes what have no credibility until you can provide a source to support it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Given current consensus is to include it" Lolwut? This is currently running 2-to-1 to exclude the material. These things aren't strict votes as many people like to say, but numbers can't be outright ignored entirely either. One would need entirely exceptionally good arguments for inclusion and for all the excludes to be pretty bad, e.g. "lol I like Omar so keep it out!" to overturn the numbers. That ain't happening. Zaathras (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The current consensus, as determined in the last RfC (which had over 30 participants), is to include it. It was removed out of process and in violation of that consensus. This RfC would simply re-add it - although, as noted above, it is very vague. This is yet another problem with this out-of-process and non-neutral RfC. Toa Nidhiki05 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • That is no longer applicable, we're having a new discussion here. If you think the person who eventually closes this discussion is going to add those participants + these participants, you are in for some sore disappointment, I'm afraid. Zaathras (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Out-of-process" is entirely your opinion, and not one widely-shared. And yes, these things aren't considered by a strict numerical tally, so, thank you for restating what I already said, I guess. But numbers also cannot be completely factored out of the equation, either. Zaathras (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude Passing mentions aren't significant enough to support this being in the lede. This would be undue coverage of a trivial accusation supported only by a small, vocal group of politically-motivated, disingenuous charlatans. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude, per Wikipedia:Recentism. Not a defining characteristic of the subject's political career. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude. With a bit of time perspective, it has become clear that this is not a significant enough aspect of the subject to merit mention in the lede. I also find the procedural attempts to squash this RfC particularly unconvincing:
a. Thryduulf's mention of a one-year cool off period was a suggestion; demanding the wait be 365 days rather than ~10 months that has passed is transparently legalistic.
b. The previous discussion, which took place when this was more or less breaking news, was even then by no means an open-and-shut discussion and closure. There were many good arguments both for include and exclude. We are not ignoring that previous discussion by having another RfC; per policy consensus can change. VQuakr (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The previous discussion has been ignored because the remarks were removed by @Aquillion:, who unilaterally decided the prior RfC to be invalid without formally challenging it. That is entirely inappropriate for an editor with an expressed interest in the outcome, and that's why this was out of process. Second, no one said that the at least a year recommendation had to be followed strictly, but it should not be disregarded without good reason. What is the reasoning here? Because there has been an ongoing push to remove this material ever since the consensus was reached earlier this year that it belonged in the lead as a prominent controversy. The sources have continued to treat it as such, and links have been provided in this thread to mainstream outlets that continue to note the controversy in summaries of her tenure. It's hard to see how that makes it "clear that this is not a significant enough aspect of her reputation." As far as raw coverage, it outranks almost all of the other information in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Badger badger! VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the source: a slight suggestion. Whether or not anti-semitism generally is significant is not really the issue here, it's whether her remarks were significant. As you correctly pointed out, and as supported by the source you provided, her remarks and the ensuing controversy were indeed prominent, enough for the lead per MOS:LEAD. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920: That source from the Jerusalem Post is nothing new. It's dated February 11, the same date as the NYT article you cited, and has essentially the same content. Both articles are already used in the Ilhan Omar article (references 115 and 116). Neither supports the claim that the incident in question (Omar's tweets, followed by criticism, followed by her apology) is of sufficient lasting importance to be in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron:, you should take note, because this editor actually provided a source, and analyzed it according to policy (WP:DUE) and then make a content recommendation based on that source. The Jerusalem Post's analysis at the time was that it was significant. Two recent sources that have already been provided last week and last month note the same thing in summarizing her public profile. Here is another three weeks ago from the JTA. Under the standards of WP:DUE, no reasonable editor could conclude that reliable sources have not treated this as a prominent controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: You should take note that several editors have asked you to stop badgering editors you disagree with (see WP:BLUDGEON), by repeating the same dubious arguments again and again and again.NightHeron (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron:, I've provided sources to support my arguments, I'd suggest you do the same. You should also pay closer attention to this thread, especially how many times you've commented on others' votes, including this one. This is a comment on a vote I agreed with which you're now choosing to engage me on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I dont know if someone who just a week ago wrote an article arguing for the genetic racial superiority of Jews is someone whose opinions we should be seriously considering here. 2600:1014:B123:4917:8E0:1A54:CF72:544F (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I hardly think the writer, Bret Stephens, "argu[ed] for the genetic racial superiority of Jews". Please see the Bret Stephens#Controversy section of the article on the writer. Bus stop (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Bret Stephens argued for the genetic superiority of Ashkenazi Jews, not all Jews: Following widespread criticism, The New York Times editors deleted the section of Stephens's op-ed in which he appeared to endorse the view that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically superior to other groups. NightHeron (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
How about Bari Weiss, also writing an "Opinion" piece in the New York Times in 2019: "While there are perfectly legitimate criticisms that one can make of Israel or the actions of its government — and I have never been shy about making them — those criticisms cross the line into anti-Semitism when they ascribe evil, almost supernatural powers to Israel in a manner that replicates classic anti-Semitic slanders...alas for the Jews, not all anti-Semites carry tiki torches" This is merely an "Opinion" piece but that is what we are weighing—opinions. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
And Glenn Greenwald wrote about Bari Weiss: Her relatively short career as a writer and activist has been overwhelmingly devoted to one issue: a defense of the Israeli government and a corresponding smear campaign against its critics. Her targets have tended overwhelmingly to be Muslim and/or Arab, often in the context of campus politics.[3] Perhaps we should avoid opinion columns. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald is the definition of a fringe writer, with a specific viewpoint strongly against Israel and American foreign policy in particular. He’s not an authoritative source on anything. Toa Nidhiki05 16:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Is this the same Glenn Greenwald that won a George Polk Award and a Pulitzer Prize? O3000 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and also the same Glenn Greenwald whose views on the Russia conspiracy have been widely ignored on Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
No idea what you mean and what that could have to do with this article. O3000 (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't the existence of an article published in The Wall Street Journal called "Can Ilhan Omar Overcome Her Prejudice?" suggest this is an important part of our article? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Why would we include an opinion column by an anti-Islamist activist stating a Muslim is anti-Semitic? O3000 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
An opinion column from the Wall Street Journal? Really?? Do we also use all the other ones over the years on everything from UFO's to Supply Side Economics? Grasping at straws. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstand—we wouldn't be including "an opinion column by an anti-Islamist activist". The discussion is about alerting the reader, in the lede, about an important aspect of the subject of the article, namely a large number of allegations of antisemitism. We aren't talking about one or even a few isolated incidents. Our encyclopedia aims to be informative. NPR will write an article titled "House Votes To Condemn Anti-Semitism After Rep. Omar's Comments" containing "The House approved a resolution Thursday to condemn "anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry" in a move that Democrats hope will quell the latest uproar over Rep. Ilhan Omar's criticism of Israel...For the second time in as many months, the freshman Minnesota Democrat has provoked contentious debate on Capitol Hill over rhetoric that many lawmakers — including senior Democrats — view as anti-Semitic...It is the second time that the House voted to condemn anti-Semitism as a rebuke of Omar, although she is not named in either resolution. The first time was in response to tweets that played on tropes about Jewish money and influence on American politics..."I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country"...For many lawmakers, her comments played off the "dual loyalty" accusations that have been used to harass and persecute Jews throughout history..."Representative Omar embodies a vile, hate-filled, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel bigotry," House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said Wednesday. "This is a time for the Democratic leaders in this institution to do the right thing. They should remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. They should stand up to her. They should stop empowering her disgusting hatred before it turns into horror"...To accommodate members' concerns, the resolution was broadened to condemn all forms of racism and bigotry beyond anti-Semitism." I would argue this is quite lede-worthy. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
So you want to include a WSJ opinion column by an anti-Islamic activist basically saying she must be anti-Semitic because she's Somalian? And she knows this because she, herself, used to be anti-Semitic? And your rather extreme quote from a partisan like Liz Cheney really doesn't belong in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
You write "Perhaps we should avoid opinion columns." Why would we avoid opinion columns? The reality is that all we are discussing are opinions. There is no right answer. But when reliable sources substantially express that the subject of the article veers into antisemitic territory, there is good reason to note that in our lede. Commentary (magazine) writes "Where does legitimate and objective criticism of Israel end and anti-Semitism begin?...Few are supposedly clumsier at navigating this divide than Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Their defenders insist that these congresswomen are being singled out only by those who decline to distinguish critiques of the Jewish state from attacks on Jews. But these representatives have erred in precisely the same way too many times for their statements and actions to be coincidental...The only thing that saves Reps. Omar Tlaib and Rashida Tlaib from the universal reproach they are due is the plausibility of the claim that their displays of anti-Semitism are unconscious. But the preponderance of evidence suggests that they know exactly what they are saying and why." Would it be your argument that this source is not opining that there might be an element of antisemitism in some of the things said by the subject of the article? Aren't there too many sources expressing the same or similar opinions to dismiss them all? Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Your defense of opinion columns comes from an opinion column. O3000 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
There are only opinions on whether our lede should mention antisemitism allegations. Even if a source stated as a fact (as opposed to an opinion) that the subject of this article was antisemitic—that would still be an opinion. There is no right answer. The world will not end if we omit mention of possible antisemitic leanings. But a preponderance of sources saying this, should sway us. Do you disagree? Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I have a problem with clashing opinion columnists cited in a BLP about extraordinary accusations. O3000 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
We follow sources. That's the basic way Wikipedia operates. If there is expressed the substantial opinion in sources that the subject of the article embodies some antisemitic sentiments we are expected to apprise the reader that some consider this to be the case. This happens to be standard Wikipedia operating procedure. The omission of a substantial facet of the subject of a WP:BLP would constitute a sort of cleansing of all applicable and substantially-held opinions. Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
So it should be easy to find reliable secondary sources that say this is the prominent opinion instead of relying on picking through opinion columns yourself. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Prominent opinions find their way into our articles. That is standard operating procedure. And for the umpteenth time—all there are, are opinions on whether Ilhan Omar embodies any antisemitic sentiments. It's not like some source has access to the thoughts of the person, or what resides in the person's heart. A preponderance of opinions suggests to us that we should apprise the reader of the existence of this opinion. But again—it has to be widely-held. We don't smear someone with a negative opinion only maintained by a few unimportant sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you're correctly stating Wikipedia policy. You say But again --- it has to be widely-held. We don't smear someone with a negative opinion only maintained by a few unimportant sources. In fact, we are not supposed to smear the subject of a BLP even if the negative opinion is maintained by many important sources. Omar has been the target of repeated attacks and derision by important political figures (including the US President), by defenders of the Israeli government, by Islamophobes, and many others. That does not give us the right to smear her. NightHeron (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Mr. Bus Stop, would you favor calling Donald Trump a racist in the lead of his bio just because the mainstream media says it over and over? SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
We have an entire article on the Racial views of Donald Trump. Bus stop (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
That is not what SPECIFICO said. No one is arguing against inclusion in the body. Only in the lead. O3000 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
BS, I asked whether you would label Trump a "racist" in the lead of Donald Trump. RSVP. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you asked me, SPECIFICO (and O3000). Firstly, that isn't the question we are addressing, but in the abstract, divorced from reality, I will answer "no". I've already implied the reason why: Donald Trump has an article on Racial views of Donald Trump. But would it matter? Also "no". As long as there is a voluminous article on the "Racial views of Donald Trump", it wouldn't matter if there was mention in the lede of Donald Trump that there were racism allegations. But Trump is accused of everything including the kitchen sink. Misconstruing information is part and parcel of analyzing Trump. I'm not a defender or a supporter of Trump. But Trump is the president and at this point—three years into his term—he is doing much better than I'd expected at the outset in 2016. Some of my closest colleagues argue Trump is a racist—I disagree. He is a product of his generation and of his milieu—wealth—and he doesn't kowtow to political correctness in his manner of speaking, which I would characterize as anti-intellectual. But we are comparing apples to oranges. The sources strongly support antisemitic allegations for Ilhan Omar and Omar does not have an article on the "Racial views of Ilhan Omar". We get into the weeds teasing apart anti-Israel and anti-Jewish. Bari Weiss articulates this well: "Those who call themselves anti-Zionists usually insist they are not anti-Semites. But I struggle to see what else to call an ideology that seeks to eradicate only one state in the world — the one that happens to be the Jewish one — while empathetically insisting on the rights of self-determination for every other minority."[4] You might want to read that twice. I am distinguishing between Trump and Omar. That is what your question is about. You ask "would you favor calling Donald Trump a racist in the lead of his bio"? Yes and no. It doesn't matter, in part because an entire article involves calling Donald Trump a racist. First sentence of the article: "Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have widely been viewed as racist or racially charged." I'm wondering why it is so difficult to allude to Omar's alleged antisemitism in the lede of her article. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Okey Dokey then, Bus Stop. My impression is that you've got way too many personal theories about this -- some of them quite novel -- to evaluate NPOV editorial text. BTW, the fact that Trump's racially charged speech merits its own article would be more, not less, reason to cover those views in his lead. But I still see you agreeing with most editors here not to call him a racist. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO—according to reliable sources Ilhan Omar has antisemitic leanings. I have brought sources and they have been rejected by either you or others for a multitude of reasons and I am convinced that if I brought a dozen more sources alleging antisemitic leanings for Omar, those dozen sources would be rejected too. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me, Bus Stop. I have not stated any opinion or position as to this RfC. The topic seems fully covered in the article text. Do you have any concerns about the article text section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO—I don't "misunderstand" you. I will only indulge in digressions to a limited degree. This is not the Donald Trump article. You say "But I still see you agreeing with most editors here not to call" Donald Trump a racist. I'm not going to debate the Donald Trump article at the Ilhan Omar article. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Not every discussion is a "debate", Bus Stop. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
True—not every discussion is a debate. Initiate a discussion on the other article's Talk page and I will discuss it there. Please ping me from the other article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Aren't the Trump racial views incorporated into that lead already? Regardless, I don't even see that article as a relevant comparison. It's interesting to see that editors who have been repeatedly disregarding source material on this matter are now pining for secondary sources. Fortunately, there's some good news: those sources have been linked to repeatedly in this thread for easy access. @NightHeron:, your assertion that controversial or "negative" content in an article that is supported by reliable sources constitutes a "smear" and should not be allowed is completely disconnected from any practice on Wikipedia. Here is the relevant policy in black and white from MOS:LEAD: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The include votes are all supported by sources, from last February to last month, noting the controversial comments on Israel. It's fine to discuss opinion pieces here, but we don't even need them in the article. In addition, section on her comments is one of the largest in the article. To omit this matter from the lead would be a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Just as it did earlier this year, this discussion has become plagued with conclusory statements about Wikipedia policy, often paired with claims suggesting the material be excluded, as well as charged and opinionated statements about the comments themselves and whether the controversy was "legitimate." The fact that this discussion was re-opened because the editor who opened this RfC decided to unilaterally declare the prior RfC "invalid" without formally challenging it is even more problematic. Frankly, the content (Some of her statements have been criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes./Critics have charged that some of her comments have drawn on anti-semitic tropes.) should be restored per the last discussion, and this should be closed as the arguments for inclusion are obviously more substantive and have greater support in the sources than the arguments for exclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The word smear was the word used by the editor I was responding to, who said We don't smear someone with a negative opinion only maintained by a few unimportant sources. My comment was to point out that we shouldn't smear someone, full stop. No need to say "a negative opinion maintained by a few unimportant sources." I hadn't realized that saying that we shouldn't smear someone would be controversial.
You've made it clear that you'll fight tooth and nail not only to include allegations of anti-semitism in the lead, but also to word it in a way that puts Omar in a bad light in Wikipedia's voice. When wbm1058 offered a neutral wording for inclusion, you immediately jumped in to attack it.
By continuing to BLUDGEON with yet another WALLOFTEXT you're hoping to get your way. But that's not how RfC's work. NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude per NightHeron, Gandydancer, K.e.coffman and others. Volunteer Marek 23:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Include Since when are criticisms of Israel considered anti-semitic? If that is the case then the majority of American Jews are antisemitic. Pointing out that politicians can be influenced by money (the Benjamins)is a fact, not an anti semitictrope. If money influencing politicians is anti-semitic, then all politicians are anti-semitic and what about the carbon extraction industry, or the so called defense industry, or any other industry or group that hires lobbyists to influence policy? The willingness to call this or that anti-semitic only feeds the antisemites amongst us. I would be reticent to reinforce their bigoty.Oldperson (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Oldperson: Is it possible you wrote "include" when you meant "exclude"? (I mean, your vote doesn't have any content in it that will be helpful to whoever closes this thing, so it doesn't really matter much; but there seems to be a disconnect between your vote and its content.) --JBL (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Oldperson: The proposed text you are supporting inclusion of says "Some of her comments in public appearances and through social media have been criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes of Jewish money and power fueling support for Israel, particularly through what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies." The whole point of this is to say that some people are calling Omar's criticisms of Israel anti-semitic. The lead should summarize the article body, so look there for list of the alleged antisemitic tropes. I believe "It's All About the Benjamins" is one of the alleged tropes. I'm not really familiar with this so-called trope, but note that the primary topic for the term is a 1997 rap single. Indeed the Wikipedia article on that single says "U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar quoted the song in a February 2019 tweet, which was subsequently criticized as antisemitic." However the lead of the article about the song says that "Benjamins" is slang for $100 bills (USD), a reference to Benjamin Franklin's image on the bills. Franklin was baptized at Old South Meeting House, a Congregational church, so I don't believe he was Jewish. Google's Ngram shows that the term rose in popularity from being virtually unheard of in the 1990s. I'm not sure where the "trope" comes from but I'll guess it's that Benjamin is a common Jewish name. It makes perfect sense to me that after Omar became aware of this possibly obscure alternative use of the term (not mentioned at Wiktionary), she might apologize for using and disavow this "trope she unknowingly used". – wbm1058 (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    trope: (rhetoric) A figure of speech in which words or phrases are used with a nonliteral or figurative meaning, such as a metaphor. So I guess the charge here is that "Benjamins" is a trope for (rich) Jewish men. wbm1058 (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude; I've been following the arguments for inclusion being presented here for several days, but looking at them and looking at the totality of what reliable sources about this person discuss, this does not seem to have had enough lasting significance in RS to merit the weight it was being given in the lead. (It is indeed, as noted above, noticeable that the leads of articles on some more clearly and prominently antisemitic figures do not mention antisemitism, but comparison between articles seems like a relatively weak argument—hence I relegate it to these parentheses—compared to the more directly-relevant matter of weight here.) -sche (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude... but There seem to be two questions here. The first is should the "antisemitic" part be included in the lead. My feeling is no. I don't feel it rises to a level of prominence that warrants inclusion in the lead. My concern with the specific phrasing of this RfC is the "exclude" consensus that appears to be forming here seems to focus on only the antisemitic part. However, the "exclude" could be used to refuse inclusion of criticism of any pro-Israeli lobby. I don't think that is really the intent of most of the exclude comments. I think the distinction is one suggests an anti-Jewish tone while the other is anti-actions of the state of Israel. I think the difference should be clarified. The former comes across as something similar to being racist while the latter is an assessment of the actions of a state. Springee (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude - maybe something along the lines of Omar has been accused of making anti-semitic statements, a charge she has denied could be included, but some months on from the controversy I do not see the weight over time for that to be in the lead. nableezy - 16:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Several additional sources have addressed the comments under discussion here this week. Links here: Haaretz, Jerusalem Post. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

These two sources certainly do address comments made here, but they make the "Exclude" opinion essentially iron-clad. The Jerusalem Post piece is about "stopantisemitism.org", a year-old NGO, and their "vote" for Rep. Omar as their own "Antisemite of the Year". The Harretz one is about Danny Danon citing "stopantisemitism.org", as well as his own peculiar call for "action" against the Congresswoman. Neither of these sources is discussing Omar's comments directly, as the early 2019 citations do, but rather they covering the opinion of this NGO.
All in all, what this shows is that the criticism of Omar's comments have far, far devolved from the mainstream coverage they received early in March of 2019, to the fringes of the fringe of the political spectrum. Zaathras (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Haaretz and JPost are mainstream reliable sources, and both reference her comments. For context, additional mainstream sources that have reported on her comments in the past month include Newsweek,, The Guardian and the Guardian, as well as a Minnesota source, The Star Tribune. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they are reliable sources, but they both only mention the original Rep. Omar tweets in passing, as background context for this nutty "of the year" "award" from a non-notable organization. The Bloomberg thing was a nothingburger that passed in a day, and your Star-Tribune piece is about Omar's primary challenger, with the briefest of mentions of the old Tweet at the very end.
You are, inadvertently, making the case for Exclude-From-the-Lead stronger. So by all means, please continue. Zaathras (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the anti-semitism controversy earlier this year continues to receive attention in mainstream sources completely debunks your position, it doesn't support it. A balanced and neutral editor doesn't continue to dogmatically claim their position is superior in the face of evidence directly disproving their assertions. The Bloomberg controversy nor the "nomination," while WP:DUE with mention in mainstream sources, are not the issue here. The question is the continued focus on her history of controversial comments in mainstream sources. What matters is the context of the reference, not the character count, so while her comments are not the focus of each article, I would hardly call them "passing."
  • Omar has had to confront accusations of antisemitism, after a tweet uncovered from 2012referred to Israel, in its actions in Gaza, as having “hypnotized the world”. She has since apologised for inadequately “disavowing the antisemitic trope I unknowingly used.” Source date: 12/21/2019.
  • Earlier this year, Omar was forced by Democratic leaders to apologize for a tweet claiming that some lawmakers' support for Israel was "all about the Benjamins." Omar said she was "grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes" in her apology on Twitter in February. She also sparked a furor over her views on Israel, including a tweet from 2012 where she said "Israel has hypnotised the world." In her apology, she said she regretted the "unfortunate word choice," but said that criticizing the Israeli government is not the same as criticizing Jews. Source date: 11/10/2019
  • Omar, a former one-term state legislator, has emerged as one of the most visible and outspoken politicians in Washingon. A landslide 2018 win made her the first nonwhite woman elected to Congress from Minnesota. Her association with “The Squad,” a group of progressive freshman women of color in the House, fueled attacks from Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and further elevated her profile. And a series of controversial comments and actions, including tweets that were widely condemned for relying on anti-Semitic language and lingering questions about her marital history, have attracted scrutiny and criticism. Source date: 12/4/2019
The subject has a sustained history of making controversial remarks prompting accusations of anti-semitism, which came to the fore right after her election earlier this year and further comments stoking criticism. Here we have a local, national, and international outlet noting this pattern as a prominent part of her public profile. This is in addition to the immense level of reliable source coverage and attention her remarks received earlier this year. Anyone suggesting that they have reviewed the body of source material available on this and claiming that it isn't "prominent" is staking out an untenable position.
@NightHeron:, it's ironic that you've repeatedly complained about "bludgeoning" while remaining an active and vocal participant in this discussion yourself. The problem with your comments, and this goes for several others in this thread as well, is that the only thing that carries weight are the opinions in sources, not your personal opinions about who's criticisms are legitimate and whose are not. Stop bringing up spurious comparisons to other pages that don't matter here, and stop making charged political statements about "right-wing Israelis." Your comments show an obvious bias against inclusion for all the wrong reasons. If the majority of editors were truly willing to take an objective look at the degree of source coverage and the policies regarding the lead, this discussion would have been closed already and wouldn't have to be drawn out over days, weeks, months, or multiple RfCs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The only thing recent that's the subject of coverage is the rather far-fetched claim by the usual enemies of Omar (the right wing, supporters of Israeli government policy, Islamophobes, etc.) that her tweet about Bloomberg was anti-semitic. Her tweet was about one billionaire endorsing another. Omar herself endorsed another Jew, Bernie Sanders. As far as I'm aware, she's made no use of anti-semitic tropes since the ones she apologized for 11 months ago. At this point the only thing notable is the right wing's fixation on attacking her.

Although Trump has a history of using anti-semitic tropes for which he has not apologized --- for example, a 2016 anti-Hillary Clinton image of a pile of $100 bills with a Star of David on top assumed to represent her rich Jewish donors[1] --- there's not a word about anti-semitic accusations against him in the article Donald Trump, let alone in the lead. NightHeron (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ DelReal, Jose A.; Zauzmer, Julie (July 8, 2016). "Trump's vigorous defense of anti-semitic image a "turning point" for many Jews". Washington Post. Retrieved January 2, 2020.
  • Exclude; Storm in a teacup, allegations (the popular description, no proof) appear politically driven as well as confusing anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.Selfstudier (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Selfstudier: According to the NPR[5]: the freshman Minnesota Democrat has provoked contentious debate on Capitol Hill over rhetoric that many lawmakers — including senior Democrats — view as anti-Semitic. So her own party is making politically driven storm in a teacup allegations against her? --Pudeo (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Your source is from 10 months ago. Omar apologized for unknowingly using anti-semitic tropes and AFAIK hasn't used them since. So yes, it is a tempest in a teapot. NightHeron (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude - As the claims of her being anti-semitic are, from what I am understanding, taken out of context and even cherry-picked, the only evidence of her apparent anti-semitisim are coming from a politically motivated bias view. She has never out right stated violence against or segregation of Jewish peoples, for example. If off-handed comments from months ago are all anyone has to provide, I'd argue that doesn't quite stick. Labeling a living person with such a controversial accusation when there is only heresay as to the matter is not logical. And we should avoid logical fallacies in a BDS that could technically also fall under recentism. It is not a defining characterisitic of her political career, nor a defining piece of her character, from what I can gather about the issue. It shouldnt be in the leed, however it should not be entirely excluded either, and should be in the body of the article. As it is at the very least an unfortunate part of her history that these claims have been made against her, whether we agree with those politlcally motivated view points or not. This is a database encyclopedia, not a politcal forum. To exclude them entirely would not be neutral at all. SageSolomon (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
SageSolomon—I should think she would be removed from office if she "out right stated violence against or segregation of Jewish peoples". Aren't you positing a very difficult-to-reach standard for merely noting in the lede allegations of antisemitism? Bus stop (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@User:Bus stop Im merely explaining why I, as a fellow editor, am placing the vote of "Exclude", while trying to be as neutral and logical as I can be. I apologise if I have somehow missed a policy somewhere, Im rather new to this, or if my explination was unwelcome or unhelpful in any way to the matter at hand. Again, sincere apologies, I will refrain from further comment. SageSolomon (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi SageSolomon—there is no problem. And there is no reason you should "refrain from further comment", not in my opinion, and not that I am any kind of an authority. By the way—welcome to editing Wikipedia! Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Bus stop. It is good to know, in fact, that I was not being a problem. I truly do not wish to be: not on Wikipedia, the sum of all human knowledge. I only wish to contribute in good faith. Honest. I may end up discussing controversial subjects, but i do not wish for.. well, read above. I would not welcome a lot of what happened on this page. I am not interested in drama, I am interested in verifiable facts and furthering the knowledge of mankind. Nothing more, nothing less. If you wish to discuss your own question further, by all means ask me more on my user talk page. I can try explaining and would be more than happy for an intellectual discussion. :) Hope thee well. Cheers, Bus stop. SageSolomon (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude Public figures make offensive off-the-cuff comments pretty regularly. That does not make those comments defining parts of their character— especially for Omar, who apologized for her comments. Such comments should not be included in the lede. --WMSR (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
When those remarks, taken place over several years (dating back to her 2012 tweet) are characterized as offensive to a certain ethnic group and become the subject of national news coverage, are criticized by numerous public figures and major civic groups, and provoke a national debate, and are still referenced as part of the politician's public profile months later, does that change the equation? WP:DUE is not a morality judgment or assessment of whether or not she's sorry. It's a determination based on the prominence of the remarks based on attention in reliable sources. Let's not conflate "off the cuff" comments that attract little attention with hers, which actually comprise several remarks over a period of a couple years and received international coverage and was a national political incident/scandal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This summary of the situation is a total distortion. Omar's remarks in question occurred a year ago, there was a big fuss at the time, and she apologized. Since then she has not used any anti-semitic tropes, as far as I'm aware. Her enemies on the right continue to harp on her earlier comments, and also implausibly interpret a tweet critical of Bloomberg as being anti-semitic. They're making a mountain out of a molehill, perhaps because of their own Islamophobia. NightHeron (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
The first remark was a tweet that said Israel was "evil" and "hypnotized the world." That comment was in 2012. In February 2019, she made further statements about support for Israel being "all about the Benjamins." That was followed two weeks later by the "dual allegiance [to Israel/USA] suggestion at a forum. Then in November 2019 her comments about the Bloomberg run received further attention/criticism. This is not about an isolated incident from years ago. It's also not an editors job to interpret her remarks or decide that "she didn't mean anything by it." Regardless of your personal views on her comments or the controversy itself, do you believe that her history of remarks on this subject has received significant attention in reliable sources? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
2012 was 4 years before Omar first held elected office and first became notable enough for a Wikipedia page. As she later explained in connection with her February 2019 statements, she was not aware of anti-semitic tropes. If someone says that Saudi Arabia has evil policies and hypnotizes the world because of its oil reserves, no one would bat an eyelash. But you're not supposed to say that about Israel, because of the anti-semitic tropes that the statement brings to mind. After the criticism of her February 2019 statements, she apologized and made no further use of anti-semitic tropes. The tweet against Bloomberg was a comment about one billionaire supporting another billionaire. True, they both happen to be Jewish. But the candidate Omar has been supporting -- Bernie Sanders -- is also Jewish. If you say something negative about two billionaires who happen to be Jewish, and support another presidential candidate who also happens to be Jewish, you're not anti-semitic. By any reasonable standard, this is a tempest in a teapot. NightHeron (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The fact that she wasn't known in 2012 doesn't matter. It came to attention after she became a public figure, which she still is. Past comments by public figures frequently cause controversy when they are discovered later, and that's what happened here. What magnified this was her continued statements in February/March and now November 2019. You are not answering my question. It's exhausting to keep having to explain that your defense of her remarks and whether or not they were anti-semitic, whether or not she apologized, whether or not she didn't mean it, is, respectfully, not the issue here. Her remarks and the criticism of them, from prominent officials and civic groups on both sides of the political spectrum, was substantially reported on in the press and continues to be referenced. Do you disagree with this, or are you going to stick to defending her remarks and not addressing the key criteria under MOS:LEAD and WP:DUE which are prominence in reliable sources? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Past comments by public figures frequently cause controversy when they are discovered later This is true, but such comments are not biography-defining. What is being discussed here is not whether the comments happened (they did) or whether they were significantly reported (they were). The question in front of us is whether such information belongs in the lede of the article. Her apology makes the case that it should not be—she has disavowed that point of view. If a public figure makes an offensive comment and apologizes for it, that information rarely, if ever, belongs in the lede. --WMSR (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
As an example, note that the lead of the Justin Bieber page does not mention his two extremely racist YouTube videos, which created much controversy when they were discovered. But they are mentioned in the main body (see the 2nd-to-last paragraph of Justin Bieber#Legal issues and controversies). NightHeron (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@WMSR: You just acknowledged a key point, which is that the comments received substantial coverage. However, the standard for what the lead should include in summarizing the entire article is not what is "defining." The standard is not that loose-ended and subjective, it actually very specific and concrete. From MOS:LEAD, any prominent controversies should be included in the lead. A controversy that received substantial and sustained coverage is by definition prominent. More so with this subject in particular, because she frankly hasn't received substantial coverage for much of anything else. The most attention she's received have largely been, in order, for 1) her comments on Israel/Palestine and controversial remarks, 2) her associations with the high-profile "Squad" AOC, Pressley, Tlaib, and 3) her back-and-forth with Trump and being the target of Trump's own controversial remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll just address another point about the remarks. Almost every public figure, with maybe one notable exception, backtracks and apologizes following a controversy, whether it be an offensive comment or other scandal about personal vices (to be clear, we are dealing with the former here -- I am only speaking generally.) And as for the notion that there is no possible way her remarks could be construed in an offensive way except by her critics and that we should disregard sources saying otherwise, I say this is probably not an instance where the (many, many) sources have it wrong. The "dual loyalty" and "influence and power via money" anti-semitic tropes are well documented and covered here on Wikipedia (see Antisemitic canard). Widespread observations in the press that her remarks ("All about the Benjamins" Source, "I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country" Source)" seemed to draw on said tropes and were criticized for such do not appear so off base that we should ignore the normal and required route of adhering to the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You're again wildly misstating the position of people who disagree with you: as for the notion that there is no possible way her remarks could be construed in an offensive way except by her critics and that we should disregard sources saying otherwise. What we've said -- many times -- is that of course her remarks of February 2019 could be construed in an offensive way by her allies as well as her critics. They occurred a year ago, and she apologized for them. There has been nothing since then that draws on anti-semitic tropes, but her critics, perhaps motivated by Islamophobia, continue to harp on the earlier comments that she apologized for.
No one is arguing for excluding the controversy from the article, only from the lead. NightHeron (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
You are correct that no one is disputing inclusion of the remarks & fallout in the body. They also belong in the lead because they are a prominent controversy by a measure of reliable source attention. The fact that she apologized or "hasn't said anything since" (the Bloomberg remarks in November actually show otherwise -- she has been criticized for other remarks since last February) doesn't make the issue any less important. Further, the notion that coverage/criticism of her remarks documented in the New York Times and CNN is somehow illegitimate or motivated by "Islamaphobia" is not persuasive. You are only engaging in a defense of her personally and attacking the motivation behind reliable and trusted sources. This how discussions get off-track and mired in back-and-forth jabs and opinionated assertions. Your opinions are not invalid and maybe some people will agree with you, @NightHeron:. But in judging prominence, we have to look to objective criteria like the number and prominence of sources that reported on her remarks and how frequently they are still mentioned in connection with her overall public profile. I believe the evidence provided here shows that the controversy is very likely prominent enough for the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the NY Times and other media cover the fact that her adversaries continue to attack her. That proves nothing. The only thing noteworthy since March of last year related to Omar and anti-semitism is the continuing attacks on her. Nothing that Omar has actually said is anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Nothing that Omar has actually said is anti-semitic That's your opinion. And again, your opinion on her remarks is irrelevant. We go by the analysis provided in reliable sources. That's the fundamental principle behind WP:NPOV. And the suggestion that only "her adversaries" criticized the remarks is inaccurate. The NYT and numerous sources noted that her remarks were widely condemned across the political spectrum. Critics included Pelosi and numerous other Democratic Congress members and other non-Trump-supporting civic groups. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
You continually misrepresent what other editors are saying. My last comment was referring to the coverage since March of last year. I said explicitly that the remarks Omar made in February were widely criticized, and she apologized. The only claims of anti-semitism in post-March-2019 statements by Omar have been by her adversaries on the right. NightHeron (talk)
This article on her November comments does not indicate that "only her adversaries on the right" have been critical of her recent remarks. Further, the coverage of her history of remarks interpreted as being anti-semitic spans years, not months, and has attracted an enormous body of coverage and constitutes one of the most prominent parts of her public profile. You have not addressed this and are only belittling the characterizations of her remarks or somehow suggesting they are illegitimate. The sources have been clear that this is not the majority view, and you or any other editor injecting personal views (i.e. "the remarks weren't anti-semitic," "only the Israeli-rightwing cares about her remarks") is not aligned with WP policy on content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
We are literally talking about two tweets here. She apologized for them. Not a pattern, not career-defining, not biography-defining. Listing Individual controversies is not necessary to summarize an article. And please stop with the walls of text and let people make their points without jumping down their throats. --WMSR (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. But again, her comments date back to 2012; the sources describe a pattern. And those "two tweets" included remarks that nearly led to a formal censure in congress, bipartisn condemnation, and was a national news story for weeks because they were construed as anti-semitic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude. It might help to study the history of anti-Semitism and antisemites. Political smearing, tactical spinning of trivia and obsessive reflection of them in endless tweets, op.eds, do not constitute evidence of anything but the junkies who mainline on hysterical drum-beating.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • New Source Here is the AP (circulated by the NYT) on Ilhan Omar's re-election addressing her history of controversies with comments being construed as anti-semitic in the first paragraph. The only evidence that a disturbing number of editors voting exclude have presented are their own personal assessments of the controversy. This RfC is due for review and the votes should be scrutinized for compliance with actual policy and references to sources, with WP:FORUM votes and others making no reference to sources or other policy concerns disregarded entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Immediately after the opening paragraph of the "new source", we found the following single line;
  • "That was then."
  • Which deflates every "include" vote here. The event happened, but it is done and gone now. Certainly important enough to mention somewhere in the biography, but not career- or life-defining enough to warrant mention in the opener. What I stated back on 03:29, 7 January 2020 continues to bear fruit. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The repeated controversies, including those earlier this year, are so "done and gone" that they are repeatedly mentioned in sources that cover her. @Zaathras: The quote you pulled has nothing to do with the prominence of the controversy, it has to do with whether or not a serious challenger will oppose her. The full quote is Rep. Ilhan Omar’s congressional career got off to a rocky start just a year ago, with her provocative remarks on Israel and Jews stirring anger across the country and raising speculation that some other Minnesota Democrat might step forward to challenge her in 2020. That was then... In an overwhelmingly Democratic district that where Omar took 78% of the vote in 2018, University of Minnesota political scientist Larry Jacobs gives her opponents no chance. This is purely a commentary on her political chances, along with an acknowledgement of the most significant controversy that has dogged her since she took office. Reasoning like the above completely ignores the basic tenets of WP:NPOV and reliance on prevalence in sources in favor of biased political analysis (almost all political analysis by any editor will be biased) --that's exactly how we should not determine content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

INCLUDE: to pretend like the perception of anti-semitism hasn’t been a prevailing factor in how the media has covered her is ridiculous. If you were to stop someone on the street in any of the 50 states who had read stories about Omar one of the first things they would mention is the accusation of anti-semitism. This is not necessarily passing judgement on the veracity of the accusations, but merely that the accusations exists. Additionally, it’s been covered by both left-winged (CNN, New York Times) and right-winged media (Fox news, New York Post). It would not be contentious to include in the lead if you phrase it objectively, “has made comments some have perceived to be anti-Semitic.” This is not being judgmental just acknowledging the fact that this has been a part of her coverage and public image. To selectively exclude this from the lead, while including conspiracy theories against her (which has arguably been given equal if not less media attention) is pushing a biased POV. Bsubprime7 (talk)Bsubprime7

  • Exclude per WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD. Arguments for inclusion remain unconvincing no matter how many times they have been repeated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude in lede only, but include in the body. Same reasoning as I would use for Trump's racism allegations in the lead section of that article: enough sources for inclusion, but too contentious to include in the lead section. Jdcomix (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Contentious among editors on Wikipedia, especially those who've expressed personal views on the matter, not among sources. Also, your analogy isn't apt. Donald Trump mentions his racial controversies in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:RFCEND, by putting in a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I agree that this has gone on long enough, and the consensus for exclude is clear. NightHeron (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_17&oldid=955480217"