Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 12

"Coatrack" or gaming the system?
An editor has removed content saying it's coatrack when it is not. They are using the policy as an excuse to remove a content that is not a coatrack but rather needed for WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV. I think I need more explanation why that content should be removed not just rm coatrack. I agree with some of their edits like the one about Hijab and the Fox news thing. Can someone take a look at their recent edits? they don't seem normal/constructive and I didn't deeply look at their recent edits..--SharabSalam (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF is also a guideline. regarding this one [] while I would never try to trivialize anything that has been happening lately in Yemen, "genocide" is a pretty serious statement, and the hyperlink was to the famine in Yemen. Whether that constitutes a genocide is for RS to debate not us, but the source given does not explain what she meant by it[]. In the original it was linked to the hashtag #YemenGenocide -- not the wikipedia article about the famine (it is unclear if Omar is referring to only the famine, or to the broader conflict that caused it which as a whole has taken some 0.2 million casualties and counting, and specifically the perhaps questionable conduct of some relevant governing bodies that perhaps could behave... better). The link between the two is the work of pure OR. By the way, our page Famine_in_Yemen_(2016–present) does not mention the phrase "genocide" but Genocide in Yemen does direct there -- however I do note an RS comparison to Holodomor. This, and whether it is relevant to Omar, is for RS only to decide.--Calthinus (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You removed "The Post was quoting a speech Omar had given at a recent Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) meeting. In the speech Omar said, "CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us [Muslims in the U.S.] were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."" and wrote this in the edit summary: "rm CAIR coatrack -- it's history is not important for the reader's understanding and is also typical of most minority rights orgs". That is actually not a coatrack or about the history of the organisation. that's Omars' speech with the context without the cheery picking that was used against her by Trump and his supporters.
 * You removed: "Prosecutors allege that Hasson's plans to commit domestic terrorism were inspired by Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik's 2011 domestic terrorist attacks". This is not coatrack. It is clearly related and notable to the incident.
 * I don't think the sections that you merged are about the same topic. They might be little bit related but they are not "essentially about the same thing" and then after you merged these section you dismissed the section title which says "false 9/11 accusation" or something like that.
 * You preformed most of these edits in a bold way citing coatrack policy when it is not. You didn't have any doubts that these are not coatrack content? If you had some doubts it was ill-advised to make the edits.
 * The hashtag about Yemen was referring to the famine that is happening in western Yemen. It is a hashtag. What other "genocide" you think it was referring to? It seems like a metaphor or some sort of rhetorical device to refer to the famine it doesn't have to be accurate it's a hashtag!.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The hashtag doesn't have to be accurate. But us linking something places it in Wiki voice. As noted, the famine accounts for roughly half the civilian deaths in the conflict -- whether famine or human casualties by other means are "genocide" is a matter of how "manufactured" the situation was, what the intention was. Not our business -- we just report RS. Are RS making this claim that this is what Omar meant specifically? I can't find any. I have tried [][] -- the hits in the latter are mostly people's retweets of Omar. If you can go ahead and re-add it.
 * If this is cherrypicking I'm... not sure I understand what the objective was. It seems much more tangential at least the way it is written. The history of CAIR is not necesssary to understanding Omar's statement. She said "some people did something" -- in this way she distances Islam and Muslims from the event by abstractifying it. This is technically not an incorrect statement. What right wingers are angry about is that she didn't say "who" did it, and certain people want her to "apologize" for various item of Islamic history and/or historical judisprudence, this is also on the antediluvian grudge list. Why exactly is that it took place at a CAIR summit necessary to understanding this? Furthermore, what does the history of CAIR serve other than creating a tangent in an already bloated section? There are appropriate pages to discuss more general Islamophobia in the United States -- which can get a link. This is not the place. Leave a link. Likewise, commentary about a technically independent terrorist incident in Norway is relevant to Hasson's page, but this is about Hasson -- not Omar.--Calthinus (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The controversy behind Omars' comment is that her cheery picked comment implies that she minimized the tragedy of 9/11 not that she "didn't mention Muslims did 9/11" and even if what you said was the case –although it isn't–, the event and the context is important, the full quote of Ilham Omar "CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us [Muslims in the U.S.] were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." the context implies that Ilhan Omar didn't have to say "Muslims" IMHO the reader needs to know this and I think the argument here is subjective, I would wait for other editors to give their opinion. Also, why did you merge the three sections and then dismissed the third section title?
 * That Hasson was inspired by right-wing extremist group/movement based in Norway is related to the incident and it is an important content in this article. Again this is subjective argument and I would love to hear other editors opinion. I personally think it is relevant.
 * Currently I don't find sources saying what was the hashtag purpose, it is most likely referring to the famine in Western Yemen. As far as I know there was a famine there even before the Western-backed war against Yemen because there were a lot of refugee camps there. It got worse after the war and we have a redirect that calls it "genocide". In any case I think there should be an explanation of what was the hashtag referring to.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to apologize for being late. If we have no sources for what the hashtag is about... then we cannot say in any way what we think it is about. This is what OR is. Whether she minimized it is subjective -- readers understand that, and the context doesn't change much. If you are already inclined, you will read Omar's statement and see, as right-wingers often do, Omar downplaying 9/11 as she critiques the increased surveillance that followed it (and was largely popular in American public opinion when it became policy). If you are inclined to see her as victimized by yet another bogus controversy, you will see that. If you think both sides are mutually putting on a show for "the base" and/or to steal the spotlight for waht they want public attention to focus on (deflection from the Russian interference scandal; ethnoreligious inequities), you will see that too. I don't think teh context is going to change that. Much of this material would be fine if there were not proportionality issues here, but both of these things would still be tangential. How Hasson became radicalized has nothing to do with Omar -- whether it involved Breivik, EEuropean web troll communities, or [|some concoction of HGH, steroids, or even the extrasensory appetite that apparently led to the purchase of "4,200 pills of the narcotic Tramadol since 2016"]... this has no bearing on Omar, who is defined by her own career, views, actions, etc, not the motives of a preempted wannabe assassin which actually don't have anything to do with Omar except with regard to her background. The history of CAIR is of course related to Omar given her experience as a hijabi elected representative -- but it is a separate topic to be covered on it's own page. The place is not a disproportionate "controversy" section which is taking over the page in space. --Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Hasson part because the sources are irrelevant. They don't mention Omar. Also removed the genocide link since that I couldn't find a source for the meaning of the hashtag.
 * The history of CAIR and Omars' speech are the same thing? Why do you talk like if there are two texts one is Omars' speech and the other is the history of CAIR?. I didn't revert all of your edits BTW. I don't know if there was a text about the history of CAIR that you removed, I didn't readded it. I am talking about Ilhan Omar full quote that you removed. The full quote of Omars' is relevant and needed in that article along with the some other contexts like the place etc. You still didn't give a reason why only "Some people did something" quote is relevant while the quote with context is coatrack.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again[] I think it should be changed to the following, to make the flow clearer -- -- this concisely makes the original context clear.--Calthinus (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. If that would make it clear.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * - please justify your restoration in diff - of citations to sources published in 2003 and 2004 for comments made by Omar in 2019 - sources in written 15 years prior to the event they are supposedly sourcing. Furthermore leaving in the quote - ""CAIR was founded after 9/11..." is misleading when Council on American–Islamic Relations was founded in 1994 - a point made by sources covering this statement - e.g. the cited NPR: " "CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." (The Sept. 11 attacks occurred in 2001. CAIR was was founded in 1994.)". Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Read my edit summary. I did not intend to revert anything at all or to edit and accidentally hit rollback while I was examining a dif. I reverted the accidental rollback back to yours. Toa Nidhiki05 13:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I want CAIR's history removed from the section... --Calthinus (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alas the current version corrects her in a way that's succinct enough so I have no issue with it.--Calthinus (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you remove it - you indeed do not need to mention the inaccuracy. If we keep in this whole quote - well - any reasonable source covering this notes the very blatant error in the quote (which might be somewhat DUE given coverage). Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * as long as it is succinct I will not remove it. I have no issue with correcting her, I have issue with the space used. Imo we should look to policy on Trump -- it's a similar case of a figure with a penchant for false statements.--Calthinus (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also OK with leaving the quote out (I'm at a neutral for inclusion/exclusion) - but we can't have it in uncorrected (as reasonable RSes note the error) - an "all in (though briefly), or all out" situation. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Calthinus, the history of CAIR is not in Wikivoice. It's in Ilhan Omar voice so it doesn't matter if it was wrong. Removing the context is not appropriate. Similar to Trump video that also removed the context.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove this entirely jesus christ. This is not a repository for every comment that has been made by Omar, it is not a repository for every criticism of her comments, it is not a scorecard in Donald Trump vs Ilhan Omar.  nableezy  - 17:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

here is the section as it stands currently:

""

New proposal: ""

I think this (a) satisfies Sharab's point that we should not separate Omar's statement from its context and (b) deals with Icewhiz' concern regarding factuality, by leaving out CAIR and focusing on the point Omar was actually trying to make -- which was about civil liberties. Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the benefit from the proposed change? It looks fine. I think Icewhiz concern has been solved because it is explained later that CAIR was founded before 9/11. In my honest opinion, the proposed change seems problematic because 1. most of –if not all– reliable sources provide the full quote of Omar when they talk about the context I don't see why we shouldn't do the same here and add the fact that CAIR was founded way before 9/11. 2. I think readers would want to know the whole quote and the context of what Omar said--SharabSalam (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, personally, I want it gone because this eyesore section is still too big. Others might say its pedantic. They have said that about the correction regarding Guaido's political orientation -- namely that he is not a fascist. Oddly enough, when something is not an ethical concern (like when specifically CAIR was founded -- not BLP territory), these people are not around to call things pedantic. However it is "pedantic" apparently to contextualize a smear that violates even the most basic principles of BLP, defaming a dissident and his party in favor of an authoritarian regime. Ironic :). I love Wikipedia, don't you? --Calthinus (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean in the above RfC? As far as I know Omar didn't mention Guaido and that's her political opinion about the opposition in Venezuela no BLP is violated here. Don't mind the title of the section of the RfC. It has nothing to do with the biography of Guaido. What she said is her own opinion not something that is certainly false needs to be corrected and TBH what she said about the opposition in Venezuela could be true in my opinion. I mean I can't imagine the U.S government supporting a leftist or liberal group or movement especially under the current administration. Anyway, that's just her opinion. This is a different issue. She said something that is factually incorrect.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * RS disagree -- Omar was incorrect that PV/Guaido as "far right", a fringe view that unknown in academic RS, and limited to "global East" media citing each other. We have an RS stating that Trump likely has no idea of the ideological affiliation of Guaido/PV . For this issue, yeah, it seems everyone's in agreement but me so I won't screw with things and I'll try to shrink the section in other ways.--Calthinus (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Send her back
The most detailed description of what happened is here. Shouldn't all these details be here also?

Specific text from the other article (the wording could change but I feel these details should be here, or else the redirect Send her back should redirect to the other article):

After the rally, Trump tweeted: "What a crowd, and what great people". Asked about the chants on July 18, Trump said he disagreed with the chants from the crowd. He falsely claimed that he tried to stop the chant by "speaking very quickly". In reality, Trump stopped speaking for 13 seconds while the chant was occurring, did not discourage the crowd. He continued criticizing Omar after resuming his speech. On July 19, Trump praised the North Carolina crowd as "incredible people" and "incredible patriots".

— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * IMO we already have enough detail. This is a biography, and this was one incident.-- MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the redirect should go to the article with the most detail.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. It should go to Racial views of Donald Trump. OK if I change it? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I only became aware the content was there after a complaint on the Help Desk.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  14:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Since it hadn't already been done, I did it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. That's a better target for several reasons: that comment says more about him than it does about her, and when he first started saying "they should go back to their own countries" he wasn't just talking about her, but also her (native American born) colleagues. A textbook example of Perpetual foreigner syndrome. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I wonder why it just goes to the article and not to the section? Looks like it is spelled right and all. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There, I fixed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Denied entry to Israel
I removed this from the lead, as I don't think it belongs in the article, let alone in the lead. This is not a newspaper where we need to list every item of interest in her tenure. And certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It surely doesn't belong in the lede but definitely warrants a mention in the article, maybe under the "Criticism of the Israeli government" subsection. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be, but then we would have to expand on why Israel did it, and it's not just because Trump tweeted. That they were going to allow them in was an exception to the law, but as the Ambassador noted today, their itinerary was not balanced at all, so Israel was not really interested in a photo-op, so there was no need for an exception to their law, Trump's tweet notwithstanding. Many people in Israel felt they were just going to be used as pawns back home in the US and used as photo-ops. All this would have to be fit into a few sentences. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree at all with Sir Joseph's rationale. But, I do agree we should wait a week and that we should include this in the body along with commentary from AIPAC and others. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you are not using the talk page? Please revert, please note this page is under sanctions, and while I can't be 100% certain, I think editing a contentious edit while under discussion is a violation of sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought my edits would mostly cover what you,  mentioned in your second post, and what  suggested. I did not see 's post at the time. While I agree that this does not need to be in the lede, obviously I think it's okay in the body. This issue has drawn attention from several congressmen already. I did not use material from the edit to the lede. If anyone wants to revert, please go ahead and do so.  starship  .paint  (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in the lead but is sufficient for inclusion in the article. This was a miscalculation for the Trump administration (unless they're playing 3D chess) and caused embarrassent for the Israeli government. TFD (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's opinion. As I said, Israel was going to allow them in, but then when they received their itiniary it was apparent that it was not balanced at all. Starship.paint's edit's make no mention of that, it also doesn't have the Ambasador's statement. While says anyone can revert, I think he should do so and wait a few days to see what happens. There is no rush to put this in. I also disagree that this is an embarrassment to Israel. The US in 2012 refused to allow entry to an Israeli MK and there was no fuss, this is getting a fuss because of social media and Trump. Israel has a law to ban those who are against Israel, same as any other country, including the US, who barred an Iranian diplomat during Obama's tenure, and would have barred Iranian PM, were he not going to the UN. Many of this nuance was not in that edit. So it needs to be fleshed out before being inserted, if it's inserted at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit stated A spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited that Omar and Tlaib only intended to visit Palestine and had not scheduled a meeting with any Israeli politicians. I thought that satisfies the itinerary part you mentioned, if you're referring to something else, I don't know of it. You mention plenty of nuance but I didn't see it in the reliable sources which reported on this incident, so of course it can't be verified or added as it would be synthesis. You can just wait 24 hours and you'll be able to revert my edit.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit just said that Deri said it's because of BDS, but it does not say that Israel has a law that restricts entry to those who support BDS, or to make it even more balanced, a quote from Netanyahu "As a vibrant and free democracy, Israel is open to any critic and criticism, with one exception: Israel’s law prohibits the entry of people who call and operate to boycott Israel, as is the case with other democracies that prevent the entry of people whose perception harms the country," or even "Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are leading activists in promoting boycott legislation against Israel in the US Congress.


 * “The two-member congressional visitation plan shows that their intent is to hurt Israel and increase its unrest against it,” he added, citing the fact that two lawmakers called their visit destination Palestine rather than Israel." There is a lot to balance out. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My edit can only say what my source reported. Now that you provide another source, I can then add the information. How the page stands now:  starship  .paint  (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no rush to include, that is why people here said to wait. That is why I asked you to revert. This isn't a newspaper where we need to be the first one to print. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2019 (UTc)
 * this is why we should wait. this statement clarifies that the organization who sponsored the trip is not only a supporter of BDS, but they also support Hamas, they also had an issue with blood libel, etc. All this needs to be in there. It was not a balanced trip itinerary. Organizations with ties to terrorist and then complaining when you get cancelled? Sir Joseph (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please retract this. The founder and head of the organization you refer to has won numerous awards worldwide and AFAIK has no connection to terrorism. Also, you are suggesting a tie between the subject of this article and terrorism. This is a rather serious WP:BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a tie between Omar and Miftah, just that Miftah is funding the trip. AS to supporting or ties to terrorist groups, "Additionally, MIFTAH sponsored a 2016 trip to the West Bank consisting of five members of Congress meeting Shawn Jabarin, who heads the pro-BDS NGO Al-Haq and has been repeatedly flagged by Israel for having alleged ties to the Popular Front Liberation of Palestine terror group, according to the Foundation for Defense Democracies think-tank. In 2016, MIFTAH “sponsored a women’s unity conference, at which women representing Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah discussed how to implement the slogan, ‘One Country, One People, One Flag’” and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Arab League-affiliated Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, according to Jewish News Syndicate." and nd their Arabic version promulgated the “blood libel” that “the Jews used the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.” Hoffman also noted that the founder of Miftah, Hanan Ashrawi, said in 2001 that Israel is committing “ethnic cleansing” against the Palestinians and “state terrorism.” Hanan Ashrawi is not someone you want on your side, just because she won awards doesn't mean much. I don't see any BLP issue with Omar here, I didn't suggest anything with Omar just with Miftah sponsoring the trip. BTW, since you mention Asrawi, why don't you mention her speech at the Durbin racism conference? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the organization that sponsored the trip: Sir Joseph (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The organization you accuse of ties to terrorism was founded and is run by Hanan_Ashrawi Ashrawi is the recipient of numerous awards from all over the world, including the distinguished French decoration, “d'Officier de l'Ordre National de la Légion d'Honneur” in 2016; the 2005 Mahatma Gandhi International Award for Peace and Reconciliation; the 2003 Sydney Peace Prize; the 2002 Olof Palme Prize; the 1999 International Women of Hope “Bread and Roses”; the Defender of Democracy Award – Parliamentarians for Global Action; the 50 Women of the Century; the 1996 Jane Addams International Women’s Leadership Award; the Pearl S. Buck Foundation Women’s Award; the 1994 Pio Manzu Gold Medal Peace Award; and the 1992 Marissa Bellisario International Peace Award. Again, this is a gross violation of WP:BLP. Retract it. O3000 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read the articles I linked? She may have founded the organization, but they still posted a link about a blood libel, they still sponsored an event with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah and they have alleged ties to the PFLP. I never said anything about the founder of the organization, I said the organization itself, as one of the articles pointed out, Ashrawi has no day to day input in the organization. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The organization receives funds from the governments of Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Germany, Ireland and Norway, and from U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations that receive government funding. A junior staff member once posted an article six years ago that contained blood libel. The article was removed, the jr. staff member reprimanded, and the organization profusely apologized. That’s one article in 20 years. Based on this, you are suggesting on this BLP that Omar is in some manner connected to an organization tied to terrorists and blood libel. This should never occur at Wikipedia. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the organization at first didn't apologize, but that's not the point, I never said this is about Omar. Why are you missing this? This is about the organization itself. This org funded the trip. And it has ties to all those groups. It has nothing to do with Omar. Where did I say that Omar has ties to any of that? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it has nothing to do with Omar, why are you mentioning blood libel and terrorism on her article talk page? O3000 (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the organization sponsoring the trip. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that. How is that not relevant that this is relevant to the article that the reason that the trip got cancelled was because it was funded by this organization? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no question that this should be included in the article. It was at the top of the lead in every news program I watched last evening, including two world news shows and the PBS evening news. Organizations and politicians have spoken out on this action, including presidential runners. Gandydancer (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't necessarily mean anything, this isn't WP:ITN. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that means this issue is important. It’s easy for an American president to draw national attention. It’s harder when you’re just a Representative. In this case, she’s drawing both national and international attention.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ve added Miftah. The Prime Minister said Miftah is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel. Then Sir Joseph you somehow say that You later cite an article from 2013. That’s classic WP:SYNTHESIS. You can’t make that connection unless the sources do. This isn’t a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This article does. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ... does what? I’m seeing the article quote an op-ed, so I’m not including that part for statements of fact, and it also says: she said that Palestinian terror attacks “are seen by the people as resistance” and that “to somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorist” is “unfair.” When Deutsche Well pressed her further Palestinian officials inciting violence against Israelis, Ashrawi denied that the Palestinian leadership calls for violence and said that the Israeli leadership needs to be held accountable for their rhetoric. I don’t see Hamas or blood libel here.  starship .paint  (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the Hamas and PFLP ties which is in the article I linked. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're confusing political positions with facts. It is a viewpoint that Hamas or the PFLP are terroristic as opposed to the fact that both have had recourse to acts of terrorism, just as, not only in their view, Israel is not innocent of employing state terrorism for strategic ends. A large part of its occupation is at least seen by Palestinians are systematic terror, and many NGOs support that view. We are not however allowed to assert for that reason that Israel is a terrorist organization, or an Israeli or Israeli group is well-disposed to terrorism because there's a connection with that state. So a connection with Hamas is not proof of terrorism. It is only interpreted by a rhetorical automatism by Israel as tantamount to such, e.g. refusing Fullbright awardees in the Gaza Strip to pursue their grants in higher studies in the US because, someone in their families, someone was employed (janitor, local cop,etc?) by the Hamas government. Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a viewpoint supported by the US, Israel the EU and many other countries that Hamas is a terrorist organization, so it makes sense for Israel to refuse a trip to an organization that has funded events with Hamas. It most certainly is relevant that the organization has had ties with Hamas and PFLP. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Governments have strategic interests, not some commitment to rational analysis or the facts/truth. Where I live nearly all TV channels only report on Israel when there is an incident of terror by Palestinians. They are absolutely silent about the ground realities. So everybody lines up with the terrorist thesis, whose main function is to distract attention from an occupation marked by extreme planned and systematic violence. Government bodies know that, because the institutional analysts, like the larger academic community both in Israel and abroad, document the violence of Israel's occupation.  In your second sentence you are now justifying Israel. Contacts with Hamas ergo supports terrorism is the same as saying Israel's known contacts with Isis in Syria, ergo Israel supports terrorism.  We're not here to defend state interests, but set the record straight per RS which will spin this various ways. What you are citing is obvious spin.  Governments have official lines, and real reasons, the latter being more obscure. Tlaib's ban has probably nothing to do with the putative link with terrorism, that's just a hackneyed hasbara smear (as was the Fullbright case). Jusdt state the known facts: the spin, from whichever side, is utterly tedious in its uninformative tendentiousness.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not unreasonable to consider Hamas a terrorist organization. But, we should simply summarize what reliable sources say about the reasons for her exclusion from Israel. Anything additional is WP:SYN. Buffs (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's worthy of inclusion. I don't think it belongs in the lead at this time. Buffs (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's neither reasonable nor unreasonable. The classification as such is political. It has engaged in terrorism, as have many of the countries who say it or, please note, only its military wing, are terrorist organizations. That latter distinction is important. It remains an elected government, and it is not appropriate per wiki's neutral voice to flourish the terrorist epithet every time Hamas is mentioned. That is a known Israeli official spin. An elected government like Hamas appoints its members to run a state. Many of those members are not thereby 'terrorists'. The score of new police cadets wiped out at their graduation ceremony  in the first hour of Israel's 2008-9 Gaza war were, in international law, though part of a Hamas infrastructure, not legitimate targets. They, like schoolteachers, administrators, garbage collectors, janitors, or whoever, are paid and are part of the Hamas bureaucracy, burt are not in law terrorists. Police don't have military functions - they direct traffic, hunt criminals whatever. Most international reports on that incident admit this. This mindless automatism of tagging is slipshod, and POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're talking about Hamas, it's a terrorist organization, that also has now a police force and other functions,being an elected government doesn't change that. The US, EU, Israel and other nations still consider it a terrorist organization. That they employ schoolteachers or garbage collectors is irrelevant, they themselves as an organization, is a terrorist organization according to the US, EU, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, so I missed that this paragraph was pertinent in the Jewish Journal that provided. Italic emphasis is mine. Additionally, MIFTAH sponsored a 2016 trip to the West Bank consisting of five members of Congress meeting Shawn Jabarin, who heads the pro-BDS NGO Al-Haq and has been repeatedly flagged by Israel for having alleged ties to the Popular Front Liberation of Palestine terror group, according to the Foundation for Defense Democracies think-tank. In 2016, MIFTAH “sponsored a women’s unity conference, at which women representing Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah discussed how to implement the slogan, ‘One Country, One People, One Flag’” and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Arab League-affiliated Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, according to Jewish News Syndicate. Given that the Jewish Journal expressly used attribution instead of their own findings, as well as using alleged, women representing Hamas instead of just Hamas, then I think the link is just tenous enough not to include, given that as said above, we should expressly summaries the given reasons for exclusion. It’s not really our job to present the history of Miftah unless Israeli government does so while explaining the reason to ban Omar.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Good analysis. I might add that insinuating that even Al-Haq is Hamas affiliated is 'insane', or rather, proof of how far propaganda will shout down reality. Read the link. It is an excellent research body, and no one outside Israeli 'Defense/Likud' circles considers it anything but a very good legally minded NGO. The same goes for the treatment of Shawan Jabarin, or for that matter Khalida Jarrar, always with hysterical assertions about links about the Popular Front Liberation of Palestine. No one can defend human rights there without being smeared as contiguous to terrorists.Nishidani (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And yet the US denied a visa for Hanan Ashrawi for her to enter the US in the past Sir Joseph (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ... and okay, let’s stop going off-topic.  starship .paint  (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Early 2019 statements in the lead.
This was recently removed, but re-added citing this RFC. I think it's reasonable to re-address this now that significant time has passed; I think at this point it's clear that the rush to put it in the lead was WP:RECENTISM. Omar has attracted substantial coverage since then along a wide range of topics, probably more than anyone anticipated at the time, and those comments have faded in importance to the point where I don't think they belong in the lead anymore (especially since the RFC closure noted that it was fairly close and that there was a major chance that it would fade in time; there have been major events concerning her repeatedly since then, many of which got as much or more coverage.) In the article itself it just gets one paragraph; compare to the massive "Threats, conspiracy theories and harassment" section, which has far more coverage and sources, makes up several times the article's size, and yet gets just a mere sentence in the lead; devoting the bulk of lead a paragraph to something that, in retrospect, only lasted a news cycle or so and was just one of countless media flare-ups around a figure who has attracted vast amounts of attention doesn't really seem WP:DUE at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's also because people don't necessarily allow negative coverage about her to be added that easily. And items about harassment or conspiracy theories are RECENT or NEWS and don't necessarily belong either but they look good so it's added. Her getting reprimanded is most definitely warranted to be in the lead, it is a major part of her Congressional career. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit too early to have this discussion on deleting this from the lede (four months). I would wait until at least six months or even 2020 (nine months). But rewording it, well, we can discuss.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Except she wasnt reprimanded in any way?  nableezy  - 02:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say censured. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither did I.  nableezy  - 12:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any evidence it had a long-term impact on her congressional career at all, no. Today, looking back, it's essentially just one point in a long line of cycles of opinion-pieces and back-and-forth about her, none of which individually belongs in the lead; it was put up there because it happened to be the first and, therefore, seemed more important at the time than brief flashpoint it actually turned out to be.  And the other things are mentioned further down in the article, where they belong; that's where this belongs as well.  It's not worth an entire half-paragraph in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it was RECENT. Didn't know there was a RfC. All I did was the ten years test and I didn't find it appropriate to write that in the lead because it didn't seem it will be notable for a long period of time.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it fails the 10 year test as well, but I don't know that enough has changed at this point that the outcome of a new discussion would differ from the previous discussion. The NYTimes still brought up her remarks as context for the Israel stuff, so it's not like the event has been forgotten. Nblund talk 15:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it'd definitely have a different result. Tempers have cooled, time has passed, and a lot more stuff about her has hit the news; sure, it gets mentioned (I'm not suggesting dropping it from the article entirely), but - relative to the massive amounts of attention she has gotten and eg. her high-profile ongoing feud with Trump - it's no longer a defining point of her career or something that deserves major focus in the lead, just another footnote in her increasingly-lengthy history.  I suspect that another RFC would affirm this reality. --Aquillion (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)