Wikipedia

Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 24

< Talk:Ilhan Omar
Latest comment: 2 years ago by The Four Deuces in topic ARBCOM
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Removal of reliably sourced content

Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

It appears NightHeron reverted a reliably sourced edit of mine with no actual resonating. During her 2020 primary, Omar’s campaign received international coverage for a poorly-conceived flyer which targeted Jewish donors to her primary opponent. I’d love to hear why this edit was undue. Toa Nidhiki05 02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron can of course speak for himself, but my guess is WP:UNDUE as stated in the edit summary. See his comment immediately above for context. Not everything that is reliably sourced belongs in the encyclopedia. We need to be careful not to pile on when there is a partisan media frenzy, and to observe e.g. WP:10YEARTEST. Generalrelative (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The story appeared in Vice News and was picked up in several U.S. Jewish and Israeli publications, but not in major mainstream U.S. media. The Vice article says, "The mailer references three Jewish donors, plus “Michael, a donor from Scarsdale, New York.” However, it says that she got the names from articles in MinnPost[1] and BuzzFeedNews.[2] Those are the only names of big donors that the articles provided. Note that two of them are billionaires (including the CEO of Blackstone) while another is a multi-millionaire. None of the donors live in the state. There is no evidence that Michael from NYC is Jewish. Not everyone from NYC is Jewish - both AOC and Trump are from NYC. In order to include it we would need coverage in major media and an explanation of why it was anti-Semitic. Editors should be watchdogs, not bloodhounds. We should ensure that the article includes all major issues that appear in mainstream major U.S. media. We should not spend time searching obscure publications for dirt on politicians we oppose. In fairness I have taken this approach for a range of politicians across the political spectrum. It's not our role to bring attention to information that the best sources ignore. TFD (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
TFD, I know we are often at loggerheads at each other to one degree or another, but taking a step back from that, I genuinely do admire the clarify of your thinking and the lucidness of your prose, particularly your last few sentences. Anyhow, I agree with you, unless it's covered by a mainstream source, it shouldn't go in. So I checked to see if it was covered by one of the green sources in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. It looks like it is: [3]. So that should resolve the sources issue, although that still leaves us to think about due weight. Benevolent human (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. But the criterion for high profile people I believe is not coverage in a reliable source but coverage in the vast majority of major reliable sources. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Due and undue weight is important. Considering that each major publication has run countless articles about Omar, it's hard to justify adding material that they largely ignore when the criterion for inclusion is extensive coverage in major sources.
While some might mention that mainstream sources are biased, policy does not allow us to correct those biases. In my opinion, any BLP will be biased since the writers must decide which facts and opinions to emphasize.
TFD (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The lack of widespread mainstream reporting on this speaks to why this isn't really due. There's nothing here. Not worth including, in my opinion. Parabolist (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know that Jewish media, Israeli media, and Vice are considered to not be mainstream or reliable here. I’ve gone ahead and removed another item in the article that was cited exclusively to Vice. Toa Nidhiki05 12:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
That's why I referred to major U.S. mainstream media. By that I mean most of them. If a story about a high profile person is largely ignored by them then it lacks weight for inclusion.
I noticed you removed mention of people demonstrating support of Omar at a demonstration against her, saying "Per talk, Vice is not a mainstream source. Removing content exclusively citing to Vice here as no mainstream sources covered this."[4] But the protest against her was never reported in major U.S. mainstream either, yet you have left it in the article. I notice too that the source says that although the organizers expected 10,000 people, attendance was in the hundreds. You made no attempt to add that to the article either. When you apply policy selectively, you appear biased against the subject.
Also, I suggest you drop the sarcasm. It creates a combative atmosphere, which hinders progress in improving articles.
TFD (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn’t add the section in question. All I did was remove a source that was deemed not mainstream or relevant. If you have an issue with something, you can feel more than free to edit it yourself. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
In a section about a demonstration that received no coverage in major mainstream U.S. media, you removed material that was positive about Omar, and left in material that was negative. That is clearly biased editing, which is against policy. You should not use different criteria for inclusion depending on whether the material is favorable or unfavorable. TFD (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm still undecided what to think of this and don't have strong opinions on this matter yet. One thing jumps out at me though: I know Omar is a US politician, but is there a policy justification for only caring about whether something is in mainstream US media, rather than reliable sources more generally? I couldn't find it in existing Wikipedia policy. Benevolent human (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Due and undue weight says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Balancing aspects continues, "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 high profile people in the U.S., the body of literature is dominated by major mainstream media. While something mentioned in a specialty or foreign publication may be significant to its readers, its lack of coverage in major U.S. mainstream media shows that they believe it is not significant to their readers.

Just as Wikipedia articles should not make issues less important than they are in major sources, they should not make them more important. In this case, inclusion of the New York protest would weigh the article more negative than if a reader were to peruse articles in the New York Times, CNN or other major media.

Of course many notable people are almost if never covered in major media. For example, your local city councilor would be mostly covered in local media. So coverage there would be sufficient to establish weight. Similarly, for tiny far right groups, weight could be established by coverage in niche publications devoted to them.

So what do we do if the main sources ignore an important story? We ignore it because the policy says that sources determine what is important, not Wikipedia editors. Every editor is free to ask mainstream media to give greater coverage to issues they find important and readers are free to go to sources that reflect their own ideology.

TFD (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be a minor brouhaha from largely-Jewish sources. There is 100% NOT a problem with being a Jewish-oriented source, but, it does speak to the idea that the event in question was considered trivial by the rest of the Reliable Source Universe. ValarianB (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well argued. I'm okay leaving it out then. Benevolent human (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate undue-tagging

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Toa Nidhiki05: Please remove the undue-tag from the section on the SSRC study of Islamophobic attacks. It was picked up by mainstream sources (in addition to the NY Times, which published the opinion piece); see, for example, the news story in the Washington Post [5]. The SSRC is a mainstream NGO that's best known (I believe) for providing grants for social science research. NightHeron (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I will not be removing the tag as the text violates the page's clear and consistent WP:DUE and WP:RECENT standards. This survey was a tiny blip on the news radar and has no long-term notability; does not meet the WP:10YEARSTEST. Toa Nidhiki05 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I have added several more references to the section, showing that the study was not the only source saying she is the target of hate speech. I think the "undue" tag can be removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no intention of removing it. All you’ve done is add a Washington Post and NYT summary of the study as well as a separate piece from the Guardian saying she’s been the subject of hate speech, which is already mentioned in prior sections. This study will not be relevant in ten years and it is undue to include it as its own section, and likely include it in the article at all. From my own searching, NYT and WaPo appear to be perhaps the only outlets that have even mentioned it, and one of those mentions was an op-ed from the authors of the study - not independent coverage, really. There’s been zero attention towards it since its initial publication. Toa Nidhiki05 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
That's incorrect. I added a WaPo news article about an entirely unrelated incident of hateful rhetoric towards her, and a Guardian op-ed citing many instances. Neither of them are related to the study. The NYT summary was already in the article. Re she’s been the subject of hate speech, which is already mentioned in prior sections, I agree that the issue is raised separately in several previous short sections, and perhaps they should be combined into a summary section on the subject, in which the study would be one paragraph - not its own subsection. Anybody have any thoughts on that? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The survey may be a "tiny blip", but hate speech targeted at Omar is surely a part of her biography that will pass the 10-years-test. It is not undue to focus a small section on the topic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The problem stands that there is no indication this survey is notable... at all. Literally one source independent of the writers covering it. This page isn't even allowed to have details on her election campaigns - how on earth is a random survey nobody reported on notable? Toa Nidhiki05 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Several editors disagree with you. You need to step aside right now. That's how this place is supposed to work. Gandydancer (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
No, I don’t, and no, it isn’t. We’re having a discussion - join it or back off. Toa Nidhiki05 23:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
May I put in a request that everyone desist from personalized comments (the use of the imperative voice, etc.)? No need to respond, please just let's not. --JBL (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The "blip" illustrates a particular kind of manipulative, dishonest hate speech typically directed against Omar. Thus I think it belongs in the article, and the tag should be removed. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I am drafting a way to combine all those little subsections - some of which are on minor points - into a couple of more general categories like "Threats" and "Hate speech". I'll bring it here for discussion before implementing. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

New information

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
result: PROCEDURAL: 2nd illegitimate RfC by same user in less than 2 weeks, per 5.b.1 of ARBPIA. NightHeron (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We have reached a consensus here that information should go in the article to the degree that mainstream reliable sources cover it, per policy. We disputed whether to include Omar's stereotyping of American Jews in the lead on the basis that it was a news story that may have been given short-lived coverage, but we now have continuing coverage of these events over a year later:

  • "Omar’s tweet is the latest among her frequent criticisms of the Israeli government that drew ire from lawmakers of both parties who have condemned them as perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes." - Washington Post [6]
  • "Her Twitter comment in 2019 that support in Washington for Israel was “all about the Benjamins baby” kicked off weeks of fighting that ended in a resolution on the House floor condemning bigotry and anti-Semitism. The comments played into anti-Semitic tropes that have roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury." [7]

Per 5.b.1 of ARBPIA, I am therefore opening a new RFC whether, in light of this new information, some mention of criticism of Omar's alleged stereotyping of American Jews unaffiliated with Israel should be mentioned in the lead. Benevolent human (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment. That was not the consensus reached above. The consensus reconfirmed the long-standing policy that wiki is not a tabloid recycler of recent blips in the news cycle. I see you give the Washington Post's absurd spin on this, that her remark was a classic medieval anti-Semitic trope about Jews as moneylenders, and not a catchy tweet summarizing what two of the foremost political scientists in the US John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have minutely documented (in a book everyone in Washington has read), as a more responsible journalist Ben Ehrenreich argued (Ben Ehrenreich 'This Is What the Beginning of a Real Israel Debate Looks Like,', New Republic 15 February 2019).
In short, given that whatever either of the 2 Muslim congresswomen say regarding the I/P conflict gets almost invariably an hysteric wave of 'reactions', quoting these incidents compels per NPOV/BLP expansion to at least a paragraph for each. I've no problem personally with analyzing thoroughly each such tweet per sources (all sources), but doing so would mean we would get massive expansion of this page, from being about her, to being about her and Israel, precisely what the real consensus above decided to avoid. Eventually, one would require a strong neutral depoliticized analysis reviewing these incidents collectively, rather than a dozen paragraphs to-and-froing each tweet or comment, which is the precedent the proposal here is trying to establish-Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Just in case editors are unfamiliar with the context of her references to AIPAC and $100 dollar notes, I'll supply it:

‘AIPAC’s success is due in large part to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda and to punish those who do not, based mainly on its capacity to influence campaign contributions. Money is crucial to campaign elections, which have become increasingly expensive to win, and AIPAC makes sure its friends get financial support so long as they do not stray from AIPAC’s line. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby Penguin Books 2007 p.154.

As the two scholars clarify, what AIPAC does is nothing unusual. All communities and power interests have lobbies, just that, in their view, this particular one had flourished without any one taking the trouble to analyse it.
When a Muslim Congresswoman states that obvious reality in a punchy phrase, all hell broke loose, though one could hear it in a lecture at Yale or ChicagoU by those authors or many other authoritative figures, with no recrimination or public scandal ensuing. Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I am under no illusions users will allow this, but it's pretty damn clear this is notable at this point, several years on, and a defining trait of her public image. Toa Nidhiki05 02:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discretionary sanctions

Latest comment: 2 years ago35 comments12 people in discussion

I can't be the only person who is getting a little bored with this article popping up on my watchlist, usually because a couple of editors have added something negative about Omar (or removed something positive) and other editors have reverted it. I would point out that one of the DS that this is under is BLP, and persistently attempting to shoehorn negative material into a BLP is probably not a good idea. And I would have thought that people would know by now not to use Fox News in a political BLP. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Anytime a Congressman or Congresswoman's statement causes significant controversy, it merits direct mention in this encyclopedia article. This statement from Omar, designed to promote a false equivalency, is no exception. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I’d absolutely love to hear how being slammed by an ambassador from another country and members of your own party over comments equivocating the US with the Taliban isn’t notable. Toa Nidhiki05 11:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Times of Israel has a fit, random Israeli politician has a fit, and a random moderate Dem is "outraged". I'm sure by now Fox and Friends has had a field day with this too, until the next cicada attacks President Biden or he slips up a set of steps. You, judging by your track record of being on the losing end of pretty much every RfC and discussion that comes along on this talk page, are hellbent on getting every daily criticism of Omar slammed into the the article. Trying to paint a 24-pt margin of victory as a flop was particularly charming, and snide comments like "Editors here have long ago discarded the idea that criticism of her for any reason can be included in any meaningful sense" are just disruptive. And those examples are found by only going back ONE archive hop. ValarianB (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the Israeli ambassador to the US is a “random” figure. Next thing you’ll tell me is that the 12 Jewish Democrats who are demanding she clarify her comment are also “random”. Meanwhile we quite literally have a section in this article devoted to covering literally just a random guy that put up a mean banner at a convention (and got called out by the state GOP in the process), something that's gotten virtually no media attention since the week after it happened. ”Randomness” sure seems like a very convenient way to write off stuff you don’t want in an article. It's also quite interesting that you claim the The Times of Israel "had a fit" when this is, in fact, a news article covering a current event, not an opinion one - unless you think Israeli media is somehow inherently unreliable or that it's a right-wing outlet (which it isn't), I'm not sure how that comment is productive to the discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 12:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
If it is generally only Israel complaining, then, yes, it is pretty much irrelevant to Ilhan Omar's biography. No different from China raising a stink every time a US Senator visits Taiwan. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that any and all news outlets in Israel are representative of the views of the government and that half the Democratic Jewish caucus are Israeli. Thanks for letting me know, ValarianB! I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Toa Nidhiki05 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
The comparison would be to Rep. Omar's 2018 remarks which earned widespread coverage in numerous sources, and is important to mention in the article body (not in the lead, another argument which you have been on the wrong end of frequently). This does not rise to that. Also, do you find sarcasm to be an effective communication tool, or does it tend to just contribute to an overall deteriorating atmosphere on in the American Politics and Arab-Israeli topic area? ValarianB (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I do find sarcasm to be an effective response in responding to absurdity, yes. Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
A ton of sources have just picked up the story:

Toa Nidhiki05 13:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that generally happens with news cycles. And yes, 12 members of her party, a party with 219 house representatives, have said they disagree with her. Horrors. nableezy - 14:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your insightful contribution to this discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 14:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Wish I could say the same? Even sarcastically it would be lacking imo. nableezy - 20:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with nableezy, and I suspect this is just a news cycle flare-up. That said, my crystal ball skills are lacking and probably shouldn’t be in charge of what’s included in the article. For now, I’d support a short mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
That's reasonable for now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
House Leadership weighed in, so it's not just 12 members of her party. https://ijr.com/pelosi-dem-leaders-denounce-omars-false-equivalencies-us-israel-hamas/ Sir Joseph (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, an admission that you are intentionally disruptive. Interesting. As for the content, still essentially in WP:NOTNEWS territory, as they're all repeating the same exact thing. Wait a few days, see what develops. ValarianB (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see that the issues in this latest edit are substantially different from past ones. It should have been obvious that it would generate the same arguments and the outcome would be the same. Are we going to do this every time Omar says something about the Middle East? TFD (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
If the issue receives a lot of coverage in reliable sources, then it meets criteria for inclusion per WP:DUE. The concern has been that it hasn't received enough coverage to date to meet this threshold. But yes, if mainstream media continues to saturate this issue with coverage, then we may need to revisit our assessment for due weight. Benevolent human (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
IT's not just Israel, the House Democratic leadership also came out with a statement against Omar. The fact that it takes a miracle to insert anything even remotely negative into this article is just more proof of the failure of wikipedia. https://news.yahoo.com/pelosi-seeks-to-quell-uproar-over-omars-latest-comments-195000783.html Sir Joseph (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Here's another source that might be better: https://ijr.com/pelosi-dem-leaders-denounce-omars-false-equivalencies-us-israel-hamas/ Sir Joseph (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
She also walked back her remark, which itself is noteworthy. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
That statement isnt "against Omar", and again there is yet no demonstration that this will have any lasting impact. This remains a single news cycle with nobody being able to judge what weight it should or should not be given. nableezy - 21:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
As has been stated over and over ad nauseum, noteworthiness depends solely upon the degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources in relation to overall coverage of the person. So when you say, "I’d absolutely love to hear how being slammed by an ambassador from another country and members of your own party over comments equivocating the US with the Taliban isn’t notable," "House Leadership weighed in, so it's not just 12 members of her party," "She also walked back her remark, which itself is noteworthy," you are explaining why it is important to you, but that is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it should be in the article. This is not a forum for discussing Ilhan Omar, but for discussing changes to the article. These types of discussions are a distraction. TFD (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

“We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. “We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. ..I asked [Secretary of State Antony Blinken] where people are supposed to go for justice.' Axios reports she was referencing U.S. opposition to the International Criminal Court conducting investigations of potential war crimes in the Gaza conflict and Afghanistan.

That, rather than the equivalency spin sold in so many newspaper reports, is what she said. All one could get for this BLP article from those remarks is that she thinks the principles of accountability in courts of justice should be invariable, applied impartially, whether those accused of committing atrocities are the Taleban, Hamas, the USA or Israel or whoever. It's the ancient principle no one would challenge: 'No one is above the law'.To report it otherwise would be to distort what is a simple affirmation of International Law, which it is hard to imagine any legal mind anywhere would challenge. The International Court of Justice at present is examining both Hamas and Israel with regard to charges that both engage in gross abuses of the Geneva Conventions. Similar moves are being made against Australian soldiers for the known atrocities their special forces committed in Afganistan. So the uproar in so many articles has nothing to do with what she thinks: not that the USA is interchangeable with the Taleban, or Israel with Hamas. but that all four should be judged for their respective acts of belligerence by the same neutral criterion. Not a scandal. The edits proposed want to highlight, not her views, but the news spin about this, which is inaccurate and focused on 'reactions', not on the substance.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Nishidani: Per WP:RS, the "news spin" is exactly what we want to highlight. We want to highlight the consensus of mainstream, reliable sources if our goal is to follow Wikipedia's policies. Benevolent human (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Nonsense. We don't do that here as explained. When the up-and-coming PM of Israel Naftali Bennett stated years ago

I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that.

It hit the news cycle, but proved to be enduring, hence notable, since it is revived often ever since (unlike this, for the moment flash in the pan) and therefore is included in his wikibio.
We give it a sparse two lines. The whole quote and a source that says it was 'widely condemned', and even assert it is alleged (it happens to be exactly he said), simply because he backtracked. There is no jumping at the fish frenzy of partisan comment. The bare bones. That is the model for such remarks, and in the present case, one would have to quote the whole of the tweet, rather than excerpts cited by critics. But to repeat, affirming that the principles of international law should be applied impartially to all parties charged with violating them is not a noticeable personal opinion. It is the default view of all lawyers. Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
See Balancing aspects: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." It doesn't say we should add everything that makes news. TFD (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Yep, totally agree. But if there comes a point where this becomes not a news story but a pattern of statements, _and_ if mainstream reliable sources denote it as a pattern of statements that is significant and give it prominant coverage, then it should be included in some way as part of that noteworthy pattern. No? Benevolent human (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Please don't use the term "pattern of behavior" as if Omar were a misbehaving child. That term is inappropriate to describe someone who is expressing outrage at human rights violations by Israel that are implicitly condoned by the US. Her outrage is shared by much of the mainstream media internationally; see, for example, the BBC's report on the children killed in Gaza [8]. NightHeron (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Benevolent human (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Good point. It's important that we remember to avoid US-centric bias. Gandydancer (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hit me up on my talk page if you want to talk about the politics of the underlying situation; I'm happy to chat about that if you'd like. I agree with TFD that here is the place to talk about what Wikipedia's policies say about what should be included in the article. Benevolent human (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Including this story would mean including all parts of the story, what she initially said (that all parties should be held to the same standards), the criticism, the criticism of that criticism (AOC for example calling it "vilification, intentional mischaracterization"), the clarification (not walking back as claimed above), and the statement from leadership that despite the mischaracterization above as coming out against her was a "ok thanks for clarifying now lets move on" (see BBC: House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a rare joint statement with leaders of the chamber's committees seeking to quell the party unrest.) and including all of that would mean a solid paragraph about what seems to have already dropped out of the news cycle and has had and will have no impact on anything besides the pulses of those who see Omar's name in the news and think her Wikipedia biography is the place to prove the case against Omar. If this has any sustained coverage can be revisited, but for now there is literally nothing to include in the article about this. It doesnt even merit an additional sentence in the remarks on Israel section. nableezy - 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As per Nableezy, and others. There's simply no warrant here for mentioning this. Move on.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Aipac incident continued

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Section bloat, of the kind we frown on. Following on the previous section, I would note that this is grossly undue, covering every tweet, response made by the usual partisan line-up of politicians and journalists. I think that kind of detail is useless, but won't excise it. What is important is that a very clear overview of the context from which her remark arose, and mention of the furious media showcasing of it, without any regard for that context, take precedence. Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

my edit was reverted as controversial. I was told to take it to the talk page by an editor who hadn't noticed that I already had, unlike the reverter who, rather than join the conversation, just excised the indispensable paragraph which tells the reader in what context her remark was made (by a Republican senator who attacked her over her position on Israel three months after making, according to the source, an anti-Semitic attack on three Jews. So, explain yourself. I'm not an expert but your edits over the past day look like they have broken the 1R rule per ARBPIA3. Nishidani (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Your edit is grammatically poor, incredibly bloated, and relies on a single opinion piece rather than reliable news coverage. It is not Wikipedia’s job to go to pains to try and justify her comments - which virtually no reliable sources did. Toa Nidhiki05 16:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage Generalrelative to revert their attempt to force this content into the article while discussion is ongoing. This page is under 1RR and per BRD, contested edits should be discussed rather than having an edit war. Toa Nidhiki05 16:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI I have given no indication of my gender. As to the rest, please see the conduct warning I posted on your talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, I would strongly encourage you to revert your edit, as this page is under 1RR and our bold, revert, discuss policy requires contested edits be left out of the article while discussion is ongoing. If you don’t, I may have to request this page be protected. Toa Nidhiki05 16:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Nishdani's edit was fine, and I would have reverted you as well. Feel free to discuss your concerns here. ValarianB (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Toa Nidhiki05 you write:

Your edit is grammatically poor, incredibly bloated, and relies on a single opinion piece rather than reliable news coverage

Assertions.
  • It was grammatically complex, not 'poor' except for people who read twitter perhaps and not books.
  • Incredibly bloated. Oh really. The original text you prefer reads:

In an exchange with the journalist Glenn Greenwald in February 2019, Omar tweeted, "It's all about the Benjamins baby" in reference to American politicians' support for Israel and invoked the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Those 26 words are followed by two paragraphs with 509 words of insinuations she was anti-Semitic or lame defenses )(no smoke without fire). So you think we should muzzle her by brevity of reportage, and pass the megaphone to the political commentariat that smothers her words in innuendo. This is a BLP article. One mustn't do that.
Ehrenreich's article is an 'opinion piece'? No. Four days into the instantaneous news cycle, Ehrenreich stepped back and analysed the furore, providing (a) the whole context within which she made that remark and ( b) the larger context, Mearsheimer and Walt's book is known to everyone in those circles, and stated. by now uncontroversially, a reality which, if alluded to by a Muslim woman, becomes horrific, anti-Semitic, hostile. Ehrenreich, unlike most of those journalists writing articles for a deadline in the 24/7 news cycle, has an intimate knowledge of the I/P conflict, he's been all over that territory, written an outstanding book on it. And, yeah, he's Jewish.
Finally, the text you restored, which I had expanded because of its inadequacies, had several flaws, which appear to have escaped your attention.
  • It was not an exchange, but a response to Greenwald’s prompt.
  • There was no link to what Benjamin means ($100) (This is a global encyclopedia)
  • The Guardian gives the tweet with punctuation:'It's all about the Benjamins, baby'. Other sources don't punctuate. Since you are apparently a grammatical precisian, you should have evaluated the noticeable difference in meaning.
  • There was no link to the fact she simply quoted a line from a popsong.
  • She did not invoke AIPAC in that ‘exchange’ with Greenwald, as the earlier text asserts.
YOu observed none of this, ignored the obvious defects of the text I emended, and in reverting, excised details that are crucial for any reader wanting to know what she meant by the remark. So, it is evident that you prefer the distortion, and that means you should not be editing BPL articles. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
No, your edit is not "grammatically complex". It has a slew of glaring typos and errors, including:
  • Misspelling "Republican" as "Republioan"
  • Improperly placed dashes
  • Spelling "hip hop" as "hiphop" and linking to an entirely different article
  • Not including a space after a period
  • Italicizing "AIPAC"
  • Not italicizing The Israeli Lobby and linking it to an entirely different page that is not the book
  • Using apostrophes instead of quotes
  • "paying American politicians to be pro-Israel"
To put it bluntly - the grammar here is horrendous. It's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Moreover, your edit quite literally dwarfs the entire rest of the section in size. Ehrenreich's piece is, in fact, an opinion piece, which means it is not authoritative for statements of fact. Your attempt to tie this claim into something McCarthy said is frankly ludicrous and is not mentioned in any reliable source beyond one opinion piece, which is again not reliable for statements of fact. The citation itself is also formatted incorrectly. It seems to me like you are going to pains to try and justify her comments, which is not the role of this encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 19:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
'blunty'. Learn to spell before you venture to accuse others of solecistic practices. The rest of your screed is just blather.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Well that's not very nice, or very productive. Are you not interested in discussing your edit? Toa Nidhiki05 19:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't expect niceness from me if I detect an abuse of wiki protocols, editing behaviour that appears to support the smearing of people. I explained my edit. In bullets. You ignored 95% of them. It's you who ought to explain yourself. Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I've attended to most of your grievances listed above. But you should look up the word 'grammar' in a dictionary. Orthographic slips, lack of consonance in the use of italics, minor punctuation or mark-up matters etc., have nothing to do with grammar. Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
If you're not even going to bother to respond to my concerns, I'm not sure what the point in engaging is. You might be content that you have "won" - your content is still in the article, despite BRD - so I'm not exactly sure how to get an actual discussion here. Toa Nidhiki05 00:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
A further note: it's deeply ironic that the same people here so concerned that mentioning antisemitism scandals might violate BLP are defending an edit which accuses a living person of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories based off of a single opinion piece. So the weight of actual news sources over several years is not enough, but a single op-ed is sufficient to label someone else. Toa Nidhiki05 04:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
My workpractice is to read several articles before I edit on a thing like this. Ehrenreich's is not unique. It was the most retrospectively synthetic summary, other than Beinart's, I found on a first scrutiny.
Are you implying that I am 'concerned about mentioning anti-Semitism scandals'? I admit I am concerned at the weaponization of anti-Semitic accusations. That is far too serious a problem for it to be politicized day in day out. The more one cries wolf, the more people are numbed against realizing the real threat when it actually arises. The more it is screamed everytime human rights for Palestinians are mentioned, the more freedom of speech is threatened by a kind of linguistic taboo. That's my beef.
An 'accusation' is not a 'scandal', any more than a 'smear' describes objectively the real colour of someone's beliefs or opinions. On the one hand, you are exerting relentless pressure to make out that a Democratic congressperson is anti-Semitic, and on the other, you are outraged that a Republican congressman can be tainted with the same brush. That suggests the distinctions you make are politically motivated. Thirdly, Kevin McCarthy's tweet was widely taken at the time to be anti-Semitic - he only deleted it when a mass murderer the following day justified his act of slaughter on antisemitic grounds, i.e., Pittsburgh synagogue shooting because of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc implications its retention suggested to some minds.
Simply because I used just one source, you say that is the only source. Any google search would contradict that. I could cram the para with a half a dozen authoritative comments, like that of Peter Beinart “the furor over @IlhanMN’s tweets isn’t about policing bigotry or even anti-Semitism. It’s about policing the American debate over Israel.” The thing about this kind of wiki controversy is the use of the first hits on a google search page that fit one's preset goal. That is why one should look for not opinion pieces, but analytic overviews like that of Ehrenreich or, on this, Peter Beinart, 'The Sick Double Standard In The Ilhan Omar Controversy,' The Forward

The following two things are true. First, Representative Ilhan Omar was wrong to tweet that the American government’s support of Israel is “all about the Benjamins.” Secondly, she’s being judged by a grotesque double standard. Her fiercest critics in Congress are guiltier of bigotry than she is.

If you think there is bias here, look into accusations of antisemitism in the Republican Party (Steve Scalise, Louie Gohmert. Matt Gaetz, Steve King, Paul Gosar), Donald Trump ('In 2016 he retweeted an image of Hillary Clinton surrounded by money and a Jewish star. He closed his presidential campaign with an ad that showed three Jews—Janet Yellen, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros—alongside language about “global special interests” that “control the levers of power in Washington.” See Beinart below) and their respective wiki bio pages for comparison.
Everyone, Kevin McCarthy included, in the world knows that mentioning Soros's money, by now, bears anti-Semitic connotations. But to meet your objection (while you ignore mine) I will tweak so that his statement being considered antisemitic is attributed. Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ehrenreich added that Ungar-Sargon's immediate response that Omar was indulging in "anti-Jewish paranoia" led to a media pile-on of attacks on her

This was glossed as 'an opinion'. You don't tag with 'opinion' what the sentence clearly states is the view of the person quoted. Attribution was already provided. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That does not remotely satisfy my concern. Citing a claim of anti-semitism to an opinion pieces is clearly a violation of BLP and I would highly recommend you remove the contested claim entirely. Per consensus here, you need far stronger sourcing for an inflammatory claim like that. The fact you added another opinion piece, this time from Vox, to back up your claim suggests you are unaware of the distinction between news and opinion, and that’s problematic. And again, your citation formatting is woefully inadequate. Please add back the tags while discussion is ongoing. Toa Nidhiki05 12:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes it does. From your edit summary here it is evident that you judge sources' reliability according to the now-dead left-wing/right-wing dyad, and, because in this case Peter Beinart and Ben Ehrenreich espouse views you dislike they are lefties /i.e., apparently in the US, like 'liberals', either socialists or commies. No. They are extremely well informed Jewish-Americans who know the topic. Beinart in particular is a liberal, not a leftist.
The bizarre thing about this exchange is that (a) despite you being a minority of one, I altered the text in several places to accommodate your complaints to the extent wiki protocols allow. You complained that the text as it stood:

In February 2019, Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who some months earlier had insinuated a conspiracy theory that three wealthy Jews—George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Michael Bloomberg—were trying to buy the 2018 midterm elections,

stated as a fact what was an opinion. So I adjusted it to read

In February 2019, Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who some months earlier had claimed three wealthy Jews—George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Michael Bloomberg—were trying to buy the 2018 midterm elections

Satisfied? Nah! You didn't even notice the difference, and now assert:

Citing a claim of anti-semitism to an opinion pieces is clearly a violation of BLP and I would highly recommend you remove the contested claim entirely. Per consensus here, you need far stronger sourcing for an inflammatory claim like that

There is no mention of anti-Semitism, there is no mention of a conspiracy theory. There is just the bare bones of what a 1000+ sources will tell you McCarthy wrote. It's a fact that he claimed what our text states he claimed.
Since you don't read with care anything, by the looks of it. No one agrees with you. You won't compromise, except if you get 100% of your demands, demands that have almost zero backing among editors here. It is quite pointless continuing this.Nishidani (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We have chosen not to mention the reported 'equivalency' she putatively made between the US and the Taleban, Israel and Hamas, and rightly so. Just as this misreportage engendered a news cycle of outrage in the US, it also upset Hamas, which took her to task precisely on the basis of an identical misperception, i.e., that she was equating their resistance with Israel's behavior. Hamas disapproves of US Rep. Ilhan Omar’s remarks on Israeli aggression on Gaza Palestinian islamic Resistance Movement Hamas 12 June 2021; James North, ‘NY Times’ and some fellow Democrats distort Rep. Ilhan Omar’s views on justice for Palestinians Mondoweiss 13 June 2021.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Above RfC and ARBPIA

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

@Benevolent human and Nableezy: could I have your permission to move parts of our conversation in the RfC down into this section? I would love to get a final answer on ARBPIA's applicability, but I worry our thoughts are crowding out focused discussion of the RfC question. The portions I would move are {{blist|part 1 starts with nableezy's response to TrueQuantum ("This RFC is still") and continues down to another nableezy post ("The Arab-Israeli topic area")|part 2 starts with nableezy ("Omar's comments were") and finishes with my response to Benevolent human ("The ADL letter"). I believe those comments don't address the RfC question itself and are only focused on discretionary sanctions coverage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC), added content 20:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

sure. it is fairly obviously covered though. nableezy - 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC) nableezy - 21:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
That would be okay with me. I think if we needed a definitive ruling, it would probably be better to go to ANI, or do a separate RfC on whether we can do this RfC (which I'm not going to start for obvious reasons). Benevolent human (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments moved from §RFC

First block of moved comments

This RFC is still ARBPIA related, and as an editor with less than 500 edits you are restricted from participating. The antisemitism accusations are directly related to her comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict, and America's support for one side of that conflict, and as such it is "broadly construed" to be in that topic area. nableezy - 15:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi nableezy, I found this entire discussion because it was posted under a Request for Comment in the Biographies category. By telling me that I have no right to comment on a discussion that was literally broadcasted out to the Wikipedia community at large to comment on is pretty disingenuous and needlessly hostile. So what if I have less than 500 edits. That doesn't make my viewpoints any less valid than someone with 5000 edits. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Nableezy isn't being hostile, they are just notifying you of the relevant Wikipedia policy. Please see [Arbitration Committee decision], specifically 5.b.1. I am happy to take follow up questions at my user talk page or yours. Please don't take this as a comment on the validity of your viewpoints. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The Arab-Israeli topic area has, due to its long term disruption, a number of stricter requirements than most of the rest of Wikipedia. I wish there was a way to restrict the RFC bot's announcements on RFCs in the topic area, but there isnt and as it stands now editors with fewer than 500 edits may not participate in RFCs related to the Arab=Israeli conflict. And for the record, I actually agree with your !vote. But these requirements apply to all editors. nableezy - 18:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There really should be some requirement that any RFC that's opened in a DS topic area include a flag that says "You may not participate in this RFC unless you have over 500 edits and your account is over a month old!" Because, how the hell else is any user that sees an RFC supposed to know that? Of course, this entire RFC really should not be allowed to stand anyway, since the requestor had gamed the system in order to push themselves over the threshold by, e.g., posting countless "Welcome!" notices on any IP that happened to make an edit..you know, it is one thing to game the system because you're frustrated that you cant correct a punctuation error on a page that is protected so you're blocked from editing, quite another to do it in order to stir up controversy on a hot button issue. Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Second block of moved comments

Omar's comments were directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and no matter how you try to frame it this remains an ARBPIA related RFC. The overwhelming majority of sources that discuss her comments and the reaction make clear the relationship the I-P conflict. You cant just try to skip past that as though it doesnt exist. nableezy - 17:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Check out the references from the New York Times and the Washington Post at the beginning of this RfC. Hopefully that will bring clarity. I know that there's this stereotype, that if you're Israeli, all you do every day is make conflict with your neighbors, but Israel does a lot of other things too! Benevolent human (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Both of those articles are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict and are mentioning Omar's earlier comments in that context. That make sense, because Omar's earlier comments were made in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I agree that this RfC is covered by ARBPIA. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Uh yes, check them out. The Post article is about supposedly equating Hamas and Israel. On what planet is that not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Same for the NYT. Again, no matter how you try to frame this, the story is squarely within the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 18:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The incident we're discussing was in 2019. We didn't include it at the time because it was argued that it was a momentary news story without long-term significance. However, it's still being alluded to in 2021. The portions of the articles pertaining to the 2019 incident didn't mention the Israeli-Arab conflict. Here's a 2019 reference that should make that clearer [9]. Omar's comments relate to American Jews and indirectly relate to Israel, but have nothing to do with the Israeli-Arab conflict. Benevolent human (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
First off Omar never once said anything about American Jews and having any dual loyalty. So let's get that out of the way before you keep pushing that falsehood unchallenged. Second, the coverage at the time also showed its relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Her comment was specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The sentence 'immediately prior' to "push for allegaince to a foreign country" was "Because we end up defending that and nobody ever gets to have the broader debate of what is happening with Palestine." (source here). And you will find it exceedingly difficult to find any coverage about her comments or the reaction that does not discuss it in the context of her comments about Palestine. So kindly dispense with the completely bogus assertion that this has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 19:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The reference I sent in my previous comment should address your concerns. Hope it helps! Cheers, Benevolent human (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The ADL letter also mentions Palestine. I'd wager I can find two sources that mention the controversy and link it to the I-P conflict for every one you find that doesn't mention the link. I want to again emphasize the "broadly construed". Even with a narrower construction, I find this subject unambiguously connected to I-P conflict. Unless you believe I and others are arguing in bad faith, can you take that as strong evidence that this discussion is within the broad bounds of ARBPIA? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, even the ADL letter, which pretty boldly makes a claim about what she said that is completely at odds with their own quotes of what she said, says "Rep. Omar has argued that these statements reflect good faith disagreements about US policy toward Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the relationship between the two." Again, squarely within ARBPIA. Anyway, there is an admin already here, Black Kite, could you clarify if this portion of the article and the related discussion is covered under ARBPIA? nableezy - 21:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benevolent human: I was thinking to ping admins who have already chimed in on whether ARBPIA applies to this question to see if your reasoning has changed their minds. Have you heard from any other admins besides the ones who have commented on this talk page? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

{{yo:Firefangledfeathers}} alas, no. I think because this is a policy issue, as awkward as it is given the history of our discussions, I think we need to open an RFC to determine ARBPIA scope. Benevolent human (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I see you suggested that and ANI. I would prefer ANI. Any objections? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: only that I already tried ANI and no admins weighed in. Benevolent human (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not up to me, but for the record, I think an RfC here is a bad idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: here's the relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#Personal_attack Benevolent human (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The relevant bit is "broadly construed" and this would clearly fall within that scope. Also there is nothing to prevent non-ec editors from participating on the talk page but outside the confines of the RFC (and therefore no "vote").Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A request for clarification about the issues raised in Talk:Ilhan Omar#ARBPIA scope RfC has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4. TFD (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It has been pointed out by Barkeep49 that this says:-
In the case of disputes regarding whether or not an article is a primary article, or whether a portion of content is related to ARBPIA, editors should use normal dispute resolution methods to come to a consensus.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC) :Maybe just try a quick and dirty straw poll in first instance, a straight yes/no, then go from there?Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Having seen the commentary at ARCA, I don't actually see the point of doing this after all.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As I have now pointed out at requests for clarification, this is not a content dispute, hence does not come under DR, which is for content disputes. TFD (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_24&oldid=1040379619"