Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 26

Boebert
Do we really need three paragraphs on this incident? VQuakr (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t, but good luck explaining why. The 10-year test apparently only applies when she says something controversial. Toa Nidhiki05 17:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to it being tightened up as long as the essence of it is captured.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems more relevant to Boebert, less so to Omar. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu, this is much less relevant to Omar’s biography. —JBL (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Trimming it there as well, I see. Any reason why it can't be in both?Selfstudier (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you think you're talking to (you put your comment right under mine, but I have not edited either article recently), but: the reason is that it's much more biographically relevant to one than to the other, obviously. --JBL (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not edited either article either, I was just responding to your comment, which I took to mean that you thought it should go in one and not the other. Guess I misunderstood.Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And so the meaning of the first sentence of your first message is what? --JBL (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know to which message you refer? You seem offended, what is it that's bothering you exactly?Selfstudier (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote, to me, apparently intentionally, Trimming it there as well, I see. What did you intend this to mean? --JBL (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merely an observation and a prelude to the question, why not have it in both? Selfstudier (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer to my question. What is it that you think you were observing, in relation to me, the person to whom your comment was directed? --JBL (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't like the answer, I haven't another.Selfstudier (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Still going https://english.alaraby.co.uk/news/us-republican-apologises-ilhan-omar-jihad-comment Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly not three paragraphs, but the issue is being reported internationally, so it deserves a mention. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Coverage in The Guardian also. While my earlier edit removed "Islamophobic" from the section heading, the CNN source uses 'anti-Muslim' in its own voice and The Guardian uses 'Islamophobic' in it's own voice (I think, it's a bit debatable). Skimming some coverage, I think we should probably include the "Jihad Squad" remark and I plan to add it now. Firefangledfeathers 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a biography, not a newsfeed. Most mentions of a congresswoman in internal international news do not merit any mention at all in an article. This is an example of that majority. No mention warranted. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by internal? Firefangledfeathers 00:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant "international". Struck and updated above; sorry. VQuakr (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. I lean toward inclusion of a short mention based on the weight of current sourcing. I see a valid argument for exclusion, and I think one of the two arguments will become stronger in a week or so depending on what happens next in terms of coverage. Firefangledfeathers 05:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My edit re Boebart's video was deleted with the comment, "Newsworthy and encyclopedia-worthy are not the same thing." This latest development has been covered by every major news source and last I heard we use news sources to decide what we cover here, not one anonymous WP editor making the decision about what is encyclopedia-worthy.  Sectionworker (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then it is my great honor to be the first person to ever share with you the link WP:NOTNEWS. --JBL (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While you may be feeling very honorable at this moment I need to burst your bubble and let you know that writing under a different name I have been here for over 15 years and am the leading editor of four politician's articles. Not only that, I have been the leading or one of the leading editors writing on disasters--so I think I do know the difference when it comes to current information.  BTW, you may want to look at the Boebert article which does include this information with the comment, "After Boebert and Omar talked on a call, both stated that the call went badly, while Boebert publicly accused Omar of "sympathizing with terrorists".  Sectionworker (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes this material is a heckuva lot more relevant to Boebert than it is to Omar. Especially so for your proposed addition, which I agree shouldn't go in this article. VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We shall see. We use consensus for our decisions here and right now the consensus is to not include Omar's follow-up phone call.  I can't imagine why it should be more important in the Boebart article but consensus rules. It may change... Sectionworker (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The level of pomposity here is so ridiculous as to be almost adorable. I apologize for not using a  tag, I thought it was so obvious that even someone as grand and important as yourself would be able to understand it without needing the handholding. (Will I need to explain this one, too?) --JBL (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be frank, this doesn't even have to be mentioned at all. Wikipedia is not a gossip site. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 13 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Malix27.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

New article from the Washington Post
I thought this could be useful:

Original: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/25/why-im-opposed-ilhan-omars-bill-against-islamophobia/

Archive with no paywall: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zndL1j6g3_0J:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/25/why-im-opposed-ilhan-omars-bill-against-islamophobia/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

54mmkds (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * OpEds are not useful. Zaathras (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Arabic and Somali names of her are not mentioned
Why aren’t they mentioned she was born in Somalia and Arabic and Somali are official languages of Somalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.76.19 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia pages are based on what reliable sources say about a person, and there are no reliable sources that support the idea that she has "a Somali name" different from her name, and ditto Arabic. See also 1, 2, and especially 3 for past discussions of similar questions. --JBL (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022
In subsection titled "Comments by Lauren Boebert"; 3rd (last) sentence; change "Omar said that she had had not shared..." to "Omar said that she had not shared..." by removing duplicate word "had". 2600:1700:5531:A110:4D3C:C54C:54A7:F85A (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Political Views on Kashmir issue
Madam Ilhan Omar recently visited Pakistan on a personal tour and personally went to the Line of Control (De facto border with India in Kashmir) in Azad Kashmir where she visited locals who were in some way affected by Indian Cross border attacks during border skirmishes. She also expressed her views on the Kashmir issue, since I'm not much experienced editor to go through the edit protection kindly someone make a section on this topic. I'll give reliable sources bellow. https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/20-Apr-2022/pakistan-lauds-us-congresswoman-ilhan-omar-for-raising-voice-for-kashmiris-under-indian-occupation https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/21/us-congresswoman-ilhan-omar-meets-with-pakistani-leaders#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16511712083167&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aljazeera.com%2Fnews%2F2022%2F4%2F21%2Fus-congresswoman-ilhan-omar-meets-with-pakistani-leaders https://www.trtworld.com/americas/us-congresswoman-visits-pakistan-administered-kashmir-draws-india-s-ire-56548 https://tribune.com.pk/story/2353562/us-values-its-ties-with-pakistan-ilhan-omar Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Appears to be a routine diplomatic visit and not in any way newsworthy. ValarianB (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The US government made a statement that the visit was personal Pr0pulsion 123 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * IMO that makes the case for inclusion weaker. Zaathras (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not yet seeing enough good RS to add this visit to our article.  Let's wait until it is  reported by several good sources.  Sectionworker (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Her "political view" is that she hopes there is a peaceful resolution to the dispute. I don't see that as in any way noteworthy. TFD (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Target Center 4th July
Why has no one added the ten minutes straight of booes from the Somali American crowd at the Somali Music Festival at the Target Center on 4th of July when Illhan Ohmar tried speaking?

That seems like a case of harassment that should be added. The crowd of people gathered were so angry and vocal that she couldn't even speak like she was scheduled to speak. Obviously its not just conservative politicians. if anyone doubts how much she was booed, you can look at a clip, and take note of the fact that she couldn't give her speech because they wouldn't stop shouting at her to leave. 2601:445:447F:1370:0:0:0:349D (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't normally watch Fox News Channel and Sky News Australia, or read the Daily Mail, the New York Post, etc., which were the only type of media that covered it. Until it reaches mainstream media, it lacks weight for inclusion. And if it does, then we will have an accurate account of what happened. TFD (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they are all mainstream media, they're just not reliable mainstream media. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please give examples of "reliable" mainstream media, backed up by sources on their reliability. It seems if this article is to retain any sort of impartiality (most of which seems to have been thrown to the wind already), all sources of mainstream media should be included. Additionally, if the booing episode wasn't reported on CNN or MSNBC, does that mean it didn't happen? Cons154 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You may peruse the various sources used in the Wikipedia (and those that are subject to extra scrutiny or even banned outright) at WP:RSP. As for "the booing", every politician gets booed and cheered throughout their tenure. Instances of either are hardly notable. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes how Wikipedia editors have determined the reliability of various sources. Otherwise, I have better things to do with my time than to research sources for your convenience. Note also that the right-wing echo chamber that covered the story did not verify it, so we don't know whether or not it is true. That probably explains why reputable publications did not cover it.
 * Incidentally, if something is not reported by MSNBC, CNN, etc., it doesn't mean it didn't happen, but that it's too insignificant to include, per weight.
 * TFD (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For Omar, I would also look to the big local papers, the Star-Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For most members of Congress, I would agree. But Omar is so high profile that coverage in local papers alone may not establish significance. That doesn't mean we should not use them as sources, but that unless the story is picked up nationally, it is probably too insignificant to include. TFD (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All politics is local. If we focus too much on the national publications and don't consider the local papers, who should know the subject best, we miss out on an important perspective. Both are needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Muboshgu Andrevan @ 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The criteria we use is:
 * "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Stories about her that are reported locally but not picked up by national media are for the most part minor since they do not appear in the body of reliable sources.

The booing video is similar. It was reported in the echo chamber, some of which may meet rs, but ignored elsewhere. It's only of interest to a minority of readers and there are far more things that have been given widespread coverage that are more important.

TFD (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree the booing is undue weight for a minor thing, but I don't agree that local news isn't sometimes useful. Andrevan @ 17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that local news is useful here and in general. Toa Nidhiki05 17:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not that it isn't sometimes useful, it's just that if a story about a high profile figure receives only local coverage, it lacks weight. For example, during his recent visit to Maskwacis, Alberta, Pope Francis apologized for his church's treatment of aboriginal students. The story then received international coverage and therefore gained weight for inclusion in his article. But not everything the Pope says or does that is reported in local media deserves inclusion in his articles. For example, during the Pope John Paul II in Toronto, refuse blocked a sewer causing an explosion in a nearby building. Local papers covered it with headlines such as "Holy S***!" and it was big news locally, but is not in his article. How do we decide? Do we ask editors whether they think something is important or do we accept the judgment of international media? TFD (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not necessarily the case that a local politician will have no notable or informative events that are primarily covered only in local sources. I can't think of a good example right now though. It may be a bit of an edge case. Still, in conjunction with notable events getting covered in mainstream national sources, local sources should also be used to add color and additional related information when useful. So I wouldn't discourage local sources. It's probably a decent rule of thumb that something only covered in local news and not national news isn't that notable. I don't know if that's written down anywhere though, and it's possible there might be an exception to that (but I can't think of one) Andrevan @ 22:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, most politicians have the little national or international coverage and we rely on local news media for articles about them. But when they have national or international recognition and extensive coverage in those media, stuff only covered locally is insignificant. Would you include a story about Jimmy Carter that was only covered in the Plains Statesman or the Plains Monitor but was ignored by the Atlanta Journal and other major publications? Note that neither source is used in his BLP. The only reason you would include this type of info in his biography would be if (a) you were writing an original analysis about him or (b) you had an ax to grind. See also the discussions about the false accusations of domestic violence against Omar's predecessor, Keith Ellison. Per the discussion, most editors thought they lacked weight for inclusion, since they received no coverage outside local news and the echo chamber.
 * It seems strange to me that some editors read echo chamber news, then search for sources that pass rs in order to add them, and you agree with them.
 * TFD (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the "booing incident" does not merit inclusion, but I don't agree that local news aren't usable to source facts or other types of information depending on what it is. For example there might be useful biographical details in local sources. I don't disagree that for a national figure especially the President, and in the 1970s and 1980s, there will likely be little need for local sources. I can see a need for local sources to cover more local figures for example Alessandra Biaggi might need the Riverdale Press to establish some of her information. Which she does. She is notable, and mostly only of NY interest. I can't think of a good real example of an "incident" that would only get local coverage, but it's not inconceivable. For example a matter of primarily local interest or between several notable local figures. Another good example is the Independent Democratic Conference which relies on Queens Chronicle, Lohud, and City & State for some information that it can't get from NYT, New York Daily News etc.Andrevan @ 01:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that local media is not usable, just that without widespread ongoing attention in major media, stories that have only local coverage lack weight for inclusion. The same would apply to a story published by NBC News, but ignored by other cable news networks and major newspapers. Weight refers to "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." For most politicians, that means coverage in local sources. The greater notability of the subject, the wider range of publications one would expect in order to establish weight. A news story about Biden in a Wilmington publication but ignored by national papers would lack weight. TFD (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm quibbling a bit. The weight policy isn't that local news gets 0 weight. The weight is just less. It may still merit a sentence or two. Still subject to the standard discretion and consensus of editors and the usual rules about BLP, RECENTISM, etc, but it's not impossible that a national figure could have a local story about them that should be included. Andrevan @ 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Tablet Article
Making aware of a new profile piece on Omar in Tablet. It's a long profile which, among other things, discusses her booing at the Target Center, her contentious relationship with the Jewish and Somali communities in Minneapolis, her early rise to power, her massive underperformance in 2018 relative to Biden, and antisemitism controversies. This article generally regards all of these as defining features of her career, bio, and time in office. Toa Nidhiki05</i> 21:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't think Tablet is a reliable outlet. It's not listed as a perennial source but I do not think it is good to use or at least, not without some vetting and investigation. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to start a discussion but I'd be surprised if it wasn't deemed reliable. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's referred to as a "right-leaning American Jewish web magazine." We've already established the booing at the Target Center isn't notable for this page. I'm not sure if there is anything else worthwhile in the piece. I would treat it as a partisan advocacy piece that requires proper context and attribution. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 02:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Having a slight bent doesn't make a source unreliable; we cite The Intercept here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair, but we should exercise caution here in my view. Omar is the target of a lot of vitriol. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 03:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet strangely. in the past, you've removed contentious material from the article even when it does have reliable sources  . I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out the difference between these examples and this one. Black Kite (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don’t pussyfoot around, Black Kite - say what you want to say, or don’t say anything at all. If you want to accuse me of something, say it outright. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it was obvious, really. See also Karine Jean-Pierre, Stacey Abrams and Rebekah Jones (and in case I think I'm accusing you of racism or sexism, strangely not Mayra Flores).  Admins who watch contentious BLPs like this are quite aware of editor's POVs, but when it comes to "we must include this negative material in this article, but we must remove it from the article of the person I like" it's perfectly OK to point that out, and its's equally OK for other editors to say "no, that's not OK".  Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're not accusing me of racism or sexism - although you did just admit to stalking me. You're accusing me of tendentious editing. I'd advise you to read WP:AOTE. If you actually have concerns, report me to the appropriate noticeboard - otherwise, stop wasting time discussing me and instead we can discuss the actual content here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When you have a large number of contentious BLPs on your watchlist you get to know which editors have which POV of whatever side. That's not necessarily tendentious editing, or we'd be blocking a hell of a lot of people, especially in the American politics arena.  I am merely letting you know that it is clear why you want certain material included or excluded from certain people's articles, so it is pointless trying to frame your support or opposition in neutral terms. Black Kite (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can think whatever you want, but I'm sure I don't have to remind you to assume good faith in discussions. You aren't above that, and it's fairly telling how your comments have yielded no productive discussion while there is a productive discussion at the very bottom of this chat. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lack of coverage in non-right-leaning sources is not the only reason editors have objected to inclusion of attack material in Omar's BLP. Other reasons have included WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:10YEARTEST. NightHeron (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m aware of the excuses, yes. I’d be happy to review the article more fully to remove content that fails all of those, of course. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet it appears you're perfectly happy to employ "excuses" like WP:NOTNEWS or WP:10YEARTEST (on this article ) to remove material when it suits your own POV... Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If those standards are going to be applied, I'd prefer them be applied consistently, yes. Do you object to those standards, or do you only object when the content isn't favorable to Omar? You and I both know that wouldn't quite be fair.
 * Of course, what we're discussing here is not a breaking news piece. It's full feature article tracing Omar's career from start to the present, with interviews from the local Somali and Jewish communities in Minneapolis - content that typically is not news and covers material tracing back almost 10 years - the sort of thing we want to see here. Let's focus on the source instead of your edit history of mine - perhaps you find the source personally objectionable because of your own political viewpoints, or have a substantive objection to the content? I'd love to hear either. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If a minor news item was excluded from a BLP because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirement, it does not suddenly become notable because a right- wing leaning publication later dredges up the news story as part of an attack piece. NightHeron (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence the outlet is right-wing? That's a fairly bold claim. There is one source which notes them as "right-leaning", but that's not prohibitive from being reliable or notable - we use plenty of outlets with an ideological lean on Wikipedia. Just on this page alone we cite The Guardian (widely positioned on the mainstream left of British newspapers), The Bulwark (website) (an ideologically neoconservative newspaper), The Nation (a progressive newspaper), Teen Vogue (a strongly progressive newspaper), Al Jazeera, Vox (an ideologically progressive website), The Forward, and the The New Republic (a left-of-center outlet). In fact, we already cite Tablet on this article - twice! As far as I can tell, we've done so for years. So the sudden claim this outlet is unreliable seems a bit surprising to me. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I corrected the term I used to "right-leaning". I didn't say that Tablet is generally unreliable. Reliability depends on context. Their POV is obviously unfriendly to Omar, and the article you referred to is clearly an attack piece. NightHeron (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Toa, their organization and funding are tied to people who think the ethnic cleaning of Palestinians is just peachy, so not really what I'd consider a go-to for sourcing content in a Muslim woman's BLP... Zaathras (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really the most accurate assessment of that, and I'd also note that Al Jazeera sources we cite have some... unpleasant ties. I've not actually seen any substantive objection to the content of this article, which is unfortunate. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable, I haven't seen evidence to the contrary. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The Tablet article is very long and detailed. Discussing it in the abstract is not very useful. What would be more productive in my view is for someone to propose some specific language to improve this article, using Tablet as a reference. Cullen328 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this. In particular, I think there are two areas this article could stand to benefit from: specifically, the article's interviews with the local Somali and Jewish communities. The Somali community's somewhat split relationship with Omar, which the piece goes into great length about, is pretty interesting, as are how the local Jewish community in the Twin Cities has interacted with Omar over the years. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree this would be the constructive approach. However I would caution that the Tablet has taken a sharp turn not just to the right but to some outright FRINGEy content in the past few years. So while it would be very valuable for us to cover valid content about her standing in these local communities, we should read the Tablet reporting with a critical eye as to whether it is RS as to full depiction of the facts.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Tablet article probably fails News organizations, since it is "analysis," rather than news reporting, even if the publication describes it as news. The writer was not present at the concert. I notice their comment, "the booers didn’t seem to represent a majority of the Target Center crowd." If that's true, then the other sources presented were misleading. In end though the story still lacks weight.TFD (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with TFD. Tablet is far too committed to a pro-Israeli position (which includes critical hostility to anyone who challenges US policy regarding that country) to be reliable on this topic. You get some excellent articles, and trash bundled together, the latter occasionally written by scholars with good credentials. compare this by Jeffrey Herf with the Amin al-Husseini page which surveys with painstaking detail the current scholarship on that figure, and gives not the caricature we get in Herf (caricature to smear Palestinians via Husseini has been a meme in Jewish polemics with the that people’s aspirations to autonomy) but a more nuanced portrait, warts and all. On the other hand, Batya Ungar-Sargon’s article is excellent on the origins of Yiddish gives a rounded view of all positions on a controversial topic, which has inflected IP identity issues.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Victims of Cyberbullying" Category
Omar has been the target of numerous threats, attacks, and harrassment incidents, some of which is directly rooted in islamophobia.

I think it would be appropriate to add her to the category "Victims of Cyberbullying" for this reason.

YoungArtist79 (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * While it is in my humble opinion undeniable, that as you described, Omar has been the target of rampant and hateful sentiment on the internet, such is not out of the ordinary-generally speaking, with regards to high profile political figures in the United States; similarly that same status has provided Omar with a layer of personal insulation from these attacks that we typically not afforded or ascribed to notable victims of cyberbullying. OgamD218 (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That shouldn't even be an actual category, being bullied is not a life-defining characteristic. ValarianB (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the families of Amanda Todd and Megan Meier would disagree with you there. With that being said, and to expand on my earlier point, such cases are rare and involve experiences not reasonably comparable to that of Omar's. Moreover, @YoungArtist79, a checked and not such category or something similar appears to exist at the moment? Please advise if there's something that I have missed. OgamD218 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a category called "Victims of cyberbulliyng"
 * Category:Victims of cyberbullying YoungArtist79 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also a whole section on her article called "Threats and harrassment"
 * I'd say she belongs in that category. YoungArtist79 (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, if you're going to link to a category for discussion purposes, you gotta stick a colon at the beginning like this, Category:Victims of cyberbullying, otherwise it adds this talk page to the category, which is not desired. (I fixed it for you already) Second, literally every member of Congress, of both parties is attacked day in and day out by online trolls. It comes with the territory of being a public political figure, and as such is not biographically-defining for Rep. Omar or any other. Zaathras (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Confusing language in first paragraph.
The first paragraph needs to be cleaned up.

Currently reads "She has been the target of several death threats, as well as derogatory comments by political opponents, including Donald Trump, as a result of her background."

This is confusing because it can easily be interpreted to mean that Donald Trump has made death threats against her, which I don't believe has happened (The sources for this paragraph don't mention it.) 71.24.3.9 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems clearly separated. Of course we could add that he tweeted a video of Omar with the World Trade Towers burning just before a spike in death threats against her. Or, his claims that thousands of Muslims cheered as the towers fell, which was made up, as he proposed banning Muslims from the country. But, I don't think that's necessary. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Are we sure about the latest trimming of text around the Rep. Omar's remarks?
Form the NPR citation, "It is the second time that the House voted to condemn anti-Semitism as a rebuke of Omar, although she is not named in either resolution." Her name is not in the resolution, but the source does state plainly that her remarks were the impetus for the resolution. Also, that article links to an earlier NPR one that discussed Rep. Omar's previous controversial remarks. There, Speaker Pelosi is directly quoted, "But Congresswoman Omar's use of anti-Semitic tropes...". That squarely puts Omar's name next to "anti-Semitism". Zaathras (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Is "use of anti-Semetic tropes" enough to justify "antisemitism"? Especially as Omar has claimed to be naive of the tropes. Omar has criticized Israel, that's not the same thing as anti-semitism. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, it has happened twice so far, which seems to indicate a pattern. Zaathras (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you need to review a little history before you do anymore posting on this.   Sectionworker (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you should take you patronizing attitude and direct it at someone who may value it. Zaathras (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Twice is twice, not a pattern. I'm reminded of the Ian Fleming quote: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." And I give significant WP:WEIGHT to her Jewish colleagues backing her up, including Dean Phillips, Adam Schiff, and Jan Schakowsky. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * so...only her Democratic colleagues are supporting her. None on the conservative side of the aisle. Also, Adam Schiff condemned her remarks. He didn't "back her up". You're confusing the remarks with the action over the past week.
 * Even the ADL is critical. Buffs (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There is notable, widespread condemnation for her remarks going so far as to pass a House resolution on the matter led by her own party:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * etc. Buffs (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, to shut up the Republicans, who wouldn't shut up otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Let's just stick with the facts. Buffs (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ... because it is clearly partisan, attempted character assassination. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite, most significant patterns contain more than two tenuous data points. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What article change is actually under discussion here? It's hard to tease it out with the recent flurry of edits, but hasn't the section on her remarks gotten longer? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Longer section, more WP:RSes, more WP:DUE weight for WP:LEAD expansion, etc. Not a "partisan" thing at all--editors are simply sticking to WP policies. Normchou   💬 19:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs Committee Removal
[update: If there is going to be a debate, I am not participating]

SORRY. I really do apologize for placing the question in the editing place.

Anywho, should we (not me but someone more qualified) mention the Foreign Affairs committee departure? JohnDVandevert (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In the lead? I'm inclined to think it's a bit WP:UNDUE for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that it could go there but I'm unsure if it's important enough to add to its own section. Thoughts? JohnDVandevert (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this incident says anything important about Ilhan Omar; it's newsworthy because it shows the extent of extreme partisanship by the House leadership. Any discussion of her removal from the Foreign Affairs Committee should include context, e.g., the same House leadership put the liar and extremist MTG on important committees . NightHeron (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How interesting. I agree. JohnDVandevert (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "...it's newsworthy because it shows the extent of extreme partisanship by the House leadership." Was it newsworthy 2 years ago when the Democrats did the same thing? Buffs (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It was (D)ifferent.  DoubleCross  ( ‡ ) 19:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the MTG and Gosar articles. Sectionworker (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when you have a criminal investigation, it is generally not a good idea to include on the investigative panel people who have expressed support for the subjects of the investigation and could possibly have been involved. I don't think what I just wrote should be included. But, I don't see the removal from this committee as a subject for the lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing Husband's and Ex-husbands' names, per separate BLPN discussion
I have just taken Omar's husband's and ex-husbands' names out of the article, per opinions of other editors on a BLPN (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#George_Santos:_Name_of_His_Ex-Wife ) that names of spouses need to add significant value. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Omar's case is not particularly similar to Santos's. To the extent that the discussion on BLPN touches on article, the one editor who mentioned it  did not endorse any edit of this kind.  I think you should revert yourself.  --JBL (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And indeed this is bordering on POINT-y Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

firsts
Re: the claim that Ilhan Omar is the first naturalized citizen of African birth in the U.S. Congress, should it be slightly reworded, since Elizabeth Furse (Representative of Oregon, 1993-1999) also fits that wording? "Born in Africa" and "of African birth" may not read as distinct to everyone. LoveIsSurrender (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Saying "Elizabeth Furse is the first African member of Congress" is like saying John McCain is the first Panamanian-born Senator. If the sources are making a delineation between actual, African-born heritage and the offspring of white colonialism, then that is a notable distinction that needs to remain. Zaathras (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I took the claim out. If there's a source for it (ideally more than one), let's add it to the body first. Hopefully we'll get some ideas about how to phrase the fact. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Rep. Omar is the deputy chair of the CPC, not the whip
I noticed it was inconsistent with the article on the CPC so I checked with their website and the whip is Greg Casar, not Ilhan Omar. I don’t have the authority to edit this so someone else please do. AnarchoPlasma (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, have fixed this. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)