Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 11

Immigration and Marriage issue: why no inclusion of it?
This is being widely reported now, not just on investigative reporting blogs that Wikipedia doesn't approve of sourcing from. The largest circulation daily newspaper in her State is running articles about the "discrepancy" in her marriage records. This needs to be added to this article. ZeroXero (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Minnesota Star Tribune: New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar's marriage history

Washington Examiner: Dozens of documents indicate Ilhan Omar lived with Ahmed Hirsi while claiming to be married to Ahmed Elm

Free Beacon: Newly Released Docs Raise Questions About Omar’s Marriage History
 * As far as I can tell, we already cover the marriage issue in the "Personal life" section. If you would like to propose a reliably-sourced addition, you're welcome to do so. Note that the Washington Examiner is a right-wing political magazine/website and the Free Beacon is a right-wing political website. Additionally, the word "fraud" is a statement or allegation of wrongdoing not substantiated in any source and thus a violation of policy, so I have removed it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Star Tribune is probably better as a reliable source. Kelly  hi! 11:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the same article. w umbolo   ^^^  11:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Strib is the source we should be using here. The problem is -- how?Adoring nanny (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's really not difficult as this is quite a straight forward, and almost cliche story considering American politics. Rising politician has circumstantial evidence of crimes unveiled in state investigation.  The Star Tribune's reporting is as old fashioned and dogged as investigative reporting gets.  People bringing up 'right wing blogs', either in defense of Omar or attacking Omar, is clear evidence of political ideology influencing something as straight forward as depositions.  There have been a couple legal violations by Omar, which resulted in fines.  During the investigation circumstantial evidence (by even the most stringent definition) of crimes were uncovered and a deposition from Omar's own lawyer and political advisor contradicted Omar's deposition regarding culpability, accusing her of perjury.  It doesn't matter what anyone's opinions are regarding politics, this is a fairly easy topic to cover given that the facts are actually matters of evidence in an investigation, like depositions.
 * Either you provide a reliable source which says there is evidence of crimes, or I'm going to redact this section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You're asking 'where is the circumstantial evidence' in a case that resulted in two seperate fines for twice violating statutes based on collaborated evidence? Do you mean after the fines were levied?  You might want to read the article again, because no offense, you might have missed the point for the series of articles the Star Tribune.  Using campaign funds to ex post facto amend her tax filings were a statutory violation of campaign finance law, but not a statutory violation of tax code.  The filing is still circumstantial evidence, by any definition, of immigration fraud.  I'm really not trying to be rude, but you do understand that, right?  The relevant statutes in regards to taxes allowed for the ex post facto filing.  The relevant campaign finance law statues did not allow for that funding, hence the statutory violation.  The filing is still, clearly, circumstantial evidence of an immigration statute violation.  Provide a reliable source?  In the article we're discussing this is, literally, addressed in the opening paragraph.  You read the article, right?  The authors laid out that premise in the first sentence.


 * "New investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man — possibly her own brother — to skirt immigration laws."


 * That is, literally, the definition of circumstantial evidence. Again, I'm being completely honest in stating I'm not trying to be rude in asking, do you understand that?  (I fully understand this is the more complicated example.)  The IRS allows for the ex post facto filing as remediating a discrepancy, as noted in the following paragraph (though a bit more legal precision would have added more clarity).  The filings themselves are still circumstantial evidence of an immigration violation, obviously.  The collaboration the Star Tribune garnered from Lickness is much more straight forward.  Lickness, through the Star Tribune's reporting, directly contradicts Omar's testimony of course.  The fact that the photo can't be timestamped is WHY it's circumstantial evidence: if the date was collaborated, it wouldn't be circumstantial evidence, it would be collaborated evidence.  No one should have any trouble on this issue as it's not complicated, as an evidentiary issue, in any way.  It's about as much of a text book example of circumstantial evidence as is possible.  AFTER those, there's the real 'wincer': her former lawyer, Kjellberg.  Any first year law students' eyes would bug out of their heads reading her deposition.  After Omar testified that she did not make these decisions, instead her staff did (the legally smart move, you don't want to admit to compelling evidence regarding intent regardless of your actual guilt or innocence), her lawyer at the time, Kjellberg, says "I did nothing, I want to make that clear, without Representative Omar’s authority. And she was in these meetings where those things were decided upon and I was directed to do that".  Wow.  An officer of the court, in a deposition, regarding a former client, directly refutes that client's testimony?  That's not only clearly circumstantial evidence of perjury, that's the most shocking-out-of-the-norm example of circumstantial evidence even possible.  I don't care about these people, and I damn sure don't care about their politics, any of them.  As far as legal issues go, any first year law student could put together an indictment based on the circumstantial evidence in this case.  If this WASN'T involving politicians, and this WASN'T headline news, this would case would be much further along in the legal process, the vast majority of people would never have heard about it, and those of us who read it would be saying 'wow, that's pretty wild, what an interesting case' because most are far more boring than this one.  Where's the circumstantial evidence, and where's the source?  Read what the Star Tribune has been writing: they're laying out the circumstantial evidence and the possible problems, literally, in_the_opening_paragraphs.  Don't blame them either considering this is a somewhat shocking series of evidentiary discoveries of a highly public official; I'd be covering my butt too.  P.S. - No one should be surprised if this series ends up winning some awards for reporting.  Yeah, this isn't the Boston Globe's 2002-ish reporting, but they won a Pulitzer for Public Service and blew the competition out of the water.

Inserted.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and I've been reverted. I don't really care, though, got other things to do. Someone else take it up.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would have reverted it, but NorthBySouth beat me to it. "There have been allegations" is not the way that we would cover something as serious of potential blp violation as a brother and sister marrying. The allegations come from right-wing blogs that are not reliable. The Star Tribune found no evidence. The tax filing issue is separate from the brother-sister marriage issue, and is much more includible . – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * - it's alright if you would have reverted. You (or anyone else) can propose a better wording. That was the best I could manage at that point, I'm sorry you guys felt it was not acceptable. I wrote that because of this talk page discussion. You can include the tax filing issue too, it's not a topic of interest for me.  starship .paint  (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed it, because I think we need something better than the totally WP:WEASEL "there have been allegations" - if there aren't notable people putting forward such allegations, and they're just fever-dream partisan rumors rummaging around the swamp of right-wing nuttery, we have no reason to mention it. That a newspaper could neither "prove nor disprove" something is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'll further add that allegations of criminal activity (and yes, that would be immigration fraud, a federal felony) require far more substantive sourcing and discussion. That no other mainstream source has in any way addressed these claims, even while Omar is unquestionably in the national spotlight, strongly suggests that they aren't to be taken seriously. If and when that changes, it can be addressed at that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m suspicious of contributors on here using “right-wing blogs” to discount something that’s being talked about widely on many credible national news outlets (not to mention cherry-picking the sources to ignore). And let’s try to stay away from that label to describe them - “Conservative publication” would be a more appropriate label for the Washington Examiner, not “Right-Wing”. We all know what connotations that label brings up and what circles it’s used in (about one step removed from Alt-Right).

As for the unfounded allegations, I mean, should they not be included under the Conspiracies tab...at a minimum? There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to the Obama Birther conspiracy. It doesn’t matter if it’s being floated around in a partisan way, it’s still a noteworthy event.

To specifically address this point “if there aren't notable people putting forward such allegations....”. I’d argue the POTUS is a notable person.

If the POTUS is discussing this on live Tv, then it should probably be addressed here.

And I say this, fully understanding that he says some of the most preposterous/absurd/factually incorrect things ever uttered by a World Leader (or functioning human being).

You can frame the allegations any way you deem appropriate until (if) the facts come out, but either way, the allegations should be included.

Nobody on here has made a strong argument why they should not be. One could easily make an argument they’re being omitted due to personal political bias of the moderator/contributor. Thank you and enjoy your day. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The birther junk was a nearly decade long story with rather enormous coverage in reliable sources. This has yet to receive serious attention by reliable sources as it appears to be yet another of a huge pile of fake news. If it does receive serious coverage, it should be included. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Re:

''To specifically address this point “if there aren't notable people putting forward such allegations....”. I’d argue the POTUS is a notable person.  If the POTUS is discussing this on live Tv, then it should probably be addressed here.  And I say this, fully understanding that he says some of the most preposterous/absurd/factually incorrect things ever uttered by a World Leader (or functioning human being).'' -
 * Seems like you've successfully refuted yourself. Not to be facetious, but in all seriousness, are we actually treating this extraordinary Trump fellow as a reliable source for... well, anything? I mean, one might assume any notable person can make any sort of outrageous and falsifiable claim, but it doesn't mean it necessarily warrants inclusion on a restroom wall, much less Wikipedia. Or are we obligated to repeat such shameless, obviously(one hopes) baseless nonsense here on account of his prolific public notoriety?
 * ~transmothra (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The Birther Conspiracy started at the beginning of Obama’s run and then continued (to a much lesser degree) during his tenure. So I’m not sure where you’re getting “nearly a decade” from unless you’re counting his whole term. In that case, we’re at the beginning stage of Ilhan’s term and this conspiracy dates back three years already (to her campaign days in 2016). (Note: The amount of coverage a freshman Rep gets compared to a Presidential candidate is going to be understandably vast).

And what’s your definition of serious coverage? And from what sources would you except such coverage? You used the term “fake news”, but many would label Fox News (who’s basically the mouthpiece of the Republican Party) as also being “Fake News”. So which sources are acceptable? We’re not talking about the National Enquirer or some disgusting site like Stormfront running these stories.

I also want to make it clear that we’re putting this under the CONSPIRACY tab. We’re not substantiating it under Personal Life. It’s a conspiracy, so we should treat it as such.....but not ignore it.

Lastly, the Fact-Checking site Snopes found it necessary to do a thorough breakdown of the conspiracy (not sure if I’m permitted to post the link here, but I will upon request). SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Transmothra - don’t look at it so much as it’s Trump saying it (who coincidently championed the Birther Conspiracy as well) but more that it’s the POTUS saying it. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse my typos - I think I used except instead of accept. I may have missed others (been a long day. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that for the time being the allegations that she married her brother should be excluded. However, what about allegations of bigamy? The article already details her complicated marital history (I had to read it twice to make sure I understood it), so it may be appropriate to explain that by being married to one man under the law and another under her religion led to allegations of bigamy to which she said she was legally married to one and culturally to another. Here's a couple articles about it from a quick Google search. https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/08/ilhan-omar-marriage-and-somali-culture-faq/. Emperor001 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have redacted an unreliable source that's unacceptable here - "Cockburn" is an anonymous gossip column and cannot be used as a source about living people per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't have much time to do background check on my Google results so I wasn't sure which websites are known for propaganda versus news.  Emperor001 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's Wikipedia, leftist land of morphing standards. If she's sitting in federal prison convicted of immigration fraud they'll still be fighting including it. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I think if such a thing happens, it would clearly be worthy of inclusion. But that's not what we have here - we have partisan rumormongering based on nothing more than purported anonymous Internet posts. When and if this rises beyond that, we can discuss it. Until then - it has no place here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to worry, User:TheDarkOneLives, the genie is out of the bottle, and the "reliable" sources are starting to catch up. In the meantime, rather than getting cynical, it may be better to enjoy the hilarity.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The problems with the argument is that people are coming to this wikipedia page hoping to get what facts are out there because this is being talked about everywhere. I doubt that there isn't anyone who reads the news who has not heard about this issue. If your goal is to help her, I would think that a section under "controversies" that outlines the facts would help her if the facts are as weak as you say they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2pid80it (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Washington Examiner The Associated Press Business Insider Snopes Media Matters And now PolitiFact have all taken time to address the Marriage/Brother conspiracy.

I already laid out strong arguments above why it should be included under the Conspiracy section.

And, so far, nobody has made a strong counter argument as to why it shouldn’t be included.

I don’t think this is going away any time soon.

So Mods and Contributors, stop making this tedious and take the correct action.

Thank you for your time SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd note that birtherism appears nowhere in Barack Obama. Peripheral conspiracy theories don't seen to have a place on a person's biography. Zaathras (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’d note there is no Conspiracy Section at all on President Obama’s page but there is an entire stand alone page titled “Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories”.

And Rep Omar does have a Conspiracy Section on her page (for whatever reason) and it seems to be full of “peripheral” conspiracies. Like that “Connection to 9/11” conspiracy is about as fringe/bizarre as you can get. I’m not sure what your criteria is for “peripheral” and “mainstream” conspiracies. But if Snopes is taking the time to break it down, along with PolitiFact, I don’t think you can call it “peripheral”. Those aren’t Patreon-funded YouTube channels run by Flat-Earthers. Those are respected sources.

Once again, I’d think it wise to put conspiracies under the conspiracy section.

Or....

Maybe remove the section completely from the page and create a stand alone Rep Omar conspiracy page?

I dunno. I’m just throwing out ideas and this exchange feels circular. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, Barack Obama can't be compared as he was the president of the most powerful country in the world, whereas Ilhan Omar is a rather young representative. Thus, bizarre theories about him are inherently much more notable. Frankly, I think the conspiracy theory and related section (Ilhan_Omar) should be massively trimmed and merged elsewhere. But including more bizarre crap about her marriage just exacerbates the problem. I suppose it's understandable to some degree, as right now a lot of her notability is being a lightning rod for the right and a big portion of the left, and also now being some sort of a martyr for all the left (including many people on the left for whom she is also a headache when she is not taking shit from the right). In short left-wingers will not object because they see a lot her notability as taking shit, while right wingers see her notability as being controversial -- but both are wrong, because this is absolutely not what an encyclopedia should be doing in describing someone. If one day she becomes notable for doing more, you know, legislative stuff, hopefully this crap can be cleared. Hopefully. Please do not add to the crap that needs to be cleared for this to be a decent article...--Calthinus (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No per WP:FRINGE Cinadon36 13:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times, Snopes, and The Guardian have all dedicated time to debunking this conspiracy theory.

That should meet everyone and anyone’s requirements for “credible sources”.

Let’s not drag this out with more circular debates.

Add to the Conspiracy Section please.

Here’s the title of the NYT article “Examining Trump’s Claims About Representative Ilhan Omar”. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A biography is not a landing spot for every fringe conspiracy theory the current president cares to retweet. If it belongs anywhere, it would be at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Zaathras (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know if it was retweeted by him (because I don’t follow), but It was mentioned by him on live TV. So it belongs under the conspiracy section - if you don’t like the conspiracy section on this person’s “biography” page, then remove it completely. And state your objective reasons for doing so.

The NYT is not known to give “fringe” conspiracies any publicity. I also haven’t heard of any other conspiracies about Rep Omar outside of this.....which I saw on CNN....which brought me to Wikipedia.

And just to clarify any confusion, most (if not all) conspiracy theories are fringe....that’s why they’re conspiracy theories.

I really think that some of you believe a report of conspiracy is a validation of conspiracy. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Or, alternatively, simply a non-encyclopedic waste of space.--Calthinus (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

How do you make that differentiation between this and the other conspiracies contained on the page? Or any conspiracy for that matter? Going by your logic, the New York Times is now on par with the National Enquirer for reporting on this “non-encyclopedic waste of space”. Perhaps you should contact the NYT and dictate to them what is appropriate to report on....so we’ll have a better idea on what conspiracies are “appropriate” for the conspiracy section. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedias and newspapers are not the same thing. I do not think the purpose of a bio in an encyclopedia is to be a simple repeater of newspaper articles, but rather a summation of the various sources that exist. Since literally no one has agreed with your proposal thus far, perhaps it is time to move on? Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

“Encyclopedias and newspapers are not the same thing”. Of course they’re not, don’t be silly....no one is making that argument (no need for straw men).

But I should point out that we have an encyclopedia conspiracy section cited almost entirely from Newspaper sources.....so there’s that.

When you say “time to move on” I would absolutely agree with you.... if someone had made an objective rational argument or at least refuted my points with something other than obtuse quips.

Sources were not refuted.

Logic behind conspiracy inclusion not refuted.

Differentiation between current conspiracies not made.

etc...

I mean, this isn’t my life or profession (and certainly not my passion), so I’m not going to follow it too much longer. So I’ll fade out on this as I lose interest in the debate.

I just thought there were better minds and ideas behind Wikipedia than what I’ve encountered here. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't normally include items in a bio that haven't affected a person's life. The threats, conspiracies section should probably be trimmed. But, the point is that she has been under rather heavy attack for a freshman legislator. O3000 (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You're arguing that because a NY Times article mentions the fringe conspiracy, the Wikipedia must follow suit, so no, it wasn't a strawman at all. How you characterize other users' arguments (re: "if someone had made an objective rational argument") is also not important, as we don't have to subject ourselves to your standards.
 * I formally call for this topic to be closed as "consensus not obtained." Zaathras (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You haven’t held yourself to any observable standards. You’re just refusing without really disclosing why. Any and all reasons that have been given by others were taken apart.

I’ve already stated this before, but I guess you can’t make the distinction: almost all conspiracies are fringe....that’s why they're conspiracies and not facts.

You can call for closure if you’d like, a lot of people people shutdown when they’re refuted and have their shaky positions exposed.

There’s virtually no public awareness of how wiki pages are made, debated, and edited. And I’m pretty sure if they saw this exchange in its entirety they would question the impartiality, objectivity, and overall critical capacity of some of it’s contributors. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a living person in an encyclopedia. We have guidelines about what is and is not included in such articles, which are more stringent than other articles. We don’t include everything that’s in the news as WP is WP:NOTNEWS. No one has shut down anything. No, you have refuted nothing. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Attacking other editors rarely leads to consensus in your favor. Please read WP:AGF and WP:CIV and please indent your posts as explained in the Welcome notice on your talk page. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So originally, when I joined this discussion, the edit was disputed because it didn’t have the “right sources” ....but then the right sources were provided via NYT, The Guardian, PolitiFact, etc...(not sure if Snopes counts)

Then it was “fringe conspiracies aren’t appropriate for this page...”. But the page has an entire section devoted to fringe conspiracies.

Now it’s “well, Wikipedia is not a news paper....”. Nobody is arguing that it is. But this page is largely made up of nothing but news sources. That’s an irrefutable fact.

Out of the 162 sources cited on this particular page, what percentage do you think are cultivated from news sources? 25%? 50%? 75%? More?

It seems like whenever a vague arbitrary criteria is met, the goal posts are shifted. That’s a bit frustrating.

I haven’t looked at the Talk pages for the other conspiracy theories on this page, but I wonder if there was this much resistance to those inclusion edits? I’ll have to look for myself and see.

And I don’t think anyone has attacked anyone. But the objectivity of some contributors and their reasons against this edit are in question. Especially in the face of their source “requirements” being met.

As far as the indentations, I apologize, I rarely come to Talk Pages and I’m still kinda new to this. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You just attacked again. You will never convince anyone of anything in such a manner. O3000 (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like you’re avoiding debating the facts (because they’re clearly not in your favor) and trying to paint this into being something personal. A deflection. I could be wrong, of course, but that’s the impression I am getting.

You’re an experienced contributor, yes? Merely clarify or refute one of the points above so we can all move on.

Maybe start by addressing the overwhelming number of citations coming from news sources (which is apparently a taboo all of a sudden), and why this specific news-sourced edit is unacceptable. All previous news-sourced conspiracies were acceptable until now.....why is this situation different? I am legitimately eager to read your take. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)