Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 3 February 2023

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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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". Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Minnesota Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: State Legislatures / Government 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Somalia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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!

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 to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: July 14 to 20, 2019

Political Views on Kashmir issue

Madam Ilhan Omar recently visited Pakistan on a personal tour and personally went to the Line of Control (De facto border with India in Kashmir) in Azad Kashmir where she visited locals who were in some way affected by Indian Cross border attacks during border skirmishes. She also expressed her views on the Kashmir issue, since I'm not much experienced editor to go through the edit protection kindly someone make a section on this topic. I'll give reliable sources bellow. https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/20-Apr-2022/pakistan-lauds-us-congresswoman-ilhan-omar-for-raising-voice-for-kashmiris-under-indian-occupation https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/21/us-congresswoman-ilhan-omar-meets-with-pakistani-leaders#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16511712083167&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fnews%2F2022%2F4%2F21%2Fus-congresswoman-ilhan-omar-meets-with-pakistani-leaders https://www.trtworld.com/americas/us-congresswoman-visits-pakistan-administered-kashmir-draws-india-s-ire-56548 https://tribune.com.pk/story/2353562/us-values-its-ties-with-pakistan-ilhan-omar Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be a routine diplomatic visit and not in any way newsworthy. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The US government made a statement that the visit was personal Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

IMO that makes the case for inclusion weaker. Zaathras (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not yet seeing enough good RS to add this visit to our article. Let's wait until it is reported by several good sources. Sectionworker (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Her "political view" is that she hopes there is a peaceful resolution to the dispute. I don't see that as in any way noteworthy. TFD (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Target Center 4th July

Why has no one added the ten minutes straight of booes from the Somali American crowd at the Somali Music Festival at the Target Center on 4th of July when Illhan Ohmar tried speaking?

That seems like a case of harassment that should be added. The crowd of people gathered were so angry and vocal that she couldn't even speak like she was scheduled to speak. Obviously its not just conservative politicians. if anyone doubts how much she was booed, you can look at a clip, and take note of the fact that she couldn't give her speech because they wouldn't stop shouting at her to leave. 2601:445:447F:1370:0:0:0:349D (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't normally watch Fox News Channel and Sky News Australia, or read the Daily Mail, the New York Post, etc., which were the only type of media that covered it. Until it reaches mainstream media, it lacks weight for inclusion. And if it does, then we will have an accurate account of what happened. TFD (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, they are all mainstream media, they're just not reliable mainstream media. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Please give examples of "reliable" mainstream media, backed up by sources on their reliability. It seems if this article is to retain any sort of impartiality (most of which seems to have been thrown to the wind already), all sources of mainstream media should be included. Additionally, if the booing episode wasn't reported on CNN or MSNBC, does that mean it didn't happen? Cons154 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You may peruse the various sources used in the Misplaced Pages (and those that are subject to extra scrutiny or even banned outright) at WP:RSP. As for "the booing", every politician gets booed and cheered throughout their tenure. Instances of either are hardly notable. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes how Misplaced Pages editors have determined the reliability of various sources. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time than to research sources for your convenience. Note also that the right-wing echo chamber that covered the story did not verify it, so we don't know whether or not it is true. That probably explains why reputable publications did not cover it.

Incidentally, if something is not reported by MSNBC, CNN, etc., it doesn't mean it didn't happen, but that it's too insignificant to include, per weight.

TFD (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

For Omar, I would also look to the big local papers, the Star-Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For most members of Congress, I would agree. But Omar is so high profile that coverage in local papers alone may not establish significance. That doesn't mean we should not use them as sources, but that unless the story is picked up nationally, it is probably too insignificant to include. TFD (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

All politics is local. If we focus too much on the national publications and don't consider the local papers, who should know the subject best, we miss out on an important perspective. Both are needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu Andrevan@ 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The criteria we use is:

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Stories about her that are reported locally but not picked up by national media are for the most part minor since they do not appear in the body of reliable sources.

The booing video is similar. It was reported in the echo chamber, some of which may meet rs, but ignored elsewhere. It's only of interest to a minority of readers and there are far more things that have been given widespread coverage that are more important.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the booing is undue weight for a minor thing, but I don't agree that local news isn't sometimes useful. Andrevan@ 17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that local news is useful here and in general. Toa Nidhiki05 17:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it isn't sometimes useful, it's just that if a story about a high profile figure receives only local coverage, it lacks weight. For example, during his recent visit to Maskwacis, Alberta, Pope Francis apologized for his church's treatment of aboriginal students. The story then received international coverage and therefore gained weight for inclusion in his article. But not everything the Pope says or does that is reported in local media deserves inclusion in his articles. For example, during the Pope John Paul II#World Youth Days in Toronto, refuse blocked a sewer causing an explosion in a nearby building. Local papers covered it with headlines such as "Holy S***!" and it was big news locally, but is not in his article. How do we decide? Do we ask editors whether they think something is important or do we accept the judgment of international media? TFD (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the case that a local politician will have no notable or informative events that are primarily covered only in local sources. I can't think of a good example right now though. It may be a bit of an edge case. Still, in conjunction with notable events getting covered in mainstream national sources, local sources should also be used to add color and additional related information when useful. So I wouldn't discourage local sources. It's probably a decent rule of thumb that something only covered in local news and not national news isn't that notable. I don't know if that's written down anywhere though, and it's possible there might be an exception to that (but I can't think of one) Andrevan@ 22:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, most politicians have the little national or international coverage and we rely on local news media for articles about them. But when they have national or international recognition and extensive coverage in those media, stuff only covered locally is insignificant. Would you include a story about Jimmy Carter that was only covered in the Plains Statesman or the Plains Monitor but was ignored by the Atlanta Journal and other major publications? Note that neither source is used in his BLP. The only reason you would include this type of info in his biography would be if (a) you were writing an original analysis about him or (b) you had an ax to grind. See also the discussions about the false accusations of domestic violence against Omar's predecessor, Keith Ellison. Per the discussion, most editors thought they lacked weight for inclusion, since they received no coverage outside local news and the echo chamber.

It seems strange to me that some editors read echo chamber news, then search for sources that pass rs in order to add them, and you agree with them.

TFD (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the "booing incident" does not merit inclusion, but I don't agree that local news aren't usable to source facts or other types of information depending on what it is. For example there might be useful biographical details in local sources. I don't disagree that for a national figure especially the President, and in the 1970s and 1980s, there will likely be little need for local sources. I can see a need for local sources to cover more local figures for example Alessandra Biaggi might need the Riverdale Press to establish some of her information. Which she does. She is notable, and mostly only of NY interest. I can't think of a good real example of an "incident" that would only get local coverage, but it's not inconceivable. For example a matter of primarily local interest or between several notable local figures. Another good example is the Independent Democratic Conference which relies on Queens Chronicle, Lohud, and City & State for some information that it can't get from NYT, New York Daily News etc.Andrevan@ 01:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that local media is not usable, just that without widespread ongoing attention in major media, stories that have only local coverage lack weight for inclusion. The same would apply to a story published by NBC News, but ignored by other cable news networks and major newspapers. Weight refers to "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." For most politicians, that means coverage in local sources. The greater notability of the subject, the wider range of publications one would expect in order to establish weight. A news story about Biden in a Wilmington publication but ignored by national papers would lack weight. TFD (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm quibbling a bit. The weight policy isn't that local news gets 0 weight. The weight is just less. It may still merit a sentence or two. Still subject to the standard discretion and consensus of editors and the usual rules about BLP, RECENTISM, etc, but it's not impossible that a national figure could have a local story about them that should be included. Andrevan@ 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Victims of Cyberbullying" Category

Omar has been the target of numerous threats, attacks, and harrassment incidents, some of which is directly rooted in islamophobia.

I think it would be appropriate to add her to the category "Victims of Cyberbullying" for this reason.

YoungArtist79 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

While it is in my humble opinion undeniable, that as you described, Omar has been the target of rampant and hateful sentiment on the internet, such is not out of the ordinary-generally speaking, with regards to high profile political figures in the United States; similarly that same status has provided Omar with a layer of personal insulation from these attacks that we typically not afforded or ascribed to notable victims of cyberbullying. OgamD218 (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That shouldn't even be an actual category, being bullied is not a life-defining characteristic. ValarianB (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the families of Amanda Todd and Megan Meier would disagree with you there. With that being said, and to expand on my earlier point, such cases are rare and involve experiences not reasonably comparable to that of Omar's. Moreover, @YoungArtist79, a checked and not such category or something similar appears to exist at the moment? Please advise if there's something that I have missed. OgamD218 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a category called "Victims of cyberbulliyng"

Category:Victims of cyberbullying YoungArtist79 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

There's also a whole section on her article called "Threats and harrassment"

I'd say she belongs in that category. YoungArtist79 (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, if you're going to link to a category for discussion purposes, you gotta stick a colon at the beginning like this, ], otherwise it adds this talk page to the category, which is not desired. (I fixed it for you already) Second, literally every member of Congress, of both parties is attacked day in and day out by online trolls. It comes with the territory of being a public political figure, and as such is not biographically-defining for Rep. Omar or any other. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Tablet Article

Making aware of a new profile piece on Omar in Tablet. It's a long profile which, among other things, discusses her booing at the Target Center, her contentious relationship with the Jewish and Somali communities in Minneapolis, her early rise to power, her massive underperformance in 2018 relative to Biden, and antisemitism controversies. This article generally regards all of these as defining features of her career, bio, and time in office. Toa Nidhiki05 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't think Tablet is a reliable outlet. It's not listed as a perennial source but I do not think it is good to use or at least, not without some vetting and investigation. Andrevan@ 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to start a discussion but I'd be surprised if it wasn't deemed reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's referred to as a "right-leaning American Jewish web magazine." We've already established the booing at the Target Center isn't notable for this page. I'm not sure if there is anything else worthwhile in the piece. I would treat it as a partisan advocacy piece that requires proper context and attribution. Andrevan@ 02:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Having a slight bent doesn't make a source unreliable; we cite The Intercept here. Toa Nidhiki05 03:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, but we should exercise caution here in my view. Omar is the target of a lot of vitriol. Andrevan@ 03:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yet strangely. in the past, you've removed contentious material from the article even when it does have reliable sources . I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out the difference between these examples and this one. Black Kite (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Don’t pussyfoot around, Black Kite - say what you want to say, or don’t say anything at all. If you want to accuse me of something, say it outright. Toa Nidhiki05 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious, really. See also Karine Jean-Pierre, Stacey Abrams and Rebekah Jones (and in case I think I'm accusing you of racism or sexism, strangely not Mayra Flores). Admins who watch contentious BLPs like this are quite aware of editor's POVs, but when it comes to "we must include this negative material in this article, but we must remove it from the article of the person I like" it's perfectly OK to point that out, and its's equally OK for other editors to say "no, that's not OK". Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you're not accusing me of racism or sexism - although you did just admit to stalking me. You're accusing me of tendentious editing. I'd advise you to read WP:AOTE. If you actually have concerns, report me to the appropriate noticeboard - otherwise, stop wasting time discussing me and instead we can discuss the actual content here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

When you have a large number of contentious BLPs on your watchlist you get to know which editors have which POV of whatever side. That's not necessarily tendentious editing, or we'd be blocking a hell of a lot of people, especially in the American politics arena. I am merely letting you know that it is clear why you want certain material included or excluded from certain people's articles, so it is pointless trying to frame your support or opposition in neutral terms. Black Kite (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

You can think whatever you want, but I'm sure I don't have to remind you to assume good faith in discussions. You aren't above that, and it's fairly telling how your comments have yielded no productive discussion while there is a productive discussion at the very bottom of this chat. Toa Nidhiki05 16:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Lack of coverage in non-right-leaning sources is not the only reason editors have objected to inclusion of attack material in Omar's BLP. Other reasons have included WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:10YEARTEST. NightHeron (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m aware of the excuses, yes. I’d be happy to review the article more fully to remove content that fails all of those, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yet it appears you're perfectly happy to employ "excuses" like WP:NOTNEWS (, ) or WP:10YEARTEST (on this article ) to remove material when it suits your own POV... Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If those standards are going to be applied, I'd prefer them be applied consistently, yes. Do you object to those standards, or do you only object when the content isn't favorable to Omar? You and I both know that wouldn't quite be fair.

Of course, what we're discussing here is not a breaking news piece. It's full feature article tracing Omar's career from start to the present, with interviews from the local Somali and Jewish communities in Minneapolis - content that typically is not news and covers material tracing back almost 10 years - the sort of thing we want to see here. Let's focus on the source instead of your edit history of mine - perhaps you find the source personally objectionable because of your own political viewpoints, or have a substantive objection to the content? I'd love to hear either. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If a minor news item was excluded from a BLP because it does not meet Misplaced Pages's notability requirement, it does not suddenly become notable because a right-wingleaning publication later dredges up the news story as part of an attack piece. NightHeron (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence the outlet is right-wing? That's a fairly bold claim. There is one source which notes them as "right-leaning", but that's not prohibitive from being reliable or notable - we use plenty of outlets with an ideological lean on Misplaced Pages. Just on this page alone we cite The Guardian (widely positioned on the mainstream left of British newspapers), The Bulwark (website) (an ideologically neoconservative newspaper), The Nation (a progressive newspaper), Teen Vogue (a strongly progressive newspaper), Al Jazeera, Vox (an ideologically progressive website), The Forward, and the The New Republic (a left-of-center outlet). In fact, we already cite Tablet on this article - twice! As far as I can tell, we've done so for years. So the sudden claim this outlet is unreliable seems a bit surprising to me. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I corrected the term I used to "right-leaning". I didn't say that Tablet is generally unreliable. Reliability depends on context. Their POV is obviously unfriendly to Omar, and the article you referred to is clearly an attack piece. NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, Toa, their organization and funding are tied to people who think the ethnic cleaning of Palestinians is just peachy, so not really what I'd consider a go-to for sourcing content in a Muslim woman's BLP... Zaathras (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Not really the most accurate assessment of that, and I'd also note that Al Jazeera sources we cite have some... unpleasant ties. I've not actually seen any substantive objection to the content of this article, which is unfortunate. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable, I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. Andrevan@ 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The Tablet article is very long and detailed. Discussing it in the abstract is not very useful. What would be more productive in my view is for someone to propose some specific language to improve this article, using Tablet as a reference. Cullen328 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. In particular, I think there are two areas this article could stand to benefit from: specifically, the article's interviews with the local Somali and Jewish communities. The Somali community's somewhat split relationship with Omar, which the piece goes into great length about, is pretty interesting, as are how the local Jewish community in the Twin Cities has interacted with Omar over the years. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree this would be the constructive approach. However I would caution that the Tablet has taken a sharp turn not just to the right but to some outright FRINGEy content in the past few years. So while it would be very valuable for us to cover valid content about her standing in these local communities, we should read the Tablet reporting with a critical eye as to whether it is RS as to full depiction of the facts. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The Tablet article probably fails News organizations, since it is "analysis," rather than news reporting, even if the publication describes it as news. The writer was not present at the concert. I notice their comment, "the booers didn’t seem to represent a majority of the Target Center crowd." If that's true, then the other sources presented were misleading. In end though the story still lacks weight.TFD (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. Tablet is far too committed to a pro-Israeli position (which includes critical hostility to anyone who challenges US policy regarding that country) to be reliable on this topic. You get some excellent articles, and trash bundled together, the latter occasionally written by scholars with good credentials. compare this by Jeffrey Herf with the Amin al-Husseini page which surveys with painstaking detail the current scholarship on that figure, and gives not the caricature we get in Herf (caricature to smear Palestinians via Husseini has been a meme in Jewish polemics with the that people’s aspirations to autonomy) but a more nuanced portrait, warts and all. On the other hand, Batya Ungar-Sargon’s article is excellent on the origins of Yiddish gives a rounded view of all positions on a controversial topic, which has inflected IP identity issues.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Confusing language in first paragraph.

The first paragraph needs to be cleaned up.

Currently reads "She has been the target of several death threats, as well as derogatory comments by political opponents, including Donald Trump, as a result of her background."

This is confusing because it can easily be interpreted to mean that Donald Trump has made death threats against her, which I don't believe has happened (The sources for this paragraph don't mention it.) 71.24.3.9 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems clearly separated. Of course we could add that he tweeted a video of Omar with the World Trade Towers burning just before a spike in death threats against her. Or, his claims that thousands of Muslims cheered as the towers fell, which was made up, as he proposed banning Muslims from the country. But, I don't think that's necessary. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure about the latest trimming of text around the Rep. Omar's remarks?

Form the NPR citation, "It is the second time that the House voted to condemn anti-Semitism as a rebuke of Omar, although she is not named in either resolution." Her name is not in the resolution, but the source does state plainly that her remarks were the impetus for the resolution. Also, that article links to an earlier NPR one that discussed Rep. Omar's previous controversial remarks. There, Speaker Pelosi is directly quoted, "But Congresswoman Omar's use of anti-Semitic tropes...". That squarely puts Omar's name next to "anti-Semitism". Zaathras (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is "use of anti-Semetic tropes" enough to justify "antisemitism"? Especially as Omar has claimed to be naive of the tropes. Omar has criticized Israel, that's not the same thing as anti-semitism. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it has happened twice so far, which seems to indicate a pattern. Zaathras (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe you need to review a little history before you do anymore posting on this. Sectionworker (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe you should take you patronizing attitude and direct it at someone who may value it. Zaathras (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Twice is twice, not a pattern. I'm reminded of the Ian Fleming quote: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." And I give significant WP:WEIGHT to her Jewish colleagues backing her up, including Dean Phillips, Adam Schiff, and Jan Schakowsky. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

so...only her Democratic colleagues are supporting her. None on the conservative side of the aisle.

Even the ADL is critical. Buffs (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Quite, most significant patterns contain more than two tenuous data points. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of alleged anti-Semitic remarks drawing criticism in the lead.

For no good reason at all, Omar’s alleged anti-Semitic remarks drawing criticism is removed from the lead. An argument used to justify this was that it was already noted in the article later, but the fact that information which notes possible bigotry is excluded is nothing but a violation of WP:NPOV. Why should Omar get a pass on this sort of thing when her congressional contemporaries such as Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, and MTG all have their radical views put to the forefront of their pages as is rightly done?

Unless I can see a good reason why for this removal, I’m just going to assume that some people feel the need to protect Omar’s reputation for some inexplicable reason Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between (1) a political figure realizing that her remarks were interpreted in a way she hadn't intended and apologizing for the unintended effects of her words, and (2) political figures such as the ones you mention proudly standing by their extremist statements. NightHeron (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The "she apologized for her remarks" information can presumably also be included. However, your complete removal of this from WP:LEAD is inappropriate. Normchou  16:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that too much detail for the lead? I would think that the fact that it was unintentional and she apologized means that it's not notable for the lead. NightHeron (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, overblown incidents along with retractions/apologies is far too much detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Apologizing for the unintended effects" is a sort of backhand apology though, like a "I'm sorry you were offended". It's not terribly sincere. Zaathras (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is not terribly sincere just your opinion, or do you have a source? NightHeron (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it pursuant to this 2021 RfC which found consensus against including it in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Do examples of antisemitic remarks made by Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Donald Trump or the numerous accusations (falsely in his case) made against Jimmy Carter figure in their leads? One gets the impression here that people think a defining characteristic of anyone critical of Israel's behaviour is what their attitude to Jews, as opposed to any other ethnic group, is. There are thousands of examples of people like Lauren Boebert, Sue Myrick, Newt Gingrich amd Stephen Herbits making racist statements about Arabs (in his case against Pierre Besnainou) which never appear even in the relevant articles. Prejudice is ignorable except when you can insinuate it as assuming defining importance for anyone critical of Israeli policies. If you are antisemitic but pro-Israel, then the fact is negligible.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There was already a thread open about this. Why was it necessary to start a second? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Low-importance U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• High-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Minnesota articles
• Mid-importance Minnesota articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class US State Legislatures articles
• Mid-importance US State Legislatures articles
• WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• B-Class WikiProject Somalia articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Somalia articles
• WikiProject Somalia articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report