Talk:Ilhan Omar: Difference between revisions

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ilhan Omar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ilhan Omar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). U.S. Congress B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Politics: American B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Minnesota B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: State Legislatures / Government B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Women B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Somalia B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2016. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malix27 (article contribs).

I reverted a series of edits that had added several sentences (and a boldface subsection title) about criticism of Omar for her vote (or rather non-vote) on the Armenia genocide resolution. My edit summary gave two reasons: WP:UNDUE and (because of biased word choice) also WP:EDITORIALIZING. User:Jonathunder then restored the text I'd reverted, and at the same time put a discretionary sanction warning on my userpage. Jonathunder's edit summary states that "Two sentences are not undue..." However, the present length of the text about the Armenia vote that resulted after their edit is not two sentences, but rather eight sentences. I agree that two sentences are not undue -- that was the amount of text devoted to this issue before Jonathunder restored the six sentences that I had reverted. But someone besides me has to deal with this -- the user who put the discretionary sanction notification on my userpage is an admin who seems to be assuming bad faith on my part, so to avoid reprisals I have to withdraw from any editing of the Ilhan Omar mainpage for a while. NightHeron (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm stumped - what did you do wrong to get this warning? I'm in total agreement with Jonathunder when he said in the edit summary that two sentences are not undue - and then s/he added...what was it, about six more? I would pare it back to two sentences which is certainly ample since this is hardly a pressing issue, but will I get a notice on my talk page as well? It is very discouraging to try our best to create a fair and balanced article and still run into this sort of situation. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discretionary sanction notification is standard for anyone editing these articles and in no way means that you have erred. Although it does mean that you need to be aware of the WP:1RR warning at the top the page. Considering that she did not vote against this resolution, and every action by a politician on any side is criticized from some opposing quarter, eight sentences does appear UNDUE. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for supporting my reverting six of the eight sentences. Concerning the discretionary sanctions notification, you're right that it does state that the warning by itself does not imply that I've erred "to date". But it certainly suggests that I'm close to violating something, since it warns me that "Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic." What I found intimidating is that this was put on my page by an admin, one who's had a content disagreement with me. In fact, I've made only two edits to Ilhan Omar in the last month. Besides the latest edit, three days ago I reverted a poorly sourced defamatory statement about her (citing a basketball player who alleged some secret arrangement with Erdogan). NightHeron (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added dozens of these warnings on talk pages. They really don't mean that you are close to an error. It's just a heads-up that the guidelines are often more strict on articles in controversial areas and an admin can sanction someone on these pages without community input. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. NightHeron (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why anyone would need a friendly notice considering that it is at the top of this page in large letters. Furthermore, why only send a notice to one or two editors and skip the others who are active on the topic. Moving on...it needs to be kept in mind that anything related to "Muslim" draws a lot of extremely opinionated thinking and it has not been easy to keep this article in good shape (though it certainly is debatable that it is very well-balanced right now looking at how the foreign affairs sections go on, and on, and on). Considering that the Armenian question is of historical interest rather than something that reflects her choices for an ongoing congressional decision, I'm going to trim it back to the original two sentences. Also, I note that the "historians" offering their opinions are not recognized as being notable in their field, further adding to the reasons for not including this information. Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if someone posted a notice in my talk before reporting me. I don't see the notice when I am editing using the mobile version.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You received one in this area on Oct. 14, 2018. I just posted a reminder on your talk. You can only receive one warning per year per area and cannot receive a discretionary sanction without being informed of them in advance. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly tendentious editing. Omar "faced a backlash" is a clear exaggeration. She faced opposition from Armenian Americans in her district. I was just say that Omar abstained on the vote because.... Or ignore it entirely, since it received next to zero media attention. TFD (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that the recently-added material here passes WP:DUE for inclusion right now relative to Omar's stature. One is a complaint by the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative advocacy group; a complaint like that doesn't automatically have much weight until / unless some event confirms it or unless it has WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The divorce filing, likewise, is just a bare accusation at the moment. While they have some coverage, devoting two paragraphs to potentially-negative material about a BLP requires more than just one news cycle noting that accusations exist - especially one who attracts as much attention as Omar; this coverage is minor compared to what she normally gets. If these turn out to be significant or are confirmed by later coverage, there will be more going forwards, but right now I'm not seeing enough to support covering fairly WP:EXCEPTIONAL defamatory claims about a BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I fully agree with you. Perhaps sometime editors forget that a BLP requires a higher level of sourcing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is this material less worthy of inclusion than:

-Omar’s father’s comments on school bullying she suffered due to her Muslim identity;

-Comments made by an unidentified Omar supporter at a 2019 rally in New York City;

-Omar’s introduction of legislation that would sanction the nation of Brunei; and

-Omar having been featured in a Maroon 5 music video?

That material is on the page right now, and there is no apparent dispute over its weightiness.

For now, we can wait and see whether more coverage develops on the divorce issues and the complaint (there is already a good deal), but let's be sure to guard against using a heightened standard of due weight because of who the subject of the article is.

Also, Aquillion, please note that your assertion in an edit summary that "a complaint with no followup is WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPCRIME" is incorrect in this instance; per WP:BLPCRIME, that rule is inapplicable to public figures. SunCrow (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the National Legal and Policy Center exists is to promote unfounded rumors ignored by the mainstream. It is not our role as editors to assist them unless per WEIGHT the story gets widespread attention. TFD (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<-----this is a completely baseless accusation.

I'm really interested in why so much attention is put into defending/ protecting liberal candidates and shielding them from criticisms where as if they were conservative, the wiki would be full of just about every accusation and criticism ever made. There seems to be extremely heavy bias here.2601:187:4002:4160:6C25:B79F:F207:C568 (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Whataboutism. If there is an article where you think a conservative person is being treated unfairly, the best place to raise that would be on that talk page. Zaathras (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. (Also I have moved the inappropriate addition at the end of TFD's comment to its own line, and fixed the indenting..) --JBL (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article appeared in the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/opinion/ilhan-omar-rashida-tlaib.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage) titled "The Online Cacophony of Hate Against Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib." Would it be appropriate to summarize it in Section 6? NightHeron (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it would be an important addition. Reading the article, although I was not aware of what was (and is) going on, I was not in the least surprised either. The sourcing is excellent what with the NYT considered the best of the best and we have the study published by the Social Science Research Council. Do you want to write something up and add it? Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly relevant, clearly due. Section six seems the best place to put it as well. As an aside- While I’m assuming it’s largely due to a lot of eyes being on this article, the information is more or less generally presented both neutrally, and in neutral wording. And even generally balanced between sources on the political spectrum. I’m a bit impressed, for a major AP2 article. -Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NH, I think your addition is excellent, though I did trim the last sentence. Add if back if you feel it's important. Perhaps with the needed few changes it should go into Tlaib's article as well? Gandydancer (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a very long time this article began (essentially) "Ilhan Omar is a Somali-American politican ..." (or sometimes "Somali American"); for example, Nov 2018 (just before being elected to Congress), Jan 2019, March 2019, May 2019. More recently, some editor or editors have removed the "Somali" (or "Somali-") descriptor from the first sentence. Unlike the silliness about her "Arabic name" above, this seems to me misguided: her notability derives in significant part from her background (she is the first Somali-American elected to any legislative office in the US, etc.). I propose that the modifier be restored. The relevant guideline is MOS:ETHNICITY: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. -- it seems to me that the qualifiers are amply met in this case. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability stems from the fact that she's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and before that the Minnesota House. How much does being Somali factor into her notability? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She was notable before she was elected -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilhan_Omar. She received widespread national news coverage as the first Somali-American elected in the US. (This is covered in multiple places in the article, along with a detailed discussion of her ethnicity/background.) --JBL (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She has indeed received a lot of coverage focusing on her Somali upbringing. I'm torn on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the above user. Furthermore it is unclear whether she even retained Somali citizenship after immigrating and becoming a U.S. Citizen, thereby making the label "Somali-American" questionable anyway, but nonetheless her notability is entirely as an American politician in the U.S.A. I'm not sure how her ethnicity/place of birth figures into her notability at all to warrant inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is beside the point (i.e., it doesn't control what the first sentence should say), but you are absolutely wrong about the first part: the descriptor "Somali-American" is about her ethnicity/birthplace, it has nothing to do with her nationality, and it is attested to by an infinite number of reliable sources. About the second part, if you read the lead of the article you will see it already contains a detailed discussion of her Somali background, because it correctly reflects the content of the article. The question I am raising is whether, in addition, it should begin by describing her as a Somali American. --JBL (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized there was an earlier discussion of this that I missed (probably, this is when the removal happened): Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_10#Heritage_and_Nationality. It does not look to me like there was consensus for the removal there. --JBL (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence it should not mention "Somali" because I think that wouldn't be appropriate considering that it is followed by "politician" and she was not a politician in the Somali. Also I think this case is very similar to Obama and in the Obama article the first sentence doesn't say "African", etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: Barack Obama is not African. Ilhan Omar is Somali. Nevertheless, Barack Obama's article mentions that he is African-American in the second sentence. --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then based on what Mr. JBL said, I think I further stand by why the term "Somali" should NOT be included in the lead. The lead per Wikipedia guidelines as stated in WP:Ethnicity already mentioned above should only describe nationality by default, not ethnicity or place of birth or prior nationalities unless the latter are somehow directly relevant to her notability. Simply being born in Somalia or being born a Somali citizen does not mean that said descriptor should be included in the lead. We don't have any information that she retains Somali citizenship, whereas we know for a fact she is a U.S. citizen as such is a prerequisite for her political office. Also, her Somali birth has little to no relevance to her notability as a U.S. politician. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made my mind up 100%, but I think it's worth noting that while she has recieved considerable press for being the first Somali-American congresswoman, even more headlines mention her faith first. Your average headline would say "first Muslim woman elected to congress"(well, tied for first). I think we should leave the lead as-is. Also note, Rashida Tlaib has the same lead, American politician, with Palistinian-American further down. Let's leave the lead alone. TheSavageNorwegian 02:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesavagenorwegian: Rashida Talib was born in the United States, and the fact that she's Palestinian is much less widely noted than the fact that Omar is Somali. (Just compare the coverage in the two articles.) --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Apoorva Iyer: I am happy to be called by my username (Joel B. Lewis) or by my abbreviated username (JBL); but if you want to use a title/honorific, the correct choice is "Dr.", not "Mr." --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how to indent and thread your posts correctly. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I am not that familiar with the way to indent on wikipedia. do you have a source I can look to to learn/could you let me know how? Also, Rashida Tlaib being born in the USA does not change the situation one bit. Being born in a different country does not somehow make that country more relevant to inclusion in the lead, just as being born a certain ethnicity does not either. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, here is the link: WP:THREAD. (I have fixed the indentation on the comment right above this one, I hope that's all right.) Substantively: being born in a place is a more significant connection to that place than not being born in that place. So it is not particularly surprising that Tlaib is not called "Palestinian-American" in the first sentence, and the fact that she is not does not shed much light on the case of someone like Omar with a much stronger connection (both in terms of biographical significance and notability/coverage in reliable sources). --JBL (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree here. Being born in a place may offer an obvious biographical connection to that place, but as to whether that is notable and worthy of inclusion in the lead is an entirely different question and one akin to asking whether someone's ethnicity, religious background, or other information is also information worthy of inclusion in the lead. Rashida Tlaib is known for being Muslim, Palestinian-American, and a variety of other things but those are not included in her lead. Similarly, I don't see why we should include Ilhan Omar's birthplace in the lead. Just because she was born in Somalia does not automatically make that relevant to her notability and worthy of inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I think a great place to look for guidance on this issue is the part of WP:Ethnicity that states "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable." Ilhan Omar achieved her notability as a U.S. citizen and politician in the USA, not as a Somali one. News articles may highlight her Somali heritage as they may highlight Rashida Tlaib's Palestinian one but that does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion in the lead just as their mutual muslim backgrounds, which are also notable and mentioned frequently in the media, are also not included in their leads. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is a side note and not directly relevant to the topic at hand, but I'd like to note that being born in a certain place doesn't always even give you a significant connection to that place. Take, for instance, people who immigrate as infants or toddlers from another country. These people have no memory or connection to their place of birth over their US-born counterparts. This isn't Ilhan's case, but just thought I'd provide food for thought. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your comments have the following feature: they live entirely at the level of generality and fail to deal with the particular details of this particular biography. Such comments do not add anything to the discussion. —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the fact that media sources like to highlight her Somali heritage/birthplace. I provided a comparison to other aspects of her background which are also highlighted in the media but yet are not included in the lead. I referenced Wikipedia guidelines on the issue as well. What is your reasoning for inclusion of her birthplace in the lead beyond that it is mentioned in media sources? Why should we include it in the lead over other qualifiers that are also equally addressed for her in the media such as her religious background? I feel like I need more specifics from your end to justify how her Somali heritage is directly relevant to her notability as a U.S. politician before I can be on the same page. If the only reasoning is that she is the first Somali-American elected to office, etc., then I'd point out that Rashida Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American elected to office and birthplace outside the USA as discussed previously is not somehow a greater reason for inclusion in the lead. Also she is one of the first muslim congresswoman so technically her religion is also important for the lead if we are looking at it from that angle. I think it is better that these factors are mentioned a few lines later as opposed to in the first line. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually hyphenation would mean that Omar was a politician both in Somalia and the U.S. By comparison, Einstein was a German American scientist, Peter Lorre was a German-American actor, but we wouldn't say that Reagan was an Irish American politician, because he never held office in Ireland. TFD (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I agree with this analysis, but assuming consensus is reached to include, we can then discuss which form to include. (The earlier discussion was leaning towards “Somali-born American”, which I also like and skirts the hyphen issue.) —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the qualifier of "Somali-born American" doesn't really solve the issue either. We still have to ask why her birthplace is worthy of inclusion in the lead. Being the first of Somali birth or heritage in her position isn't any different than Rashida Tlaib or anyone else of other ethnicities being the first of their heritages to be elected to their offices. Just because she was born there it doesn't somehow make that more worthy of inclusion in the lead. And then by that logic do we have to include her religion in the lead too? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that "Somali-American politician" is the correct and accurate category for a naturalized citizen, as the second paragraph shows. Compare Arnold_Schwarzenegger is an Austrian-American actor, filmmaker, businessman, author, and former professional bodybuilder and politician. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. I don't see in what way that would be obvious. Unless your place of birth is directly relevant to your notability (ex: you achieved your notability in that country prior to immigrating to a different one), and/or you remain a citizen of that country, why would you include it in the lead? Especially for Omar, who achieved her notability as a U.S. Citizen only and has no evidence of retaining Somali citizenship, I think the label Somali-American would in fact be inaccurate. I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger has dual citizenship. Not only that, but Wikipedia is pretty clear on this too in WP:Ethnicity. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop bludgeoning the conversation: you have repeated the same thing over and over again, and other people are entitled to discuss without this bad behavior from you. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I wasn't even aware that "bludgeoning" was a thing. I think you can be a little kinder in your tone. I responded to this previous user's post as it repeated many of the same points brought up before that had already been discussed. I will be sparser in my commenting here from now per WP:Bludgeoning. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that we keep it as it is with "an American politician..." in the first para in the lead and then introducing her Somali heritage in the second para as we do now. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzenegger came second in the Mr. Universe contest when he still lived in Austria and before he became a U.S. citizen in 1983 was famous as a body builder featured in Pumping Iron and had starred in Conan the Barbarian. So he was an actor both before and after he became a U.S. citizen, while Omar was never a politician before becoming a U.S. citizen. TFD (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article leads the reader to believe that the President said she should go back, but he never said "should". The article says - should "go back" to the "places from which they came". This paraphrases his tweet in such a way to lead the reader to believe he used a racist trope. Go back and help is quite different in meaning. President Trump said "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." The article eliminates "and help" which makes it out of context. He never said she should stay there, as the racist trope goes. In fact he says "Then come back". The link to the racist trope is unfair and biased. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.25.58 (talk)

They came from the US. O3000 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say that Trump used the word "should". Your statement that the article misquotes Trump as using the word "should" is false; in the article only "go back" is quoted from Trump, and the word "should" is an accurate paraphrase that is outside the direct quote. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: After my comment pointing out that the previous comment (claiming that the article misquotes Trump) was wrong, an IP-editor made edits in that earlier critical comment, changing the wording so as to make it appear that my comment was wrong. This violates talk-page guidelines, see WP:TPO (Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning). NightHeron (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:REDACT: if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. NightHeron (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles rely on the interpretation in reliable secondary sources. Why btw doesn't Trump go back to Europe and fix their broken health care systems and open borders? TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. One is the substantive, real-world one; on that issue, the IP's post is utter and complete BS, as well as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. The second issue is about whether that wikilink is appropriate as currently used, and regrettably the IP is correct that this is questionable; see MOS:LINKQUOTE. It would be much better to include that link separately, elsewhere in the same sentence or in a separate sentence. (Reliable sourcing of the racist content of Trump's post will not be hard to come by.) --JBL (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had a closed discussion-consensus a few months ago that the controversy regarding the anti-semitism accusations belonged in the lead. Who removed the content and why? Where was the consensus for doing so? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things change over time, your answer was easily found n the talk page archives, Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_12#Early_2019_statements_in_the_lead. Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that four three editors, who participated in the prior discussion involving over 30 editors, who voted against keeping the material, even though the discussion resulted in consensus for keeping the material, returned and decided to unilaterally override the prior decision at a time when they knew that the discussion was unlikely to receive broader input. This shouldn't have been done without another RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you shouldn't be calling names like "right-wingers" in your edit summaries. You should know better. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion I'm referencing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A portion of the comment from the closing administrator: I would suggest though to wait at least a year or until there is another significant event they are involved with. The editors (who voted no in the linked archive) in the extremely limited "discussion" you linked to blatantly disregarded this recommendation, waiting only 7 months and with no significant intervening events, to reinstate the version they preferred. This type of sneaky gaming is no justification to make these dramatic changes to a high-activity article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the part of the RfC closer's statement: "or until there is another significant event they are involved with." Well, an awful lot has happened since last April, for example, the frequent attacks on her by Trump in his tweets. If the fact that the US President has a fixation on attacking her doesn't belong in the lede, then neither do claims that comments she made a year ago were anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an either or proposition. It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments, especially not within 7 months. Her political disputes certainly are not such an event, and it seems the lead already notes the "political harassment," which is a charged and questionable term. There is a concerted effort on this page to diminish controversies and play up political disputes that seem to cast the subject in a sympathetic light. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a US president to ask the government of another country to deny a visa to a congressperson and for him to launch personal attacks against her, calling on her to return to her country of birth -- this is (as far as I know, but I'm not a historian) unprecedented in US history. It is far more notable than a controversy about interpretation of the words she used to voice opposition to Israeli policy. If the former is not notable enough for the lede, then neither is the latter, as should be clear to editors irrespective of their personal opinions about Rep. Omar. NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the comments you're referring to belong is a separate discussion. Weight is accorded based on treatment in reliable sources, not your opinion or personal analysis. One has nothing to do with the other. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the US President's vendetta against Ilhan Omar wasn't covered much in reliable sources?? NightHeron (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you that it's irrelevant. This back-and-forth is getting very WP:POINTY, as well as off-topic, and I don't have any interest in continuing it. If you have other concerns about the lead, those are best expressed in a separate section. What we're addressing here is a consensus formed months ago and the attempt by a small group of editors to override it without broader input. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments. That is not the conclusion that the RFC reached. The discussion was close and hinged on a lot of people concerned with recentism, with a specific caveat that allowed for the possibility that an event could overshadow it; therefore, the conclusion was that it would stand only until there was another major event, which (at least based on the most recent discussion) was the case. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of this from the lede was out of process and ridiculous. A public trouting might be warranted here, even, it's not really excusable here given the time and effort that was spent by dozens of people here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its "lead" not "lede". They are two different things. --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing the article lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for this horrendous and offensive oversight, Malerooster. What I said was a horrific violation of the English language and I am not sure I can ever be forgiven, let alone if I can ever forgive myself for this. Toa Nidhiki05 01:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC is not a stone monument, forever unyielding to change. Several editors held a discussion in the link I provided, a discussion that resulted in the removal of the content in question. Said discussion took place in August, thus the trimmed lede (for the record, I use lede/lead interchangeably, I have no idea what the exchange above is on about) has remained live for the last 4 months, abot as long as it was from RfC-to-that-discussion. I would therefore posit that it is incumbent upon Mr. 19920 and his new friend to establish consensus for the restoration, and that it should be restored to it's August version while they go about that.

Pinging the participants in that last discussion; @Aquillion:, @Starship.paint:, @Nableezy:, @Sir Joseph:, @SharabSalam:, @Nblund:. Zaathras (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stability is a goal for a high-activity article on a controversial subject. When you have an RfC that received the input of dozens of editors, it carries more weight than a trio of editors superficially addressing the same issue a short time later. Further, there was no "result" of the discussion; the same editors who initially objected the material repeatedly returned to the page to remove it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can always go for another RFC, I suppose. But my feeling is that (keeping in mind that this is negative material about a BLP and therefore consensus is always required to keep it in, and that recent discussions have obviously called that consensus into doubt) I really don't think it would be possible to reach a consensus to keep it there today. She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio. That is why the more recent discussion five months ago ended with it being removed, and I assume it is why the people who objected (though they found themselves in the minority) declined to waste time by pushing for an RFC that they surely realized would no longer be able to reach a consensus to keep it there. Certainly stability is a goal, but the removal was stable for months on end (indicating that, yes, most people tacitly accepted it), and that likewise indicates that the initial addition was ill-considered WP:RECENTISM for something that, relative to the subject's overall bio, ultimately turned out to be little more than a brief wave of talking points. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillon: What a dishonest post. I also wouldn't use the words "talking points," if I were you. You have repeatedly returned to try and purge this material from the article. The fact is we have a standing consensus for the material and that is not overturned by the fact that you and two other editors returned a few months later and rehashed the same points that were rejected in February. The fact that the material was removed is just as easily explained by the fact that many of the editors advocating for its removal, like myself, haven't been closely following this page, yet you still overlooked the concerns expressed by editors in August. The anti-semitism accusations and subsequent criticism are continually referenced, have received the most substantial coverage of anything she's done at this point in her career, and are clearly still a prominent part of her public profile. Only someone who's utterly biased could deny that, and it's a shame editors refused to accept an RfC they disagree with and return every few months to sneakily slip the material out when no one's looking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive WP:CRYBLP removal by Aquillion. Jerusalem Post described the Democratic rebuke of Ilhan Omar's antisemitic comments as "exceptional"[2]. It's not that some other things happening after that make it completely irrelevant and warrant its erasure from the article completely . Aquillion should drop this "my way or no way" attitude here or else it's starting to look like tendendious POV-pushing. --Pudeo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing CRYBLP in a discussion may be an easy method of dismissing another editor’s concerns. We still take extra care in using highly negative material in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it stays or goes, it is badly written by presenting the accusation before the context. For neutral tone it should state something along the lines of:

"A frequent critic of Israeli politics, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and criticised the pro-Israel lobbies influence in US politics. Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes."

But that last sentence is the contentious part as everyones political opinions are subject to criticism. It may be best to present it with a closer context to the statement "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, and other harassment by political opponents.[8][9]" as they are indelibly linked. Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion said, "She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio." That makes a lot of sense to me and I agree. I suggest that we keep some of the copy re her criticisms of Israel and remove the sentence, " Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes." She did apologize for those statements and the body of the article, not the lead, is the place for that information. I also agree with those who believe we need to include a sentence in the lead re Trump's statements. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GandydancerI agree. I have changed the sentence a bit, removed a duplication (the last part of the sentence was actually already stated in the sentence above). I also added the fact that she is a "victim" of direct critique by Trump. I think this should be included as Trump is one of the main sources for her being targeted. as NightHeron also mentioned. I feel this is crucial information. Garnhami (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just shocking to me how blatant editors are to use terms to cast the subject in a sympathetic light and make disingenuous arguments to remove critical content. This article is a prime example of WP:SOAPBOXING at its worst. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be respectful and avoid accusations against other editors. I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint it's hard to observe WP:AGF. But please try. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]