Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Reference Citation to Ilhan Omar Statement on Participation of Transgender Atheletes in Women's Sports

This got deleted due to inadequate citation:

Omar advocates the position that it is a "myth that trans women have a 'direct competitive advantage' " in women's sports events.

Please review these citations and advise on which are "helpful" or otherwise:

CROWE, JACK (2019-02-06). "Omar Demands USA Powerlifting Lift Ban on Trans Women". National Review. Retrieved 2019-05-14.

DUFFY, NICK (2019-02-08). "USA Powerlifting blasted for 'unscientific ban' on transgender people · PinkNews". PinkNews. Retrieved 2019-05-14.

GWINN, DYLAN (2019-02-06). "Ilhan Omar Wants USA Powerlifting Investigated for Banning Biological Males from Competing in Women's Events". Breitbart News.

BUZINSKI, JIM (2019-02-06). "Congresswoman urges USA Powerlifting to lift its ban on trans women after constituent barred from competing". Outsports. Retrieved 2019-05-14.

Thanks in advance. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד .

Breitbart News is abjectly terrible. The other citations are somewhat more acceptable, but they are specialist publications without a whole lot of weight. We certainly don't need to recount her views on the scientific support for or against the claim that transwomen have a competitive advantage in sport. There is a borderline-encyclopedia-worthy note in saying that she wrote a letter criticizing USA power-lifting for its ban on transgender women competing in events, but the coverage is so minimal that I have a hard time seeing a case for it unless/until it generates more mainstream coverage. Nblund ^talk 13:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, if a story about someone in Congress doesn't hit a mainstream source, it's hard to see how it's WP:DUE. O3000 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

NBC News also covered this, but didn't refer to the quote directly, so supposedly it's perhaps a more "mainstream" source, but they do not simply quote the congresswoman in the article, at least in a fair, contextual, manner (in my opinion). What, if any, difference would this make? LINK HERE: A transgender powerlifter fights for the right to compete Thanks in advance, Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

In this case, the article is by a Breitbart sportswriter who provides context. The edit leaves out the fact that Omar was writing or the reasons she provided for her position. I agree that there is no reason to mention the issue unless it receives mainstream coverage. TFD (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Breitbart's was only one of many articles generated by this item. In any case, I agree, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, their news service (being called "terrible" in this talk thread) is pretty much absolutely useless. I find I cannot even "link" to them. Above when I listed the four or five citations in this talk thread, all the citations are cleared to be hotlinked in the thread EXCEPT the 'Breitbart' website. It's been "blacklisted." So I totally agree with all objections to using Breitbart News as a source for citations. Thanks for the informative opinion, User:The Four Deuces. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

I did not say Breitbart was the only source. But I have two points. First you should not enter information into an article without explaining the context. Second, no one in mainstream media cares. That is probably because Omar merely wrote a letter on behalf of a constituent as opposed to sponsoring legislation, writing a column or leading a protest on the subject. The best approach on biographical articles is to identify mainstream sources and make sure the articles reflect them. The wrong approach is to begin with fringe publications such as Breitbart. Breitbart exists in order to provide information and misinformation ignored by the mainstream which means it fails policy for inclusion. If readers want to know what Breitbart has to say about political figures they can go to Breitbart's website. TFD (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The politician need not sponsor legislation, write a column, or lead a protest, in order to provide a reader with a degree of insight into their stance on a currently controversial issue. You are saying “That is probably because Omar merely wrote a letter on behalf of a constituent as opposed to sponsoring legislation, writing a column or leading a protest on the subject”. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. So this had, mostly, nothing to do with Breitbart, yet you made this kind of the issue for some reason? I see your point, in a way, since Wikipedia seems to be marginalizing Breitbart News by blacklisting it, for whatever reason. In any case, there's a deeper context here, but I don't think I am the person to present it. If I am, I'm not entirely certain of how I would do so. For example, there is a significant contingent of mostly female athletes and their supporters who are frightened that the Title IX provisions enacted by the US congress during the 1970s are going to become an anachronism if/when the Gender Equality Act becomes law (soon to be voted upon). Title IX was the law that forced the issue of woman's athletics becoming a mandate in contemporary life. With Title IX, it became codified law that women could compete athletically on their own playing field. Omar's position, which she expounds upon in her letter, exemplifies an attitude that this contingent sees as the promotion of what is being perceived as "the end of Title IX." But again, I'm not certain of how to contextualize this, or how to properly cite something like this. I simply am not thoroughly aware of Wikipedia's stringencies on these matters, for another thing. I hope that it's clear, without context, why I simply stated what Omar's perspective on this issue is without much elaboration, and certainly without any opinion. Thanks for your interest though, and I am anxious to have any more of your advice and suggestions. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

You have explained why you consider Omar's action to be important. I think that is overstated because it is a letter written on behalf of a constituent as opposed to sponsoring legislation in Congress. But Wikipedia editors do not decide what is important, we leave that to "reliable sources," in this case mainstream media, which does not include sports articles in Breitbart. If they ignore it, then it fails weight for inclusion. Whether or not something is important is subjective and we would spend a lot of time arguing if we could not agree some criterion for inclusion. TFD (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion would be that she is a politician. The reader is interested in her positions on issues. You are saying “That is probably because Omar merely wrote a letter on behalf of a constituent as opposed to sponsoring legislation, writing a column or leading a protest on the subject”. She didn't write a letter on behalf of USA Powerlifting. Rather she wrote a letter on behalf of "transgender women competing against biological females". In so doing Ilhan Omar, a politician, is taking a position on a political issue. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces - First: the fact that Breitbart reports something does not always indicate that they are exclusively reporting it. In fact, NBC News also reported on the news item. Second: The letter was not sent only to the constituent, it was also sent to Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, as well. Thank you for your addition to discussion, but please clarify the issue with alacrity instead of repeating something that was already refuted in this same discussion thread. I'm confused. Did you mean to say Breitbart was only one of the many possible references that could be used to expound on this news item? Thanks in advance, Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

Wikipedia policy says, articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The sources provided do not meet the criteria. If mainstream media ignore the story, then it lacks weight. I know some editors are tempted to add information that mainstream sources ignore, but that's contrary to policy. TFD (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion would be that she is a politician does not appear in any policy I am aware of. nableezy - 22:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Concerning politicians there is emphasis on political positions. This is a common sense criteria. That is what politicians do—they maintain positions on matters of public concern. Policy does not dictate that we describe a politician's political positions—but it is an unstated understanding. Bus stop (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, could you please not present lengthy repetition of my postings. This isn't a Breitbart chatroom. Editors are aware of what they have posted and can read their postings to refresh their memory. Incidentally contrary to your reading that Omar wrote did not write a letter on behalf of her constituent, your source actually says, "Omar sent the letter on behalf of JayCee Cooper, a male-to-female transgender constituent." So does the letter Omar sent. Have you read it? TFD (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Coutin-Kelikaku, I don't think you understand the letter. No one said it was written to the constituent. It was written to the attorney-general of behalf of the constituent. The NBC article is about Cooper and mentions Omar merely in passing. You could write an article about her dispute and include this information in that article but it has no relevance here. TFD (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD (talk) - I do not understand the letter, agreed. Your alacrity is impeccable, at least in this area. I am wondering simply about clarifying the Wikipedia page that you are now discussing. You seem to indicate that you'd like to start working on a new Wikipedia article, and more power to you. This is not productive, in my opinion, since my only goal was to add one sentence to the existing page which hopefully will bring a welcome amount of added information. Whether or not it is relevant seems to be a moot point, given the amount of discussion this talk page has generated. Thanks so very much for your lively interest, in this very scintillating subject matter! Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

Whether or not information is added depends on policy. You say this information should be added because it is "welcome," but that is not a reason in policy. If you disagree with policy, get it changed. TFD (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't a reader be interested in knowing about Omar's position on the participation of "transgender women competing against biological females"? Bus stop (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a reader who "stands athwart history, yelling Stop," would be. That's why the National Review exists, to present views and information ignored in the mainstream. Wikiepedia on the other hand is supposed to report information in proportion to its reporting in mainstream sources. But there is a multitude of publications that present alternative views and facts but they don't get reported here until they come to attention in mainstream sources. Whether that is a good policy is not something we can second guess here. TFD (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I hardly think I am standing athwart history by merely trying to compile a list of positions maintained by a politician. Omar holds the position that transgender women should be permitted to compete in powerlifting against biological females. You are arguing that the reader shouldn't be apprised of this. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, I think TFD is referencing a quote from the founder of The National Review about the goals of their magazine, not accusing you of having any particular viewpoint. The National Review is a niche outlet that caters to a conservative audience, so the fact that they cover this doesn't necessarily mean that Wikipedia should cover it. The mainstream press doesn't appear to have given this more than a passing mention, so it's hard to see why Wikipedia wouldn't follow suit. Nblund ^talk 20:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The National Review has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and it is not merely the opinion of the National Review that Omar supports the controversial position that transgender women should be permitted to compete in powerlifting against biological females. This is a fact substantiated by other sources. Though the National Review is a conservative voice, other sources reporting basically the same information are not conservative. PinkNews reports the same facts. It is a "UK-based online newspaper marketed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community". Outsports also reports largely the same facts. Outsports "examines various myths and controversies regarding gays and sports." Bus stop (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No one is disputing that the statement is verifiable. The question is whether it conforms to WP:DUE to mention something that only appears in niche publications like the National Review and Pink News. Nblund ^talk 14:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

In an article on a politician we are concerned with the planks in their political platform. This is not a minor concern. It is arguably the largest component in such an article. We want to know what political positions she takes. You are arguing to conceal a plank in a politician's political platform. What is the justification for contriving to omit a reliably sourced position taken by the politician that is the subject of this article? Omar's view is that transgender women should be permitted to compete in powerlifting against biological females. This is a controversial view. Omar has taken a stance on this issue. Why shouldn't the reader be apprised of the view taken by Omar on this issue? Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the reasoning has been explained ad nauseam by multiple editors at this point. Nblund ^talk 15:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Your argument that mainstream sources are not covering Omar's stance on this issue is merely a road-block to improving the article. Why should we conceal a plank in a politician's platform? Omar's position is that biological males who transition to female should be allowed to compete in powerlifting against biological females. Can you please tell me why you would want to keep that out of the article? Omar's stance on this question is adequately supported by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: This is over-wordy (e.g. "advocates the position that" where "says" would do) and doesn't reflect what the sources being cited headlined and gave the most space to as the most important part of what happened—that she urged the lifting of USA Powerlifting's ban on trans competitors. That, and the fact that one the sources cited for it at the top of this thread was a propaganda outlet that's blacklisted from even being linked to (let alone used) due to a track record of fabricating things, seems to have contributed much to the reluctance to include content on this. (Some of the comments above also seem to take a very ... idiosyncratic ... angle on what happened.)
However, while the other sources are not of the highest quality, they seem to be adequate for verifying the content (WP:V), and while her criticism doesn't seem to have been important enough to be WP:DUE a whole paragraph or anything (which no-one has proposed), IMO a short sentence with better wording, in the section on her views/positions on LGBT issues, would be reasonable. Maybe something like: "Omar has criticized USA Powerlifting's ban on trans athletes." or "...has called on USA Powerlifting to lift its ban...", perhaps prefaced with something like "Responding to a constituent's request," if that is felt to be relevant, and using the sources from the above-linked diff. For the revised sentence (no longer focused on rehashing debates over the accuracy of suggestions of competitive advantage) even the NBC source could perhaps be cited. -sche (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

But that is against policy. If mainstream media do not think it important enough to mention then we cannot second guess them. If readers are upset about what mainstream media consider important then they can read alternative media. It is not a plank in her political platform, since it is not even mentioned there. In fact she has not proposed any legislation relating to this matter. Her platform does include "Pass national anti-bullying legislation," "Ban conversion therapy," "Provide funding for mental health services geared towards LGBTQIA+ youth" and "Ensure affordable housing and end youth homelessness." None of this is currently mentioned in the article, merely that she was endorsed by an LGBT group and said she would fight for their rights. TFD (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

We do have a tiny bit of coverage of Omar's letter from Fox News. I do not think that we should emphasize her views on the science related to trans athletes in competition, but I can see a case for a very brief, neutral, mention of the fact that Omar wrote a letter criticizing the ban on trans athletes from competing in women's power lifting. Maybe alongside a mention of her more substantive efforts on LGBT issues, and maybe a very brief summary of her campaign platform. Nblund ^talk 01:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD—Omar maintains that biological males who transition to female should be allowed to compete in powerlifting against biological females. In her official capacity as US Representative of Minnesota's 5th congressional district Omar wrote a letter calling on the Attorney General of Minnesota, Keith Ellison to investigate USA Powerlifting for violating state anti-discrimination laws. You are arguing that "she has not proposed any legislation relating to this matter". I would say her letter-writing is serving a congruous purpose. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Policy says, articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." If people want to know what's bouncing around the wingnut echo chamber, then they can read the Breitbart. She is asking a state attorney-general to determine whether her constituent has been treated according to law. Neither she nor the attorney-general have the power to change the laws of Minnesota. Regardless, whether or not it is important is determined by policy, not your specific interests. I imagine this issue interests you because of your views of LGBTQA+ issues. But it's mot what interests you, but what mainstream sources find important. TFD (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"I imagine this issue interests you because of your views of LGBTQA+ issues." If you think I am intolerant of alternative sexual orientations you are mistaken. I am basically interested in biology. In my opinion males and females are similar and dissimilar in certain ways. But my expertise on the subject is limited. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

In any case, discussions about our personal interests are irrelevant at best, and utterly counterproductive at worst. -sche proposed what is, in my view, a pretty sensible middle ground option of including a very brief (1 sentence) mention of the letter to the LGBTQ section. I'm open to this idea if others are. Nblund ^talk 02:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Nblund Agreed. That is basically my original intention, albeit, in bombastic enough of a fashion, to have gotten this entirely blown out of proportion. I'd prefer an even more generalized statement that simply refers to the Congresswoman's stance on the actual issue (which is what I tried to do in the first place), but to refer to this specific case would be also welcome. That would allow the reader to draw their own conclusion. My goal here is to simply clarify this topic, not to sway things in one direction or another, as I've been striving to demonstrate in my earlier comments. If the way I word things seems a bit foggy, then let another editor, either alter my original sentence, or construct a much simpler one. So, Nblund, one sentence, mentioning this issue in a succint manner, in my opinion, is all that this Wikipedia page can merit. To expound on it any further would be only appropriate elsewhere, and that's beyond the purposes of this discussion. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

Congressmen write letters on the basis of any number of things such as getting passports, property reassessment, IRS, Medicare, Social Security, potholes. Whether or not this atter us different is something to be determined by what is written in reliable sources, which so far is nothing. Why do you think this letter is any different from any other letter she might have written? Or do you think the article should mention every letter she sent on behalf of a constituent? PS - no need to repeat what other editors have written. We are all quite capable of finding our own postings. NBlund, could you explain why we should ignore policy in this article? If we open the doors in no time this will read like a Breitbart article. TFD (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for referencing the fixing of potholes. I was going to do so myself. The fixing of potholes in most instances would be uncontroversial. But the notion that those born male would compete in powerlifting against those born female is controversial. I don't think this has to do with acceptance or lack of acceptance of alternative sexual orientations. The crux of the matter is a biological one. I think there is ample room for controversy in answering a question of the meaning of sexual transition. Bus stop (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

TFD: I'm not saying we should ignore the rules, I think I just have a slightly lower bar for due weight than you do. I'm open to a brief, neutrally worded sentence, especially if we expand the section, but I also don't think we lose a whole lot by simply leaving it out. FWIW: I could see a case for removing "LGBT issues" section all together, but I have a hard time justifying why we would have this section and include the HRC endorsement but not include this. Nblund ^talk 16:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you if mainstream media had decided to cover this story. If they did, they would provide the proper context. For example, do trans women have a competitive advantage over "biological" women. That's very important and I don't know the answer. Also, is Omar correct that the ban violates the Minnesota Human Rights Act? Should a congressperson complain about the violation of a law, even if they think the law is wrong? What do other politicians in Minnesota think about this? And mainstream media would ask Omar to clarify her position. In order to present the issue fairly, we would have to address all these issues. At the very least we should send an email to Omar asking for her response. But that is beyond the scope of the project. If you think this issue is important, then you should write to CNN, etc. and ask them to cover it.

We had a similar issue with Bernie Sanders who "spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union," as reported in Breitbart, etc. That is in his article but worded as "The day after their wedding, the couple visited the Soviet Union as part of an official delegation in his capacity as mayor." So a statement that was true was also misleading. Fortunately, we use secondary sources written by professional journalists who report the full story. Bear in mind too that when negative stories are written about people in mainstream sources, they respond and their responses are reported in mainstream sources. But when fringe sources make accusations, they have no reason to reply. By reporting incomplete stories, we put subjects in a position where they must reply and thereby amplify stories that otherwise would only be of interest to the fringe.

TFD (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You are posing questions, but answering those questions is not a prerequisite to our informing the reader that Omar has taken a stance on whether people born male should be permitted to compete in the sport of powerlifting against people born female. I don't think we need to "send an email to Omar asking for her response." Doing so could be considered optional but not necessary. Bus stop (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that we can pretty safely assume that none of our other political BLPs mention the person's opinion on whether or not transgender women should be permitted to compete in powerlifting against biological females. It appears to me that this was picked up as just one more way to attempt to demonize this politician. If it was an important political stance one would expect to find it mentioned on a number of others bios, which it is not. I'm in full agreement with TFD on this one. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"It appears to me that this was picked up as just one more way to attempt to demonize this politician." Is it covered by PinkNews and Outsports as a way to demonize her? Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I found another source, this one mainstream. The Spectator magazine reported on it, in February. To be fair to User:Gandydancer, the article could be interpreted that way - but only if one comes into the topic with pre-supposed notions. It's titled Women’s sports may one day soon consist entirely of men. Since The Spectator was established in England in 1828, would it not seem to be precedent to accepting it as a well established news source? Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

PinkNews and Outsports are not trying to add the information to the article, you are. The information was included in their reporting because of its relevance to LGBT rights and LGBT sports regulation respectively, not because those publications have any particular interest in Omar. And no columns in the Spectator are no more reliable than columns published anywhere else. All you can show is that a few people in the right-wing echo chamber have written articles about Omar presumably because of their position on LGBT rights and general antipathy to Omar. Can you explain why this did not make CNN or any other mainstream publication? Is it because you think they are biased or was in an oversight or is it because they found the information too trivial to report? I don't know if your mention precedent by age is meant as a joke, but there is no policy or guideline supporting this. The Daily Mail for example was founded in 1896, long before any broadcast media news, but is banned on Wikipedia for being unreliable. TFD (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Liberal and conservative publications can each publish this material for their own reasons. In the final analysis I don't think a publication's political leaning matters all that much, and the sources for this information range across the spectrum from liberal to conservative. Our article is a biography of a politician. One of the most important purposes a biography of a politician serves is informing a reader of the positions a politician takes on various issues with which they are confronted. Omar was apparently confronted with an issue that pertained to the competing of transitioned females against females who were born female. The referenced competition was the sport of powerlifting. No matter what stance Omar took on that issue, her stance would likely be worthy of inclusion in this article. For instance—even if Omar maintained the hypothetical stance that transitioned women should not be permitted to compete in powerlifting against women born female—her stance likely would be worthy of inclusion in this article. It is not the particular stance that matters, and if it is not the stance that matters, as I am contending, then it is not the political leaning of the source that matters. In other words—who cares whether an LGBT-oriented publication supports the material we put in our article or if a conservative publication supports the same material? Bus stop (talk) 06:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2019

Ilhan's father and grandfather were loyalists to the communist dictatorship in Somalia. Their family fled the country when the uprising happened and it was no longer safe for loyalists to the brutal communist dictatorship that had plunged the country into poverty. 198.173.201.184 (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Unsourced. O3000 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is any help, I searched online for anything on this. I found three sources that could possibly relate to this in some way. One from the BBC News, another from Minnesota Public Radio, and a third from the Center For Security Policy. I do not know if all of these are considered to be reliable sources. Also, I do not know if this would make any difference or if it will be of some small help. Coutin-Kelikaku (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC) בס״ד

The BBC and MPR are fine sources, but they do not support the claim that Omar's family were "loyalists" just because they were government workers. The Center for Security Policy is not a reliable source. Nblund ^talk 14:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Description of 2013 arrest

I came across Omar's mugshot the other day, and thought it might be fake but Snopes says it's real: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-arrest/. I didn't see anything about this. Do we not add arrests if charges are dropped? "Democrat State Rep Ilhan Omar, devoid of her hijab, apparently was arrested in 2013 for trespassing. She was booked at the Hennepin County Jail “to prevent further criminal conduct.” She was described as “mad/angry and uncooperative” by arresting officers." YouNotSneaky! (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC) (blocked sockpuppet -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

Without some additional details or more coverage from mainstream reliable sources, this probably isn't something worth including. Nblund ^talk 16:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's been covered in reliable sources[1], so it's worth including. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, and this probably belongs in another section, I am referring to the information about the arrest. I do not think that the mugshot should be included in the page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a one paragraph mention in a local newspaper story. It's not like the national press is hesitant to cover Omar, but this doesn't seem to have any national coverage so far. This same story runs through a laundry list of accusations (like the one about her marrying her brother) that are not covered in the entry. What neutral purpose would be served by adding a vaguely salacious detail like this? Nblund ^talk 21:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The information is sourced to a reliable outlet (Minnesota Star) and has been fact-checked by another reliable outlet (Snopes). It satisfies both the WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:DUE criteria of WP:BLP and should be mentioned on this basis. Neutrality is not an issue; facts are facts, and just because a fact might be negative doesn't mean it should be omitted. To the contrary, it's received attention from reliable sources and for that reason it should be noted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

"Neutrality is not an issue"? WP:NPOV is one of the core content policies, and Wikipedia isn't a random collection of facts, so we should have some sort of relevant encyclopedic purpose in mind when we add information to an article. I think a good rule of thumb is: "if a criticism is so obscure that no one has even bothered to dispute it then it's probably not WP:DUE for inclusion". We can't cover other viewpoints because no one cares to even mention this. What's the point? Nblund ^talk 16:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

A mention in a local paper – the charges were dropped – there isn’t enough WEIGHT here to budge a scale. O3000 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. Gandydancer (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop attempting to whitewash this article; this is disruptive behavior and presents the real WP:NPOV issue here. The disposition of the arrest is irrelevant beyond the extent that it should be mentioned, it's not a factor for determining whether or not the information is suitable for inclusion, which it is because it's received attention in reliable sources and is a verifiable piece of the subject's bio. Nblund, your argument is entirely off-point, because we are dealing with facts, not viewpoints, facts which are both verifiable and have been covered in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No one is whitewashing, and that's not what WP:NPOV says. WP:BALASPS explains that discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.. Mere verifiability is not enough. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, and we need to have some kind of encyclopedic basis in mind when adding content. What encyclopedic purpose is served here? And why should we include this detail when we leave out others that are more prominently covered in the local press? Nblund ^talk 03:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It is a fact about her early life, and it became relevant to the political campaign; it's obviously a relevant piece of . An arrest is a significant event, significant enough that it was covered by one local piece and fact checked by another reliable source. Your argument is completely generic, could be applied to any sentence in this article, and is frankly disingenuous. You should actually identify why you believe this information shouldn't be included other than it being "salacious." We do not evaluate material based on whether it reflects positively or negatively on the subject (if it's the latter, we make triple sure that it is reliably sourced, which it is). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV does potentially apply to every sentence on Wikipedia. Per WP:ONUS it's actually on you to justify the inclusion of the content, but I think I already explained the issue: the arrest is far less widely covered than other aspects of her campaign. It's so obscure that we can't provide any additional explanation, context, or balance beyond saying "she was arrested". And that's especially noteworthy given how widely covered she is. The goal is to offer a summary of accepted knowledge, not to simply hand out context-free factoids. We should reflect the coverage in mainstream reliable sources, but we shouldn't elevate certain stories by giving them more detailed coverage than they would ordinarily receive in any other summary work. Nblund ^talk 04:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It was an issue in at least two publications, and the current proposal is a single sentence describing the basis of the arrest and its outcome (and then another on it being used in attack ads against her, which it was). The subject is a public figure and neither WP:DUE nor WP:BLP give justification for whitewashing (removing) negatives. Your other argument is that we don't deal in "factoids." I'm unclear what you mean by this (presumably "factoid" is meant to diminish the information) but looking to the actual WP:NOT list, there is not a single example that would support calling an arrest a "trivial factoid." WP:NOT is meant to prevent endless lists, song lyrics, statistics, and other genuinely trivial information from clogging articles, not omitting biographical details that might be unfavorable. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, on the other hand, explicitly states that arrests, accusations, etc. should be covered by noting what's stated in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOT The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive., the point is that just saying "it's verifiable" is not a sufficient reason for inclusion. We have lots of other guidance that says the same thing. "Public figure" says that we should include things when they are noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, but you haven't really explained why this fits. We have 3 sentences in the 15th paragraph of a single local newspaper. The article itself does not treat the arrest as inherently noteworthy, it just provides it as a third or fourth example of the kinds of accusations local Republicans made against her.

We also have an article from Snopes which, while reliable, is a publication that specializes in fact-checking crazy shit from the obscure reaches of the internet that often doesn't belong in BLPs. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, it doesn't attempt to drive news stories by publicizing opposition research campaigns that the press has decided not to cover. What are readers supposed to learn from saying that she was arrested for trespassing? Nblund ^talk 19:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the placement in the article of the information is at all relevant. By mentioning and explaining the arrest, the source is treating it as noteworthy. You are ignoring the policy that most directly applies, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and citing a policy that's a real stretch. To call an arrest in someone's background something that should be covered under WP:NOT is an overbroad application of that policy and opens the door to partisan abuse (I'm suggesting this as a hypothetical implication, not accusing you). By that standard, any opinionated editor (again, not accusing you) could call negative information about a subject they are partial to "trivial" and ask for it to be removed on that basis. This kind of reasoning is not in keeping with WP:NPOV. The arrest had enough significance to warrant a mention in reliable sources, as did how it was used. Snopes is indeed reliable for fact-checking but they determined that the arrest happened, "crazy shit" or not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Because article structure typically reflects importance in newspapers. Most newsworthy events aren't encyclopedia-worthy. I think you're absolutely right that WP:NPOV is open to abuse, but so is allowing people to just include facts without regard for their encyclopedic value. WP:PUBLICFIGURE says that there will be "a multitude" of reliable sources. I suppose one could debate the precise meaning of that term, but I think that usually means "more than two". My point about Snopes is that - even when it confirms something - it's not a great metric for determining significance because they cover a lot of internet rumors that mainstream sources don't care about, and so even many of the true or half-true claims aren't really encyclopedia-worthy. Nblund ^talk 20:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is another source mentioning the arrest. There are a "multitude" of sources covering it. And you've misconstrued my point. I'm saying that your argument about which facts are trivial and which are not is is highly, highly subjective and suggesting that this information be omitted based on WP:NOT is a misuse of that policy and runs afoul of WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is the same story reprinted in a different outlet. These are generally treated as a single source. I think I understand what you're saying, but my point is that, yes, in fact lots of Wikipedia questions require judgement calls on the part of editors. My point about triviality is based in part on the dearth of coverage, the absence of useful context regarding the arrest, and the lack of a response from Omar. Nblund ^talk 20:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Basic facts don't need to be a front-page story to be mentioned in the article; we have the reliable sources. You are advocating a selective standard of removing negative information without pointing to a policy that firmly supports your position. WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly establishes that the arrest warrants a mention. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I pointed to several. I've posted a request for feedback at the BLP noticeboard. Nblund ^talk 21:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It does not meet weight. It is only mentioned in passing in a local newspaper. Had the story been adequately covered we would have been able to provide proper context. For example, "Omar, who is a refuge from Somalia, was wrongfully arrested for protesting the visit of the president of Somalia in 2013. The president was subsequently refused a visa by the U.S. "under Executive Order 13780: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States."" TFD (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been covered in two reliable sources (Star Tribune & Snopes), which is how WP:WEIGHT is accorded. The Star Tribune is also the largest paper in the state. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A google news search for "ilhan omar" returns two million six hundred and thirty thousand hits.[2] Could you please review these articles tonight and write a draft article that incorporates every fact that appears in at least one of the articles. TFD (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want to sort through those WP:GHITS and propose material from reliable sources, I'm all ears. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly clear consensus against including this on BLP/N. nableezy - 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think there is consensus yet one way or the other. I think it's very significant that a sitting congresswoman has bewen arrested for disorderly conduct. I would probably recommend against including her hijab-less mugshot in this page, but I think we have an obligation to at least say something about it, making clear that the charges were dropped. YouNotSneaky! (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) (blocked sockpuppet) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As you say, the charges were dropped. O3000 (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if one wanted to claim there isnt consensus there (and it seems pretty clear that there is), there certainly is not consensus to include and per WP:ONUS and per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE that is required to include. nableezy - 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019

• • • This article states that "Omar was born in Mogadishu on October 4, 1981". It later states that "Omar became a U.S. Citizen in 2000 when she was 17 years old". How is this possible?

Omar was born in Mogadishu on October 4, 1981[4] and spent her early years in Baidoa, Somalia.[5][6] She was the youngest of seven siblings, including Sahra Noor. Her father Nur Omar Mohamed, an ethnic Somali, worked as a teacher trainer,[7] and her mother, Fadhuma Abukar Haji Hussein, a Benadiri (a community of partial Yemeni descent), died when Ilhan was two.[8][9][10][11] She was raised by her father and grandfather thereafter.[12] Her grandfather Abukar was the director of Somalia's National Marine Transport and some of Omar's uncles and aunts also worked as civil servants and educators.[7] She and her family fled Somalia to escape the war and spent four years in a Dadaab refugee camp in Garissa County, Kenya, near the Somali border.[13][14][15]

After first arriving in New York in 1992,[16] Omar's family finally secured asylum in the U.S. in 1995 and lived for a time in Arlington, Virginia,[10] before moving to and settling in Minneapolis,[10] where her father worked first as a taxi driver and later for the post office.[10] Her father and grandfather emphasized the importance of democracy during her upbringing, and at age 14 she accompanied her grandfather to caucus meetings, serving as his interpreter.[12][17] Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 when she was 17 years old. 173.175.38.121 (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please read WP:OR O3000 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: we could sidestep the visible discrepancy by dropping "when she was 17", and just saying the year she became a citizen. However, judging by past discussions at Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 1#Conflicting_date_information and Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 4#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_11_March_2019, it seems that it's the other date that may be wrong: other RS give a birthdate in 1982. It's also worth noting that the bio currently cited for the birthdate doesn't mention the year she acquired citizenship, and the AP News source cited for the year and age she acquired citizenship doesn't mention her birthdate (although a very small number of sources like this do have all three numbers simultaneously — born 1981, was 17 in 2000 — and don't seem to notice the mathematical discrepancy. 🤷) I would suggest (a) dropping "when she was 17" and just giving the year of citizenship acquisition, and/or (b) mentioning the other possible birth year either in the prose or in a footnote, using refs such as those mentioned in the aforelinked archives and e.g. this AP News one. -sche (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: Almost certainly, the reporter of the twincities.com piece just copied this (inconsistent) information off of Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Birth year: 1982

Update: just as I was about to start a WP:RSN thread asking for broader input on whether Cong. Bio. was a reliable source for a birth year of 1981 in light of the other RSes saying 1982 (and a RSN discussion I saw the other day about whether a similar source was reliable for a birth year), I noticed that the Cong. Bio. source we were citing for "1981" has been updated to say 1982. I have changed the birth year in the article accordingly. -sche (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Update to the "Financial transparency issues" Section

Should the "Financial transparency issues" section be updated after the news that Ilhan Omar was ordered by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board to pay $500 in a civil fine for the state and reimburse her campaign for $3,469 of improperly used campaign funding? [3] Devin.richard.97 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Further to the point above, perhaps it would be worth creating a dedicated section, because I'm not entirely sure the existing details really sit well in the Minnesota House section. MaineCrab (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest moving the subsection, but a section would be overkill. wumbolo ^^^ 11:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

---

proposed addition

Controversial Comments (it would be negligent to leave this out) Omar refered to the 9-11 terror attacks in the context that "Some people did something" in a tweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psynwavez (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

We generally try to avoid "Controversy" sections, and put things in context. Your proposed addition lacks any sources, and lacks any context. Without those, there's nothing to consider. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Update to the "Financial transparency issues" Section

Should the "Financial transparency issues" section be updated after the news that Ilhan Omar was ordered by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board to pay $500 in a civil fine for the state and reimburse her campaign for $3,469 of improperly used campaign funding? [4] Devin.richard.97 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Further to the point above, perhaps it would be worth creating a dedicated section, because I'm not entirely sure the existing details really sit well in the Minnesota House section. MaineCrab (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest moving the subsection, but a section would be overkill. wumbolo ^^^ 11:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

---

proposed addition

Controversial Comments (it would be negligent to leave this out) Omar refered to the 9-11 terror attacks in the context that "Some people did something" in a tweet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psynwavez (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

We generally try to avoid "Controversy" sections, and put things in context. Your proposed addition lacks any sources, and lacks any context. Without those, there's nothing to consider. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"small" tax?

I'm certain this[5] edit by User:NorthBySouthBaranoff was good faith, and it's almost correct, but the source doesn't say anything about the size of the tax. Additionally, if a tax is to raise $1.6 trillion over some number of years, it hardly seems small. I'd delete the word "small" myself, but I'm unclear on what counts as a "revert" under 1RR.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

An 0.5 percent and 0.1 percent tax (on stocks and bonds, respectively) is "small" by any definition - if you'd like, I'll replace the word "small" with those percentages. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The article as it stands now looks much better, but a source for the figures should be added as it's not in the one given. I guess the "small" part depends on one's point of view. $1.6 trillion is definitely not small -- it's about 8% of the US GDP. The percentage doesn't feel large, but it is much larger than current transaction costs for typical transactions. So it depends on how you look at it.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security

It seems misleading to exclude the progressive reasoning against voting for the senate version of bill, namely that it doesn't include adequate conditions on funding towards remedying the humanitarian problems in the facilities. The language seems skewed towards the interpretation that Ilhan Omar voted against it just she's just against funding the facilities in general rather than declining to vote for a bill that doesn't ensure funds are used appropriately. Muhammara (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaido

@Zekelayla: please discuss here as per WP:BRD. You have to follow WP:RS and avoid WP:SYNTH on WP:BLPs. Unless you have a reference that directly refutes Omar's beliefs, please self-revert. wumbolo ^^^ 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I fail to see the synth. Omar said Popular Will was far-right. Popular Will characterizes itself as center-left. RS characterizes it as centrist. There are articles which explicitly contradict Omar on this and could be cited (e.g. https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/14/omar-criticizes-cold-war-policy-distract-socialisms-failure-venezuela/, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rep-omar-backs-maduro-regime-shares-state-run-propaganda-on-social-media), but they are hardly more reliable and notable than the word of the party itself and the New York Times. Zekelayla (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

In order to mention this, you need a source that mentions Ilhan. The fact they call themselves social democratic and are members of the Socialist International and explicitly reject neo-liberalism does not mean they are necessarily so. TFD (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If you insist, the above federalist article meets that description. Zekelayla (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

How about this language:

>Some commentators objected to Omar's use of the phrase "far right opposition". Guaidó's party, Popular Will, describes itself as progressive and social-democratic, while the New York Times described the party as centrist.

Op-eds are not WP:Reliable sources, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, and a single article in The Federalist is insufficient sourcing for such sweeping criticism. But looking at the references in the article, both of them suggest that Guaido is not a right-winger, which I just added. wumbolo ^^^ 20:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the phrasing is poor. It implies that Ilhan is in error in her assessment of Guado, when in fact she is probably aware that he is a nominal socialist but does not believe that he truly is. The group she belongs to, the Democratic Socialists of America left the Socialist International two years ago because of their objection to its acceptance of parties such as Guaido's party which they considered right-wing. So it needs to be rephrased so that it is written as a difference of opinion rather than of facts. By comparison, Álvaro Uribe, the former president of neighboring Colombia also belonged to a member party of the Socialist International, yet is universally described as right-wing.[6] TFD (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Wumbolo rephrased it, "She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition", even though Guaidó is described as a centrist and a social democrat."[7] They wrote, "It doesn't imply that as it doesn't say her claim is false, and both refs saying it makes it WP:DUE as opposed to some WP:OR on the talk page " However it clearly does imply that Ilhan is wrong instead of holding a different opinion. Even if we accept Wumbolo's statement, it still presents her view as fringe.

Alan Macleod of the Glasgow University Media Group writes in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), "Everyone Washington Supports, by Definition, Is a Moderate Centrist" (March 23, 2019). Guaido is "a prominent opponent of the leftist government, championed by right-wing nations in the region keen to see the end of President Nicolás Maduro’s administration. Despite this, or rather precisely because of it, the media are presenting Guaidó not as a conservative (or further still to the right), but as a centrist social democrat who can unite a fractured nation."

Considering this is a biography of a living person, we should be careful. We would need to explain that different views exist. However, it is better to omit the controversy altogether and leave it to Venezuela related articles.

I have raised the issue at NPOVN.

TFD (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

FAIR is not a reliable source. If you can't find any RS saying what Omar says, her claim is in fact fringe. I'd agree with trimming/merging the section, but then plenty of editors will show up and complain about the length of the section about Israel. But we can try. wumbolo ^^^ 20:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus on its reliability. However, since the article is by an expert on media who is a member of the Glasgow Media Group and published by Routledge, it meets rs. ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.") It is certainly a reliable source for the statement that Guido's position on the political spectrum is a matter of opinion not fact. And as I mentioned at NPOVN, in the case of the BNP we require peer reviewed sources that say there is academic consensus about the position of the British National Party on the political spectrum, yet here you are willing to rely on the opinion of someone who has a journalism degree. TFD (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

SPS + SYNTH is too much for me, hopefully someone has a different opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 21:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:RANDOMLETTERS too much for me. Now go and find a reliable expert source that says there is consensus that Guado is center left or whatever you think he is. I found an expert source, so can you. The same author btw says the same thing in his book published by Routledge.[8] TFD (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: This MacLeod quote is unsuitable to begin with because it does not even characterize Guaido as on the right. It merely states that the media is not presenting Guaido as on the right. Darkly hinting he is a rightist =/= a stated opinion that he is a rightist. MacLeod likely avoids the latter since he does not have the evidence to back up such a claim. Zekelayla (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a source that is both a news article and by an expert in Latin American studies, specializing in Cuba and Venezuela: "Venezuela’s Right Wing Confesses to 17 years of Political Delinquency: The Amnesty Bill." In the article and in his book, Right-Wing Politics in the New Latin America, he describes the Venezuelan opposition as right-wing. The author in The Resilience of the Latin American Right; "Representing a Rightwing Agenda in the Context of Political Polarization" also represents the Venezuelan oppostition as right-wing. (p. 184)[9] I cannot find any academic sources that would refer to the opposition as left-wing. Bear in mind that Ilhan was referring to the opposition, not any particular part of it. TFD (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A particularly polemical opinion piece, not a news article. Your second source looks OK. Although most sources characterize the Venezuelan opposition as centrist or big-tent, it might be OK to add to buttress the point that some source(s) has referred to it as right-wing (not far-right). That would be OK by me. But maybe those with a better understanding of WP:SYNTH would object? Zekelayla (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The opinions of journalists you agree with are authoritative, the opinions of experts you disagree with are polemical. TFD (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)