Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

"Tennessee Star"

I want to point interested editors to this discussion of the source Tennessee Star, which is used in this article. The source was established in 2017 and generally seems to be a PAC-funded activist site masquerading as a local news source. If information sourced to it can be found elsewhere, more reliable sources should likely be substituted. If information from it cannot be found elsewhere, consider marking its claims as dubious. Thanks! —Collin^{t c} 17:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. I've removed that source. I especially liked the Politico story where the site is described as a "Tennessee Breitbart". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, I earlier removed a reference to the Minnesota Sun, described as a "carbon copy" of the site, from the same section as a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Looks like my instincts were correct. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

latest revert

@ModerateMike729: beyond the latest revert being a blanket revert that also undid several non-contentious issues, your edit is so wildly non-NPOV that I fail to see how it is not a BLP violation. You include two full paragraphs of criticism of her comment on March 3rd and include exactly 9 words from her spokesman as a response when he was not even referring to that comment, and couldnt have been as that response is from March 1st. How exactly do you think it acceptable to include two people making accusations against her but not even include her response? nableezy - 23:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, if I am not mistaken you are pretty well past the 1RR here. nableezy - 23:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation—you should read up on what BLP is before making unfounded accusations against other editors. The sourcing is based on WP:SECONDARY from the most reliable outlets in the country, and it only states that she's been accused of antisemitism. No claims are made about the subject that are not backed by a multitude of reliable, independent sources. And a single revert of multiple actions still counts as a single revert. I have no problem adding her response if there is one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You really need to tone down your condescension, I think I been here a bit longer than you and I dont need a reminder on what WP:BLP says. Heres a quote for you:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

Including criticism about a tweet without even including her response is in fact giving disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint. Pretending that a statement made on March 1st is a response to criticism made on March 3rd is just a lie. And the 1RR is violated because, hello, the user had earlier made other reverts (eg here restoring a section header including "antisemitism"). Maybe you should read up on BLP yourself, seeing as how this was just a revert to your edit. nableezy - 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You certainly have quite a history in this editing area, but I think your assessment of what constitutes a BLP violation is off. Who is the WP:FRINGE viewpoint, exactly? The NYT? The material never refers to her as antisemitic, and only addresses allegations. The short quotes of Democratic congresspeople who criticized her have received extensive coverage, and I'm not clear that she's actually issued a response. Don't frivolously throw around accusations of BLP violations, which are characterized by use of poor sources, original research, or bad information; this material is well-sourced, contains no original research, and verifiable (that she has been accused of antisemitism is not in question). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are going to respond to somebody it would be nice if you responded to what they actually wrote. nableezy - 18:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ah yes, my "wildly NPOV" decision to...add several sentences from reliable sources about a contentious topic that has gotten extensive coverage in literally every single major media outlet in the country? If you'd like to elaborate on her response you're welcome to. And it's far more than "two people" accusing her--thank you for pointing that out. We ought to include comments from the Democratic leadership including the recent resolution condemning anti-semitism, comments from the Republican leadership, condemnation from a list of Jewish civil rights groups, and from a range of pundits on both sides of the aisle. Next time I"ll be sure to more thoroughly include the range of criticisms aimed at Omar. ModerateMike729 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You restored two paragraphs about one tweet, and included as a response a statement made two days prior. Next time, try to follow NPOV. And hopefully keep in mind the space-time continuum goes in one direction, at least so far. nableezy - 23:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be glad to expand the coverage to her range of comments perceived as anti-semitic beyond "one tweet." Thanks for the suggestion. I've started an RfC so we can get input from other editors. ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Qualified" support

The lead currently says she expressed "qualified" support to BDS. While one word sense would have this meaning conditional support (not exactly what happened, she has said various kind of incompatible things), the other more common word meaning here would be "justified". This is an NPOV vio. I am removing the sentence for now. Frankly I don't think it really belongs in the lede anyways as BDS is not a central part of her platform. Please discuss here. Cheers all.--Calthinus (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Qualified in this context means limited or "with reservations." This is largely supported by the sources, so I'm not clear what you believe the NPOV issue is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is the thing. You need to explain what exactly the "qualified support" means. One can do it in the body of text, but not in the lead. So, I agree here with Calthinus. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Her support can be characterized as "qualified" in the lead, and more details may be supplied in the body of the article. There could very well be a better way to do this, so I'm fine with the two of you reworking it, but I don't think the problem is POV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

At the very least use something like "tepid" because as I illustrated above, qualified has a problematic double meaning here. But I really don't see why this has to be in the lede at all -- this page isn't about BDS and Omar has not made BDS a central part of her platform, so why take up precious lede space bringing it up? --Calthinus (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk archiving

This page is now at over 260 KB and getting longer by the day. Should we add automated archiving for discussions older than say, 30 days? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)  Implemented —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC) * Reduced to 14 days. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments on AIPAC

My very best wishes some of your recent edits[1][2] to the section on her comments about AIPAC resemble inappropriate WP:SYNTH. To change the article to read Democratic leaders criticized Omar for tweets that pro-Israel groups in the US are pushing "allegiance to a foreign country" and that their money spent by American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was a motivation for some American politicians' support of Israel. is not accurate.

The NYT described her comments as insinuating money spent by AIPAC was the main motivation for Pro-Israel support, saying: Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In that same vein, Politico said: Freshman Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar ignited a new controversy on Sunday night when she suggested GOP support for Israel is driven by campaign donations from a prominent pro-Israel group. The way you've reworded this sanitizes this, and trying to account for what you think she meant does not justify contradicting what the sources say. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that was actually a fair summary of multiple sources, such as that. But welcome to improve, not problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually hadn't seen this. So there are new remarks. This seems to be a separate issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think my link above was about the same. That one, however, is a new and developing story. This can be rephrased and expanded in the body of page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The NYT covers her remarks at a recent town hall-like event. That's separate from her tweet a few weeks ago. The CNN story is indeed distinct from either of those. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say that changing appeared to imply to implied sanitizes anything; that actually makes the statement there stronger. Specifying that the group is pro-Israel seems to match what your quote from the source says (in fact, it only identifies the group as "a prominent pro-Israel group" in that quote.) Both of those parts of this change seem uncontroversial - in fact, I would argue that specifying that the group is pro-Israel is essential, since the source emphasizes it and it's necessary to understand what's being discussed. I assume your objection is to the addition of the word 'some' and changing "the primary motivation" to just "a motivation". But "the primary motivation" isn't really supported by that quote, either. I feel that the previous version drastically overstates her comments. How do you feel about contributed to American politicians' support of Israel? EDIT: Did you mean to link to different diffs? The diff you linked to are a very different (and much more minor) change than the one you quoted. I wouldn't support changing to the quote, but I do think the changes I mentioned from the diffs are worth including. We simply don't have support for the sweeping primary, we do have to identify what AIPAC is (both because the source focuses on it and because it's necessary for the section to make sense), and provided we fix the issue with primary, the rest seems entirely uncontroversial given that there's no real debate about that aspect of her implications. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not understanding my point, and you are making the same mistake that My very best wishes did in your proposed revision. I'm referring to how the Wiki article treats her remarks, not AIPAC. The sources, like the NYT and Politico, both said that her remarks implied that money spent by AIPAC was "fueling" or "driving" American support for Israel. The WaPo put it like this: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic leadership on Monday condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar for suggesting that Israel’s allies in American politics were motivated by money rather than principle, an extraordinary rebuke of a House freshman in the vanguard of the party’s left flank. There's a difference between support being "driven" or "fueled by" money, and money being a "contributing factor," language which I have not seen in the sources and appears to be your and My very best wishes own independent analysis. We're required to stick to the what the sources have said and not introduce WP:SYNTH, and that means not sanitizing or making the comments more innocuous or watered down. By the way, why isn't the original tweet included? That should also be added. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

But 'fueling' or 'driving' is not the same as saying that it is the primary thing fueling or driving support for Israel; it can also be parsed as saying that it is simply a factor fueling or driving it. If we're going to be as cautious as possible, we should go with a close parsing - fueling American politicians' support of Israel. Saying or implying that she said it is the primary thing driving it clearly goes beyond what the sources say, at least with the sources we have here. Also, since you didn't object to specifying "pro-Israel" per the source or to changing appeared to imply to implied, I assume you're all right with those? (I can't see any reason at all that you'd object to the second one, and the first one is clearly a relevant characterization present in all the sources, one necessary for the dispute to make sense and worth mentioning at the top of a section so readers starting that section will have some idea of what's being discussed.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillon: No. Fueling or driving cannot be "parsed" to "a factor," that's called WP:SYNTH, or just bad paraphrasing. Her saying that money spent was a primary motivation for support ("All about the Benjamin's") is closer to the meaning conveyed in the sources. This section should also not have been cut down to remove the original tweet or description of the exchange that led to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that 'fueling' or 'driving' can be parsed to primary, and your "all about the Benjamin's" is going even more afield into WP:OR, since you're trying to interpret and characterize her statements yourself; but I can understand your objection to "a factor". What do you think of my proposal to use a relatively close paraphrase of was fueling American politicians' support of Israel? This avoids quantifying the intensity or extent to which it was fueling it beyond what the sources say, whether playing it up or down. --Aquillion (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure "parse" is the right word here, and WP:OR is a restriction on what can be placed into articles, not a policy to stifle or inhibit talk page discussion, so you can put the baton away. I would agree with a close paraphrase like you suggested just now. Much better! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Exact quote I. Omar on 11 Feb 2019

Hello. Could someone from the USA or elsewhere please add the exact quote (tweet) of Mrs Omar (11 Feb) in our article? Our article (in ref 70) refers to The Washington Post, which website is not freely accessible in (Western) Europe. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Vatican's political position

I tried to remove the following but was reverted:

The Vatican did not agree to mediate in Venezuela, saying that conditions that had been agreed in earlier negotiations (open a channel for humanitarian aid, hold free elections, free political prisoners, and re-establish the constitutionally-elected National Assembly[82]) had not been followed, according to a February 7, 2019 private letter addressed to "Mr. Maduro" from Pope Francis.[83][84][85]

Why would we be adding the Pope's opinion to Ilhan Omar's article? Gandydancer (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Seems WP:SYNTHy in context, since neither that statement nor its sources mention Omar. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, there has been no support for keeping. The source must mention the connection - this one does not. I'll remove it again. Gandydancer (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The article says:

• A. She said that the U.S. should not "hand pick" foreign leaders,[80] adding that the U.S. should support "Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue" ...

It also said:

• B. The Vatican did not agree to mediate in Venezuela, saying that conditions that had been agreed upon in earlier negotiations (open a channel for humanitarian aid, hold free elections, free political prisoners, and reestablish the constitutionally elected National Assembly[82]) had not been adhered to, according to a February 7, 2019, private letter addressed to "Mr. Maduro" from Pope Francis.[83][84][85]

SYNTH is combining material from multiple sources (A and B) to reach or imply a conclusion (C) not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is no conclusion (C) drawn in the text deleted. The reader can draw their own conclusions, and the text should be reinstated.

My understanding is that there is a 1RR in place here?

• 19:34 March 6
• 1:00 March 7

Could @Doug Weller: look in and explain how that works? GandyDance reverted twice based on feedback from one editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted my edit. Re synth, if you're correct on that it is not my understanding nor that of a lot of editors I've worked with. So hopefully Doug Weller can explain it to me. Gandydancer (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: to reach or imply a conclusion, since the sources for (B) don't mention Omar, the only reason for including this is to imply Omar didn't know what she was talking about. As stated earlier on this page, it's not our role to play "gotcha" with apparent contradictions in the subject's words. Unless sources have specifically noted it re Omar, it's WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACKING. I've removed it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: It certainly looks like synth to me as my understanding of it is similar to that of Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs), ie that a conclusion is implied. But NPOVN or maybe Talk:NPOV are good places if you want to get more opinions. I'm often right, but not always. :-) Doug Weller talk 10:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't need more opinions. This has come up many times in the years I've been editing and it only makes sense that we not turn our articles into trials with presentations of "expert" authorities to argue our case. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

As others have said, the WP:SYNTH here is the implication that Omar was wrong or mistaken, or that there was some problem with her statement (which is not at all clear from the sources or timeline.) Synth doesn't have to overtly be stated in the text to be present - a common example is eg. "X did Y.[cite saying X did Y] According to the laws at the time, Y is illegal.[cite to law saying Y is illegal]", with the unsourced implication that X broke the law. It's incorrect to put that kind of thing in an article and then say that "the reader can draw their own conclusions", since the clear intent is to guide the reader towards a particular uncited conclusion. Same concept here - if the Vatican reaction actually matters here, we should be able to find sources tying it to Omar directly. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. If there aren't sources connecting the Vatican's non-negotation to Omar, it's synth and off-topic. (This reminds me of when people try to add critiques or defences of policy idea X to the articles on politicians who support or oppose X, sourced to news articles / books / etc that say nothing about the politicians in question.) -sche (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

disparity between "Saudi Twitter Trolls" and "AIPAC Twitter Trolls"

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.

---

The article needs to balance the two high-profile twitter incidents which have effected the career of Ilhan Omar; the phenomena of viral twitter furore should not be depicted differently between the Saudi-related instances and the AIPAC-related instances, as that would seem BIASED.126.163.95.142 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Mother was Arab Yemeni

User:Jonathunder What do you mean I need a reliable source? Her own words are not reliable? Did you take a look at the video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc-e0dCU1h4 @9minutes. She would not say "my mother is ethnically Yemeni" if that wasnt the case. The NY times article mentions her mother died, there's no mention that she was Somali or Benadiri. Pacific Standard calls her mother Somali-Yemeni [3], this probably means a Somali of Yemeni descent. I dont think her mother should be labelled anything but Yemeni based on the interviews she has made, it may otherwise fall into BLP violation, not sure though.

Last month Ilhan Omar attended the Yemeni American Merchants Association in NYC, she said “I know that the Yemeni community has a special fight in their heart, that they have a big drive, they know what hard work looks like, they are tenacious, they can be a little tough, they have a lot of fight in them, and there’s a special spirit that is in their blood,” Omar said about the Yemeni community in attendance. “It’s the spirit that used to be in my ummi’s blood, in my mom’s blood. It’s the spirit that was in my grandfather’s blood. It’s what he passed on to me.” [4] Magherbin (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I would actually agree with Magherbin. @Jonathunder: was probably quick to remove the citation after seeing it was to YouTube, but a closer analysis shows that this source should be considered reliable. From WP:RSP, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. The video was posted by Yahoo News, and Magherbin quoted her correctly (she makes the statement at 9:14). As an interview, this is a WP:PRIMARY, but we can certainly include information that the subject has provided about their family background. If there are concerns about accuracy, any claims can be given in-text attribution Example: Omar has said her mother is ethnically Yemeni. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with all of that. Jonathunder (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Benadiri Somalis (a multiracial ethnic minority population from Somalia) claim Yemeni descent, but have been living in Somalia for hundreds of years and are heavily intermixed with East Africans and even South Asians (Indian subcontinent). They are a separate ethnic category from full Arab Yemenis.
Her parents met in Somalia and thus her mother was Benadiri (Somali 'Arab'). I am a Somali who is familiar with her ancestral background. Many Somali language-specific sources also state this. Wadaad (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a WP:SECONDARY source that examines her specific genealogy/matrilineage, or do these sources just cover the topic of Somali/East African ethnicity generally? If it's the latter, I think we should stick with in-text attribution. Reconciling the subject's self-asserted claims with sources that make no individual reference to her or her family would be WP:SYNTH. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

She said that her parents belong to separate groups of Somali society (meaning ethnic Somali vs Benadiri Somali) who usually don't intermarry. Her parents met in Southern Somalia, increasing the odds that she is Benadiri. Additionally, almost everyone in the Somali community is aware of this fact. I have clarified it by stating that the Benadiri community is of partial Yemeni descent. Wadaad (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm not disagreeing with the accuracy of what you're saying, but we can't just go off speculation. We must have a source that states this to make any changes to the article in this regard. We can neither imply something not stated by a source nor conduct independent research in adding or clarifying article content according to Wiki policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Wikieditor, we will only quote what she claims. Magherbin (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

CAIR

Nothing actually related to the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ilhan Omar's connection to CAIR? We know CAIR was started as propaganda arm of HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood, both terrorist organizations. https://www.adl.org/education/resources/profiles/the-council-on-american-islamic-relations-cair) In fact, she is parroting the same propaganda from Congress as CAIR does. She said AIPAC was controlling foreign policy. If you look at CAIR press releases its main attack is against AIPAC. It is understood AIPAC does not give any money to politicians BUT guess who does give money to politicians? CAIR does and it donated to Ilhan Omar yet nothing in the article about this. https://www.opensecrets.org/races/contributors?cycle=2018&id=MN05&spec=N) Buckcannon (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Buckcannon ````march 18, 2019 I dont think the United States labels MB a terrorist organization anyways you need to provide more sources if you want to include Ilhan's connection with CAIR in the article. Magherbin (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019

In the first paragraph of the section on Early Life and Education, it is stated that, "Omar was born on October 4, 1981." In the second paragraph in that section it is stated that, "Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 when she was 17 years old." These are incompatible and at least one claim needs to be corrected: if she was born in 1981, she was 18 or 19 years old in 2000. 216.144.163.52 (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: without knowing which claim is correct, I can't make an edit to fix this. If you know which is correct, please provide a source to support the date. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a problematic issue that has plagued the article for ages. This source explicitly lists 1982 as her birth year, and it is definitely the case that RS conflict on this question. More discussion of what to do about this situation (RS with clear conflicts on a simple factual question) would be good. --JBL (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Does a conspiracy theory targeting her worth mentioning in 'Targeting' section?

See Jacob Wohl#Claims against Representative Ilhan Omar and Minneapolis. Does these debunked claims coming from far-right conspiracy theorists Jacob Wohl and Laura Loomer worth noting in this article? It is well-sourced, but I fear that it may be undue and draw unwarranted promotion to these twats. Ideas? Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I gravitate toward the latter, seems WP:UNDUE for the exact reason you described, plus minimal RS coverage, no? ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Struck comment from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No, undue, but please refactor the BLP violation in your comment. There are far too many personal opinions about living people on this page already. nableezy - 22:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Undue. You're correct that it would just give oxygen to it.--Calthinus (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality (or lack of) in section titles

We have one major section with three subsections titled Targeting -- this is a valid POV to have but it is not valid to present it in Wikipedia's voice. Additionally, we have a section on her views on Militarism -- this is not an NPOV term regarding the existence of US military bases as the other side would say something like mutual defense responsibilities. --Calthinus (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That may be a fair point. Do you have a suggestion for alternative headings.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Militarism > military policy. Easy fix. "Targeting" is harder because the whole layout arrangement has issues. --Calthinus (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Calthinus: I took a stab at it. What do you think? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It's an improvement. --Calthinus (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Minority significant viewpoints in defense of Omar

Yesterday, I add what I believe to be minority viewpoints that defended Omar. Here is what I added:

Opinion articles in some publications have also come to the defense of Omar, including those published in The Nation, The Guardian, and In These Times. Joshua Leifer, an associate editor at Dissent, writes in The Guardian, "The Republicans' weaponization of antisemitism to stymie progressive policies is also meant to distract from the antisemitism rampant within Republicans' own ranks." In the conservative magazine The Nation, D. D. Guttenplan opines that "Israel's supporters have long deployed allegations of anti-Semitism to fend off criticism. From laws seeking to criminalize the movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions to the attacks on Omar". Phyllis Bennis writes in the progressive In These Times, "When Rep. Ilhan Omar called out AIPAC and the Israel lobby earlier this month for using money to win support in Congress—as every lobby worth its donors does—she was not condemned and threatened just because of what she said, but because of who she is when she said it."

References

The paragraph was removed by Wikieditor19920 with the edit summary:

we could include countless WP:PRIMARY opinion pieces, but should not do so, especially to present only one side of the issue (POVPUSHING)

Are these really primary sources? Is this WP:POVPUSHING? Should we not include some minority opinions to balance this section?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Per RS guidelines, opinion pieces are reliable for their authors' opinions, but rarely for statements of fact. As with any public controversy, there will be innumerable hot takes from commentators on every side, then the issue fades as a new scandal grips the media's attention. I think it's best to stick to mainstream, reliable sources that evaluate the events from a distance. Otherwise we'd end up with a disproportionate emphasis on the scandal itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sangdeboeuf - best to not use in this case. As for terming them primary sources, though moot, it seems to me that they would not be thus termed. Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The fat lady may have sung on "disproportionate emphasis". In my opinion, the solution is to trim down the whole section in a balanced manner. But leaving out significant minority views seems just as bad as giving undue weight to the controversy.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with condensing the section overall. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought we had a pretty clear consensus on not turning this article into an OpEd aggregator. Unless we have secondary coverage of these sources, they should not be included in any form. Eperoton (talk) 04:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The section is far too large IMO. I tried to remove the latest addition, the rabbi and the Somali activist opinions, but it was restored. We should be thinking about cutting back rather than adding more IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There are secondary sources as well that describe the criticism of the criticism.[5][6][7][8] But no attempt has been taken to summarize what these sources describe from a third-party perspective.

Another thing, taking your high standard as policy, how is Weiss' quote ("conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator") sourced from a secondary source? The citation attached to it is Haaretz (biased over this issue) and Weiss himself. There are also many references to publications known to be biased on the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike my attempt these opinions are not attributed to these publications, like The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. The section is peppered with unattributed references to Israeli publications. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a gross double standard to accuse Haaretz of bias (cough cough cough) and not some of the other interesting sources for the op-eds used here. Haaretz is if anything the most conciliatory and anti-nationalist Israeli paper (ask any right-wing Israeli about it and you will get an avalanche of vitriol on how they are ultra-left etc etc etc). On the other hand we have guys like Guttenplan who is frankly a partisan on this issue and publications like In These Times which "welcomes its readers to the Resistance". Combine that with the fact that we have a whole section with three subsections titled Targeting (great, now she's a martyr?) and we have a severe NPOV issue here...--Calthinus (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your opinions and personal knowledge of Haaretz are besides the point. Please go to WP:RSN and WP:RSP#Haaretz to debate whether it is biased or not. I also notice you conveniently say nothing about Joshua Leifer and The Guardian. Are you summarily discounting all progressive view points that do not agree with you. Your whataboutism red-herring reference to the Targeting section is also misleading. That section is focused on the threats of physical harm she has received and other unrelated smear campaigns. This is criticism of the criticism she has received that is presented in great detail in the 5 paragraphs before it. (As a side note, sardonically referring to a Muslim woman as "a martyr" is offensive and tone deaf.) --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

If there's secondary coverage of an OpEd, we can reflect it and also cite the OpEd itself. There's nothing wrong with using a primary source to supplement and/or clarify secondary coverage if it doesn't involve OR. We're citing secondary coverage of Weiss' OpEd in Haaretz and Washington Post. Eperoton (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

There are several errors contained in your comment. (1) Weiss' OpEd is published in the NYTimes. (2) The Haaretz article does not contain the quote. Therefore, there were no secondary sources for the quote establishing its notability. (3) WaPo was not cited until I made this edit. Thank you for helping find a reliable source showing notability of the quote.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you misparsed my comment. We're citing secondary coverage from Haaretz and WPost for Weiss' OpEd. I didn't mean the WaPo OpEd you added, which we shouldn't be using directly either, but rather the news story cited at the end of the paragraph. It's a matter of discretion whether and how to use an OpEd directly, given that we have secondary coverage for it. Drawing on secondary RSs only is a reasonable position, which I would deviate from only if there's a consensus that secondary coverage doesn't give an adequate representation of the primary source. Eperoton (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Haaretz does not quote Weiss. The WaPo article at the end of the paragraph also does not quote Weiss. Therefore, this quote is cherrypicked. If you disagree with this characterization, you should be able to provide a secondary RS that quotes Weiss thus. This is the same standard being argued against my addition. I am not unreasonable. In adding the new WaPo OpEd and adding the new paragraph, I am simply trying to make the best out of an already bad situation, in the mean time, until recentism subsides. Most editors seem to agree the entire section needs to be trimmed down but no one has acted on that plan and I am not the best editor to do that.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "bad situation" is, but misrepresenting sources like you've done above certainly doesn't do us any good. The pieces under discussion from WaPo and Haaretz each reference the Weiss piece: thus, secondary coverage. The opinions you included in the article, as far as I have found, have not. Even the sentence you wrote Various writers came to Omar's defense. is pure WP:SYNTH. Where is the source that says this? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The bad situation is described in this talk page by many editors. An undue emphasis has been placed on the criticism, which themselves have been criticized. I did not write "Various writers came to Omar's defense". I wrote "Opinion articles in some publications have also come to the defense of Omar...". The WaPo at the end of the paragraph and Haaretz refer to Weiss' OpEd. They do not quote it. Therefore, the quote itself (not the OpEd in general) has no weight and should not be repeated here according to the same non-policy ruling you advocate. You are selectively applying your own rule.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is a quote or a reference; reliable secondary sources gave the op-ed coverage, which is what WP:DUE depends on. The same cannot be said of the other op-eds you inserted into the article. The two situations are not analogous. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying that, if a secondary RS even mentions an OpEd in passing, it makes the OpEd fair game and quotable. Think of the repercussions of that "policy"!!!--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Such a black and white definition of due weight would ruin so many controversial articles on Wikipedia. If I wanted to be POINTy about that, I could go to Donald Trump and pepper the page with critical OpEds that have been name-checked in other secondary RS. That would be allowable by your definition of due weight.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That's correct — when multiple WP:RS reference an op-ed, and when the subject of an article directly responds to it, it becomes fair game. This does not apply to every other op-ed that doesn't. That wouldn't "ruin" any articles, that's black-letter policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sincerely, you have convinced me with the argument "the subject of an article directly responds to it". I am not convinced by your other arguments but I cannot reasonably disagree with the aforementioned point.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think these sources are just as good as Haaretz. This is not a statement of fact. As long as correct attribution has been provided, this can and should be be included. This is not even a "minority view", just a notable view that must be included to the page per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliability isn't an issue. These are all certainly respected publications. The question is whether this page or the section should be a dumping ground for every op-ed writer's two cents, and I and others do not believe it should. This goes for commentaries that defend her as well as those that are more scolding. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You seemed to have no problem with the commentaries of a Mpls rabbi and Somali activist, returning it after I removed it. I have returned the copy you deleted while it remains under discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Those were the subject of secondary coverage, not op-eds, and contentious material should not remain on the article if there is consensus against it. That's just the opposite of how the consensus process works. Please self-revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs has made some excellent arguments IMO and some editors may have changed their minds. You have not even taken part in the discussion and I find it disruptive to just swoop in and delete the copy that is in question as though it contains negative commentary in a BLP. Gandydancer (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no indication that any editors changed their minds, and disputed material doesn't belong in an article while the discussion is taking place. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Perhaps, it is time for an RfC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

But WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which you inexplicitly reference, is rewritten to protect the subject of the article. The version more favorable to the subject should remain while the RfC is conducted. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

So I should revert my edit that restored the copy? Gandydancer (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No, the paragraph is favorable to the subject and is not unsourced. @Wikieditor19920: would you be agree an RfC asking the simple question "Should this paragraph be kept/remove?"--- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• These are all sourced to primary op-eds as opposed to secondary coverage of these opinions. Absent secondary coverage, I would support removing these - as there is no shortage of random op-eds on Omar. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is basically exactly my view -- if this is the standard we are using on this and similar pages it should be consistent. Currently it is not, as op-eds defending Omar are allowed but it takes a month of talk page arguing to fail to convince people to include the views of Lipstadt who is in fact an expert on antisemitism on other topics in the domain. This isn't so much other shit exists as acknowledging readers are going to be looking at a certain set of pages and within that set, consistency in policy should exist. --Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to add that imo, at risk of coming off the wrong way, I think some people have forgotten the actual point behind policies. They are motivated to come to this page by the (yes) disgusting attacks on Omar for her faith, for her views, and yes including her views on Israel. But this is wrong. This is not why you should a Wikipedia page. You are not here to "defend" people. The result is not in fact in line with BLP -- in fact right now there is indeed a BLP issue on this page regarding Jeanine Pirro (who is strongly implied to be an Islamophobe without being given any space to defend herself). My own political views have been attacked by at least one editor here and one other present before who accused me of being "consumed by resentment" (presumably at women? Not sure.) -- these are attempts by liberal editors to imply I'm a conservative which only reveals the problem with how they are coming atg this page -- anyone who disagrees with them on how a neutral encyclopedia should portray things must be a conservative, rather than someone simply with a different view on this page and simply cares about NPOV rather than being some sort of defender for politicians under racist attacks (in fact I'm a liberal and those who know me know I'm involved in agitation against Likud -- but Wikipedia is not the place for that and ironically if anything Likudniks usually are in unenviable position in Wiki's POV wars ever since they had the misfortune of getting associated by Bibi with his Orangeness). Alas this post is going to be replied to with a predictable slew of alphabet soup to reference obscure points of the literal meaning of policies rather than the intentions, so I'm perhaps being naive thinking that posting this will accomplish anything.--Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• All these publications on the both "sides" have authors. If one of them also happened to be a editor of a journal, I do not see how that makes his or her views less significant. I think we must include these views per WP:NPOV, and especially in BLP context. Otherwise, we include only criticism and do not include other views (they are not necessarily "support"). These are obviously significant views that must be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

They are not actually necessary since we do already have secondary sources mentioning defense of her[like this one]. Instead we end up with a double standard where op-eds get used for one side but not the other. This should not be a partisan issue. It's a really basic fairness issue. And if I say this I get my private life political views (which you know very well as we've talked plenty, Mvbw) mislabeled :/. --Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeaninne Pirro Section

I removed Jeaninne Pirro section from the "Targetting section" I think it's a little too much for that section, under NOTNEWS and PROPORTION. We already have the two sections in that section and a statement by a talking head is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

With this edit, Sir Joseph removed the section titled "Islamophobic comments" which is sourced to a RS.

In March 2019, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro made what were seen as Islamophobic comments on her show when she questioned Omar's loyalty to the United States because she wears a hijab. Fox condemned the remarks and Pirro's show was not aired the following week. President Trump defended Pirro, tweeting, "Fox ... must stay strong and fight back with vigor. Stop working soooo hard on being politically correct, which will only bring you down, and continue to fight for our Country."

References

The edit summary reads "removing this section, NOTNEWS and UNDUE, one section for a news commentator is too much, we already have the two sections above."

I believe this claim should not have been removed altoghether as there is indeed weight behind it.[9][10][11] Sir Joseph's removal of sourced content should be reverted. Fox even fired Pirro over this matter.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't sourced, I said it wasn't news and was out of proportion. We have two sections already and in the big scheme of things, a talking head on Fox is not worthy of inclusion for what she says. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said you did. I said it has weight.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

you still haven't shown why this needs to be in. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I have. The claim is notable and has due weight. It is supported by multiple RS. However, you have not presented a reasonable argument why it should be excluded. You claimed it is undue and I have presented several RS to show it is not. I can overcite the section if you insist.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that it's supported by multiple RS. It's a talkshow host who said something about Omar. That is not newsworthy. I have multiple sources that say things about Omar, should I post it in the article? You do know that's not how it works. Not everything that is said is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

She questioned a congresswoman's loyalty to the US because of her religion, Fox News fired her, the president of the US defended her and you say it is not significant? Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not news. Not everything that happens is news. She's not a journalist, she's a talking head and she got fired. We don't report on everything that happens. As people routinely points out on every other page in this encyclopedia, there is a 10 years test. This instance will not be known in 10 years time. This is non-notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Jeaninne Pirro's dumb comment says much more about Pirro than it does Omar. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and it is in her article, and rightly so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Predictably, certain editors here have taken the exact opposite position on this example of an individual making allegedly bigoted remarks than they did when the remarks came from Omar herself. However, Pirro's comments received extensive media coverage, and were directed at Omar, so they can certainly be included in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read and internalize WP:NPA, particularly the second sentence. Comment on content, not on the contributor. nableezy - 21:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm commenting on editor's arguments, actually. Thanks for your concern though! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Good luck with that. nableezy - 01:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Commenting on what I believe to be inconsistencies and double standards as it relates to content and arguments is different from, say, calling other editors "pro-Zionist" and "anti-Palestinian." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

And what content are you commenting on there? Kindly stop trolling and focus on the article content. But if you really really want to talk double standards, look inward. nableezy - 15:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The section title should give you a hint. I have applied no double standard, and if you're curious about why an op-ed that received secondary coverage is treated differently from one that has not, review my arguments in the preceding section. I'm not interested in having a drawn out back-and-forth with you on this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing a "Targeting" section at AIPAC. wumbolo ^^^ 12:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 although personally I think Pirro's remarks were disgusting, I am worried about whether the sentence has become more about her and less about Omar. If it's the former, that's bad, as we are basically implying she's Islamophobic and then by saying Fox News cut her it basically implies to the reader "even Fox can't defend her" (a Trump statement is not going to fix this). I wonder what value in learning about Omar this actually adds for the reader, or if it is instead just a BLP snipe at another topic...--Calthinus (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you're getting too "in the weeds." WP:DUE provides a pretty complete answer on how this should be handled (inclusion with reliable sources). I think the amount of space in the article given is where there's the most room for disagreement. And IMO, the comments shouldn't be described as "Islamophobic" in Wikivoice, rather the article should state that the remarks were described as such. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not currently described as "Islamophobic" in Wikivoice, though readers would conclude if based on the presented text alone it was, especially given the Fox News line. But our goal should not be to "balance" the discourse on Pirro -- this is at best tangential to Omar. For Omar, all that's relevant is that this is one of many instances where people say things about her. Really the threats etc should be enough -- why do we need to insert this can of worms unnecessarily? --Calthinus (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Who has called it Islamophobic? We should just pin that down and attribute the opinion to its source. Both people are WP:WELLKNOWN. But this is minor thing that only deserves a passing mention in the grand scheme. I only object to its complete removal.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

After a quick BEFORE, I was able to show the characterization as "Islamophobic" is supported by several sources and the NYTimes says "widely condemned as prejudiced." I don't see the issue with using Wikivoice when this is the majority view point of the RS. I get your point Calthinus but this is two sentences. Disproportionate emphasis does not seem to apply here. Islamophobic comments towards Omar are harrassment and the section details such prejudice with succinct words citing notable examples.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Occupation

Omar has very specifically been critical of the occupation. See here where she says her platform includes

Uplift the voices of Palestinians demanding an end to the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and end the siege of Gaza

See also here, where USA Today includes this

Omar said that being "opposed" to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic.I am grateful to the many Jewish allies who have spoken out and said the same."

Her criticism is of the occupation, and it is not a "contentious label". There is no dispute among qualified sources that the West Bank is occupied territory. Whitewashing this material repeatedly, and edit-warring without comment, is disruptive. nableezy - 20:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

If you're going to cite a source, then you should follow what it says. The terminology should be attributed with a quote, not Wikivoice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. It is nearly undisputed that the West Bank is Israeli-occupied. That isnt just a view of Omar's. nableezy - 22:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

West Bank is Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory. The sky is blue. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Both "pp-vandalism" and "pp-pc"?

That's redundant and contradictory at the same time. One of those should probably be removed. Geolodus (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Geolodus, if there is so much vandalism that it overwhelms pending changes, then dual protection is warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

So, how does "dual protection" as you called it even work? It is not mentioned on any official guideline I've read. Geolodus (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)