Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 16

Removal of anti-semitism controversy from lead
We had a closed discussion-consensus a few months ago that the controversy regarding the anti-semitism accusations belonged in the lead. Who removed the content and why? Where was the consensus for doing so? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Things change over time, your answer was easily found n the talk page archives, Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_12 Zaathras (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that three editors, who participated in the prior discussion involving over 30 editors, who voted against keeping the material, even though the discussion resulted in consensus for keeping the material, returned and decided to unilaterally override the prior decision at a time when they knew that the discussion was unlikely to receive broader input. This shouldn't have been done without another RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And you shouldn't be calling names like "right-wingers" in your edit summaries. You should know better. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the discussion I'm referencing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A portion of the comment from the closing administrator: I would suggest though to wait at least a year or until there is another significant event they are involved with. The editors (who voted no in the linked archive) in the extremely limited "discussion" you linked to blatantly disregarded this recommendation, waiting only 7 months and with no significant intervening events, to reinstate the version they preferred. This type of sneaky gaming is no justification to make these dramatic changes to a high-activity article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note the part of the RfC closer's statement: "or until there is another significant event they are involved with." Well, an awful lot has happened since last April, for example, the frequent attacks on her by Trump in his tweets. If the fact that the US President has a fixation on attacking her doesn't belong in the lede, then neither do claims that comments she made a year ago were anti-semitic. NightHeron (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not an either or proposition. It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments, especially not within 7 months. Her political disputes certainly are not such an event, and it seems the lead already notes the "political harassment," which is a charged and questionable term. There is a concerted effort on this page to diminish controversies and play up political disputes that seem to cast the subject in a sympathetic light. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For a US president to ask the government of another country to deny a visa to a congressperson and for him to launch personal attacks against her, calling on her to return to her country of birth -- this is (as far as I know, but I'm not a historian) unprecedented in US history. It is far more notable than a controversy about interpretation of the words she used to voice opposition to Israeli policy.  If the former is not notable enough for the lede, then neither is the latter, as should be clear to editors irrespective of their personal opinions about Rep. Omar. NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the comments you're referring to belong is a separate discussion. Weight is accorded based on treatment in reliable sources, not your opinion or personal analysis. One has nothing to do with the other. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the US President's vendetta against Ilhan Omar wasn't covered much in reliable sources?? NightHeron (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you that it's irrelevant. This back-and-forth is getting very WP:POINTY, as well as off-topic, and I don't have any interest in continuing it. If you have other concerns about the lead, those are best expressed in a separate section. What we're addressing here is a consensus formed months ago and the attempt by a small group of editors to override it without broader input. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful that there is any event that would overshadow the degree of coverage and controversy that followed her comments. That is not the conclusion that the RFC reached.  The discussion was close and hinged on a lot of people concerned with recentism, with a specific caveat that allowed for the possibility that an event could overshadow it; therefore, the conclusion was that it would stand only until there was another major event, which (at least based on the most recent discussion) was the case. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop saying "recent discussion." There was no discussion. You and two other editors who had a problem with the material returned in August to remove it. Two editors objected, and you ignored them. You have been about as non-transparent about your intentions as possible. Second, to date, no other event has been treated as significantly in reliable sources as the anti-semitism controversy. It's telling that you find the watered-down version acceptable, which makes no reference to the criticism against her, only a whitewashed statement about her views on Israel. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Removal of this from the lede was out of process and ridiculous. A public trouting might be warranted here, even, it's not really excusable here given the time and effort that was spent by dozens of people here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Its "lead" not "lede". They are two different things. --Malerooster (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the article lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize for this horrendous and offensive oversight, . What I said was a horrific violation of the English language and I am not sure I can ever be forgiven, let alone if I can ever forgive myself for this. Toa Nidhiki05 01:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * An RfC is not a stone monument, forever unyielding to change. Several editors held a discussion in the link I provided, a discussion that resulted in the removal of the content in question. Said discussion took place in August, thus the trimmed lede (for the record, I use lede/lead interchangeably, I have no idea what the exchange above is on about) has remained live for the last 4 months, abot as long as it was from RfC-to-that-discussion. I would therefore posit that it is incumbent upon Mr. 19920 and his new friend to establish consensus for the restoration, and that it should be restored to it's August version while they go about that.
 * Pinging the participants in that last discussion;, , , , , . Zaathras (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Stability is a goal for a high-activity article on a controversial subject. When you have an RfC that received the input of dozens of editors, it carries more weight than a trio of editors superficially addressing the same issue a short time later. Further, there was no "result" of the discussion; the same editors who initially objected the material repeatedly returned to the page to remove it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We can always go for another RFC, I suppose. But my feeling is that (keeping in mind that this is negative material about a BLP and therefore consensus is always required to keep it in, and that recent discussions have obviously called that consensus into doubt) I really don't think it would be possible to reach a consensus to keep it there today. She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio.  That is why the more recent discussion five months ago ended with it being removed, and I assume it is why the people who objected (though they found themselves in the minority) declined to waste time by pushing for an RFC that they surely realized would no longer be able to reach a consensus to keep it there.  Certainly stability is a goal, but the removal was stable for months on end (indicating that, yes, most people tacitly accepted it), and that likewise indicates that the initial addition was ill-considered WP:RECENTISM for something that, relative to the subject's overall bio, ultimately turned out to be little more than a brief wave of talking points. --Aquillion (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What a dishonest post. I also wouldn't use the words "talking points," if I were you. You have repeatedly returned to try and purge this material from the article. The fact is we have a standing consensus for the material and that is not overturned by the fact that you and two other editors returned a few months later and rehashed the same points that were rejected in February. The fact that the material was removed is just as easily explained by the fact that many of the editors advocating for its removal, like myself, haven't been closely following this page, yet you still overlooked the concerns expressed by editors in August. The anti-semitism accusations and subsequent criticism are continually referenced, have received the most substantial coverage of anything she's done at this point in her career, and are clearly still a prominent part of her public profile. Only someone who's utterly biased could deny that, and it's a shame editors refused to accept an RfC they disagree with and return every few months to sneakily slip the material out when no one's looking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While I know you didn't know this at the time, the reality is that that, in the original RFC, sockpuppets were used to push through WP:BLP-sensitive accusations in the lead without establishing a genuine consensus (see my comment below.) This is the reason it keeps coming up (and why discussions both before and since show an overwhelming and clear consensus against inclusion) - it never actually reflected a consensus, just one editor's determination to force through their preferred version against consensus via WP:SOCKing.  You are incorrect to imply that this is now what she is most famous for; the coverage of the harassment and threats against her vastly outweighs it. But, in any case, while I understand you didn't realize this at the time, you are incorrect to say that there has ever been a consensus for this material; it was tainted by sockpuppetry, which invalidates its closure.  With sockpuppets excluded it was nearly two to one against inclusion; obviously RFCs are not simply a numerical vote, but we cannot include material like this based on another RFC.  Since the arguments have long since started going in circles, and since we do need to establish a valid consensus, I suggest directing your attention to the new RFC below. --Aquillion (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive WP:CRYBLP removal by. Jerusalem Post described the Democratic rebuke of Ilhan Omar's antisemitic comments as "exceptional". It's not that some other things happening after that make it completely irrelevant and warrant its erasure from the article completely. Aquillion should drop this "my way or no way" attitude here or else it's starting to look like tendendious POV-pushing. --Pudeo (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Referencing CRYBLP in a discussion may be an easy method of dismissing another editor’s concerns. We still take extra care in using highly negative material in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether it stays or goes, it is badly written by presenting the accusation before the context. For neutral tone it should state something along the lines of:
 * "A frequent critic of Israeli politics, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and criticised the pro-Israel lobbies influence in US politics. Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes."
 * But that last sentence is the contentious part as everyones political opinions are subject to criticism. It may be best to present it with a closer context to the statement "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, and other harassment by political opponents.[8][9]" as they are indelibly linked. Koncorde (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Aquillion said, "She's gotten far more coverage for other things since then; it is no longer defensible to argue that this is a major part of her bio." That makes a lot of sense to me and I agree.  I suggest that we keep some of the copy re her criticisms of Israel and remove the sentence, " Some of her comments of have been accused of drawing on anti-semitic tropes."  She did apologize for those statements and the body of the article, not the lead, is the place for that information.  I also agree with those who believe we need to include a sentence in the lead re Trump's statements.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi GandydancerI agree. I have changed the sentence a bit, removed a duplication (the last part of the sentence was actually already stated in the sentence above). I also added the fact that she is a "victim" of direct critique by Trump. I think this should be included as Trump is one of the main sources for her being targeted. as NightHeron also mentioned. I feel this is crucial information. Garnhami (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just shocking to me how blatant editors are to use terms to cast the subject in a sympathetic light and make disingenuous arguments to remove critical content. This article is a prime example of WP:SOAPBOXING at its worst. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please try to be respectful and avoid accusations against other editors. I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint it's hard to observe WP:AGF. But please try. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on the obvious effect of the language used. "Victim" is a decidedly non-neutral term. Watering down negative material is equally problematic. I hope you're being intentionally ironic, because your comment I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint... is in fact an accusation and has nothing to do with the article. Don't presume to know what my views are, and try to be a bit more objective in analyzing content and arguments. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikieditor19920 I saw they removed the adjustment I did. I do agree that a sentence explaining she does receive some critique (as the one I wrote) could be in its place as I think it is ok to note that she received some critique for her viewpoints. For me "For some of her comments she has been criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes of Jewish money and power fueling support for Israel. " is a rather neutral sentence. Gandydancer removed it, but maybe it can be put back later (altered maybe?) if there is a consensus. However, I do NOT agree with you regarding what you insinuate about the use of the word victim. She clearly is a victim. You can not deny that Trump has been attacking her and that he is one of the roots of the backlashes she gets! A USA president that talks like how he does? Not normal. NightHeron is right when it comes to that.Garnhami (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please note that no one is arguing that last year's controversy about Omar's comments about Israel and about the pro-Israel lobby in the US should not be covered in detail in the article, as it is. The issue being discussed here is whether or not that controversy belongs in the lede. So editors who believe that it does not belong in the lede should not be accused of trying to remove criticism from the article. NightHeron (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're following the discussion, but restating the obvious is a waste of space. I find it interesting that editors on this page arguing that the substantial criticism of her views is not relevant for the lead while her views on Israel are. I'm sure some editors would like to see any mention of the controversy purged from the article entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I"m also astonished at what a joke the lead has become. "Personal critique from Trump?" Not only is this poorly written, it just further exacerbates the problem I've been discussing all along, where controversies are omitted contrary to MOS:LEAD and information is played up to portray the subject of the article sympathetically and as a victim. This page has and continues to be negatively impacted by editors who are either consciously or unconsciously revising the page in a way that is in complete non-conformance with WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a suggestion in there somewhere? O3000 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's pretty easy to find if you'd actually read my comments: 1) respect the consensus met in the prior discussion and include the criticism of her comments re: her views on Israel in the lead, not just a whitewashed summary of her views without mention of it, and 2) stop exaggerating political disputes and the "victimhood" notion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920She faced (and still does) major backlashes/pure racism/hate due to the actions of Trump, I do not consider this as exaggerating at all nor as pure political disputes. Calling someone to go back to "their country" is hardly political. I do agree with your statement that there can be something added about others critiquing her, as I already mentioned in my previous statement.Garnhami (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If your only argument is "it was agreed upon at one time, so it must remain that way", that is extremely piss-poor IMO, and should be weighted very little in the final analysis of this discussion, read WP:CCC when you have a moment. Also, perhaps you could find current (.i.e. withing the last 2 weeks or so) sources that shows Rep. Omar is still criticized regularly for her actions? If not, then this ship may have passed, and is only worth a reduced mention, as the article had before you reverted it.
 * To the other editors who have been more measured and reasonable in their responses thus far, should another request for comment be held? Zaathras (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * your arguments are utterly devoid of any reference to sources or policy. You and others are only offering your personal opinion about the controversy, which is totally irrelevant and inappropriate. You also made some bizarre reference to "right wingers" in your edit summary removing the content again. Certain discussions carry more weight than others. We had a consensus developed over several weeks with the input of 30+ editors in which it was decided that the material was relevant and shouldn't be removed for an extended period of time, for at least a year. You don't get to dismiss an RfC or re-litigate because it doesn't align with your opinion. It seems that there isn't any objection to mentioning her views on Israel generally within the lead, without mention of the fact that those views have garnered intense criticism + accusations of anti-semitism. This was national news and the most coverage we've seen to date. Editors like, who participated in the original discussion and whose arguments did not prevail there, are just rehashing the same points yet again, in the process revealing their own bias when referring to the material as "talking points." Not unlike you, with your "right-wingers" comment. We don't assess whether or not information is favorable or unfavorable to an article subject. We examine its coverage and relevance in proportion to the overall public profile of the person. Someone also said that the "death threats" are "inextricably linked" with her comments on Israel, something conspiratorial and completely unsupported by the sources. , I appreciate that you understand that the comments on Israel belong in the lead, but you need to frame your arguments in context with sources. Honestly I think that had it right when he called out the abuse of process going on here, and I think we may be better off with dispute resolution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Your emotional response to editors who disagree with you is not a positive contribution to improving the article. In this thread you called a comment by User:Aquillion a "dishonest post." You accused editors of being "sneaky" and "disingenuous."  You just made a false accusation against User:Zaathras: your arguments are utterly devoid of any reference to sources or policy.  Just a few lines higher, User:Zaathras referred to WP:CCC, a policy which is definitely relevant to this discussion.  You claim that other editors are ignoring the closing judgment on the earlier RfC, but it's you who are ignoring the part of that closing judgment that says or until there is another significant event they are [Omar is] involved with.  Once before I appealed to you to observe WP:AGF.  Please tone down your anger, and try to work constructively with other editors.  Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you've appointed yourself as policeman of this discussion while exhibiting the same behavior that you're going on about ("I realize that because of your own highly partisan viewpoint..."). You should spend more time addressing my points, and less on lecturing. What exactly do you mean by "significant event?" Significance, weight, is determined by sources. Consensus can change, but not all discussions are equal. The RfC referenced here clearly should prevail over a smaller discussion of three editors who made changes to the article when there was less attention paid to it. Clearly, you lose on the time element -- an the amount of time deemed appropriate by the closing admin has not passed. So you and others are zeroing in on this "significant event" language. But what superseding event has eclipsed the anti-semitism controversy or made it irrelevant? I do not see any evidence to support this, nor have you or anyone else put such evidence forward. The mere fact that she has been in the news since does not make the anti-semitism controversy earlier this year moot. In fact, there are reliable sources that continue to report on the matter as little as recently as this week. See here. So why, all of sudden, are we hearing the same arguments that were made when the controversy first broke, from the same editors? If the positions were reversed, and the same closed RfC had come out against inclusion, with an admin specifying a period of time that should pass until it is reconsidered, would you all be arguing that the RfC was irrelevant? I have my doubts. Further, this whole notion of conflating the anti-semitism controversy with the Trump comments is a red herring. The two are unrelated except for the fact that Trump apparently referenced it in some of his comments, but the vast majority of reliable source coverage have treated them as distinct. Editors should be doing the same here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm no "policeman." The policemen/policewomen on Wikipedia are the admins, not us rank-and-file editors. I was merely appealing to you to relate to other editors respectfully, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Any editor, "policeman" or not, can appeal to another editor to do that.  As far as my words highly partisan are concerned, it's your tone and insults directed against other editors that lead us to see you as highly partisan.
 * I asked you before, Are you suggesting that the US President's vendetta against Ilhan Omar wasn't covered much in reliable sources?? You didn't answer that.  Trump's tweet campaign against Omar is a significant event they are [Omar is] involved with in the words of the closing admin for the earlier RfC.  Trump's tweets on this subject -- and the controversy over them --- have been extensively reported on by mainstream media. You claim that's irrelevant, but it's not.  It's directly relevant to the words of the RfC's closing admin. NightHeron (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again: focus on your own behavior. Calling other editors "highly partisan" is not very nice. And I have no idea what you believe the Trump comments have to do with the anti-semitism controversy re: Omar's comments and tweets. They neither out-rank in significance nor eclipse the controversy. One involves another politicians comments about her. I would hardly say that Trump's criticism of her has defined her career in a significant way. The anti-semitism controversy happened only a few months ago and was the subject of national coverage for several weeks, from the NYT to CNN, and continues to be referenced by sources. I'm fine with addressing the Trump thing in the lead, but I don't understand why this has to be connected with removing the anti-semitism controversy. MOS:LEAD requires that controversial and significant elements of the subject's bio in the lead. We have an RfC affirming that the events were significant and controversial and worthy of a mention. Whether or not another politician's criticism of her, Trump or any other Republican, belongs in the lead is wholly unrelated. These arguments trying to connect the two are tenuous, disruptive, and should stop. We need to respect the results of the closed RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned that there is a combination of talk page and edit summary tone and a lack of assumption of good faith that has created what appears to be an ongoing issue here. It's hard for me to understand what are the desired outcomes, because there's so much focus on interpersonal issues.

In my opinion, it is inappropriate to identify someone as anti-semitic (or any other negative connotation). And, this shouldn't be done unless there's a wealth of information over time to support such a stance. There is plenty of information in the article about Omar's stance against Israeli politics (although that doesn't make someone anti-semitic). Why is it important to identify her as anti-semitic? Are there a lot of reliable sources that identify her as anti-semitic?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested that she be "identified as anti-semitic." She has made comments that were perceived as anti-semitic regarding American support for Israel, which received significant attention and some backlash. The problem here is that we have a consensus for noting the controversy in the lead, which a small group of editors have decided to disregard. I doubt you'd have much trouble finding the relevant sources on Omar with a cursory Google search. Many of them are dated in February or March, but you'll find it's been continually referred back to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The content from this reverted sentence sure seems to suggest that she's anti-semitic. There is a political climate right now that seems to be rife with name-calling. For instance, when I searched on Omar and anti-semitic", the results came up with a number of people identified as potentially anti-semitic, such as Bernie Sanders. I still don't think this language should be in the article until more time has gone by, but if you have an RfC and a majority of people that support its inclusion, I can see why there would be an argument to keep the language.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * She indeed made comments that were perceived as anti-semitic. It was very controversial. That's what the edit you linked says. That's what the source says. The distinction you're missing is that, at no point, did this article "identify her as anti-semitic." We already have a closed RfC affirming that the material should be included, and consensus is not a majority vote. You can brush up on the archived, closed discussion here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For me, it's really a matter of encyclopedic tone. For instance, take a look at the intro for Stephen Miller (political advisor) (light tone in comparison to his influence) and David Duke (clearly calls him anti-semitic, etc. after decades of proof that he is anti-semitic, etc. Thanks for providing the links and distinction that it's not just majority vote that determines the outcome (although that's what's generally considered as a major factor).–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, though, I support the earlier conclusions. I was just stating my personal opinion... and feel it would be better to wait to see how things work themselves out in the House, re: request for apology, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not really at issue right now. To date, the comments are the most controversial aspect of her public profile. I'd recommend you do some further reading on the sources cited in the past discussion, and in the article before the content was removed. Here is a good place to start. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not necessary. The fact that The New York Times wrote the article and her statements have raised concern with leadership lets me know that this is a concern and real controversy. There is already information in the article about the ongoing fact that she questions Israel. I am just more conservative about adding inflammatory content, apparently like the edits that contributed to the Stephen Miller (political advisor) article. For instance, the intro could contain content that his actions have resulted in calls for him being fired for his actions that have spanned several years to a far more dramatic negative impact on the lives of people in America.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is becoming a circular discussion. I don't care what happened at that article or for labels like "inflammatory." Her statements were controversial. They were heavily criticized. This is all well documented, and remains a significant part of her career. She is well known for her views on Israel, and the remarks that led to accusations of anti-semitism were a part of that. Some editors want to have their cake and eat it too here (tout her views on Israel but omit the controversial nature of her statements), but WP:PUBLICFIGURE and MOS:LEAD don't give grounds for whitewashing the lead of a controversial subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pleasant. I understand your points... and they would come across so much better without the tone issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we're understanding each other better now, and I appreciate the feedback. I'm largely in agreement with your edits, but I have to urge a few minor tweaks: First, she wasn't commenting on "Israeli" influence, it was about the influence of Jewish-American pro-Israel lobbying groups. She was specifically referring to AIPAC with the "all about the Benajamin's" remark. Also, I don't think it's fully accurate to say that it was just "critics" who described her remarks as anti-semitic. That seems to just suggest political opponents characterized the remarks as such. In fact, that interpretation was much more broad, from the NYT to other reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The cited NYT source: And her insinuations that American policy toward the Jewish state is driven by money — “It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” she wrote on Twitter — have drawn charges of anti-Semitism, prompting her to apologize. The source doesn't support stating, as fact in Wikipedia voice, that the comments were anti-Semitic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we should state the comments "were" anti-semitic. I'm saying that the perception that they were anti-semitic went beyond just her "critics." It's sort of misleading to say that just someone's critics said something, when the condemnation of the remarks was far more widespread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone making such a statement is, by definition, critical of Omar - that doesn't mean they're wrong, it simply means they were critical of those particular statements by Omar. "Have been perceived" is anodyne anonymity - said that? We have to at least attempt to create attribution of opinions. Several of the groups she has referred to are explicitly Israeli lobby groups, not merely "Jewish-American," so the correct approach would be to mention both. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What "Israeli" lobby groups has she referred to? The comments that got her in trouble were in reference to AMERICAN lobbying groups. And I have no idea what you're talking about with "anodyne anonymity." I'm glad you're busting out the thesaurus, but her comments were widely interpreted as anti-semitic, not just among "critics" of her. Your black-and-white reasoning (if they said her remarks were anti-semitic, for example, the NYT, they are a "critic") misses the point and is misleading in that it glosses over this crucial point. Stop edit-warring. Someone who condemned the remarks is not by definition a "critic" of Omar. When something only comes from "critics," it seems less legitimate. I don't know if that's what your angling for, but that's the effect, and it's false and disproven by the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Critic does not mean the same thing as enemy or opponent. Definition #1 of critic on dictionary.com: a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes; Google's 1st definition: a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something. NightHeron (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This conversation is begging for an "everyone's a critic" joke. On a more serious note, it's ridiculous to characterize the diverse array of parties who condemned the remarks as enti-semitic as "critics." This is not the language used by the sources that have reported on her comments, and it's not the language we should use here. It also seems to create a bit of a false balance problem, as if there were an equal number of defenders of the remarks. I don't believe there were any reliable sources or commentators defending the remarks. The wording should not suggest as much. And second, "stood by her remarks?" Let's get rid of the purple prose and heroic language. She refused to apologize. Plain and simple. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another bit from the NYT illustrating my point: And while her choice of words has caused some of her own Muslim constituents to describe her as anti-Semitic. Are they "critics" too? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, she does have critics within the Muslim community (as described in the NYT article) who believe she should have kept a low profile during her first term in Congress and should not have spoken about Israel. Other people (also mentioned in the NYT article) are glad she spoke out on Israel and did not back down from her general comments on the subject. But she did apologize for the wording that was criticized for evoking anti-semitic tropes. Note that the words you quote from the NYT article are immediately followed by: many American Muslims across the country are worried that the ongoing criticism of Ms. Omar is being motivated by racism and Islamophobia.

It's not "plain and simple," and she did not "refuse to apologize." Some people regard any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, and think that Omar should be attacked and ridiculed for everything she said on the subject. Other people agree with her general viewpoint on Israel, but criticize her for the times when she chose wording that evoked anti-semitic tropes. She apologized for that wording, but not for expressing her viewpoint about Israeli policies. NightHeron (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to support your assertions with sources, not vague generalizations. If this supposed defense of her comments was significant viewpoint expressed in reliable sources, that's one thing. By all indications, it is not. This is just you spouting off your own views, which don't matter one iota. The near-universal view published in reliable sources was that her remarks were anti-semitic. Therefore, it is appropriate to say that the remarks were pereceived as such (not "were"). It is not appropriate to attribute that view to "her critics." And the other half of the quote you included above is irrelevant to this aspect of the lead, so I don't get your point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As you are in a distinct minority on this matter, any changes to the wording puts the burden on your to gain consensus. Zaathras (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no consensus here on any wording and the current wording: Critics have charged that some of her comments about the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups have drawn upon anti-Semitic tropes. Omar has apologized for some of the remarks and stood behind others. is atrocious. It's repetitive, misleading (creates a false balance regarding critics"), and unnecessarily long. If you can't appreciate the basics of writing and sentence structure, you're in no position to determine what sucks. Stop edit-warring and making trouble. You were wrong on this from the beginning and continue to be. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This wording is an attempted compromise; your proposed version does not have consensus either, and you appear not to be interested in materially addressing the concerns that multiple editors have expressed with it. If you like, we could simply go back to status quo ante and remove the material altogether until there is clearly-expressed consensus (perhaps via an RFC) for a version which might belong in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * As has been said earlier, an RfC is appropriate when there is a more even division of opinions but not for a situation such as we have here. Plus, IMO this editor needs to quit flying off the handle and calling any editors that do not agree with their opinions dopes.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the "status quo" would be the consensus that was reached earlier this year, which was not supposed to be disturbed for a length of time specified by the closing admin. I recognize that your wording is an attempted compromise, and I noted earlier that I largely appreciated the changes, but, IMO, a compromise doesn't mean our work is done. The sentence is still slightly repetitive: it mentions "influence" twice. This is the most apparent issue with the sentence, it's just too long. It's not clear what a "pro-Israel lobbying group" is, and I believe it should mention the fact that she was referring to Jewish-American lobbying groups, but that's probably the most minor issue. The biggest problem, as I have mentioned, is that by writing "critics charged," it seems to suggest a false balance. At the risk of repeating myself, condemnation of her remarks was nearly universal in reliable sources. It's not as if there were, at least among WP:DUE opinions, defenders and critics. Almost all major national outlets reported on the story with her remarks being perceived as anti-semitic. If you have a response to these specific critiques I'm all ears. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the fact she was referring to Jewish-American lobbying groups.
 * This isn't true per the sources. She mentioned pro-Israel lobby groups in the US. We only mention what reliable sources say. Please don't waste our time with your imaginary "fact".--SharabSalam (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * If you say something that is anti-Semitic, you are probably anti-Semitic. If you use an anti-Semitic trope, that’s in extremely bad taste (assuming you’re not a Jewish comic); but it does not necessarily mean you are anti-Semitic. Trump has voiced anti-Semitic tropes on multiple occasions. Does that make him anti-Semitic? She apologized for the use of such. Has he? My point is that we have to avoid making more of this than there is. Here’s a recent story about such problems about a recent accusation by Lahav Harkov against Omar: Dylan Williams, the senior vice president of pro-Israel group J Street, responded to Harkov saying her (Harkov’s) comment is "exactly the kind of bad-faith, weaponized accusation that has clouded and eroded understanding of the very real threat posed by anti-Semitism."  This subject belongs in the text. As its mainstream legs have buckled, I don't see it in the lead. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also per WP:RACIST we should be careful when calling somone's comments, anti-Semitic or such thing. I don't see how any of Ilhan Omar's comments were anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. It all seems like a smearing campaign supported by the Israel lobby and the right-wing media.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes people make honest mistakes when talking to or about racial or ethnic groups other than their own. Some people call that microaggressions; others call it faux pas. That's what Omar did last February, and then she apologized. By itself this is not notable. What makes it notable for Wikipedia is that it's been blown all out of proportion so as to create political effects, which are amply documented in the NY Times and elsewhere. If we're going to keep the material about the anti-semitism issue or non-issue in the lead, perhaps the coverage in the lead should include a mention of the way the matter has been "weaponized" (to use Dylan Williams' words) for political purposes. NightHeron (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good opportunity to remind you all of [{WP:NOTFORUM]]. First of all, 's "explanation" of the comments as Sometimes people make honest mistakes when talking and it's been blown all out of proportion so as to create political effects has nothing to do with what's been reported in any source. This is all pure opinion, by an editor, which should not and cannot taint this article. 's comment It all seems like a smearing campaign supported by the Israel lobby and the right-wing media is the kind of comment that should be grounds for a warning or topic ban, as this is, again, an editor making their personal opinions about a matter known without any reference to sources. As for O3000's comment If you say something that is anti-Semitic, you are probably anti-Semitic. If you use an anti-Semitic trope, that’s in extremely bad taste (assuming you’re not a Jewish comic); but it does not necessarily mean you are anti-Semitic., is equally irrelevant to the topic at hand. The article never stated that she was anti-semitic. We have several reliable sources saying that her remarks were perceived as anti-semitic, and that was the language proposed. These are the same weak arguments that were made earlier this year and roundly rejected by impartial observers. It's unfortunate this all comes to the fore again when discussing revisions to the language, and I'm not seeing any actual response to my recommendations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An actual response: If RS are not calling her anti-Semitic, and mention in the mainstream media has faded; I don't see how this warrants inclusion in the lead. O3000 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:RACIST says that we should verify where the label terms actually fit in order to make it in Wikivoice. The whole thing seems like a smearing campaign supported by the Israel lobby and the right-wing media. There is no anti-Semitic trope in her comments that I am aware of, whatsoever.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Nothing has "faded." The anti-semitism controversy from less than 12 months ago still produced the majority, or at least a plurality, of coverage that she received over her entire public career. Also, the comments are still regularly referenced. Here is a Newsweek story from last month and here is a story from the Guardian last week, both referencing her comments this year (and the Newsweek references a controversy that I'm not even sure is in the article yet). This is based only on a cursory search, and I'm sure I could find more. I see no evidence to support your assertions., this is not a forum for you to discuss your personal views. You are expressing opinions that suggest an inability to edit neutrally. Your theories about "right-wing Israeli smears" have no place in this or any other talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, I apologize for that. I have got just one question. What is the problematic comment that is made by Ilhan Omar and is it anti-semitic trope?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SHOWME is just as disruptive. You can find the answer in any one of the sources that I've referenced and linked to on this page. But I appreciate you striking the comments re: the above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, I'd say the two cites you gave pretty much proved my point. It belongs in the body -- not the lead. O3000 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can continue to restate your opinion, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't carry any water. The sources I provided directly disprove your entire point about the supposed "irrelevance" or "fading" of her comments from the public eye. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The source that you asked us to look at (The Guardian from a week ago) states that Omar has for the last year been the target of vicious rightwing attacks, not least by President Trump. Republicans and supporters of Israeli policies have an obvious political interest in making mountains out of molehills in their search for anything, no matter how farfetched, to use against her.  The most recent attempt to call something she said anti-semitic was a tweet that said that it's not surprising that one billionaire (Cooperman) endorsed another billionaire (Bloomberg).  In the Democratic primary campaign she's supporting Sanders and opposing Bloomberg.  That has nothing to do with anti-semitism (they're both Jewish).

The context for the accusations of antisemitism is important. If those accusations stay in the lead, the lead should also point out that the continued accusations are part of an orchestrated campaign of attacks against Omar.

Rather than accusing User:SharabSalam of being disruptive and threatening them with tbanning, you should consider the possibility that your continued intemperate and unjustified attacks on other editors will boomerang against you. NightHeron (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Just glancing through, it looks like WP:1AM might be relevant to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not an admin, so I'm not threatening a tban. However, the kind of speculating and theorizing that you and SharabSalam are engaging in is exactly the type of behavior that is unproductive and forbidden from article talk pages. Again, familiarize yourself with WP:NOTFORUM.  The portion relevant to this discussion  is Omar has had to confront accusations of antisemitism, after a tweet uncovered from 2012referred to Israel, in its actions in Gaza, as having “hypnotized the world”. She has since apologised for inadequately “disavowing the antisemitic trope I unknowingly used”. What is not relevant to this discussion are your political analysis or opinions. JBL, I'd suggest you a) take a closer look and b) review the consensus on this earlier this year. Nothing's changed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In the lengthy discussions of the last 48 hours I count 6 editors who disagree with you and no editor who agrees with you. You accuse me of just giving my own opinions.  But I used the very same source you asked us to look at.  It (and other sources) support what I say, namely, that the continuation of accusations of antisemitism against Omar are part of an orchestrated partisan campaign against her.  Section 6 in the article also supports that.  It is not speculating and theorizing.


 * You don't have to be an admin to take someone to AE or ANI, so your hostile words about SharabSalam's comment (the kind of comment that should be grounds for a warning or topic ban) were really a threat.


 * On Wikipedia talk pages it's better to listen to what other editors are saying rather than just groundlessly attacking them. NightHeron (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't a vote count, as you might observe from the prior discussion on this. On Wikipedia, we use sources, not editor's opinions to support content. From WP:FORUM: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. ou have provided no support for your assertions about conspiracies, comparisons to other politicians, or theorizing about the accusations being "blown up for politics." I'm not going to go round and round here, because there are still improvements that should be made to the lead's language for better readability. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed something extremely important: The previous RFC people mention above, here, was tainted by sockpuppetry. It was very close, and two people supporting inclusion - including its creator and loudest voice - were sockpuppets: User:ModerateMikayla555 / User:Darryl.jensen. The RFC was already closed despite a significant numerical majority for exclusion - those sockpuppets were, alone, ~15-20% of the voices for inclusion, depending on how you count it. While an RFC is not a vote, they're meant to determine general consensus among editors, which is why WP:SOCK forbids that sort of effort to create an appearance of consensus when there is none. Given the context, and given how the RFC was already so far at the edge where a numerical minority can be called a consensus, I feel the sockpuppetry indisputably renders its outcome moot - with sockpuppets excluded, the RFC was nearly two-to-one against inclusion. This problem means there's currently no consensus for inclusion (necessary, obviously, for WP:BLP-sensitive material.) I've started another RFC below to obtain an untainted consensus, but until that is closed, do not restore the contested material to the article. I'm willing to assume good faith on this (clearly nobody noticed that the RFC was tainted at the time, nor after the sockpuppets involved were blocked), but the reality is that regardless, WP:BLP-sensitive material was pushed through without a consensus via sockpuppetry. I recognize that it's not the fault of the other people pushing for inclusion that the RFC's creator decided to resort to sockpuppetry to push through their preferred version, but they in turn need to recognize that that happened and that the RFC is therefore invalidated - an RFC was nearly two-to-one against inclusion with the sockpuppets excluded, and where the loudest voice for inclusion was engaging in sockpuppetry to create the artificial appearance of consensus, cannot reasonably be called a consensus to include. Now that we've noticed that problem, we need to slow down and start over. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Plain wrong. The consensus was never a vote count. The votes against inclusion actually exceeded the votes for. It was the strength of the arguments that the closing moderator based his/her closure of the discussion on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think you can demonstrate a valid consensus, there's another RFC open below. While it's been open less than a day and of course more time is needed, a quick glance at how it's going at the moment heavily suggests that there was something, at least, extremely wrong with the previous RFC.  More generally, while an RFC is not a vote, and sometimes it's necessary to interpret comments, they are also intended to measure consensus, ie. what the community as a whole thinks - someone using sockpuppetry to present the appearance of a stronger consensus for their opinion does invalidate the results, that's why this is banned under WP:SOCK.  Anyway, like I said - one month to run an RFC won't break anything.  If you're convinced that there is still a strong consensus for this inclusion and that the sockpuppetry didn't affect the outcome, the new RFC will reaffirm that and a new closer will recognize it.  But I think it's hard to argue that a second RFC over seven months later is too soon, given both the sockpuppetry, given how many people who commented on the last one ended up banned for various reasons (some related to stuff that puts their contribution to consensus into question, like a WP:NOTHERE ban) and given how much Omar has been in the news.  Consensus can change; the reason to avoid frequent RFCs is because it wastes time to re-iterate the same consensus over and over again, not because it becomes immutable.  The fact that at a glance the latest RFC at least supports the interpretation that it is currently leaning overwhelmingly towards exclusion suggests that either the first RFC was improper or that consensus may have changed, either of which justifies having a new one regardless of the previous closer's preference that we wait a few more months. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't indicate anything is wrong. You haven't notified anyone from that discussion of this thread. Toa Nidhiki05 22:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The proper way to challenge a closed discussion is through the discussion closure forum. The fact that the person who merely opened the RfC violated sock puppetry rules does not invalidate the discussion. Over 30 editors contributed and an impartial admin decided that the strongest arguments were FOR inclusion. You as, as an editor with an expressed interest in the outcome and who is clearly a non-neutral party in that respect, do not get to unilaterally decide what makes a discussion invalid. This is not a matter that needs to be litigated twice a year. There sources covering her comments are overwhelming and it continues to be mentioned as part of the subject’s public profile. The arguments made against inclusion continue to focus on considerations like whether the characterization of her remarks was “politics” and misinterpretations of the standard set by WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL
Regarding this, [a]ny exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. The source from the forward and from TC Jewfolk are all attributing to Muslim girl which attribute an unnamed person from Omar's campaign. This is not a reliable source for exceptional claims. Second of all, that Omar voted against anti-BDS law doesn't mean she supports it. And the TC Jewfolk messaging Omar in text message is also a weak source. Pinging involved editors, and. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not an “unnamed source”. It’s cited to her campaign. It’s also not an exceptional claim: it’s literally what her campaign office said she supports. This was widely reported and there’s no need to censor it because you don’t like it. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , A "fashion, beauty, and lifestyle publication" is not a high-quality source, and the Muslim girl source doesn't mention the person who they are attributing from. It isnt widely reported.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering that this is a BLP I strongly feel that this copy needs discussion before returning it to the article. I brought it here to make discussion easier (though some would criticize even keeping it on the TP).

After the election her position changed, as her campaign office told Muslim Girl that she supports the BDS movement despite "reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution." Gandydancer (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

She supports BDS afaik, is that a big deal? https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/16/ilhan-omar-reaffirms-support-for-peaceful-bds-move/ Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the source is misinterpreting what Ilhan Omar said. Please note that The Washington Times which according to our article has drawn controversy for publishing racist content, including commentary and conspiracy theories about United States president Barack Obama and support for neo-Confederatism. It has published material promoting Islamophobia., is not the same as the Washington Post.
 * She said regarding the anti-BDS law I think what is really important is for people to understand that you have to give people the opportunity to seek the kind of justice they want in a peaceful way. This isnt supporting the BDS, this is supporting free speech. The anti-BDS law which many democrats not just Omar, although they don't support the BDS, said is violation of freedom of speech. This isnt about what we know or whether is it a big deal or not, this is about what reliable sources say.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * They quoted her directly "And I think the opportunity to boycott, divest, sanction is the kind of pressure that leads to that peaceful process", at the very least you can give attribution for the claim that she said that (and it sounds to me that she supports BDS, I thought this was quite well understood, tbh).Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m honestly baffled by the repeated attempts to whitewash this page. Aside from the fact her campaign literally said she supported it, here’s more sources:


 * Jewish Telegraphic Agency
 * Hareetz
 * USA Today
 * NBC News
 * Fox News
 * Al-Monitor
 * The Guardian
 * Minnesota Daily
 * Ynet News
 * Star-Tribune
 * Reuters
 * Slate
 * There is literally no debate on this topic in reliable sources. Ilhan Omar supports BDS. It is widely-reported and her campaign has actively said she supports it. There is no reason to keep this information out of the article. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, these sources are very helpful. I'm beginning to agree.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ Toa. There is nothing "exceptional" about the claim that she says she supports BDS and that observers noted she appeared to change her position before and after the election. The sources that have been provided in the article are perfectly reliable. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanctions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict
These apply to any related content in the article. There's already a 1RR restriction so that doesn't change. What does change is that IPs may not edit related content, nor can new editors defined as not having 30 days and 500 edits. As the drop-down in the sanctions notice says:The exceptions to the 500/30 restriction are: Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Isra Hirsi
FYI, Articles for deletion/Isra Hirsi. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020
Change X: Omar's daughter Isra Hirsi is one of the three principal organizers of the To Y: Omar's daughter Isra Hirsi is one of the three principal organizers of the Her daughter Isra Hirsi's name is coded with a hotlink in this instance and it simply links on Ilhan's page and to the section containing info on her personal life. This only serves to add confusion to readers who think there is a wiki page for her when it simply brings you to the section that you are already reading. 12qwz23xd4 (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * She is a minor, and only really known because of her more famous relations. She does not need nor qualifies for a standalone article IMO. Zaathras (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zaathras for taking care of that and thank you 12qwz23xd4 for pointing that out. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately it did not stick, so I have lace it up for deletion. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)