This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muboshgu (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 13 December 2020 (→Financial transparency issues: Campaign payments to E Street Group: Replying to Ekpyros (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:38, 13 December 2020 by Muboshgu (talk | contribs) (→Financial transparency issues: Campaign payments to E Street Group: Replying to Ekpyros (using reply-link))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
|
Error: The code letter 9/11
for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ilhan Omar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ilhan Omar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2016. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malix27 (article contribs).
Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There's a tweet by Hufsa Kamal in the Patriotism questioned subsection. Please add this reference to the references at the end of the tweet. Thanks! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: There are already RS for this claim and adding the tweet adds nothing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neither of the existing sources for the tweet is archived, so if they become dead links - as news articles often do on the web - there will be nothing left linking the tweet to its source on twitter.com. Editors may still object to this edit saying it would be better to archive the existing sources than to add a reference, but they are advised to take on that labour themselves - I am 0% willing to do that for them when I've already formatted a reference to the tweet with an archive link. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- http://web.archive.org/web/20200907082701/https://twitter.com/hufkat/status/1104775656934686720. Archived from the original on 07 September 2020. Retrieved 26 September 2020.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|archivedate=
(help); Missing or empty|title=
(help)
Views on the Police
Should we include a section on Omar's views on the police? She has called for the abolishment of the Minneapolis Police Department, per https://www.axios.com/ilhan-omar-minneapolis-police-department-7d0c6cf5-6179-4077-ba03-1ebc909f6bbe.html, https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Once again you're misrepresenting the source. She calls for "rebuilding" not "abolishing". The source quotes her words as follows: "
A new way forward can't be put in place if we have a department that is having a crisis of credibility, if we have a department that's led by a chief who's suited for racism, if we have a department that hasn't solved homicide — half of the homicides in Minneapolis police department go unsolved. There have been cases where they've destroyed rape kits. And so you can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild. And so this is our opportunity, as a city, to come together, have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community, and just like San Francisco did — right now, they're moving towards a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to.
" NightHeron (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I interpreted her quotes similarly to the source.
"Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) defended calls to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department following the killing of George Floyd, saying the department in its current state can’t be reformed."
. If you want to replace 'abolish' with 'dismantle' that's fine. In another source, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/501449-nrcc-turns-up-heat-on-vulnerable-democrats-over-omars-call-to-abolish, Omar says that"The Minneapolis Police Department has proven themselves beyond reform. It’s time to disband them and reimagine public safety in Minneapolis."
. So, essentially, she does want to abolish/dismantle/disband the current Minneapolis Police Department. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I interpreted her quotes similarly to the source.
- I'm not objecting to adding a sentence or two about Omar's views of the police issue in Minneapolis. However, per WP:BLP her views have to be rendered accurately, without misleading terminology. She has made it clear that she wants the current police force replaced by a different type of police force that performs better and is not resistant to reform. She uses the word rebuild. Omar's opponents, such as Trump, distort her views by trying to give the impression that she thinks that Minneapolis should function without a police force. That's obviously not what she says. Feel free to suggest text on this topic for the article. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Characterizing her views that she wants Minneapolis to exist without a police department is false--you're correct. However, she never makes specific recommendations (unless you have a different source). She has repeatedly said the current Minneapolis Police Department, in its entirety, is "beyond reform" and a "cancer." Additionally, per https://www.vox.com/2020/6/14/21290877/democrats-defund-police-omar-clybur, and other sources, a lot of more moderate Democrats have rejected calls to defund/dismantle the police and have distanced themselves from Omar's rhetoric. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- What I quoted above, taken from your source, includes a quite specific recommendation:
have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community, and just like San Francisco did — right now, they're moving towards a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to.
Saying "we should do something like what San Francisco's doing" is hardly a call for radical defunding or abolishing. A difficulty that certain US cities such as Minneapolis have is that, regardless of how strong public sentiment is in favor of reforming the police department, the police union is fiercely resistant to change. That's why people such as Omar are calling for a complete reorganization/rebuilding. NightHeron (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- What I quoted above, taken from your source, includes a quite specific recommendation:
- I have no clue what San Fransisco is doing, and none of the sources mentioned clarify what San Francisco is doing. You are engaging WP:OR:
saying "we should do something like what San Francisco's doing" is hardly a call for radical defunding or abolishing. A difficulty that certain US cities such as Minneapolis have is that, regardless of how strong public sentiment is in favor of reforming the police department, the police union is fiercely resistant to change
. If you want to write about police sentiment or the specifics of police reform, I assure you, there are plenty of articles for that. But for now, I am just trying to summarize the main reporting of all of the sources: that Omar has advocated for the dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD--done, plain and simple. I am not calling her a radical, and I am not defending or opposing her statements. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have no clue what San Fransisco is doing, and none of the sources mentioned clarify what San Francisco is doing. You are engaging WP:OR:
- You made the claim that "she never makes specific recommendations" and I quoted from your own source showing that she does. If you don't think suggesting San Francisco as a possible model of police reform that Minneapolis should follow is specific enough (since you personally don't happen to know what San Francisco is doing), the other part of the quote makes another specific recommendation, namely, that while police officers are needed for certain types of crimes, non-police professionals could better respond to other types of disorder. Claiming that she's advocating "dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD--done, plain and simple" is a misrepresentation of your own source and a distortion of her views, in violation of WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- If that's a distortion of her views, then The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department), Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-dismantle-americas-economy-political-system-oppression), Business Insider (https://www.insider.com/ilhan-omar-supports-calls-to-dismantle-the-minneapolis-police-2020-6), and every other major media source must be sued for libel at once. Since you're so adamant about defending Omar from the slightest amount of negative press, I am willing to compromise a bit. We could say something like:
"Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department, claiming that the Department was "rotten to the root" and "beyond reform." Omar appeared on CNN and clarified that she believes in a police institution resembling San Francisco, where only certain crimes are investigated by police officers."
I'm assuming she means that other crimes (i.e., non-violent crimes) should be handled by non-law enforcement (like social workers or whatnot) but she doesn't specify, so I don't want to put words in her mouth. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- If that's a distortion of her views, then The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department), Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-dismantle-americas-economy-political-system-oppression), Business Insider (https://www.insider.com/ilhan-omar-supports-calls-to-dismantle-the-minneapolis-police-2020-6), and every other major media source must be sued for libel at once. Since you're so adamant about defending Omar from the slightest amount of negative press, I am willing to compromise a bit. We could say something like:
- That's a good start. You don't need both "dismantle" and "defund" -- please choose one or the other. I'd suggest changing "claiming" to "saying" per WP:SAY. Also, the part about San Francisco is a little inaccurate. She speaks of San Francisco "moving towards a process" where the police perform more restricted functions; she's not endorsing the San Francisco PD as it is right now. NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a good start at all. There is no place for statements such as "Omar advocated to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department, claiming that the Department was "rotten to the root" and 'beyond reform.'" When we go about summarizing her position we should not be using emotionally loaded statements such as "rotten to the root." It still needs a lot of work. Gandydancer (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the phrase "rotten to the root" should go. Omar uses the word "rebuild":
What you can do is rebuild.
Perhaps the following revision of that sentence would more accurately summarize her views: "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department and rebuilding it." NightHeron (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the phrase "rotten to the root" should go. Omar uses the word "rebuild":
- The source says that Omar wants the Minneapolis police abolished and replaced. It doesn't say anything about her views on police in general. TFD (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also note Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, The Hill is a usable source but Fox is not to be used for politics and we have not rated Business Insider. Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, dead wrong...the close of the Rfc on Fox News said "for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable.". It did NOT say Fox is not to be used for politics.--MONGO (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also note Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, The Hill is a usable source but Fox is not to be used for politics and we have not rated Business Insider. Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- What's wrong with
"rotten to the root"
? Those are her exact words, and that's exactly what's used in the title of the Hill article I cited. I'm trying my best to accurately convey her views on the Minneapolis PD.We should not be using emotionally loaded statements such as "rotten to the root"
--hmm, well if that's the standard around here, then explain to me why we have this quote in her Military Policy section:"knowing my tax dollars pay for bombs killing children in Yemen makes my heart break," with "everyone in Washington saying we don't have enough money in the budget for universal health care, we don't have enough money in the budget to guarantee college education for everyone."
Or this quote in her Israeli-Palestinian Conflict section:"Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel".
I would love to hear you explain to me how those quotes are not "emotionally loaded." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- What's wrong with
- A problem with the suggested wording that we're discussing (and recall that I called it a "good start") is that it gives undue emphasis to emotional, headline-grabbing phrases and does not have enough clarity about what Omar actually said. It says "dismantle and defund", and I suggested saying one and not both. Similarly, instead of including both "rotten to the core" and "beyond reform", I suggested dropping "rotten to the core". For example, we could say something like "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department, which she said was "beyond reform", and then rebuilding it." If we want to have more than one sentence on her views concerning the MPD, we could also say that she has recommended following the example of San Francisco in moving toward restricting police responsibility to certain types of crimes rather than the broad gamut of things that the police currently respond to. NightHeron (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but it seems a bit contradictory. How can you "rebuild" something that is "beyond reform?" She wants no remnants of the Minneapolis PD. It should really be something like: "Omar advocated to dismantle the Minneapolis PD, saying that the Department was "beyond reform". Subsequently, Omar stated that Minneapolis should have a policing institution where only certain crimes are investigated by police officers." -- Then you could mention San Francisco. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Omar's words "
you can't really reform
" and "What you can do is rebuild
" are part of the same quote (which I gave above, taken from your source). Her words advocating "a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to
" are also part of that same quote. They were not subsequent. So she doesn't see a contradiction between "beyond reform" and "rebuild". I think she's correct in seeing no contradiction there. People talk about "rebuilding a football team" after a series of disastrous seasons, and they don't mean that it will be anything like before. One can tear down a house and rebuild a (much better) house on the same lot. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Omar's words "
- You're right that: "
you can't really reform
" and "What you can do is rebuild
" is part of the same quote. But, you'resuspiciouslyavoiding a few keywords right in between those two quotes, AKA:"rotten to the root"
. Let's not engage in WP:CHERRYPICKING. If we're gonna quote that phrase, we might as well quote the whole thing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- You're right that: "
- No, there's no contradiction between "rotten to the root" and "What you can do is rebuild". A house can be "rotten to the root", and the new owners can tear it down and rebuild a much better house. You're trying to construct a linguistic problem in what Omar said, where none exists. As Gandydancer pointed out, when paraphrasing a quotation there's no reason to pick out something that sounds emotional over other parts of the quote. In this case the words "beyond reform" convey more content, because they convey Omar's rejection of an alternative approach of trying to reform the MPD without changing its fundamental nature.
- I would appreciate it if you observed WP:AGF and not use words like "suspiciously" that question my motives. NightHeron (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here is an example of what a good copy editor does: I wrote this: "Skraba says he met with Jean Paul Luksic, the Chilean billionaire whose family owns Antofagasta Minerals the parent company of Twin Metals, and “the big cheese” made a good impression on him leading him to believe the company will respect the Boundary Waters." Now I won't deny that I wanted to suggest that it is pretty foolish for this small town Minnesota man to call a billionaire from Chili, and one well known to be a crook at that, the ""big cheese" and talk as though you talked man to man with him and by golly you came away from your talk impressed with his sincerity, etc. But my excellent copy editor took care of that wish of mine and the wish to include the words, "rotten to the root" fall into the same category - as Night Heron said, "in this case the words "beyond reform" convey more content." That is the difference in reading a newspaper account and reading it in an encyclopedia. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have no clue what Gandydancer is getting at.
There's no reason to pick out something that sounds emotional over other parts of the quote.
-- I agree, that's why I suggested we use the entire quote, so it's fully in context:“You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild”
. This is a great compromise. I still feel like its a contradiction, but no matter! It's her exact words. And if you think it's fully necessary, then we could include San Francisco in the next sentence. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)- Both Gandydancer and I have been getting at the difference between a newspaper -- which typically looks for eye-catching emotional headlines and leads -- and an encyclopedia, which is supposed to put accuracy and content first. We both agreed that the phrase "beyond reform", which was part of a quote from Omar in your source from The Hill (June 5), conveys content.
- I have no clue what Gandydancer is getting at.
- The article only needs a sentence or two about Omar's views on the MPD, and those sentences can be paraphrases of what she said. We don't need long direct quotes. The first three subsections of the "Political positions" section (concerning Omar's views of "Capitalism and socialism", "Education", and "Health Care") consist of a total of 7 sentences, with no direct quotes. Her views concerning the MPD are certainly no more important than her views on those three issues, and in fact as a Congressional Representative (not a member of the city government) the police issue in Minneapolis is not part of her remit. NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
off-topic |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- As I pointed out before, there are tons of instances in this article of eye-catching, emotional leads (see my comments on bombing children and Israel hypnotizing the world). How is:
“You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild”
a long quote? Since apparently we can't seem to agree on her views, then I think quoting her exactly is the best route to go (just like the sources do). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I pointed out before, there are tons of instances in this article of eye-catching, emotional leads (see my comments on bombing children and Israel hypnotizing the world). How is:
- Sorry, but doing what you want to do is not a compromise, and you don't have consensus in any case. Your intransigence on including the "rotten" phrase might mean that we can't form a consensus to add anything on the police issue, in which case this whole discussion has been a waste of everyone's time. NightHeron (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- How about we say something along the lines of:
Following the death of George Floyd, Omar called for the dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD, saying that the Department has "proven themselves beyond reform." Omar hoped to see a new police department be modeled after the one in Camden, NJ .
Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- How about we say something along the lines of:
- I think that's a pretty accurate summary, except that readers don't know anything about the Camden, NJ police department, unless they read the source you've found. I think it's a fair and balanced source, but we can't assume that readers will read it. Perhaps it would be more helpful in this case to actually include the source's quote from Omar explaining what she means: "
A new system will allow officers to address the most dangerous situations and serious crimes that our residents face, while ending the criminalization of poverty and disproportionate violence against black and brown communities.
" Instead of the sentence about Camden, we might include that quote or paraphrase it. We could include both the sentence about Camden and a sentence quoting Omar, but 3 sentences on this topic might be undue (or maybe not, I'm not sure). NightHeron (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a pretty accurate summary, except that readers don't know anything about the Camden, NJ police department, unless they read the source you've found. I think it's a fair and balanced source, but we can't assume that readers will read it. Perhaps it would be more helpful in this case to actually include the source's quote from Omar explaining what she means: "
- That was my exact issue when we were discussing the San Francisco PD-- I had no idea what she was talking about and neither would the reader. In this case, what happened with the Camden PD is much more well known, so let's just hyperlink the Wiki: Camden. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, feel free to put that in. I might do minor copy-editing, but nothing more. Unless other editors disagree, that should conclude this discussion. Thank you for your willingness to compromise and seek consensus. NightHeron (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you sure you don't want go back and forth 20 more times?--jk. Do I need to put something specific in the edit summary, like linking this discussion? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- "New subsection on views on police, see talk page" would suffice. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Where did we get this quote from:
In a statement, the Minneapolis mayor said they planned to work to address "systemic racism in police culture."
The only thing the NBC article states was that Jacob Frey, the mayor, was booed by protesters after he refused to commit to defunding the police. Even so, the quote doesn't seem relevant since it wasn't from Omar, nor was it specifically about Omar. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Where did we get this quote from:
- Omar's views on the police should be considered in the context of her proposals on police accountability and her opinions on the BLM protests ("protests valid, destruction not").VR talk 02:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department
- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/calls-reform-defund-dismantle-abolish-police-explained-n1227676
Capitalism and Socialism
I deleted this section because I don't think it adds anything to the article. An editor re-instated it saying, "Please don't remove an entire section without discussing it in the talk; Omar's anti-capitalism views are well known and supported by RSs." The section reads:
- Omar does not self-identify as a socialist, though she has indicated support for socialist ideals. Unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who were also elected to Congress in 2018, Omar was neither a member of nor endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.
There is nothing however in the sources about anti-capitalism or socialist ideals or what socialist ideals means. Basically, Omar is one of 433 out of 435 members of Congress who do not self-identify as democratic socialist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)
But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values and so I think as Democrats, we all share serious socialism ideals about providing for people and caring about our communities and making sure that government is held accountable in providing for its citizens.
- Basically, she is saying that Democrats, in general, support these ideals. It is highly misleading to use this out of context to state in WikiVoice that she supports socialist ideals.
- I see nothing relevant in the Politico article.
- Refinery29 is a young woman’s fashion site. It only says that her campaign manager said she was socialist when she herself has denied this. It does say she did not sign a DSA pledge.
- I see nothing about anti-capitalism related to this article. Removal of this subsection was correct. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000 and TFD are correct and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I also agree. In US politics, the term socialist is a loaded term, usually seen as a pejorative. For example, Trump frequently accuses Democrats of being "socialists". The evidence in the sources indicates that Omar is not a socialist, and we don't normally have a section of a BLP about what the person is not. NightHeron (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- The section was a little more nuanced than just stating "Omar is socialist." In fact, the first sentence states that Omar does not identify as a socialist but is warm to socialistic ideals. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think we're allowed to label someone a "nationalist" or a "socialist" (or state if they're friendly to nationalistic or socialistic ideals) even if the person in question doesn't use those terms-- so long as RSs use those terms to label that individual. For example, John Bolton's page clearly states that
...his political views have been described as American nationalist, conservative, and neoconservative. Bolton rejects the last term.
Should we remove "neoconservative" from his lead, just b/c he dosen't use that term?--no, that's silly since most sources associate that term with him. As for Omar, she is frequently associated with the "Democratic Socialists" or the highly-progressive wing:- :
host Daniel Denvir spoke with one of the leading lights of the democratic socialist movement, Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar.
- :
Rep. Ilhan Omar is a self-described “democratic socialist” who has made a name for herself as one the farthest-left voices in the House of Representatives
- :
Ilhan Omar is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and does not call herself a socialist, though she says she favors some socialist ideas.
- And, maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America :
DSA Wholeheartedly Supports Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar
- Lastly, in reference to the Intercept interview, you have to go through some mental gymnastics to conclude that Omar is not saying that she supports socialists ideals. Here is the whole quote:
So for me, what I say to that is I believe in not having extra titles so I am a Democrat. But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values and so I think as Democrats, we all share serious socialism ideals about providing for people and caring about our communities and making sure that government is held accountable in providing for its citizens.
All she is saying is that she doesn't like using 'titles,' but she feels deeply connected with socialism, and, according to her, most Democrats have socialistic sentiments.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'll let you all consider the question of including or excluding the subsection but I wanted to quickly comment on the dsausa.org link: it is a statement of support towards them against an Israeli government decision considered bigoted. I imagine they might also put out a statement like that in favour of GOP Reps. Zeldin or Kustoff if either of them were to become impacted by anti-Semitism as blatant as the Islamophobia in this case. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, you're completely right. But, considering the fact that they issued lots of statements like this about Omar , , it's safe to assume she is supported by DSA, if not formally endorsed. Additionally, Omar endorsed the DSA in her district (something I forgot to mention). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I’ll go through each point:
- On the Jacobin podcast, your quote is not from the podcast itself, but from a lead in to the podcast essentially advertising a subscription.
- The Independent article appears to be an opinion column (the voices section).
- I don’t think Common Dreams Is RS. In any case, I think most people support some socialist ideas.
- I already commented on The Intercept quote.
- An endorsement from DSA is completely irrelevant. Unless you want to include David Duke’s or The Proud Boy's endorsements of Trump as proof he is a white supremacist. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- :
- The section was a little more nuanced than just stating "Omar is socialist." In fact, the first sentence states that Omar does not identify as a socialist but is warm to socialistic ideals. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think we're allowed to label someone a "nationalist" or a "socialist" (or state if they're friendly to nationalistic or socialistic ideals) even if the person in question doesn't use those terms-- so long as RSs use those terms to label that individual. For example, John Bolton's page clearly states that
- You're right that the Jacobin quote is from intro, but that's completely separate from the subscription part (which is just the last line of the intro). Common Dreams seems to be a more local, progressive news source, but it has featured lots of big name writers. As you admitted, most people support some socialist ideas, so why not include the socialist/ semi-socialist ideas Omar supports (some of which are listed in the sources)? I really think you need to reevaluate the Intercept quote. If Omar just said Democrats, in general, support socialistic ideas, then fine, we'll leave it at that. But she unequivocally said that "But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values." How much clearer does she need to be? As for the DSA endorsement, you must have missed my other comment where Omar endorses the DSA in her district . If the Proud Boys endorsed Trump, and Trump endorsed a local Proud Boy's chapter, then you could probably put 2 and 2 together. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The first two sources are clearly wrong. Omar is not a democratic socialist and does not describe herself as one. The DSA has a list of endorsements, which includes AOC, Tlaib, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, who are all members of the DSA, but not Omar. It could be though that the local DSA has endorsed her, as have many other progressive groups. (Note that her website says they endorsed her, not that she endorsed them.) That would mean that local DSA members would campaign for her, but the national organization would not. The DSA has backed various non-socialist Democratic candidates, including John Kerry and Barack Obama. The ideals of socialism Omar claims to support are basically ideals that most people support. It's like someone saying to Jews or Muslims that they support their ideals without actually belonging to those religions. As for Bolton, see my comments on adding him to the list of neoconservatives: "I have always found the list a problem because there is no clear guide to who is a neoconservative, especially after we advance past its origins and move from intellectuals to politicians."
As a point of trivia, the founder of the DSA is credited with coining the term neoconservative. By it he meant fellow socialists who had converted to conservatism.
TFD (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, that's an interesting factoid at the end. John Bolton was just an example. There are plenty of articles that describe political figures using continuous terms. Tucker Carlson's page states:
Carlson has been described in the media as a conservative or paleoconservative. Writing for New York magazine's Intelligencer, Park MacDougald called Carlson a "Middle American radical..."
. I don't believe Carlson ever described himself as a paleocon or a Middle American radical, but that doesn't mean those labels aren't true. Also, I should have stated this earlier, but I don't think we should call this section "Capitalism and Socialism," since clearly, Omar doesn't fall into either of those categories. I suggest we rename it "Political Ideology" or something of the sorts. Additionally, by listing the DSA endorsement on her website, she is, in effect, accepting the endorsement. This obviously doesn't mean she stands with DSA on every position, but it does show that her ideology aligns closer to democratic socialism. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)- What John Bolton and Tucker Carlson say in general is irrelevant to this article. You seem to be indulging in a great deal of WP:OR. I suggest we have no section divining her ideology from poor sources and assigning labels thereto. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, that's an interesting factoid at the end. John Bolton was just an example. There are plenty of articles that describe political figures using continuous terms. Tucker Carlson's page states:
- If you actually spent a moment of your time looking at what I wrote, like The Four Deuces did, you would know that I am not trying to include statements by Bolton or Carlson into this article. I am simply stating the fact that it is perfectly appropriate to assert labels or describe a person's ideology--as done on many other BLPs. Devoting just 2 or 3 sentences to her ideology, as we had before, is all I'm asking for. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- For one, you said I "admitted" most people support some socialist ideas. Well, then why should we include that here if it doesn't define her? Most people think murder should be illegal. No reason to include that either. You seem to want to attach a label that has become ultra-controversial (since McCarthy days) -- a label with so many meanings. I don't see how this is of benefit, any more than adding to the Trump article that he supports aspects of socialism because he supports some "ideals" that might be called socialist. In any case, it isn't supported by RS and isn't going to be added. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you actually spent a moment of your time looking at what I wrote, like The Four Deuces did, you would know that I am not trying to include statements by Bolton or Carlson into this article. I am simply stating the fact that it is perfectly appropriate to assert labels or describe a person's ideology--as done on many other BLPs. Devoting just 2 or 3 sentences to her ideology, as we had before, is all I'm asking for. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not the one attaching that label to her--she is. For the 100th time, Omar states in clear and precise language that
"the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values."
I am not saying saying 'socialism' is a good thing or a bad thing. If Trump said "the ideals of Nazisim is one that is deep in my values," that would be in the very 1st paragraph of his lead and he would be branded a Nazi without a second though. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)- If you have a PH.D, I would hope you understand out of context quoting. Enough. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually I bought my Ph.D online for $20--but don't tell anyone. The quote is in full context. She merely states before she doesn't like using titles or labels like socialism, but she feels very connected to socialism. Please stop trying to whitewash her own words or this article Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
- You were cheated. I paid $15. No, it was clearly out of context. She goes on to say that these are ideals of the Democrats. Indeed, don't most people share the ideals she mentioned? Clearly she was not labeling herself a socialist per se. And, do not accuse me of whitewashing. That suggests that you are indeed trying to assign a negative label to her. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- <sigh> It appears that saying "My values are socialism, and those are also the values of my party" no longer means what it used to. I only accused you of whitewashing because you were so adamant about removing a potentially negative label. I try to assume good faith as much as possible. I apologize for that comment. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- You were cheated. I paid $15. No, it was clearly out of context. She goes on to say that these are ideals of the Democrats. Indeed, don't most people share the ideals she mentioned? Clearly she was not labeling herself a socialist per se. And, do not accuse me of whitewashing. That suggests that you are indeed trying to assign a negative label to her. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually I bought my Ph.D online for $20--but don't tell anyone. The quote is in full context. She merely states before she doesn't like using titles or labels like socialism, but she feels very connected to socialism. Please stop trying to whitewash her own words or this article Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC).
- If you have a PH.D, I would hope you understand out of context quoting. Enough. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am not the one attaching that label to her--she is. For the 100th time, Omar states in clear and precise language that
I don't think we can infer anything from the endorsement, per synthesis. It's local organization is just one of many progressive groups that endorsed Omar. Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress endorsed Juan Gaido, who leads a socialist party in opposition to Nicolas Maduro, to be president of Venezuela. It doesn't mean they are socialists. Congress invited the British socialist leader Tony Blair to address them, where he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Other socialists honored include Anwar Sadat and Martin Luther King. Congress even named a public holiday after King.
I think though that NightHeron is right. Socialist is a loaded term in the U.S. while in the rest of the world it's usually just one of two major parties. When describing foreign leaders, U.S. media only use the S-word for socialists they oppose and never use it for those they support. So Maduro is routinely referred to as a socialist while Gaido never is.
TFD (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- TFD You make some excellent points. Would you at least consider including Omar's own words on socialism (see quote above)? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- As in any other article, it would require a secondary source for interpretation and you would need to show that it is significant, i.e., that it is routinely mentioned in articles about her. It seems that why you want to put the information in is that you personally think it important, rather than sources do. But there are other sites to bring up information ignored in mainstream sources. And if mainstream sources pick up on it, then it could well find its way into this article. Articles are supposed to read more like the New York Times than Epoch Times. TFD (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
the British socialist leader Tony Blair
oh lordy. Unsolicited advice: if you're making an argument that treats Blair, Sadat, and King as equivalent for some purpose, you're doing something wrong. Adding my two cents on the original question: the sourcing for the section was mediocre and a bit synth-y, but not really terrible (and better than a lot of garbage that gets tossed into "political positions" BLPs). I also thought that it did a pretty good job addressing the substance in an encyclopedic way. If there were a single more solid source that addressed the topic in a non-glancing way, I would support restoring it; as is, I'm in the "meh" column. --13:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)- Perhaps you are missing my point. If there is nothing significant about Congress honoring socialist leaders, there is nothing significant about a Congresswoman saying something nice about socialism. Note that the parties that Sadat, Blair and Guaido belonged to were members of the Socialist International, as was the DSA. Socialism is such a broad tent that as you say, if you're making an argument that treats then as equivalent for some purpose, you're doing something wrong. TFD (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @The Fource Deuces: Normative and comparative arguments about what is "significant" and what isn't have less impact than what sources have treated as significant. The views the subject holds on capitalism and socialism are noted as significant by sources, and that takes precedence. There is nothing wrong with the edit and it should be restored. WP:WEIGHT is satisfied for inclusion in the article body. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, the only source for Omar's mention of socialism was an interview and it was not reported in secondary sources, hence fails the test for significance. I suggest changing your daily news feed to CNN or something else more mainstream. Then you won't hear about far right criticisms and won't wonder why it isn't in the article. TFD (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @The Fource Deuces: Normative and comparative arguments about what is "significant" and what isn't have less impact than what sources have treated as significant. The views the subject holds on capitalism and socialism are noted as significant by sources, and that takes precedence. There is nothing wrong with the edit and it should be restored. WP:WEIGHT is satisfied for inclusion in the article body. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are missing my point. If there is nothing significant about Congress honoring socialist leaders, there is nothing significant about a Congresswoman saying something nice about socialism. Note that the parties that Sadat, Blair and Guaido belonged to were members of the Socialist International, as was the DSA. Socialism is such a broad tent that as you say, if you're making an argument that treats then as equivalent for some purpose, you're doing something wrong. TFD (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- As in any other article, it would require a secondary source for interpretation and you would need to show that it is significant, i.e., that it is routinely mentioned in articles about her. It seems that why you want to put the information in is that you personally think it important, rather than sources do. But there are other sites to bring up information ignored in mainstream sources. And if mainstream sources pick up on it, then it could well find its way into this article. Articles are supposed to read more like the New York Times than Epoch Times. TFD (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Her name is Ilham
On Twitter she said her name is Ilham, she change the m to an n, but it’s not clear whether she legally changed her name or just uses Ilhan as a nickname https://twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1317600147321257985 Thomasdelbert (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- In the same tweet she says she prefers "Ilhan" and that is how she is commonly referred.VR talk 17:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Bulk deletion about relationship with Turkey not appropriate
Hi, @NightHeron: - I'm sure we can work out our differences here rather than bulk delete well-sourced sections wholesale. Let me know what you'd like to modify and I'm sure we can find some reasonable compromises! --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing your proposed edit to the talk-page rather than continuing to edit-war. That's required by Misplaced Pages policy (see WP:ONUS). Since it seems you've been editing for only 3 weeks, I can understand your not yet being familiar with WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:BLP (biographies of living persons). Please read and adhere to those policies when editing Ilhan Omar. Another relevant policy is WP:OR (original research). To start with, your first sentence is an example of OR, because of the way you choose to link misdeeds of the Turkish government with Omar. Your wording in wikivoice blatantly violates NPOV and reads like a political attack on her. If you can come up with neutral wording that does not go beyond what multiple reliable sources are saying, then please suggest it here on the talk-page. There are many editors who watchlist this article, and some of them may wish to comment. NightHeron (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delighted to have the chance to talk here. In my experience with other pages, gracious editors (and even very rude ones!) are happy to modify the language of well-sourced and otherwise legitimate edits to a page, rather than bulk-deleting sections whole-cloth they find unpalatable, thereby talking the first shot in an edit war. But you are right, my experience is limited, and maybe those have just been fortunate encounters (or perhaps my interlocutors were equally inexpert with Misplaced Pages). I'm very glad we discuss matters in a civil way here. With apologies for poor formatting (and perhaps other Wiki faux-pas):
You deleted in full the following sections:
→In 2017, at a moment when the government of Turkey had jailed more than 50,000 academics, teachers, journalists, court officials, judges, police, and military personnel following the failed coup of 2016, then-State Representative Omar participated in a closed-door meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in New York City.
I can certainly appreciate the concern about the first clause. Perhaps we might stick with this:
→In 2017, then-State Representative Omar participated in a closed-door meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in New York City.
This is surely important to have somewhere on the page; although Rep. Omar's relationship to Turkey has been widely discussed (by people from across the political spectrum: cf. e.g. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/ilhan-omar-turkey-armenia-kurds-imperialism), not much about Turkey, and absolutely nothing about Erdogan, appear on the page currently. This seems like a non-negligible shortcoming.
You also deleted the following section:
→In her official explanation of her decision to vote "present" on H.Res. 296 to recognize the Armenian genocide, Omar appeared to use specific language and arguments, including the phrase "leave it do the academic consensus" promoted by the Turkish government and its lobbyists. Another argument advanced by Omar, that "true acknowledgment of historical crimes against humanity must include … earlier mass slaughters like the transatlantic slave trade and Native American genocide," was described by Slate magazine as "classic what-aboutism."
I'd be very happy to discuss further whatever seems objectionable here; both the article by NBC and by TheHill.com note that Rep. Omar appeared to have cribbed official Turkish talking points. I trust that both of these outlets meet the definition of a "reliable source"? (I felt that the citation showing those talking points in action added value, but I'm happy to dispense with it! Incidentally, in view of Rep. Omar's extensive critique of foreign lobbying power, this also seems highly pertinent; but that is neither here nor there.) I'd also be happy to discuss the best way to capture the gist of the Slate article.
Another block of text you deleted ran:
→In an op-ed published in October 2019, Omar argued against imposing sanctions on Turkey on the grounds that sanctions tend to hurt ordinary citizens in the country sanctioned, but suggested that sanctions targeting individuals or the purchase of arms were more appropriate; Omar then voted against a sanctions bill that was designed to target banks or entities involved in the arm trade on behalf of Turkey.
- ^ "Erdogan Ally Met With Omar, Contributed to Her Campaign". news.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- Bendix, Aria (2017-07-14). "Turkey Dismisses Thousands of Police, Civil Servants, and Academics". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- Swanson, Ian (2019-11-01). "Omar comes under scrutiny for 'present' vote on Armenian genocide". TheHill. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- "Ilhan Omar faces blowback after voting 'present' on Armenian genocide resolution". NBC News. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- "Erdogan reminded of Armenian Genocide during G20 presser". news.am. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- Keating, Joshua (2019-10-30). "Of Course Congress' Vote to Recognize the Armenian Genocide Was Political". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- Omar, Ilhan. "Opinion | Ilhan Omar: Sanctions are part of a failed foreign policy playbook. Stop relying on them". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- Edmondson, Catie (2019-10-29). "In Another Bipartisan Rebuke of Trump, House Votes for Sanctions Against Turkey (Published 2019)". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
- Engel, Eliot L. (2019-10-30). "H.R.4695 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): PACT Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 2020-11-01.
It is unclear to me what crosses the line here. The first sentence simply summarizes Rep. Omar's own words in a neutral manner. The second again summarizes in a very neutral way both the bill itself (which I cited) and reporting from the New York Times about the bill. Again, I would be happy to discuss different language that you might feel is more suitable.
Finally, there was the following block of text you deleted:
→In 2019, it was revealed that Omar had received a large campaign donation from a Turkish lobbying group led by, Halil Mutlu, a cousin of President Erdogan. Mutlu was present at the 2017 clash between Erdogan's bodyguards and peaceful protestors in Washington D.C.
Again, this seems to be a mere statement of fact. I can see that it may seem tendentious to put Omar in a sentence next to the violence outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence. But it also seems to me that Mutlu is not well-known enough to be introduced without further context, and, as it happens, the two things Mr. Mutlu is known for in the American media seem to be that he is a) a Turkish lobbyist, b) President Erdogan's blood-relation, and c) played a role in the aforementioned violence about the Ambassador's residence. Again, I am happy to modify this as is appropriate, but I can't see why campaign donations are not fair game for inclusion here? Based on her past remarks, I feel confident that Rep. Omar would agree with me on this point, and I have been consistent in flagging up similar campaign donation stories on political pages across the spectrum; this is valuable information that surely belongs in "any summary of existing mainstream knowledge" relating to a politician.
Finally, I am perplexed by the fact that you have just now deleted the following edit:
→According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, Omar's political campaign paid her husband's consulting firm nearly $2.8 million during the course of the 2019-2020 election cycle.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
:0
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Dorman, Sam (2020-11-10). "Ilhan Omar's campaign paid her husband's firm nearly $2.8M". Fox News. Retrieved 2020-11-13.
This is hardly a "major edit" to a page, so I can't imagine it would need any consensus to be added (and I'd be grateful to see where such a policy is stated - my apologies again for being new). What is more, it is a factual assertion that has been widely reported on by plenty of sources (whether or not either of us like Fox News), and at any rate, we can all go to the FEC filings for ourselves, so the basic facts aren't contested. Nor can I see how this articulation of the point might violate any POV issues here. Can it be appropriate to delete a neutrally-stated, widely-reported, credibly-sourced factual assertion without any explanation whatsoever? Perhaps I am wrong, but that very much feels like the first shot in an edit-war - which I have no doubt neither of us want.
With my thanks to you - and to any other editors who may wish to comment - for your consideration Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Publius In The 21st Century Let's not cast aspersions at other editors. There was a lot wrong with your edits, and NightHeron did the right thing by removing them. Please also remember to link diffs (it's really hard to follow without them). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The text is written in a prejudicial tone. Saying that Omar met the Turkish president at a time when he jailed people implies she endorsed the crackdown. For all we know, she asked the president to release them. Also, reporting a $1,500 campaign donation as "a large campaign donation" is a misleading, since her campaign cost $5.5 million. Contrary to your edit, the donation did not come from a lobbying group, but was a personal donation from Halil Mutlu, who lobbies for Turkey but whose main occupation is as a doctor. Mutlu has made many political donations including to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If I could buy political influence for $1,500, I'd be reaching for my checkbook. Maybe I could be appointed Secretary of State or Postmaster-General or something like that. TFD (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Eight former U.S. secretaries of state signed a petition against the United States resolution on Armenian Genocide. Former presidents including Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and Barack Obama and current president, Donald Trump also opposed a resolution. You need to provide that context instead of implying that Omar's vote was somehow pro-Turkey. TFD (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks to all! I cast no aspersions. So, as far as specific feedback goes, I see that I should drop 'large' from campaign donation. Happily done. I am certainly happy to drop the clause regarding the jailing of academics etc. in Turkey, as I tried to make clear in my post just now. It is also correct that Yahoo News misreported the nature of the donation from Mutlu - they attribute it to TASC, but reference to the FEC page makes clear that you are right, TFD. So in fact I'd be very happy to drop both two sentences about Mutlu for the reasons you specify, TFD As for edits, the main one, the one discussed at length in the above posts, was this added by me - my apologies for failing to include them, talk, and thank you for the guidance. The final sentence in my post refers to this . In my post on this talk page, I tried to go through each of my edits point-by-point, spelling out what seemed like it needed to be changed (including deleting the portion about Turkey jailing people in 2017 - though, for the record, you rightly point out, TFD , that one read that as prejudicial only if you assume that the writer is prejudicial - we might well assume that she was asking Erdogan to release the jailed academics, and I in no way suggested otherwise!) and also defending what seemed legitimate. I am also happy to add that the Secs of State, Carter, George W., Obama, and Trump opposed the resolution, and also that it passed the House 403-15, with Omar being the sole Democrat to vote Nay. Naturally I will be happy to continue to modify content and citations in line with other specific feedback presented! Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another problem is WP:UNDUE, that is, paying excessive attention to a minor issue. If you can propose a brief text that's neutrally worded and supported by sources, that would be helpful. NightHeron (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. Just to clarify, you mean a brief text that includes everything about Rep. Omar's relationship to Turkey? In that case, might I ask what you mean by brief, more or less? Thanks!
- Finally, might I kindly ask on what grounds you rejected the recent reports that Rep. Omar's campaign has paid several million dollars to her husband campaign firm? As far as I understand, it would at least be appropriate to state a reason before summarily deleting an edit made in good faith?--Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Brief text means a 1-sentence neutrally worded summary that accurately conveys what multiple reliable sources say about it. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE.
- The grounds for rejecting your other edit is that it is sourced only to Fox, which is known for airing unreliable attacks on Democrats. The wording implies that she did something wrong, and this needs much better sourcing, see WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi NightHeron, could you please elaborate why anything more than 1 sentence would be undue? Having examined the parameters laid out in the page to which you linked, a one-sentence limit-by-fiat seems quite arbitrary, especially when one considers that e.g. her views on Venezuela get three paragraphs. Might I kindly ask you to elaborate on the precise criteria underlying the strict one-sentence diktat? Note that this one sentence would need to encompass: a) her very widely-discussed vote on the Armenian genocide bill, which prompted i) widely reported concern that her language explaining her vote closely mirrored official Turkish talking points and ii) widely reported concern that the arguments she made to defend Turkey were inconsistent with her other positions on human rights; b) a widely-discussed vote on sanctions against Turkey, which i) also involved her writing an Op-Ed in a major news outlet and also ii) occasioned relatively broad discussion about the inconsistency between the stated position in the Op-Ed and Rep. Omar's actual vote.
- Ideally, this sentence would also simply note Rep. Omar's unusual meeting with the head of Turkey in 2017 (not many state-Reps meet with heads of gov. of major countries); in view of Omar's comments about the power of foreign lobbying in U.S. policy, it would note her relationship to members of the Turkish lobby. Incidentally, I do not consider these things to be inherently good or bad, and there is no implication that someone is a 'double agent' or anything odd like that; it simply provides important context of exactly the sort one can find in Jacobin Mag - not the place where one finds normally finds anti-Omar screed.
- Finally, regarding the campaign payments, I am only too happy to avoid Fox, though I do note it is widely used in other biographies of living persons, and I just wondered whether there is a uniform policy on this across Misplaced Pages, or if that is decided on a page-by-page basis. I would be happy to link to the FEC filings themselves, since the basic facts of the story are not in question. I am more surprised by the quarrel with the language used. Might I kiindly ask what specifically about this sentence -- "According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, Omar's political campaign paid her husband's consulting firm nearly $2.8 million during the course of the 2019-2020 election cycle." -- is not neutral? Or rather, might you perhaps suggest something that would be more neutral? Incidentally, is it common practice to undo good faith edits summarily and without explanation? I had understood this was not in keeping with best practices for editing, but perhaps I am mistaken. With all my thanks Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Given that you seem to be a new user not yet familiar with core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, I suggested that whatever you want to add on this topic to what's already there should be limited to a sentence (or two short sentences) with neutral wording and good sources. And no, the FEC filings themselves are not what's meant by good sourcing; see WP:RS. I immediately reverted your edits in line with WP:BLP, which says in part:
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research)
. NightHeron (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Given that you seem to be a new user not yet familiar with core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, I suggested that whatever you want to add on this topic to what's already there should be limited to a sentence (or two short sentences) with neutral wording and good sources. And no, the FEC filings themselves are not what's meant by good sourcing; see WP:RS. I immediately reverted your edits in line with WP:BLP, which says in part:
- Since Congress votes on thousands of bills and resolutions every year, we need secondary sources to establish the importance of any one vote before we include it. We can't say well former presidents and secretaries of state took one side, members of congress took another and this is how Omar voted, what do you think? The implicit message you want to convey is that Omar is a friend of an authoritarian leader and condones genocide. But anyone can put together information and imply lots of things. We only report these accusations if they receive widespread coverage in reliable sources. In that case, experts across the spectrum will weigh in and the subject will reply. It's not our role to raise issues that no one else has.
- I notice that you didn't say that we should explain how expert opinion views the vote. Most people agree that genocide is wrong and should be condemned hence on the surface this makes Omar look bad. But others, including those responsible for foreign policy, think that it is not the role of the U.S. Congress to judge other countries, particularly considering the U.S. very poor record in human rights. It's easy to condemn a genocide that occurred over 100 years ago, without acknowledging that the U.S. has killed more people in the Middle East than the Turks did.
- TFD (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, TFD I'm delighted to discuss specific line edits regarding the text I have proposed. I will note that I cited several credible sources noting the blowback Omar received, which was widely reported in the press and has been discussed by commentators across the spectrum, from Slate to Jacobin Mag to stuff further right. On the other hand, I'm not here to do foreign policy pub-chat with strangers - I can't imagine this being a constructive exercise, furthering any of Misplaced Pages's core goals, or even staying civil very long. With best wishes --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I note that much of what you want to add is already in the article written in neutral terms in the "Human Rights" section:
- Omar opposed the October 2019 Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria, writing that "What has happened after Turkey's invasion of northeastern Syria is a disaster—tens of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee, hundreds of Islamic State fighters have escaped, and Turkish-backed rebels have been credibly accused of atrocities against the Kurds."
- In October 2019 Omar voted "present" on H.Res. 296, to recognize the Armenian Genocide, causing a backlash. She said in a statement that "accountability and recognition of genocide should not be used as cudgel in a political fight" and argued that such a step should include both the Atlantic slave trade and the Native American genocide. In November, after her controversial vote, Omar publicly condemned the Armenian genocide at a rally for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
I would also note that a Jacobin article co-authored by Michael Brooks of the Majority Report, which you provided, generally should not be used as a source. While op-eds generally are not considered reliable for facts, the major problem is what degree of weight their opinion deserves. Normally I would only include opinions that had been picked up in mainstream media. I don't think that Jacobin is sufficiently influential that views expressed in it should be added to every topic where they publish an opinion.
TFD (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, TFD. Since you cite, apparently approvingly, several sentences elsewhere in the article pertaining to the material in question, may I take it that you would not find a one-sentence limit for this material, such as that suggested by NightHeron, to be appropriate?
- Incidentally, I agree that a Jacobin Mag article is not an appropriate source. That is why I scrupulously avoided using it as one in my original post. But it does provide evidence of broader discussion and interest of the issues in question, and not only from traditionally anti-Omar sources, which is the reason I have since adduced it in the talk pages here. With all my thanks Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- As per TFD I fail to see why any expansion is needed for content already in the article. Biographies must not obsess or give undue coverage of incidentalia. Every congressperson has a wiki bio. How many of them carry detailed info about their attitude to Turkey and the genocide issue? Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Total agreement with Nishidani and TFD, and thanks to the editors who have taken the time to explain in detail how this place is supposed to work... Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- As per TFD I fail to see why any expansion is needed for content already in the article. Biographies must not obsess or give undue coverage of incidentalia. Every congressperson has a wiki bio. How many of them carry detailed info about their attitude to Turkey and the genocide issue? Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I agree that a Jacobin Mag article is not an appropriate source. That is why I scrupulously avoided using it as one in my original post. But it does provide evidence of broader discussion and interest of the issues in question, and not only from traditionally anti-Omar sources, which is the reason I have since adduced it in the talk pages here. With all my thanks Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to all! So NightHeron proposes a 1-sentence section, while others feel that the individual incidences are adequately addressed - in what amount to 5-6 sentences - elsewhere. Obviously the two are not compatible, and I am happy to continue to hear what others think and proceed accordingly.
- I am more puzzled, however, by the argument made by Nishidani. That every congressperson has a wiki bio hardly seems relevant here. (One might also ask how many congresspeople have a three-paragraph section dedicated to Venezuela?) No doubt every page matches, or ought to match, the important and newsworthy actions taken by that congressperson. So it seems the question at hand is whether at least two very high profile episodes involving Turkey (the Armenian genocide vote, and the Turkish sanctions vote) where Ilhan Omar intervened in a way that gathered a great deal of news coverage that has since become part of her story deserve a separate sub-heading (we might consider the issue of the alleged white phosphorous attack a third - see below). This is no more and no less than what has occurred on this page with respect to Omar's two notable interventions regarding Venezuela; if there is an important difference I am missing, I am happy to hear where I mistaken and will even more happily concede to a well-articulated argument on this point. (Conversely, we could also delete the Venezuela section on the grounds that we should not be "obsessed" over "incidentalia" (sic); but this would strike me as a loss for Misplaced Pages readers, since in my experience, the demarcation of discrete sections is an important way of making pages clearly intelligible for the many users of this site who come here in a hurry to scan for particular topics. That is of course up for debate, and, as has been very thoughtfully observed many times, I am a new editor, if not a new Misplaced Pages user.)
- Incidentally, other incidents that are notable but are not currently on the page would also, I submit, belong in this section. These are, namely, an unusual (though again, by no means sinister!) relationship with the head of Turkey, use of what were widely reported as official Turkish talking points on a sensitive political question (the Armenian genocide), a clear tension between her positions on (at least some) Turkish human rights questions and those regarding e.g. Israel or Saudi Arabia, and political donations/official meetings with the head of the Turkish lobby (which would be less notable if Omar were not a politician who had spoken out forcefully on the topic of foreign lobbying and its influence on the domestic political process). What is more, adding a separate section would also have the benefit of allowing us to include other notable incidents also involving Turkey, including Omar's response - also widely reported - to Turkey's alleged use of white phosphorous on Kurdish civilians in Syria. This would give readers the benefit of appreciating that 1) Ilhan Omar has indeed engaged with Turkey in a notable way that deserves treatment in its own right, and 2) this relationship is complex and has a number of different facets.
- If the consensus - formed on well-articulated, consistently applied principles - is that a separate section is not merited, of course I will accept this, and am very glad to have the chance to engage in serious, point-by-point discussions of the questions in play here. Naturally, I, too am also grateful to editors who appreciate, in word and deed, "how this place is supposed to work." I have always respected Misplaced Pages as an egalitarian, democratic resource that belongs to no one, where no page is the private fief of any special group, clan, or tribe, and all editors of good faith are welcome to contribute in a collaborative spirit. With my thanks again for your serious engagement Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
You are correct that weight ought to match, the important and newsworthy actions taken by that congressperson. However, Omar is a high profile congresswoman and what you want to amplify has received relatively minor coverage compared to her overall coverage.
Omar's meeting with Erdogan received no coverage at the time and received trivial coverage after it was first reported by PJ Media. Omar actually met him along with a delegation of Somalis from her state. Right-wing media then provided fact free speculation. Ironically, Erdogan's image among conservatives has changed now that Trump apparently likes him.
I assume that your major if not only source of news is alternative conservative media. They weigh newsworthiness very differently from mainstream media. They would for examle provide minimal if any coverage to information that could not be presented in a negative light. Their role is to trash people they do not agree with rather than attempt to explain them. That's not to say that mainstream media lacks bias. But since weight is based on coverage in reliable sources, you would be better advised to read mainstream sources and ensure that articles correctly reflect the weight they provide. But you have to decide that is what you want to do, otherwise you will find yourself engaged in lengthy talk page discussions that ultimately lead to no changes to articles.
TFD (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- A quick response, since I'd like to hear what others, such as NightHeron and other editors active here might have to say. I'm very sorry that I couldn't manage to get you to engage in a thoughtful way with any of the points I have made above, and I hope that others here will be more considered about engaging with the genuine question of one heading, multiple major news stories (Armenian Genocide resolution, Turkish Sanctions) + smaller points, v. many different sentences scattered throughout the article. But this bizarre ad hominem attack will not do, and does no service to you or the reputation of the quality of discussion on this page. (Even a brief look at my edit history will show what an odd claim you have made - certainly the defenders of Leonard Leo are laughing somewhere in Texas.) With all my thanks to other editors for serious consideration of the good faith points made above Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: (1) When I referred to you as a "new user", I meant that you opened an account less than a month ago; of course I did not mean that you're unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages as a reader. Please don't take offense. (2) I did not propose adding a sentence. The consensus among editors who've commented in this thread seems to be that the current coverage of matters related to Turkey is sufficient, and I concur with that. However, since you clearly disagree and think that some important material is missing, I suggested that, rather than proposing a "bulk" addition of text (your word for it), you would do better to propose brief text that's carefully worded in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality, sourcing, and no original research. NightHeron (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Per Misplaced Pages:Criticism, which is not a policy or guideline but is respected advice, criticism should be scattered throughout the article rather than concentrated into a criticism section. The reason is that it is difficult to have a neutral criticism section. I don't see that any of your edits to Leonard Leo would dismay his defenders. In any case no one has reverted or objected to any of them. They certainly don't have the same tone you used in this article. TFD (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- What is not mentioned is that Turkey has close relations with Somalia, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on famine relief, helping refugees and economic development. Erdogan and his wife invited members of the Somali diaspora to meet them in the U.S., Canada and UK, presumably to discuss Somali issues. When Omar and other Somali refugees met with him, she was the only elected Somali state legislator in the U.S. Erdogan also met with Somali refugees in Canada, including Ahmed Hussen, who would become a federal Liberal legislator and Minister of Immigration and Citizenship. Sources like PJ Media omit that context in order to promote conspiracism. TFD (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is, as almost invariably with TFD's comments, illuminating, and tacitly brings out one aspect of encyclopedic obligations that is rarely mentioned, but illustrated in experienced practitioners' contributions. When issues like this arise, dedicated editors look at the whole context, do background analysis to see what the larger picture is, and often note that a large part of the context is simply missing. It is not our work (WP:OR) to remedy the lacunae by connecting the dots etc. But the background picture allows one to evaluate where the 'pointy' contentious matter is coming from, i.e. in this case, one can see that a very complex picture of Turkey-Somali-Omar relationships is, unfortunately, missing from the mainstream record, or, cherrypicked by minor antagonist sources which suppress the context to score a few cheap points by caricature. We neither censor facts that might appear negative, nor connive with the politicization of the facts. We just weigh the material in the balance of WP:Due/Undue and try to - it is no easy matter - establish our coverage in terms of importance and relevance within the framework of what the best available sources say. An encyclopedia is not a tabloid skew(er)ing reportage in terms of the widespread factoid reductionism characteristic of even much careless mainstream coverage. What may be spun as a frantic heated blip in the news cycle will only assume its relevance or irrelevance years down the line, when scholarly overviews can assess it with more detachment. Thanks TFD.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks to all. First, process. Let me please say that I appreciate very much that the level of discussion has returned to something more serious than: bizarrely off the mark ad hominem attacks; attempts to derail technical questions about proper formatting into debates about contentious matters of American foreign policy; statements of irrelevantalia; and, most dishearteningly, a stubborn refusal to engage in a serious way with any of the points that I tried to make. For better or worse, Misplaced Pages has no training program, so one must simply learn by doing and learn by example, and up to last night, it did not seem that the example of some apparently very experienced veterans active on this page would lead me nearer to the Elysian fields of Wikivirtue; one did catch a sulfurous whiff, however, of those benighted netherworlds of Wikiculture I have sometimes read about in those alternative conservative rags like Slate, The Atlantic, and The Guardian. (Turns out even we mouth-breathing neanderthals can heap up the pseudo-Joycean adjectives and coin cheap Latinate neologisms!)
- Second, content. I am of course happy to defer to the consensus here, not least because I'm not actually that invested in Ilhan Omar, her page, or her connections to Turkey, though these latter do seem worth thematizating in their own right. Ironically enough, it seems that the strongest possible case for doing exactly this point comes from TFD's more considered remarks (which, though certainly insightful, is simply what any one who took the trouble to read the original Jacobin Mag article would already know...). That is precisely because it would not be uniformly critical nor would it include only the "frantic heated blips", but also some of this very valuable context. It strikes me that it would be a tremendous service to everyone who wanted a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the strengths and contradictions of Omar's foreign policy stances to know this whole picture, good, bad, and neutral alike. I also appreciate, however, that we may need to wait for better coverage by mainstream sources before we can enter this important story in the domain of the encyclopedic. So I express my thanks to Nishidani for his last remark, which actually was illuminating, and which I take to heart.
- Third, what comes next. To be frank, I am much more interested in spending time and energy making more visible the network of dark money that has exerted a powerful influence over the US Federal court system and and is now working to suppress voters, something I think is an excellent fit for Misplaced Pages and its open, democratic mission; this is in fact why I joined Misplaced Pages some weeks ago, and have spent far too much time in odd battles there here (TFD you continue to perplex - you are no doubt busy, but surely that there was a heated 3-week long back-and-forth there, with many reversions, re-reversions, and even an edit-war with what I am sure is someone's shadow account sock-puppet, is intelligible at a glance?) But that time seemed well spent - at least Leo is now a bit more publicly linked to a network of nefarious dark money shell companies, and, And wham presto! at the end of the day, all in the right Wiki tone! (Without contraries no progression, eh, Nishidani ?). One step is to create a number of pages about key players and LLCs/501(c)3s that have been written about plenty in the right sources but currently have no page on Misplaced Pages; if anyone else is interested, as a new and clumsy Wiki editor I could obviously use the help. I have a number of drafts I'd be grateful to discuss with anyone who finds this a worthwhile endeavor.
- I do, however, think Omar's page has some important gaps. At the very least, it seems to me that it should record: 1) that there is an odd situation going on where her campaign pays her husband's consulting firm millions of dollars, which of course also has its context but remains anomalous and also happens to be the subject of an open FEC complaint (yes, I know who filed it, TFD. That doesn't mean it is spurious); 2) that Omar's intervention in the Armenian genocide debate very closely mirrored official Turkish gov. talking points. I know, it would be terrible to amplify the claims printed by those neo-fascist rags like WaPo, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, TheHill.com, and NBC who have reported on both these things. So, what is the best way to proceed there? NightHeron, I am grateful for what has been one of the more generally constructive approaches, and am happy to proceed as you or others who wish to proceed on a serious basis here see fit. With best wishes to all Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- What a lot of words; and so few of them devoted to discussing potential improvements to this article. Maybe you should read Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages? --JBL (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks, JBL; your interventions elsewhere on this page have been most helpful in showing a new editor what kind of behavior to avoid on a talkpage. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- What a lot of words; and so few of them devoted to discussing potential improvements to this article. Maybe you should read Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages? --JBL (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- While it might be helpful to have a more nuanced understanding of Omar's foreign policy, the policy for inclusion is weight. The publishers of reliable sources evidently knew that Omar met the president of Turkey but did not consider it scandalous and provided little coverage. Similarly, they knew that Omar's campaign hired her husband's consulting firm, but saw nothing wrong. You omit to mention she hired him before she became involved with him and it is entirely legal to hire one's husband provided the work done is reasonably billed. I note that when I searched the story, the first sources to come out were The Sun, the Daily Mail and the New York Post, which are all unreliable per Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and hence establish no weight.
- We both know that mainstream sources provide unjustified coverage to trivial matters and ignore important ones. Nonetheless policy requires us to provide the same weight they do. I personally agree with the policy because I do not think that using a consensus of editors to determine what is important would provide better results and would probably be unworkable.
- TFD (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your second paragraph is well-taken, TFD. I am less sure about parts of the first paragraph. The first site that comes up for me re: campaign finance issues is WaPo. Moreover, this continued to be an issue throughout the primary, along with her opponent's FEC issues. Presumably WaPo (especially quite a lengthy article) and Minneapolis Star Tribune are considered legit? Second, what about my second point? Two sources I found very quickly are NBC and TheHill.com which I assume are both iron-clad? Parenthetically, I think the point would be perhaps be less pertinent had Omar not put the influence of foreign lobbying on domestic political events. I propose that each point should get at least one sentence which represents the issue fairly. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Again, the issue is not whether something can be reliably sourced but whether it has weight. The fact that Omar's primary opponent decided to repeat a conservative allegation against her and this was picked up by local media does not establish weight for someone who is one of the most widely covered members of the U.S. Congress. There is literally enough stuff out there in reliable sources to write a lengthy book. Google news shows 256,000 articles about her. Our challenge is to determine which of these stories should be included. We do that by assessing the amount of coverage each receives. We don't do that by deciding that stories extensively covered in alternative media but largely ignored in mainstream media need wider coverage.
- Also, as I pointed out above, we already have a paragraph about her Armenian genocide vote, so I don't know why your second point is about whether or not it should be included.
- TFD (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- My original sentence was "In her official explanation of her decision to vote 'present' on H.Res. 296 to recognize the Armenian genocide, Omar appeared to use specific language and arguments, including the phrase 'leave it do the academic consensus' promoted by the Turkish government and its lobbyists." It is for inclusion of this point I have been advocating throughout. The connection to official Turkish talking points specifically observed in both articles, and in plenty of others from high-quality sources. With other politicians, this would matter less; for politicians who crusade against the power of foreign lobbies on American politicians, it is a non-trivial part of the story. I don't claim that this deserves paragraphs - a sentence, a clause would be fine. If you would prefer that I put this in the "All about the Benjamins" section, I'd be happy to do so.
- On the campaign finance point, can it really be that an open FEC complaint against a sitting politician, reported at length by multiple reputable sources merits less space on that politician's page than her appearance in a music video by Maroon 5? Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your bulk edit adding a section on Turkey was written from an anti-Omar POV. Despite its length, which gave undue emphasis to that minor issue, your addition did not include any balance. Your sources did include context and some responses from Omar, but you only cherry-picked the attacks on her. The sentence you want to add doesn't come close to being NPOV-compliant, since it insinuates that Omar is a pawn of the Turkish government. There is plenty of reason to doubt that, including the context that TFD provided in this thread and the fact mentioned in the article that Omar condemned the Armenian genocide at a Sanders rally. Before you propose text to be added to this article, you should reread WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
- The reason for not including the FEC complaint has already been explained. You might also want to read WP:DEADHORSE. NightHeron (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your sources don't actually say the term is promoted by the Turkish government and its lobbyists but attributes the observation to Armenian rights groups. You also falsely attributed the statement about Whataboutism to Slate, when it should have been attributed to the writer, Joshua Keating. Per BLP, we can't add false information about people. In any case, this discussion has gone on long enough. Other editors don't support your suggested changes, although you have been able to present your arguments and to reply to objections. TFD (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @NightHeron: Before you lecture new users about policy, I suggest you better familiarize yourself with the ones you cite, specifically WP:OR. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH does not apply to comments on talk pages; it applies solely to content in articles.
- As for the content on Turkey, I believe there is some possible WP:SYNTH in at least some of the challenged content, but the solution is not wholesale removal. The segments of text that are inappropriately linked can be detached or removed with more precision. Any of her commentary on the Armenian genocide or interactions with Turkish officials can be included. We should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. WP:PRESERVE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- The OR that I objected to was in the article, not the talk page -- namely, the way the added text that I reverted gave the impression that Omar approved of human rights violations by the current government of Turkey.
- No one's throwing out a baby. The article at present contains information about the Turkey issue. The addition that I reverted gave undue attention to a relatively minor matter, in addition to its problems with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your sources don't actually say the term is promoted by the Turkish government and its lobbyists but attributes the observation to Armenian rights groups. You also falsely attributed the statement about Whataboutism to Slate, when it should have been attributed to the writer, Joshua Keating. Per BLP, we can't add false information about people. In any case, this discussion has gone on long enough. Other editors don't support your suggested changes, although you have been able to present your arguments and to reply to objections. TFD (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The references to OR were all about the talk page. As I explained, the criticisms are all in the article in the appropriate places and there is no need to create a separate criticism section. It's better style anyway. Compare the approach: 1. "She said this. This is why she said it. This is who criticized her and why." 2. "She was criticized for what she said. This was her response." TFD (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: At the beginning of this thread, I responded to the OP concerning OR in their addition to the article:
To start with, your first sentence is an example of OR, because of the way you choose to link misdeeds of the Turkish government with Omar.
I was not referring to something in the talk page. Of course, I completely agree with what you've written on this matter, including your comment that "this discussion has gone on long enough". NightHeron (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: At the beginning of this thread, I responded to the OP concerning OR in their addition to the article:
Here's some talk page OR: Do you think that the reason for criticism of Omar has anything to do with the fact that she is a left-wingprogressive black Muslim woman? TFD (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. She's not even particularly far to the left by international standards. Most of what she's asking for (such as health access and affordable higher education for all) is standard fare in many countries in Europe and elsewhere. But in the US, simple common-sense proposals get stigmatized as "left-wing". NightHeron (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- I changed it to progressive. TFD (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Financial transparency issues: Campaign payments to E Street Group
"Since 2018, Omar's campaign has paid $586,000 to E Street Group, a consulting firm owned and operated by Tim Mynett. Omar married Mynett in March 2020, following allegations from Mynett's ex-wife that he was romantically involved with Omar in her divorce filings. At the time of Mynett's ex-wife's claims, Omar and Mynett had denied romantic involvement.
This information was removed because "there was never any wrongdoing found. this was a hot topic within right-wing circles for a blip of time." The section is not about FEC actions taken against Omar, it is about well covered and widely reported criticism of her campaign's spending in both local (https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/07/22/new-ilhan-omar-attack-ad-goes-after-1-1m-in-campaign-funds-paid-to-her-husbands-firm/, https://www.startribune.com/u-s-rep-ilhan-omar-severs-financial-ties-with-husband-s-political-firm/573094641/) and national outlets like the Washington Post that are considered highly reliable and can hardly be dismissed as "right-wing circles." This was reported by the Washington Post as drawing "renewed scrutiny of campaign spending." The total amount paid to Mynett's firm was over $1.1m, with over $400,000 paid since they married, representing approximately 40% of total campaign spending.
In a section titled "Financial transparency issues," this is a glaring omission. The section is not titled FEC Enforcement Action or Campaign Finance Violations, and this is a clearly identified issue with financial transparency that has been widely reported. Alternatively, a section could be created to more specifically refer to payments made by her campaign to her husband's firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atxwi (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The section also lacks mention of the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board's finding that Omar illegally filed joint tax returns with a man she was not married to, while legally married to another man. The Campaign Finance Board's report has been widely reported in reliable local and national sources and should be added to the article.
Atxwi (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with @Atxwi::
- 1. Misplaced Pages doesn't shy away from covering suggestions of financial impropriety—even when multiple investigations have found no wrongdoing (e.g., the lead of the Kelly Loeffler article).
- 2. The finding that a public servant who legislates on taxation violated Federal and state laws by filing taxes jointly with one man while married to another is prima facie notable—as is the fact that she has criticized other politicians for refusing to release their tax returns, while failing to respond to calls (and an AP request) to release her own.
- 3. These are all well established, widely reported and impeccably sourced facts, and their exclusion lends a distinctly unpleasant odor to Misplaced Pages's editing process when it comes to politicians of differing stripes.
- 4. I would also note that I attempted to remove "conspiracy theories" from the "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment" section, as I'm unable to find any "conspiracy theory" mentioned in the article or cited sources (in which Omar is alleged to have been a conspirator—of course she herself has been accused of propagating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories). My edit was reverted, along with a non-responsive and mocking note, but I would again ask for the citation of any "conspiracy theory" in the text—otherwise, the term would appear to be, most charitably, "original research". I definitely see how claims that she married her brother point to her participation in a criminal conspiracy—but the article appears to have been repeatedly sanitized of those widely-reported allegations.
- Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed to your point about Conspiracy Theories. As with any politician, Omar is going to have some people thinking crazy things about them (see the many wacky conspiracy theories regarding any other prominent politician). Why that is given highly disproportionate attention, including framing the overwhelming majority of criticism against Omar as racial attacks or undefined conspiracy theories is unclear.
- It may make the most sense to add a section on her legal issues to her Tenure, as is done with Loeffler's article to accurately place the issues into the timeline of her congressional tenure. This should also be added to the lead. This has been a well covered topic regarding Omar in the media and in her legal issues. Unlike other examples that are featured in their article's lead (Loeffler), this encompasses known violations of state law rather than simple investigations into wrongdoing.
- The same is true for the widely covered criticisms that Omar's statements are antisemitic. Reading the article's lead, you would be led to believe that the only reason Omar is controversial is the "death threats, conspiracy theories, harassment by political opponents and false and misleading statements by Donald Trump." Reverting edits that cover any reporting on Omar that is not explicitly positive, including judgements made by the state Campaign Finance Board that found her to be in violation of the law, is detrimental to the accuracy of this article as a whole.
- Remarkably, her widely reported illegal filing (as found by the Minnesota CFB) of joint tax returns with a man she was not married to is actually cited in the article as it was a major story in the national news media, but has instead been used to cite the fact that she was married to him with no mention of the widely reported illegal filings. The same is true for Tim Mynett, where all major media coverage of the marriage includes the fact that Mynett's company was receiving payments from Omar's campaign while they were denying a romantic relationship alleged by Mynett's ex-wife and the subsequent hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to his company.
- @Atxwi:, yes—as to the previous, my specific point was that none of the things listed in the section so labeled are in fact "conspiracy theories". Omar is alleged to have: been punched; received death threats; had her photo juxtaposing with the WTC on 9/11; been criticized for saying "some people did something"; told she can go back to Somalia; had her patriotism questioned; and been subjected to alleged "hate speech" characterized as "Islamaphobic" and "anti-immigrant". None of those is a "conspiracy theory" featuring Omar as a conspirator, and the only one that could possibly been construed as such is having her photo near one of the WTC—and the cited sources mention nothing of the sort. However, my removal of the term was reverted by an editor who's been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me with the comment "This was a terrible edit for more reasons than can be enumerated in an edit summary." For some reason, he also deleted her name in Arabic.
- More broadly, I agree that there should be sections on both her legal issues as well as her reported antisemitism, and that they should be referenced in the lead. She is best known for being a Somali Muslim Congresswoman who wears a hijab; for her anti-capitalist and socialist political bent; for her shady finances, overlapping (re)marriages, and refusing to answer questions about either; and for her serial antisemitism and subsequent "clarifications". I have attempted in the past to include indisputed, widely reported facts regarding her violation of laws vis a vis her taxes, and was aggressively reverted.
- As you wrote, this article is routinely sanitized as if by Omar's PR team. Look no further than the "Views on the Police" section above, where editors grind down any mention of the widely reported fact that she called a police department "a cancer" and "rotten to the core" in favor of anodyne statements about "rebuilding" and "reform"—by claiming an encyclopedia must avoid "eye-catching emotional" quotations. Misplaced Pages is increasingly a bastion of naked left-wing political advocacy. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ekpyros, please knock it off with garbage comments like
this article is routinely sanitized as if by Omar's PR team
andMisplaced Pages is increasingly a bastion of naked left-wing political advocacy
. We here are supposed to assume good faith and work collaboratively. You post shit like this, it gives off the impression that you want to "rebalance" the article by adding negative things about the subject, and that does not make it easy to collaborate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ekpyros, please knock it off with garbage comments like
References
- Minnesota Campaign Finance Board https://cfb.mn.gov/pdf/bdactions/1464_Findings.pdf?t=1560278298. Retrieved 12 December 2020.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - Editorial Board (June 11, 2019). "EDITORIAL: Ilhan Omar's credibility takes another hit". Star Tribune. Star Tribune. Retrieved 12 December 2020.
December 13 edit summaries
I believe that the editor that added edits stated in the summary as merely adding sources was not accurately reflecting the actual edits. These edits should be reversed IMO. This is a BLP and this sort of behavior must not be tolerated. Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, you are free to challenge any edits on BLP grounds, of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Move these refs on down
Move refs down (I forget how to break this chain...) Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Gandydancer, do you mean to keep the references in the appropriate section? Use {{reflist-talk}} in the appropriate section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- Low-importance U.S. Congress articles
- Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Minnesota articles
- Mid-importance Minnesota articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class US State Legislatures articles
- Mid-importance US State Legislatures articles
- WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- B-Class WikiProject Somalia articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Somalia articles
- WikiProject Somalia articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Low-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class African diaspora articles
- Low-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report