Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rep. Omar has received support from white supremacists such as David Duke (March 7, 2019). A section should be added (like other political figures such as Trump) to indicate this. Political/public figure pages should be consistent in what sections are applied and how they are applies.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/7/david-duke-praises-rep-ilhan-omar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository for negative information regarding any living person, especially an active politician. This is really some bottom-of-the-barrel jornalism smearing the congresswoman. These individual white supremacists can choose to endorse anyone, including Republicans, as an act of trolling or smear. This does not make the endorsed automatically condemnable. Without the strongest source support, such information is undue and synthetic, and should not be included at all. Other editors would have removed your comment on sight as well, as this is borderline libelous. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"Support" is a vague term, and The Washington Times is a highly questionable source, generally considered partisan on race-related matters; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Omar has indeed received support from white supremacists (specifically David Duke), and it has been reported in reliable sources: The Jerusalem Post, Forward, Israel National News, The Atlantic, and CNN. Seems worth a mention to me.

Toa Nidhiki05 13:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned, several references discuss it. But not too excessively, as unlike e.g. Donald Trump and Steve Scalise, Omar did not comment on this so WP:PUBLICFIGURE still needs to be followed. wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Wumbolo, lolololol, the former Grand Wizard of the KKK isn't supporting a Somali-American politician who is the antithesis of everything he stands for. Let's try to use some critical judgment here, beyond just noticing that a Google search of "David Duke Ilhan Omar" produces only sources with significant right wing biases. So Duke tweeted that Omar is "the most important member of US Congress"... that's not support! Even with a heart emoji. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu Wumbolo rightly filtered out those unreliable sources and has only linked to reliable ones on this page, and, oh, look, there are plenty! Perhaps you should at what he's linked rather than offering your own assessment of what qualifies as support. She expressed a sentiment that was widely regarded as anti-semitic, and he offered a gesture of support. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I did not notice that line with the sources, but it was Toa Nidhiki who presented them. I clicked the CNN link, Duke is mentioned at the very bottom of the article. This is the sort of sourcing that you think merits inclusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

TIL The Forward, a left-leaning progressive magazine, and The Atlantic, a liberal outlet, are right-wing. The more you know I guess! Toa Nidhiki05 01:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I actually don't like this guilt-by-association stuff on any page, so I'm going to agree with leaving it out. However, I also acknowledge there could be an argument made for inclusion. WP:DUE says that a viewpoint that has received coverage in reliable sources is noteworthy, though I'm more leaning towards characterizing this as WP:FRINGE based on the entire body of sources addressing it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

How is it fringe? These are all reliable and not right-leaning outlets. This article is honestly whitewashing this entire situation, and it's a very bad look. Toa Nidhiki05 01:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

* Why should it be left out? Unsolicited endorsements are included in other politicians pages and featured prominently. Wikipeida is suppose to be not bias so the pages of public figures should be treated equitably. The endorsement did in fact happen. That is a fact which is not of dispute thus it should be included as other unsolicited endorsements are on Rep. Ilhan's page. Pretty straightforward. 11a5f0041b8542aaac71fb3f45cc60 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

There was no "endorsement". The Grand Wizard of the KKK isn't going to endorse a black woman. Wikieditor19920 is right that to add this would violate WP:FRINGE. Those mainstream sources make barely a mention of Duken talking more broadly about the alleged anti-Semitism. When I typed "David Duke Ilhan Omar" into Google, the top results I got were Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, and some other unacceptable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

But he did. It's written right there in the sources. And once again, the sources he gave are not right-wing. Kilometerman (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Literally none of the presented sources say he endorsed her. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu is obviously right and the idea that this non-event (Omar gets mentioned in a tweet!) should be mentioned in the article is laughable. --JBL (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Are we sure Refinery29 is a reliable enough source to officially label her as a democratic socialist? I've seen multiple sources say that she isn't a socialist. For example, see Politico.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement is attributed and appropriately contextualized, and the Politico comment ("Omar does not openly identify as a democratic socialist") seems perfectly consistent with what is written here (that Omar is not a member of and was not endorsed by DSA). So the present version doesn't seem problematic to me. --JBL (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there is a question of whether the section title "Democratic socialism" is ideal, and whether it should be the first section under "Political posititons"? --JBL (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If all we have is a statement by an unnamed staffer, I think it's unduly weighted and ought to go. Omar was asked on Democracy Now! if she identified as a democratic socialist, and replied simply that she considered herself "a Democrat". Also, neither Axios nor her campaign website say anything about DSA endorsements or membership, positively or negatively. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

My recent edits were motivated by Joana Haussmann's opinion piece in the New York Times, in which she clarifies that Guaidó comes from Voluntad Popular and defines itself as social democrat. This was also affirmed years ago by Lilian Tintori, Leopoldo López's wife. Carlos Curbelo is not the only person that considers the party as such, and to assert this I added that VP is a part of Socialist International. Luckily, now that this has been brought to the talk page, there could be a discussion on how to improve the wording of the statement. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Using ideas from a published opinion piece without crediting it is WP:PLAGIARISM, I believe. In any case, what does this have to do with Omar? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the Venezuela crisis section, since she has defined Juan Guaidó has a "far-right" opposition leader. These ideas are not expressed solely by Joana, and the reference that quotes Carlos Curbelo even states that "Guaido’s party includes the first transgender congresswoman elected in Latin America". My point is that there should be a balance in the article between the "far-right" definition and the politic position of the party. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't say we need a counterpoint to every opinion to "balance" the article. We go by what the majority of reliable sources say. If there is a published, reliable source that contrasts Omar's description with the party's own, please provide a citation. The page at Socialist International (A) doesn't seem to exist, (B) apparently has nothing to do with Omar, and (C) would not be a reliable source anyway. I've restored the previous wording. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not just "the Republican politician Carlos Curbelo" claiming she got it wrong. From this Politico article: 'To call the opposition, as Omar did, "far right," is absurd. True, American presidents in the past have supported rightist autocrats in Latin America, from Augusto Pinochet in Chile to the military regime in Brazil. But Guaidó is a socialist...' Looks like Omar truly did get this wrong, and our wording probably needs to change somewhat. Mojoworker (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree somewhat. The Miami Herald says Curbelo "pointed out" that Popular Will is described as center-left, which implies a broader agreement with that view. But the Politico piece is an opinion column; we'd need a stronger source to describe Guaidó as a socialist vis-a-vis this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For now I changed the wording showing that Omar "described Guaidó as far-right". I think it emphasizes that this is her statement and solves the problem with undue weight. If there are sources needed for the political position I can look for them afterwards. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(heading shortened wumbolo ^^^ 16:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC))

Is Omar's "some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties" comment relevant?

Apparently Omar said something along the line of some people did something to refer to the September 11 attacks at a recent convention of Muslim leaders. This has gathered some coverage rather quickly, (see Fox News, USA Today, Washington Times, CBN, etc). As with many instances of politicians saying controversial statements and then those statements being forgotten, I wanted to have a discussion about this material before deciding to edit the article. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say no. I had to watch the short clip to get any context (nevermind that CAIR is in fact not a "terrorist organization"). She said that CAIR is necessary because after 9/11, Muslims had their civil liberties infringed upon. This is accurate. Her choice of words about 9/11 seems to me regrettable, but her point remains. And in no way was her comment justifying a terrorist attack. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

CAIR was founded in the 1990's so this is yet one another of her false statements. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right, she made an error in saying CAIR was founded after 9/11. That error doesn't make her statement any more relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It received front-page attention in the New York Post and has elicited response from other representatives. This definitely isn’t something to be dismissed out of hand. Toa Nidhiki05 19:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is dismissing it out of hand. We should be wary of the New York Post, though, as it is a Murdoch rag that is hardly unbiased in its reporting. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what bringing the owners of a paper up has to do with anything. The New York Post is not deprecated and there is no consensus against using it. If we’re going to discuss the ownership and bias of everything cited in this article, there’s going to be issues. What I do see here is a repeated attempt to whitewash everything Omar says that is controversial (most egregiously, not including her defining public trait - her comments widely perceived as anti-Semitic - in the lede) while immediately including things like death threats - which are bad, no doubt, but just as weak under the ten-year test that was often cited. This has received, at the very least, a commensurate level of coverage to that. Toa Nidhiki05 20:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That, plus it just adds to her continued false statements. She has repeatedly made false statements either on Twitter or in real life. And if anyone else would have done it, it would have been inserted into the article right away. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a WP:PUKEFUNNEL? Maybe someone should write it. Anyhow, I like the idea that because the NY Post is not officially deprecated it must be a good source; maybe we can apply it to my personal blog, too? Here's what WP:RSP has to say: "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available." This is, uh, not a ringing endorsement.

TL;DR: try again after someone outside the right-wing echo chamber writes something about it. --JBL (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing bud, all it took was a quick google search. Toa Nidhiki05 22:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I had written a response here, but I am just exhausted by the cynical dishonesty and false outrage and am withdrawing from this discussion and unwatching again. Probably if you want this in the article you should propose a sentence on the talkpage. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, assertions like "And if anyone else would have done it, it would have been inserted into the article right away." are not helpful. No, people misspeak or have their comments taken out of context all the time. It's not guaranteed inclusion for anybody. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Some people did something and all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties" is really vague. How can you be sure that the "some people" include the terrorists, but don't also include the stupid fucks that, post 9/11, killed innocent uninvolved Muslims (and the even stupider fuckwits that killed Sikhs thinking they were Muslims)? Mojoworker (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Simple Solution (tm) would be a small, single-paragraph "Controversy" section imho.Oathed (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it would be more accurate to add it as a controversy in the NYPost and Trump articles. There is nothing controversial about what she said. There is much controversial about the out of context quote against a backdrop of the WTC. O3000 (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The “Some people did something” part is controversial (though the NY Post cover & the Trump tweet have probably become at least as controversial as that part of the quote). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable mainly for the reaction it's getting from the right and left. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• It belongs to the article. Many Democrats defend her ("Trump's speech is violence") and many Republicans condemn her ("this somehow has to do with her anti-Semitism"), all mainly because of Trump, but also because of the New York Post cover. [1] I am seeing several major stories coming out of this incident. wumbolo ^^^ 16:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Where would it go, exactly? There is some major coverage, but a lot of that coverage is commenting on the manufactured outrage rather than on Omar herself: this this New York Times, and Washington Post stories from earlier today are both largely focused on Trumps tweet. Nblund ^talk 17:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It would go to the Tenure section, just like the anti-Semitism controversy belongs to the Tenure section (unless it belongs to a top-level section). I don't know why the content is currently hidden in a "Threats, conspiracy theories and harassment" section. This POV section tries to shield Omar from any criticism, and the section seems to care more about defending Omar than sticking to WP:BLP. >99% of this POV section was written by a handful of editors, who have written <10% of the rest of the article. However, I'm not going to blame the editors for their unintended POV pushing (hence why I'm not naming them), when you have The New York Times, a generally considered reliable source on Wikipedia, having an anti-Trump and pro-Omar op-ed yesterday in their news section (which seems to have become a new normal for the NYT). You can definitely find reliable sources focusing on Trump, but there is continued coverage of non-Trump reactions to this day: BBC, CNN, The Intercept, CNN. wumbolo ^^^ 09:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Firstly, you shouldn't have it saying she was criticized and then have the quote. It should be the other way around; have the quote and then have the reactions. Also the statement "in context" sounds like it's in Wiki's voice which is editorializing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @NorthBySouthBaranof: you reverted my edit and claim the sources say Trump selectively edited Omar's tweet. I checked the BBC article used as a ref and it make no claim. Please self-revert. He quoted her. Just like everyone else quotes people. She made the statement, he quoted the statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• The cited source discusses how the video was edited, and several other sources (Axios, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, Japan Today, etc.) describe how the video was edited to remove context - described variously as "altered... edited without context," does not "include the context of her comments," "selectively quoted," etc. Of course I will remove nothing, but I will be happy to add these additional sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If her family fled Somalia after the 1991 Civil War broke out, and spent 4 years in a refugee camp on the Congo border, how did she arrive in the U.S. in 1992? Ieatpuddin (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My bad, a refugee camp on the KENYAN border. Ieatpuddin (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain "fixed"? In its current state, the page says she arrived in the US in 1992, while using as a reference an LA Times article that says "moving to the United States in 1995", and a New York Times article that says "seeking asylum in the United States in 1995". I've also found tweets of hers that indicate that she came in 1995 (one from this year citing her US arrival "23 years ago"). There are definitely other cites out there that list 1992, but suspiciously,. they all use almost exactly the same language, suggesting they all come from a common source. Maybe it's better to not make a definitive statement, and to openly state that there are conflicting reports regarding her timeline? JGriffithSV (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Long-form magazines with a tradition of rigorous fact-checking like The New Yorker are more reliable than a local newspaper like The Los Angeles Times, which is more trustworthy for entertainment-related subjects. But you are welcome to add a note. Perhaps "Fixed" was simplistic. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)