Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 14

Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

Juan Guaido RfC

OPTION A
There is consensus to implement option A ("[nothing]").

The majority of commenters who declared a position supported option A. Among these editors, some argued that options B–D would introduce undue weight into the article. Some editors objected to two terms used in options B–D: "Pro-Maduro outlets" (which attributes bias while the latter term does not) and "Political commentators" (which implies universality despite being a superset of the former term). Some commenters also described the proposed sentences as improper synthesis, although this was disputed by supporters of options C and D.

No editors supported option B, because the cited sources do not support the proposed sentence. As Wumbolo stated, Venezuelanalysis (RSP entry) is considered unreliable in this context and the Monthly Review piece does not mention Omar. These arguments also apply against option D, which incorporates the entirety (text and sources) of option B.

A minority of commenters supported option C and D, and believed that one of the proposed sentences was necessary to highlight Omar's "far right opposition" characterization as a fringe view. Both options cited the Miami Herald and Vox (RSP entry). Aquillion points out that the Miami Herald piece only quotes "one of [Omar's] political opponents". No comments in this RfC analyzed the contents of the Vox article in depth.

From a numerical perspective, options A, B, C, and D received support from 16, 0, 5.5, and 4.5 editors, respectively. While option A did not receive support from a two-thirds supermajority, it is clear that option A received the highest quantity of endorsements by far. Paired with the strength of two of the arguments in favor of option A (the undue weight objection and the wording objection), this RfC shows consensus to implement option A. — Newslinger talk 11:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Which of the following should be in the article between She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition". and Omar added that the U.S. should not "hand pick" foreign leaders[1] and should support "Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican's efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue."[2]? wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Option A: [nothing]
  • Option B: Pro-Maduro outlets have agreed with Omar's characterization of the opposition.[3][4]
  • Option C: Political commentators have described the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will as centrist, center-left and social democratic.[2][5]
  • Option D: Political commentators have described the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will as centrist, center-left and social democratic,[2][5] while pro-Maduro outlets have agreed with Omar's characterization of the opposition.[3][4]

References

  1. ^ Bowden, John (January 25, 2019). "New Dem Rep. Omar: US shouldn't 'hand pick' leaders in Venezuela or support 'coup' attempt". The Hill.
  2. ^ a b c Daugherty, Alex (January 25, 2019). "New liberals in Congress call Trump's Venezuela action 'a U.S. backed coup'". The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  3. ^ a b Harris, Roger (February 8, 2019). "Juan Guaidó: The Man Who Would Be President of Venezuela Doesn't Have a Constitutional Leg to Stand On".
  4. ^ a b Cohen, Dan; Blumenthat, Max (January 31, 2019). "The Making of Juan Guaido".
  5. ^ a b Beauchamp, Zack (February 15, 2019). "The fight between Ilhan Omar and Elliott Abrams, Trump's Venezuela envoy, explained". Vox.

wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've opened this RfC because of a slow edit war on the article. Previous discussions are the one above and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Ilhan Omar. wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C. Venezuelanalysis is an unreliable source. Both the Venezuelanalysis and Monthly Review articles don't mention Omar, making the proposed content WP:SYNTH. Vox (which is a reliable source) and the Miami Herald (which recently exposed Epstein) both identify Omar's view on Guaido as WP:FRINGE and so should wiki-voice. wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    I also propose an alternative Option C2 which I equally support – She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition", even though the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will has been described as centrist, center-left and social democratic.[1][2] Omar added that the U.S. should not "hand pick" foreign leaders[3] and should support "Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican's efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue."[1] wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A. There is a bit of deja vu about this RFC. At the moment option A seems the most appropriate to me. The phrasing of the other options would need to change before I would considered supporting them. The editing merry-go-round on this issue has on occasions included what I consider better phrasing. For example, consider replacing “political commentators” by “Carlos Curbelo and Zack Beauchamp”. Consider replacing “pro-Maduro outlets” with “Roger Harris, Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal”. In the meantime I don’t think any further comments on the nature of Guaido’s and Popular Will’s politics are needed. The quotes from Omar are in quotation marks so readers will know to treat them with caution. Burrobert (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A. Options C and D violate both WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW because they use the term "political commentators" (which suggests all mainstream ones) for pro-Guaido U.S.-based sources that support the interventionist policy of the U.S under Trump and treat sources that support the stand of Venezuela under Maduro as unreliable or non-mainstream. NightHeron (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C, mostly Venezuelanalysis is non-RS as explained above and should be left out. It's always best to say as specifically as possible who the commentators are. Not sure if there is anything more concrete than "political commentators" that fits however. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A, i.e. simply nothing. This is something of very marginal interest or significance. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A Whether or not Omar is correct about Guaido, it is her opinion shared by many. She also supports medicare for all and many other minority political positions but we don't correct all her opinions by presenting majority views. TFD (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
As demonstrated, I'm not sure who these "many" are, but they include no RS as of yet...--Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Aside from pro-government media in Venezuela, opinion pieces in The Grayzone,[1] IOL News[2] al Jazeera,[3] CounterPunch.[4] Whether or not Guaido is far right is a matter of opinion. Reliable sources including mainstream U.S. media have all reported this opinion. TFD (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
You just suggested Counterpunch, a funnel of disinformation, as something we can rely on. They promoted blood libel[[5]]. And provided a platform for Holocaust denial [[6]]. Even more bizarrely while the head may not agree with blood libel and Holocaust denial, he sees no problem in "sloshing them around" [[7]], regardless of you know, possibly inspiring radicalization and terrorist acts, or, you know, basic journalistic ethics. Please come back with serious sources next time. --Calthinus (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Using Adam Holland's, literally a random person on the internet, blog to attack CounterPunch as unreliable seems a bit silly. Anyway, Counterpunch is as reliable as the author of the piece is, and in this case it is not reliable as Roger Harris isnt a reliable source. When they publish say Neve Gordon then it is a reliable source. Using a random person's blog and then saying Please come back with serious sources next time is a bit rich. nableezy - 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Nableezy rules on blogs as sources don't say anything about using them on talkpages to discuss other sources. In this case, the evidence is laid out very nicely and is well-sourced, and you're obliged to handle the content, not the source, which, unlike CounterPunch, has not provided a platform for blood libel and Holocaust denial -- alongside troubling accusations of ending up as an actor in favor of the interests of the Kremlin disinformation spreading.--Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This isnt the United States Congress, whether or not something is supported by Russia is not relevant. Wikipedia does not exist to defend the interests of the United States, so forgive me for completely ignoring that line of thinking. Counterpunch publishes a huge number of writers, including journalists such as Ramzy Baroud, politicians and activists such as Ralph Nader, academics such as Neve Gordon. Counterpunch by itself confers no real reliability on a column, but when the author himself is usable as an established expert in the field he or she is writing about it may be usable as a reliable source. Your dogmatic view on this is not the final word, sorry to say. And using a blog of some random person with no credentials whatsoever to argue against it remains silly. nableezy - 17:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Nableezy if you dislike me (understandable) and would like to fight me, do so on my talk page, or ANI if you're gutsy. Right here, we're dealing with a BLP issue, not Israel/Palestine. We are dealing with a claim that Guaido and his party are far right. Academic sources and mainstream media invariably dispute this. Counterpunch doesn't. Using Counterpunch to argue that we should keep a statement calling a living man far-right when he runs a socialist party, and further that any attempt at defending the guy should be silenced, has an ocean of difference from using a well sourced blog post among other sources to discuss why we can't use Counterpunch, let alone on a BLP claim.--Calthinus (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
The issue is whether Omar made an error in fact which should be corrected, or whether it was a statement of opinion, even if one normally associated with left-wing sources. The evidence I presented show that lots of left-wing writers refer to Guaido as far right. We don't correct opinions we disagree with - yet = we correct errors of fact. We don't for example correct Omar's Islamic religious views because Christians, Jews and atheists believe they are wrong. TFD (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Breaking news: leftists think anyone right of them is Hitler. None of that is sufficient to make a BLP violation here. If your complain is language, a simple note that his party is part of the Socialist international should sufficient to prevent a BLP violation. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Dislike you? I have no idea who you are. I dont think Ive ever spent any time thinking about you, this is Jacks complete lack of feeling in any direction towards you. Want to fight you? Where in the world are getting this from? If you want to dial the hysteria down a few notches and actually pay attention to what my responses maybe you wont get these kinda out there ideas about me. Reliability of a source is determined by either the publisher or the writer. Here the publisher does not grant any particular reliability. But when the author is an established expert in the field he or she is writing on then Counterpunch can be treated as a self-published work and reliable as the writings of an established expert. And hello, I said this particular piece is not reliable, not because of Counterpunch but because the author has no particular expertise on the topic. But, again, youre using a blog by a random person to call a living person (Alison Weir (activist)) a Holocaust denier and blood-libeler. Run that one back to yourself after re-reading your last sentence. nableezy - 18:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
If you guys don't mind I"m going to move this to a threaded discussion section. @The Four Deuces: where I am coming from is that this is also a BLP issue for Guaido -- unlike her religious views. @TN: yes, but even that is being opposed here. @Nableezy: you missed my tongue in cheek remark, and please, let's not Israel/Palestine-ify this page. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Literally the only comments that mention Israel or Palestine in this section are yours. But sure, lets not. nableezy - 18:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I notice that Godwin's Law has come into play too. Toa, do you know that a lot of parties, including ones in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the Democratic Socialists of America, have quit the Socialist International for accepting parties like Guaido's as members? TFD (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A - This is one of the most biased false choices I've ever seen on WP so far. Pro-Maduro outlets are labeled as "pro-Maduro", while pro-Guaido ones are suddenly "Political commentators"? Seriously? It's like saying "pro-Trump outlets agree that the president is a genius, while political commentators argue that he is a cursed cheeto". Representing one side of a heavily biased discourse as being the mainstream goes against WP:NPOV hard. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A - Too much iffy characterization. As Alison Krauss wrote: "You say it best when you say nothing at all." O3000 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A all other options seem to be guiding the reader into a specific narrative. Cinadon36 12:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D I’m frankly astounded by people here acting like pro-Maduro (ie. dictatorship) media outlets are on equal footing with anything here. If we’re going to mention Omar’s false claim about Guaido being “far-right” (arguably a BLP violation, as far-right typically means fascist/Nazi), we need some sort of actual counterbalance. Otherwise, remove her claim entirely. Toa Nidhiki05 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A, obviously Rong Qiqi (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A Option D is in line with WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: I changed my opinion after some reflection. Option D is more in line with relevant policies mentioned by me above. The rationale given by some editors in support of option D is more convincing in my view. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option D -- even if I'm the only one -- I think this is the most informative option presented here, and people will find the context -- and links both internally and to RS helpful. Regarding Popular Will, whether certain editors like it or not, it does not violate anything to state the obvious fact of what actual political analysts (not PressTV, etc) think, and for this there is a mountain of RS ([Foreign Policy, [Washington Post: centre-left], the part is also a member of Socialist International). Very few exceptions can be found. One paper calls VP "centre-right" (not far-right) [[8]] (idk if this one is even RS, it appears self published?), there is also one paper that calls it "extremist"[[9]] but not in any "fascist" sense but with regard to their view on policy toward the gov't as opposed to more conciliatory opposition groups -- but no one serious really buys the notion that Voluntad Popular is in any whatsoever fascist far right. --Calthinus (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore BLP and NPOV do not necessarily favor exclusion here -- I agree with @Toa Nidhiki05: that having Omar's claim while excluding any alternate viewpoint constitutes a BLP violation against Guaido (and, the whole party which RS do not call far right or fascist). --Calthinus (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hatting extended threaded discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Problem is, option D is not neutral and it is original research. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 23:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I could be mistaken but I thought OR described statements that lacked corroboration by sources. As you can see that is not the case with option D...--Calthinus (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source that says: "Political commentators have described the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will as centrist, center-left and social democratic, while pro-Maduro outlets have agreed with Omar's characterization of the opposition."? I am pretty sure you do not. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 23:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The exact sentence? No, that could even be plagiarism. However is there any doubt these can be called political commentators? No -- [| Julia Buxton] is a [credentialed political analyst, specifically a prof of Comparative Politics at Swansea] and notes the irony of Trump's bluster about opposing socialism while supporting a socialist party -- that being Voluntad Popular, member of Socialist International -- [in a piece that is actually critical of PV]. Among others. Perhpas it is also worth mentioning that Socialist International has openly backed Guaido, whose socialist party is a member of the socialist international organization [[10]]. Trump and Omar can say all they want about VP -- sources refute them both. --Calthinus (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Not that exact sentence, that could be considered plagiarism, but a reliable source that says the same thing but in different words. I think I checked all the links you posted but as far as I know none of them said something like "Political commentators have described the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will as centrist, center-left and social democratic, while pro-Maduro outlets have agreed with Omar's characterization of the opposition." but in different words.
Can you please point out which paragraph of which reliable source says that? Combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources is not allowed. Thank you. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 00:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Come on, all you have to do is Ctrl-F socialist, click once and voila, you get this paragraph on p133, page 6 of the PDF: The dominant role of Trump’s government in regime change efforts raises questions about the policy direction and intentions of Guaidó’s party, and it risks fracturing the ever-fragile opposition coalition behind Guaidó, making for deeply contradictory messaging. This was exemplified by Trump’s February 18 speech in South Florida that railed against socialism while platforming a representative of Guaidó’s Voluntad Popular (Popular Will), a party that became a member of the Socialist International in 2014..
If you care about synth, you could cite Buxton's uni page and say "professor", then state what she said. This is WP:NOTSYNTH -- synth is not juxtaposition. But this shouldn't be necessary. Political commentators is a sufficiently broad term to describe various sources (journalists, academic experts) in a neutral way (i.e. using "professor" would be pro-VP POV, as it's kind of peacock though true). However this is not actually how Wikipedia works, you aren't actuallly justified in imposing an onus for citing painfully obvious facts such as that a comparative politics professor and a corresondant at WaPo are both "political commentators". --Calthinus (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for posting that quote, but it doesn't seem to be a differently worded version of: "Political commentators have described the Venezuelan opposition group Popular Will as centrist, center-left and social democratic, while pro-Maduro outlets have agreed with Omar's characterization of the opposition.". If you don't have a source that says that then we shouldn't either. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 01:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
It is not neutral to describe pro-Maduro propaganda rags in the same way as actual newspapers, because they aren’t. This is not an issue. Toa Nidhiki05 23:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like you have too strong of an opinion to be able to write neutrally about politics on Wikipedia. Maybe stick to less controversial stuff? Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 23:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious? That’s a hoot. Toa Nidhiki05 23:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Very. An editor who loves his favourite tv show (for example) can often write a good encyclopedic article about it. But an editor who loves his favourite political party almost never can. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 23:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment about RfC options: Firstly the bias in the options here (per PraiseVivec) is blatantly obvious. Secondly the article does not prepare the reader to understand how Popular Will is related to her comment about Trump's comment about Juan_Guaidó. Galestar (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the RFC is set up in a biased way. I'd argue for closing it but it seems most people agree that option A is the best option anyway. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 23:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A. The only source that directly connects these additions to Omar is the Miami Herald, and even it only does so by quoting one of her political opponents, briefly, at the very end. That's fairly WP:UNDUE - if we included every off-the-cuff disagreement by a political opponent, articles like these would be a mile long and totally unreadable. --Aquillion (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A I'm pretty sure everyone cited in that section would qualify as a "political commentator". If there are notable specific critics we should cite them in text (e.g.: commentator Frida Ghitis disputed Omar's claim that Guaido is a far right leader, and argued that he is a socialist"). Ultimately, it's kind of ludicrous to talk about the ideology of an opposition party in an autocracy because their platform is kind of a moot point at the moment. Popular Will describes itself as a broad ideological coalition opposed to Maduro, and so presenting this as a pedantic inline fact-check really kind of overstates how much we know about how much their alignment. Nblund talk 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A - this article does not need to, and should not, be a place for every statement Omar has made and the reaction to that statement. This is a trivial detail best left out entirely. nableezy - 23:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I should comment on this since months ago I raised a similar concern. Back then, the phrasing was slightly different:
She said that the U.S. should not "hand pick" foreign leaders, adding that [...] Guaidó was part of the "far-right opposition"
Before I realized the quote made no mention of Guaidó, I felt it was important to distinguish Omar's characterization from Guaidó's position. I'm more relief now that I feel attribution has been improved, but I think the nature of said characterization shouldn't be forgotten. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Daugherty, Alex (January 25, 2019). "New liberals in Congress call Trump's Venezuela action 'a U.S. backed coup'". The Miami Herald. Retrieved April 5, 2019.
  2. ^ Beauchamp, Zack (February 15, 2019). "The fight between Ilhan Omar and Elliott Abrams, Trump's Venezuela envoy, explained". Vox.
  3. ^ Bowden, John (January 25, 2019). "New Dem Rep. Omar: US shouldn't 'hand pick' leaders in Venezuela or support 'coup' attempt". The Hill.
A - we are not here to wp:SYNTHESIZE (and wp:COATRACK) information about other subjects into this article. How much wp:WEIGHT/space is given in the totality of sources about Omar to discussion of the political orientation of these other groups in another country? Little to none, AFAICT. This reminds me of past attempts to inject (a much shorter amount of) commentary about Modern Monetary Theory into AOC's article, and to add negative descriptions of a different governor to Pat McCrory's article on the basis that the other governor appointed a guy McCrory had previously appointed—which I removed as patently off-topic, though some was later restored / is still present and may need re-trimming.) -sche (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • C but without "political commentators" attribution. Gauido's party should simply be described as centrist or center-left, as RS describe it. I presented my arguments here[11]. Omar's views on this issue are fringe, and we should stick to RS language on this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A - Omit because in this very short bio meant to cover her entire life we do not go into details as it may make them seem significant and on par with other information when it is not. As is often the case, such information must be covered extensively so as to be fully understood or left out, and we generally leave it out. Gandydancer (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment people seem to be voting "A" and saying things like this article... should not be a place for every statement Omar has made (that one from Nableezy, there are others). This is not what option A stipulates, as per Wumbolo's formulation. Option A leaves in Omar's commentary about PV (including claiming a coup attempt, the PV far-right, and accusing the US of "hand-picking" foreign leaders-- all still in there)... and has no other info on the veracity of her claim(s). Either people should make clear what exactly it is they support, or some new "option zero" should be added.--Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, option none of the above and remove this completely. nableezy - 22:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A I'm not sure if this information, if added, would help inform our readers about the subject of the article Ilhan Omar. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • C then D. Guaido is a BLP as well. If we are to give Omar's claims of Guaido being "far right" some air, we should also reflect mainstream coverage of this. This article is not a soapbox for Omar's various claims - but rather should reflect coverage of Omar in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A - this is already fairly far from BLP material, but the line in the middle is just muddling things. That would be no longer her view nor about her, it's third parties talking about something else and really not even clear. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C - this is the only option compliant with WP:FRINGE and the encyclopedic point of view - we do not uncritically repeat false statements when the reliable sources are clear that the statement is inaccurate. Neutralitytalk 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A that's her claim it's in her voice. We can't do original research and discuss whether her claim is true or not since the relevant sources don't do that, why would we do it in Wikipedia? Also there is no living person being mentioned in Omars' comment! She said a right wing government and the SYNTH sources are also about the opposition "government" is the government a living person? Also the US is known for supporting right-wing governments such as in Israel, Brazil etc it is not fringe!!.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: wumbolo, could you change the title of the section -“Juan Guaido RfC"-? there is nothing in the options or the comment that mentions 'Juan Guaido'. I feel like if this RfC is malformed to give the impression that there is a BLP issue here. How about you make it more neutral? I don't know if I am allowed to do that myself or not. Make it “Venezuelan opposition” or something like that.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noticed wuwbolo is no longer active.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Options C or D: Options A and B are unsuitable because, as the RS's attest, they amount to printing unrebutted libel against the Venezuelan opposition. Zekelayla (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • C or D not to point to Trump, but in the Trump article we often have statements where when after he says something, we have "however, it's X." In this case, it's the same thing. Omar said Gauido is far-right and we do need to point out that Guaido is not far-right and Omar's statement is false and it would not be POV to do so. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sir Joseph Omar said Gauido is far right. That's not what Omar said. What Omar was pretty accurate. She said the following:
A US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face. Trump's efforts to install a far right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican's efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.
The statement about the far-right was not describing Gauido or even the opposition. It was describing Trump efforts to install a far-right regime in South America. Trump has shown sympathy and support for right wing regimes like in Brazil, Israel, Hungary etc. Also supporting right wing figures like Katie Hopkins.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
How is Gauido a far-right opposition? That is what Omar said. RS pretty much covered that Omar was wrong and it should be in the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't insert the name of Gauido in this. She didn't mention Gauido she mentioned Trump. She said Trump efforts to install far right opposition. She accused Trump of trying to install a far-right opposition. Which is her opinion about Trump intentions.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
And Gauido is the opposition. Please stop badgering. This is an RFC. I commented. What you are doing is SYNTH. She commented about Venezuela, you are now SYNTH to all of South America. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
She said a far-right oppsition not the far-right oppsition. I don't know what this called in English but she wasn't pointing towards a specific opposition. She was accusing Trump of trying to install a far-right oppsition in the region which is something not surprising considering how Trump support right wing regimes.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam is completely correct about there being a huge difference between labeling a government or political party and labeling the individual who nominally heads the government or party. There are many examples that illustrate this. Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy advocate Aung San Suu Kyi is nominally head of a government guilty of genocide against the Rohingya people, but RS would not describe her personally as "genocidal." The conservative businessman Alfredo Cristiani was President of El Salvador in 1989-94, when the US-supported far-right regime he presided over committed many atrocities, but the Western media at the time would not have been likely to refer to Cristiani personally as "far right", since they thought he was a decent chap. In the same way, Omar is not saying anything one way or the other about Juan Guaido or any other personality (except Trump). NightHeron (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Be that as it may, the RS's attest that the Venezuelan opposition that U.S. supports is not "far-right", hence the proposed copy, which does not mention Guaido. Zekelayla (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Zekelayla we should mention what relevant sources say. What does that mean? That means we should bring sources that mention Omars' statement and then it says that the opposition is not far-right. Right now we have only one source which is the miamiherald in an article that seems like an op-ed other sources are irrelevant and therefore it is WP:SYNTH. The hell and other sources mention Omar statement and don't comment on it because they know what Omar meant by her statement. She accused Donald Trump of trying to install a far-right opposition. She didn't call the opposition in Venezuela a far right, no. She called what Trump is trying to install in Venezuela.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
We should also keep in mind that terms such as "far right" and "far left" are not factual, but are matters of opinion that depend on where the speaker is standing politically. Supporters of Trump and other conservatives would label Omar as "far left" and would view the Venezuelan opposition as mainstream, pro-US, and worthy of support. But US politics is skewed to the right compared to many countries, where mainstream people would view the Venezuelan opposition as quite far to the right and would view Omar as very reasonable and not "far" in any direction. In line with WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW, the article about Omar should not suggest that she is wrong, just because most US-based RS have a different view of the Venezuelan opposition. NightHeron (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Omar is the one who said the opposition is far-right. This really has nothing to do in a way with Trump or anything else. Omar made a statement that is false and when we say in the article, it should be highlighted that indeed the opposition is not far-right at all. Reliable sources report that, that is all we need. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Just because Omar's opinion is different from that of most US-based RS, that does not mean that she's "wrong". I agree with SharabSalam that before saying in Wikipedia's voice that she's wrong we need to carefully read her words. Whatever the public image of the Venezuelan opposition in the media might be, Omar believes that the Trump administration wants to install a far right opposition to run Venezuela. There is much in the history of the US in Latin America to support her suspicion. For example, in Chile in 1972-73 the Allende government faced broad opposition, due largely to feelings that his government was mismanaging the economy. This opposition as a whole was not far right. As the Wikipedia article on Chile says: "...opposition media, politicians, business guilds and other organizations helped to accelerate a campaign of domestic political and economical destabilization, some of which was backed by the United States." Meanwhile, the CIA (as became publicly known much later) was working hard, taking advantage of the situation in order to install the far-right opposition forces of Pinochet. Reading Omar's statement carefully, it seems that she fears something similar happening in Venezuela. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide that she is "wrong" and needs to be corrected in this article. NightHeron (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


  • Option A The phrase says She described Trump's action. We, wikipedia, have no further role to superimpose other opinions onto her statement. Certainly there are political opponents who would characterize that differently, as would be the case in any political statement. If you are going to use wikipedia's voice to claim it is a lie, I suggest you follow the long road to discuss the creeping normality shift in the Overton window before you get wikipedia into making such claims of political perspective. Trackinfo (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Struck comments from blocked sockpuppet Rong Qiqi (talk · contribs) per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A conceptual entity/Archive § 30 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

Change “Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party's Women's Hall of Fame” to “DFL Women’s Hall of Fame”

The organization is a legally and financially independent. The current text implies that it is owned by the DFL. Because it is legally and financially independent and does not actually engage in partisan activity means they can legally accept donation that a party unit cannot. The only activity the group engages is an annual luncheon, induction ceremony.

I cite my status as a past honoree myself (noted on the website this article links to) as evidence of the credibility of my request.

Megan Thomas

MJT9toes (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC) MJT9toes (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done per source. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Arabic name

Aryzad just added her name in Arabic(although not accurate) but I haven't seen any congressperson having names in non-English languages even though they are from different ethnicities and backgrounds. Rashida Talib for example. I don't think we should write their names in Arabic or any other language except English.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: It was accurate according to Arabic Wikipedia. The name is Arabic and Arabic is one of the official languages of Somalia; and English is not official language of the US. Aryzad (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Aryzad Arabic Wikipedia is wrong, please don't rely on Arabic Wikipedia. See what the CNN Arabic say her name [12] it's الهان عمر not الحان عمر. I am blocked in Arabic Wikipedia; I would have fixed it (although I would probably get reverted). Anyway, the names of congressperson shouldn't be in other language other than English. She is known with her English name, her Arabic name is not needed.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, the name was also inaccurate in the Persian Wikipedia. I have fixed it.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam:, could you explain why you don't want her name given in parentheses in Arabic? In cases where a person was born in another country with a name written in another language, this information is commonly given in their Wikipedia page, e.g., see Vitalik Buterin, who's Canadian but was born in Russia. Rashida Talib was born in Detroit. NightHeron (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This was challenged before by Joel B. Lewis. I don't know if Somalis speak Arabic. They speak Somali language so why don't we use that language? Although it uses Latin script. To be honest, I feel that the look of the article will be undesirable with the Arabic script especially that this article is about a U.S. congresswoman. I will readd the Arabic script, if someone has another argument they can revert me.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Both Somali and Arabic are official languages of Somalia. I don't see anything undesirable about acknowledging that some elected representatives in the U.S. have cultural and linguistic background from other parts of the world. NightHeron (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Ilhan Omar is an American who immigrated to this country when she was a small child. There is loads of evidence that she identifies as Somali, and loads of evidence that she identifies as Muslim, but 0 evidence on offer that she identifies personally with the Arabic language in any way. Producing such evidence should obviously be a prerequisite to including her name in the Arabic alphabet. This goes double if there is any ambiguity at all about what the Arabic spelling of her name might be (as suggested by the conversation above): in that case, a reliable source would be needed that supports the particular Arabic text included. (The idea that Arabic Wikipedia could be used as evidence for this is absurd for several reasons.) --JBL (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Also pinging CE040295 and MelanieN, who respectively added and removed the same text a few months ago. --JBL (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
After her election, Ilhan Omar began her victory speech in Arabic. Among many RS that reported this, see, for example, [13]. This is evidence that "she identifies personally with the Arabic language in any way." NightHeron (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
She said As-salamu alaykum and Alhamdulillah these two words are in Arabic but all Muslims use them. That doesn't mean they identify as Arabs.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
The fact is that at a crucial moment in her career she chose to begin her speech in Arabic. This was widely commented on in the media. In Somalia the influence of Arabic is closely connected with Islam, and so her identification with her religion is also connected with her identifying with the Arabic language. NightHeron (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Right, even I know the meaning of these words. If this is the strongest evidence available then I reiterate a strong objection to inclusion. --JBL (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: "Amercian"s are citizens of America and it has nothing to do with ethnic or language. She was born in Somalia and her name comes from Arabic, which is one of the official languages of the country. If she speaks Somali, then we can add her Somali name. Aryzad (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
These terms are Islamic terms. They are used by all Muslims regardless of their backgrounds. Muhammad Ali used to say a lot of Islamic terms like alHamdulilah yet he didn't identify as an Arab. Somalis don't speak Arabic. They study Arabic in school. In Iraq the Kudish language is also an official language and people study it in the school. Yet we don't put Kurdish language in the lede of Iraqi persons articles. Also Ilhan Omar probably didn't even study Arabic in Somalia because she emigrated when she was too young. And Arabic language is not her native tongue.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that no amount of OR or SYNTH is going to make this fly, and so far that's all that supports the argument for addition. The proponents of including this are welcome to start an RfC, but it's not going to go well for your argument. --JBL (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar does not have a "a Somali name" anymore than Barack Hussein Obama II has "a Kenyan name". American citizens with tenuous ties at best to the place of their respective births. Zaathras (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Zaathras, Barack Obama has very strong and ongoing ties with Hawaii, the place of his birth. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Unless I've missed it, we don't have a single RS establishing either the correct spelling of "Ilhan Omar" in Arabic script or any official status for it. As such, we are in pure OR territory, which is particularly inappropriate in a BLP. Full stop.
A couple of further comments: 1) Chinese in an official language in Singapore; that doesn't authorize us to speculate on and insert Chinese transliterations of names of people from Singapore. 2) Ilhan is not a traditional Arabic name and the only way to spell it using an Arabic root gives a form IV noun meaning, roughly, "mispronunciation". Eperoton (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2019

CITATION NEEDED FOR QUOTE: "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, and other harassment by political opponents." Scramlo (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

​All citations are in "Threats, conspiracy theories and harassment" section. The lead section is a summary of the body. We usually don't need to cite in the lead.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Armenia genocide vote and WP:UNDUE

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

OK, I'm stumped - what did you do wrong to get this warning? I'm in total agreement with Jonathunder when he said in the edit summary that two sentences are not undue - and then s/he added...what was it, about six more? I would pare it back to two sentences which is certainly ample since this is hardly a pressing issue, but will I get a notice on my talk page as well? It is very discouraging to try our best to create a fair and balanced article and still run into this sort of situation. Gandydancer (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The discretionary sanction notification is standard for anyone editing these articles and in no way means that you have erred. Although it does mean that you need to be aware of the WP:1RR warning at the top the page. Considering that she did not vote against this resolution, and every action by a politician on any side is criticized from some opposing quarter, eight sentences does appear UNDUE. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for supporting my reverting six of the eight sentences. Concerning the discretionary sanctions notification, you're right that it does state that the warning by itself does not imply that I've erred "to date". But it certainly suggests that I'm close to violating something, since it warns me that "Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic." What I found intimidating is that this was put on my page by an admin, one who's had a content disagreement with me. In fact, I've made only two edits to Ilhan Omar in the last month. Besides the latest edit, three days ago I reverted a poorly sourced defamatory statement about her (citing a basketball player who alleged some secret arrangement with Erdogan). NightHeron (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I've added dozens of these warnings on talk pages. They really don't mean that you are close to an error. It's just a heads-up that the guidelines are often more strict on articles in controversial areas and an admin can sanction someone on these pages without community input. O3000 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. NightHeron (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't imagine why anyone would need a friendly notice considering that it is at the top of this page in large letters. Furthermore, why only send a notice to one or two editors and skip the others who are active on the topic. Moving on...it needs to be kept in mind that anything related to "Muslim" draws a lot of extremely opinionated thinking and it has not been easy to keep this article in good shape (though it certainly is debatable that it is very well-balanced right now looking at how the foreign affairs sections go on, and on, and on). Considering that the Armenian question is of historical interest rather than something that reflects her choices for an ongoing congressional decision, I'm going to trim it back to the original two sentences. Also, I note that the "historians" offering their opinions are not recognized as being notable in their field, further adding to the reasons for not including this information. Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I would be grateful if someone posted a notice in my talk before reporting me. I don't see the notice when I am editing using the mobile version.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You received one in this area on Oct. 14, 2018. I just posted a reminder on your talk. You can only receive one warning per year per area and cannot receive a discretionary sanction without being informed of them in advance. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Article in NY Times

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

Yup, it would be an important addition. Reading the article, although I was not aware of what was (and is) going on, I was not in the least surprised either. The sourcing is excellent what with the NYT considered the best of the best and we have the study published by the Social Science Research Council. Do you want to write something up and add it? Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Clearly relevant, clearly due. Section six seems the best place to put it as well. As an aside- While I’m assuming it’s largely due to a lot of eyes being on this article, the information is more or less generally presented both neutrally, and in neutral wording. And even generally balanced between sources on the political spectrum. I’m a bit impressed, for a major AP2 article. -Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
NH, I think your addition is excellent, though I did trim the last sentence. Add if back if you feel it's important. Perhaps with the needed few changes it should go into Tlaib's article as well? Gandydancer (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

National Legal and Policy Center complaint / divorce paper claims.

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

Yes I fully agree with you. Perhaps sometime editors forget that a BLP requires a higher level of sourcing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Is this material less worthy of inclusion than:
-Omar’s father’s comments on school bullying she suffered due to her Muslim identity;
-Comments made by an unidentified Omar supporter at a 2019 rally in New York City;
-Omar’s introduction of legislation that would sanction the nation of Brunei; and
-Omar having been featured in a Maroon 5 music video?
That material is on the page right now, and there is no apparent dispute over its weightiness.
For now, we can wait and see whether more coverage develops on the divorce issues and the complaint (there is already a good deal), but let's be sure to guard against using a heightened standard of due weight because of who the subject of the article is.
Also, Aquillion, please note that your assertion in an edit summary that "a complaint with no followup is WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPCRIME" is incorrect in this instance; per WP:BLPCRIME, that rule is inapplicable to public figures. SunCrow (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

<-----this is a completely baseless accusation.
I'm really interested in why so much attention is put into defending/ protecting liberal candidates and shielding them from criticisms where as if they were conservative, the wiki would be full of just about every accusation and criticism ever made. There seems to be extremely heavy bias here.2601:187:4002:4160:6C25:B79F:F207:C568 (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like Whataboutism. If there is an article where you think a conservative person is being treated unfairly, the best place to raise that would be on that talk page. Zaathras (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. (Also I have moved the inappropriate addition at the end of TFD's comment to its own line, and fixed the indenting..) --JBL (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_14&oldid=1079503449"