Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 5

Lead
The policy is clear on this—MOS:LEAD states that prominent controversies must be addressed in the lead. This includes the AIPAC-antisemitism controversy regarding her recent tweets. This should be reinserted into the article:

A critic of Israel, Omar has attracted controversy for her position and comments on the issue. In 2019, she drew condemnation from Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House leadership, and a number of Jewish organizations for a tweet that was perceived as antisemitic, in which she suggested that American support for Israel was rooted in money spent by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). She later apologized for the tweet in a statement, and added that she "reaffirm[s] the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry."

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What's the basis for the claim that this is a "prominent" controversy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a complicated issue, and it needs to be properly described in the body of page. There are many different views about it. See, for example, Ilhan Omar is right about the influence of the Israel lobby. On a balance, I would not include this to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf Do some reading. The Wikipedia policy issue is not complex whatsoever - this has received coverage from just about every national media outlet in the country, and per MOS:LEAD it must be addressed in the opening. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference between this and the discussion at Rashia Tlaib. Omar's comments received national coverage, but much of that coverage acknowledged that at least some of the outrage was exaggerated and politically motivated. The lead paragraph of political BLPs rarely include mentions of gaffes: Howard Dean's doesn't mention his notorious "scream", for instance. Moreover, Kevin McCarthy, Bob Dornan, Ron Paul, and Jesse Jackson have all had fairly high-profile accusations of antisemitism made against them. None of those instances are mentioned in the lead paragraph of their respective bios. Nblund talk 17:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is that most of the OSE mentions here are not primarily known for said statements. Most of the coverage on Omar, to date, has focused on this - therefore inclusion is DUE for the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary removing the content, you said she is not known specifically for this. What you personally think she is known for is utterly irrelevant; the sources indicate this is a prominent controversy. MOS:LEAD is very clear on this: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The coverage justifies this characterization. And we can find plenty of examples of double standards on Wikipedia, but written policy is what guides content. Note that Eric Holder, Rick Scott, Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump, and Bill Clinton all mention prominent scandals/controversies in the opening paragraphs. Those are the articles that are following the stated policy of MOS:LEAD (just as an example). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not carry weight, nor do theories about whether or not the controversy is "politically motivated." This has been treated seriously by near every major outlet in the U.S. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that simply noticing all her views on different subjects in the lead, including her criticism of Israel and the alleged pro-Israel lobby organizations in the US would be OK. However, providing criticisms and responses to criticisms in the lead is a bad idea. We have a body of the page for that. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

According to policy, it's not a bad idea; it's actually required. If this were her campaign website, it would be a bad idea, but that's not Wikipedia is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And the lead shouldn't note all of her views; it should only note the most significant issues based on WP:RS WP:SECONDARY coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , thank you for removing that. There is no consensus for including it, and the arguments here are lousy. The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article; this isn't one of them. And it should certainly not be stuck in the lead as the one single thing pertaining to her political life that's not just some biographical fact. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I work on a lot of articles on political figures and in my experience Drmies and My very best wishes are both correct. Gandydancer (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought "importance" was largely determined by the sources, not the opinions of editors; apparently, that's a "lousy argument." It's also interesting that it's appropriate to address controversies in the lead for some articles, but isn't in others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "isn't in others". Which pages do you mean exactly? Let's fix them? More important, the controversy IS currently covered on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Icewhiz: She's probably better known for being a member of Congress than she is for this tweet. She's gained a great deal of notoriety for this in the last week - but it seems likely that it would fail the 10 year test. The average American probably remembers Howard Dean's scream far more clearly than they remember the 50 state strategy. But the former is not in the lead and the latter is.
 * @Wikieditor19920: to be frank, I think that you're adopting a strategy of gish gallop here that borders on disruptive. I'm sure you can see the difference between Bill Clinton's impeachment and Ilhan's tweet. WP:OTHERSTUFF can actually carry weight (read the essay) and there's no policy based reason for your suggestion that we should ignore reliably sourced stories that note the political motivations behind the outrage here. In general, political bios do not cover "gaffes" in the lead, but they do cover major scandals that have a lasting impact on the political trajectory of a career. This isn't an oversight or an inconsistency - those gaffes are usually covered in the article body - but the fact that the generally don't make it in to the lead reflects a widely held view among editors that many of these scandals are not essential for the lead paragraph. Nblund talk 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already made my point and clearly there's no consensus on this yet, but I'll respond because I was addressed directly. First of all, because you disagree with my points does not make them disruptive, so I would hope that you'd avoid citing that policy seemingly to silence opposing arguments; this is a sensitive and serious matter, and there should be a serious and policy-focused discussion when issues like this arise. Second, you are missing my point entirely with the Clinton/Dean analogy. Obviously the substance of the Clinton impeachment is different, but what determines WP:WEIGHT is WP:RS coverage, so it doesn't matter if it's a scandal over allegedly bigoted remarks, impeachment, or whatever: per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we should document what the sources say. Here, we have coverage from nearly every major outlet in the country, including the NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc., so calling this "not important" or applying the 10YT (I'll just remind you of WP:CRYSTAL) seems to contradict the sources.

As far as the Dean scream and what the "average American" thinks, again, WP:DUE says Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public., so the decision to include the 50-state strategy instead of the scream may or may not be the right decision, I'll have to look into it—and again, this is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments shouldn't be made these types of discussions, because there are any number of examples that could support either side. Instead, we should look to policy, and since we're discussing the lead, MOS:LEAD seems the appropriate one to refer to. As far as "political bias," you're almost certainly correct (political gamesmanship over controversies? WP:YOUDONTSAY) but I don't see what bearing that has on the content itself. With respect to WP:BLP and WP:CONSENSUS, I don't think anyone should attempt to reinsert this into the article while the discussion plays out, but I hope that the final result reflects the best interpretation of WP policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I'm not saying they're disruptive because I disagree with them, I'm saying they're disruptive because they're repetitive and unserious. No reliable source is going to justify comparing Tlaib's tweet to Clinton's impeachment - and it's a silly argument and it is time wasting and disruptive to ask me to refute it. Similarly, it is time wasting and disruptive to pretend that WP:OTHER (an essay) says that we shouldn't consider other articles (again, please read it). Similarly, it's not constructive to cite MOS:LEAD for a fifth time as if the problem is that every other editor hasn't seen it yet. Dial it back a little. Nblund talk 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And in my opinion, the "unserious" approach is the whole make-it-up-as-you-go-along, knee-jerk kind of evaluation you're engaging in, but that's just me. And again, you've missed my point completely - the key questions are "what do the sources say" and "what does policy say" - and please, point out to me where I said we shouldn't consider other articles. The analogy isn't between a tweet an impeachment - it's not even a comparison - it's looking at how prominently reported scandals/controversies were addressed in both. I've said what I have to say here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, do you think that the Clinton impeachment got more or less coverage than Tlaib's tweet? Do you understand that, when I said that gaffes rarely get covered in BLP leads, I wasn't really talking about one of the most significant political scandals in American history as a "gaffe"? Nblund talk 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're hung up on the wrong thing. Do you understand that I'm not comparing the two? What I'm saying is very simple: when something receives significant coverage, it is accorded WP:WEIGHT. Whether something is a prominent controversy is determined by WP:WEIGHT by sources, and if it is, then it's appropriate to include in the lead per MOS:LEAD. The question isn't more or less, it's proportion. My policy analysis here, and of the sources, is that this reasoning justifies inclusion of the paragraph at the start of this talk section in the article's opening. Perhaps I'm wrong, and clearly others disagree, but please don't misrepresent my point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Everyone agrees. If someone chimes in to say that "prominent controversies shouldn't be covered", then you should go ahead and cite MOS:LEAD for a seventh time and talk about Bill Clinton, but until then, please stop doing that. Nblund talk 01:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, apparently I misunderstood: were you not objecting to covering this in the lead? I'm trying to address how this article currently whitewashes a major scandal over accusations of antisemitism, but we could talk about Bill Clinton and Howard Dean instead if you like. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is in the news for a few days. It is not a "major scandal" just because you say so. WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and all that.  nableezy  - 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not recentism. The tweet was years ago, and controversy on the issue is not new either []. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean what is in the news right now is not recentism? Huh, learning new things everyday. That link does not support in any way that there is some controversy. Much less a prominent one.  nableezy  - 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the date again. It is a year ago. Her notability i.e. political career started in 2016 -- meaning that a year is proportionally a large span of time.--Calthinus (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh yeah, I said about that source That link does not support in any way that there is some controversy. Much less a prominent one.  nableezy  - 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to show that the source specifically says there was a controversy (all I need is WP:SECONDARY coverage) but I can anyways: . That being said, personally I think this needs to be covered but maybe not explicitly in the lede (more like -- "has repeatedly been the subject of controversies regarding discourse about pro-Israel lobbying" in the lede, don't need to go into gory details there). --Calthinus (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Notoriety in the pro-Israel community" is not exactly evidence of there being some controversy. The argument was that this has been a significant controversy for some time. Then evidence of the controversy from some time would in fact be needed wouldnt it? All that said, I agree with your bottom line. I personally would not have a problem with a line like that in the lead. Maybe not that exact wording, but something similar.  nableezy  - 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Notoriety" by almost any interpretation means controversy in this context. But cool maybe we can get somewhere with this -- do you think a good middle ground would be to have a simple line saying something to the effect of ? Imo this would stay on the page as long as the controversy is persistent (her political career is about three years long and it has been a recurring theme during a good portion of that short time), to be removed when and if the issue is judged to have died down after some time. --Calthinus (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a specific subset finds her comments controversial. I dont see how that makes it a significant controversy though. As far as the line, I would prefer .  nableezy  - 21:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * this is very close to working with me, with only one issue as I see it -- the most controversial statement she made was not about the effect, but about the manner of pro-Israel lobbying. I think it would be better to just say . Does that work in your eyes?--Calthinus (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure.  nableezy  - 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM doesn't mean we should leave it out. And WP:NOTNEWS sounds nice when you put it in a sentence like that, but the policy itself actually refers to original or routine reporting, not WP:SECONDARY coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It means it should not be overly emphasized. That we write biographies conservatively and with a longer view than the current news cycle. If this ends up being a significant piece of her biography, and there is literally no way of knowing that now, then sure it would make sense to cover it in the lead. But as of right now it is just whats in the news. You seem to have only looked at the first part of WP:NOTNEWS, not the part where it says  While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia is also not written in news style.  nableezy  - 20:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are bending over backwards to try and make this policy support excluding this well-documented and heavily covered controversy, and it's just not working. This is not regarding a simple "news report," which is the section you pulled that from. The goal should be to evaluate sources, policy, and then determine what the outcome should be—it's pretty clear you think you know what the outcome should be and are now backtracking and trying to find support in policy in ways that just do not fit. And significance is determined by sources, not editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. You didnt seem to respond to my comments at all, only repeating your own. I dont know if that is how you expect a debate to occur, but I repeat. If this ends up being a significant piece of her biography, and there is literally no way of knowing that now, then sure it would make sense to cover it in the lead. As of right now, the "controversy" is strictly the current news cycle.  nableezy  - 21:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need a WP:CRYSTALBALL to add content. The controversies over her position and multiple comments on the Israel-Palestine conflict already is a significant aspect of her public profile and should be addressed in the lead. This is based on the sources, which include the NYT, CNN, WaPo, Haaretz, and numerous others. That's what our jobs as editors are; not to dismiss or question the legitimacy of controversies reported on by WP:RS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * does work for you?--Calthinus (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be appropriate. Good suggestion! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well Nableezy also agreed to it above, so it looks like this issue is resolved. I'm going to implement it now. --Calthinus (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I still do not think this should be included in the lead per arguments above, and not only me (see discussion). I am not sure what Nableezy thinks. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nableezy agreed to it-- actually minus a difference of about three words (see discussion above) what I added was exactly his proposal. That aside, could you spell out what your issue with it is exactly so we can find a middle ground and move forward?--Calthinus (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey all. Not being aware of this discussion, I edited (and reverted once I realized this thread existed) the lead the remove the last sentence ("Omar has made a number of comments regarding Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and pro-Israel lobbying that have drawn controversy."). I did so based on a plain reading of MOS:BLPLEAD, which states "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each." So, per that policy (and few others cited above), I'd say that sentence should be removed, but I won't do it unless we reach consensus. Drummerdg (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that single sentence is fine. But there is a problem with that. Its the only set of statements of hers that would be included in the lead. I think what actually should happen is there be a paragraph summarizing some of her political views, the ones we have in the article are
 * Omar identifies as a democratic socialist."
 * Free Tuition
 * Criticism of Saudi, including calls for a boycott
 * Israel, and this latest kerfuffle
 * Support of LGBTQA rights
 * Opposition to the US recognition of Guaido
 * Now me personally, I dont think the last merits much mention in the article much less the lead. And the material on this particular episode has been expanded to take up way too much space on her political positions. I am fine with the sentence above, but it needs to be included with other material on her views. The main problem that is happening at this article is that everybody is just writing about literally one news cycle, as though this is Controversy over Ilhan Omar's Tweet. It is not, and the rush to stuff in every last thing that somebody can find because it supports their position is making this article unbalanced. That is what WP:RECENTISM is about. Yes, recent material can and at times should be included in an article. But this is a biography. Nothing about her early life is in the lead. Nothing about spending time in a refugee camp. The only thing people are editing, and adding, is what is in the news right this second. And personally I think that a fundamentally bad thing for a biography. Yes, a line on this can be in the lead. But not as though this is the only position she has ever taken.  nableezy  - 01:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Quote obviously, there is no consensus to include in the manner it was included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's far too recent an event to be described as a major scandal quite yet. We generally let RSes make that determination. The fact that several major news outlets all reported essentially the same story doesn't mean this has enduring significance to Omar's biography. That's how the news cycle works; next week they'll have moved on to a different scandal. The controversy over all her tweets, including those that exercised the "pro-Israel community", currently takes up 247 words (11%) of this 2,274-word bio (excluding headers, captions, etc.), which I think is is more than sufficient given the existing sourcing. Of the 87 sources currently cited in the article as a whole, only eight are reliable news outlets addressing this controversy. In terms of this article, that doesn't look like a "major scandal" to me. Including the anti-Semitism allegations as the only political event of her career specifically mentioned in the lead would be giving it undue weight, as Drmies pointed out, and would be out of proportion to the existing coverage of Omar's life and career. According to numerous other sources, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Forward, Haaretz, and Vox, the latest controversy is as much about Republican leaders' hypocrisy and double standards as it is about Omar's comments. Jake Tapper on CNN made a whole skit about the irony of it. Nancy Pelosi later defended Omar, saying that Republicans didn't "have clean hands". To include only criticism of Omar in the lead section minus this context would be highly misleading and a borderline WP:ATTACK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC))
 * I don't think it's productive to call this "defamatory" (that' a legal designation that may or may not apply), but I agree with basically everything else here. It's definitely not an improvement to vaguely reference "controversies" without offering any meaningful about the nature of the controversy. If this becomes a defining feature of Omar's career then it might be worth mentioning, but it's currently just a story-of-the-week. It's well covered in the main body, but you're going to need to wait a while to determine whether or not it warrants coverage in the lead. Nblund talk 03:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right; I've struck the word "defamatory". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The sentence, proposed by Nableezy with an edit of three words by me which he agreed to ("the effects of pro-Israel lobbying" > "pro-Israel lobbying") stated There is no "criticism" in this sentence.--Calthinus (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's splitting hairs. What's a "controversy", especially a political one, without "criticism"? The one involving Omar certainly involved a good deal of criticism by her detractors. No matter, simply replace the latter term with the former in what I wrote above, and I'll stand by it. Writing about unspecified "controversies" is still unduly vague and doesn't convey meaningful information, as Nblund observed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not splitting hairs. A controversy just means it is heated, often and with two sides. Here's Merriam Webster [] : . Here's Cambridge []: . This is clearly a disagreement, there are clearly two sides here, I really hope you can see this. And it is persistent. I know I will be asked to provide RS for every one of my talk page statements so here's one -- Ron Latz, a proven progressive, an ally of Keith Ellison, who has "qualms" (his words) about the Israeli government, who tried to reach out to her and help her understand why comments like these are dangerous, to no avail, and he now says we have to move past the "kid gloves" []. And yes, because I need secondary coverage for my talk page statements, enjoy the reading [] [] []. Controversy means it is heated and there are two sides, and when these facts are true (and they are here), and if we have persistence and extensive secondary coverage (which we do), we do include it in the lede. From the lede of Donald Trump, a good example (and one which I emphatically support hte current form of): Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A major part of my problem here is that this is vague the the point of being meaningless: it's not even clear from reading the statement whether Omar is critical or supportive of lobbying. The statement also references "a number of comments" - but the "number" here appears to be "2". The advice from WP:LABEL seems worth considering: "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." And none of this addresses the larger problem of notability. It's true that career-ending gaffes (like Todd Akin or Trent Lott's) sometimes show up in the lead, but we're not there yet. Nblund talk 15:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not comparing this to "career-ending gaffes", my comparison above is to Donald Trump, which pretty extensively covers controversies, which, like Omar, have spanned up much of the time of his political career. Now regarding lobbyists, this is OR on your part, we do not have statements from Omar on "lobbyists" in general -- instead she singled out three in particular, and grouped AIPAC, which consists of mostly Jews, with the NRA and corporate fossil fuel forces who deny global warming. I personally am very skeptical that she is broadly against lobbies, in which case we might also be hearing about the LGBT lobby, et cetera. Lastly, that a Jewish pro-Israel lobby somehow "naturally" groups with the NRA and fossil fuel climate change denialists would be very, very POV (and problematic in other ways too).--Calthinus (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This cant be the only view of hers covered in the lead. I dont have a problem including it within a paragraph summarizing her positions.  nableezy  - 16:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Calthinus: I think you're misinterpreting my comment about lobbying. My point is that it's unclear from the sentence whether Omar supports or opposes lobbying in behalf of the Israeli government, or what position she takes on the Israel-Palestine conflict - it's so vague that a reader could just as easily assume that she made controversial pro-AIPAC comments. Donald Trump's racial controversies are so extensive that they have their own spinout article. Despite that, the lead in Trump's case still came as the result of a a contentious RfC. Lots of his other controversies (most notably the sexual assault allegations) were never included because of a lack of consensus. Omar's two tweets obviously don't even approach this level of notability - so this suggests the bar is fairly high here. Nblund talk 16:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As she clarified in her final comment, "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry". That is not OR. That is what she does - according to her. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support adding a general paragraph on her views with Israel/Jewish related things being only one sentence. Down to work on such a section in my sandbox if you want/have sources/ideas to incorporate.--Calthinus (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay I did misunderstand you. That is a good point that it's not clear if she supports or opposes AIPAC etc -- that could probably be fixed. But I want to point out that this is an incredibly unfair metric of comparison. Literally anything about Donald Trump is more notable than literally anything about Ilhan Omar -- one is the president of the most powerful country in the world -- and all these very notable things have to compete for inclusion in Trump's lede. In fact, if we were to include all the notable controversies concerning Trump in the lede, which might include, zoom in...  (1. sexual assaults assault charges each of which is its own controversy, 2. "grab them by the p****", 3. imitating that reporter, 4. ripping off Polish workers, 5. relations with mafia, 6. hiring discrimination, 7. reportedly hiring illegal immigrants, 8. anti-Semitic "sheriff star", 9. Russiagate, 10. firing Comey within Russiagate, 11. business relations with totalitarian regimes, 12. business relations creating conflicts of interest -- let me take a breath -- 13. tax returns, 14. use of twitter in relation to professionalism, 15. frequency of untrue statements, 16. suspiciously Russophile foreign policy, 17. engaging in Soros conspiracy theories the day after the Pittsburgh attacks, 18. and actually sour relations with pretty much every minority in the US and the growth of white supremacist movements under his watch while he defunds programs to combat hate, 19. and how could we forget the border wall, 20. and the shutdown, 21. and the revolving door cabinet, 22. but not to forget quarreling with US allies and 23. criticisms from and bad relations with basically all living past presidents, 24. and then the bone spurs, 25. and the classist "small" million dollar loan, 26. did I mention Helsinki... ok I think I can stop now... oh wait there's so many I"m forgetting the most important ones like 27. the Muslim travel ban, 28. the trade war with China, 29. the trade war with everyone others, 30. Iran, 31. Jerusalem, 32. Paris Agreement and inaction on global warming, ok actually stopping now)   ... As you can see basically every one of Trump's controversies is going to be more notable (more press) than Omar's and they have to compete for inclusion, so we end up with just the general racism issue, the Russian investigation, and the border wall. Additionally, I don't know if the sexual assault victims would honestly be happy about being mentioned in his lede, I suspect not. Instead the relevant metric is the notability of the controversy relative to the other things that would go into the lede. Omar is known for basically four things at this point : (1) her current position -- already covered, (2) her background -- already covered, (3) hijab in Congress motion, (4) this.--Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * if we have a source saying that she has made opposing lobbyists in general a core part of her platform, it could warrant mention, and you could persuade me to include that. --Calthinus (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * are you seriously going to quote the dictionary at me to try and separate criticism and controversy, especially after you quoted at me earlier? Pull the other one. This controversy was over a tweet that people called anti-Semitic. That's not the same as any old disagreement, like the proper spelling of "aluminium". This was a directed criticism that prompted an apology in response. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, just like you can't change the rules, you can't change the English language. One quote from a wiki policy page -- which readers generally don't read -- does not change the meaning of the word controversy. The proposed version doesn't even mention the debatably anti-Semitic tweet, it merely mentions that she made controversial statements, without saying what they were -- so how is this relevant? For all the reader knows at this point in the article it could be that she declared a crusade against mayonnaise and the mayo lobby was offended :) (I would support this crusade/jihad against mayonnaise very passionately). If you just want to argue with me because I"m a very punchable guy, you can do so without wasting public talk page space on my talk page, where it won't waste everyone else's time, and you can truly annihilate my blasphemy against mayonnaise. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggestion A supporter of the Boycott, Divestement, Sanctions campaign against Israel, Omar's position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and criticisms of American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbyists have drawn some controversy and accusations of bias, characterizations which Omar has disputed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion Two An outspoken critic of Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns, Omar has expressed support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction campaign and criticized American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. Some of her comments on the subject have prompted accusations of bias, which Omar has disputed or apologized for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No to both, because this is cherry-picking and unduly emphasizing negative coverage about a living person. Please see comments by Nableezy above - that could be something reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And how would you suggest they be amended? A reminder that repeatedly objecting to other editors proposals without any constructive suggestions or references to policy could be construed as WP:STONEWALLING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the statement Please see comments by Nableezy above - that could be something reasonable is what's called a "constructive suggestion". Care to retract that accusation? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually don't like this, I don't think her support of BDS is itself notable enough for inclusion in this case, as the controversy has centered around her comments about AIPAC. In fact her support for BDS has been tepid at times, she has mentioned she has "reservations", so maybe its not the best thing to put in the lede. --Calthinus (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Proposal for views paragraph going off Nableezy's idea -- a rough sketch of what to include -- 1 sentence for Israel/AIPAC/Jews related stuff, 1 sentence for Saudi stuff, 1 sentence Dem Socialist and related things (universal healthcare, minimum wage raise, tuition for those from families making less than 125 grand -- these go together, it can be slightly longer than others), and lastly 1 sentence for immigration views. Other issues are very specific (LGBT rights, Venezuela) and hard to group into another sentence.--Calthinus (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I will draft a new version. Hopefully one that doesn't place too much on the "Jews related stuff" as to make other editors uncomfortable. Her other policies have not received as much coverage as her commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I've found at least one source to draw from, the Cut.

A progressive, Omar supports access to a living wage, affordable housing and healthcare, student loan debt forgiveness, the protection of DACA, and the abolition of ICE. She has strongly opposed the immigration policies of the Trump administration, including the travel ban. As a member of the congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, Omar has also been an outspoken critic of Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns and expressed limited support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction campaign and criticized American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. Some of her comments on the subject have prompted accusations of bias, which Omar has disputed or apologized for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support but I think to shorten the "Jewsrael" part of the paragraph, we can reduce the middle of the third sentence to  -- this both reduces it and cuts one possibly contentious aspect, namely the word "influence" which can be interpreted as a dogwhistle (and has, in George Soros' lead). Actually also, not sure how to fix it but many critics don't necessarily accuse Omar of bias but do take issue with her commentary and the last sentence is kind of missing that (it says only  -- perhaps  -- less personal?) --Calthinus (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, though I don't think the term "Jewsrael" is one that should be used on talk pages. Honestly, I disagree with at least some of your suggestions. Influence is exactly what she was criticizing. I went with bias over bigotry or antisemitism even though the sources provide more support for the latter two as a compromise. They are essentially synonyms in this context. Here's how the NYT put it: Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no difference for me between bias and bigotry in this context. I didn't even realize I replaced it. Re influence, an easy way to fix it then is to say "what she sees as the influence of" -- that way we are not using Wikipedia's voice to factually assert anything (implicitly or not) about said "influence". --Calthinus (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I think the wording you proposed addresses that well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- not trying to make things more complicated, but her statement on the Monroe Doctrine is possibly also valuable for describing her overall foreign policy vision, but on the other hand I am struggling to find secondary sources on that.--Calthinus (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As Drmies said, "The lead should summarize the most important parts of the article; this isn't one of them". My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that based on the sources, or your personal opinion? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you look at BLP pages of other members of the United States House of Representatives, you will see that the leads almost never describe their personal views (even though they do have views described in sources). On this page and a couple of other pages we have way too much coverage on the personal views and controversies, even in the body of the pages. This is WP:Recentism and skewing the content. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not about about identifying her personal views. First, these have been reported as her views on policy. Second, for a politician who has been embroiled in a nationally covered controversy, their openings should and usually do address it in the lead. It's improper to dismiss or diminish this controversy, and the current iteration of the page presents a real NPOV problem: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, these are about stupid twitter nonsense, not about policy. Stupid twitter nonsense seems really important for 15 minutes and then, because it is stupid twitter nonsense and not connected to anything substantive, it goes away.  This happens over and over and over again.  NPOV absolutely, completely, 100% does not require that "there was a controversy about a tweet" headlines end up in the lead section of any article, ever.  Your reading would put NPOV in direct contradiction of its supplement Recentism; this is not a defensible perspective.  --JBL (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think 's suggested change would be an improvement, but my view is that we still can't really tell whether or not this is a sustained controversy or just another short-lived media firestorm. There probably isn't any wording that will fix that fundamental problem. If the editors that want this want to start an RFC or solicit additional views at the BLP noticeboard, maybe that's worthwhile - but I strongly suspect that the outcome will still be "no consensus" at this point. I'm open to revisiting this in a few weeks if the story is persistent. Nblund talk 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I've inserted the first half of the paragraph on her views, but left out the section on Israel. I'd just like to say that no editor, no matter how well versed in policy, can predict the future, so I think we should be making content decisions over the information we already have available and not what may or may not be true in several weeks. I also disagree with the supposed distinction between a controversy that's the result of a "media firestorm" versus a legitimate one. We can assume that any "real" controversy would unquestionably be followed by intense media coverage, so I think it's sort of inappropriate for editors to be expressing personal opinions over what's real versus what isn't. Any issue that's received this degree of coverage should be treated seriously, and not dismissed as "twitter nonsense." (What's the difference between a tweet and, say, a remark in an interview, or a press release? WP:RS don't appear to treat them any differently.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is about unverifiable speculation being inserted into articles, not about whether to take a "wait-and-see" approach to controversies of an extremely recent nature. It's reasonable to wait for sources to evaluate the incident in retrospect, so we don't end up disproportionately focusing on such events in the article. We're not under deadline here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait for what, exactly? There's a difference between a cautious approach and filibustering, particularly when we already have substantial WP:SECONDARY coverage such as:
 * The New York Times, Ilhan Omar Apologizes for Statements Condemned as Anti-Semitic
 * The Washington Post, Rep. Omar apologizes after House Democratic leadership condemns her comments as ‘anti-Semitic tropes’
 * CNN, Omar: 'I unequivocally apologize' after backlash over new Israel tweets
 * JPOST, The 'antisemitic' actions and consequences of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar
 * Forward, Ilhan Omar Tweeted Something Anti-Semitic. Again.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's reasonable to wait for sources to evaluate the incident in retrospect, as I stated in the comment you just replied to. Reading people's actual words can really help with understanding what they mean. And two of your sources there are opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are generally unreliable for statements of fact. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, and each of these pieces addresses the incident after the fact. Retrospectively. In addition, the NYT mentions the previous allegations of anti-semitism that arose from the "hypnotized" comments revelations. The controversy over her position + comments RE: Israel-Palestine is not limited to the AIPAC remarks and has already received significant coverage. Your condescending dismissals do little to address the glaring WP:NPOV issue that's currently afflicting this article, both in what it omits and how editors have strayed from the sources in describing the controversy and her stances (prime examples: "Allegations of antisemitism" has now become "Lobbying," her views on Israel are notably absent from the lead). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I took it for granted that "in retrospect" would be understood to mean more than 24 hours after the incident. For inclusion in the lead, something like a few weeks would be preferable, as Nblund suggested. The material recently added to the lead is about her policy positions. The AIPAC tweet kerfuffle was not about policy, although she used it to articulate her views on the influence of lobbyists. Please indicate where "allegations of antisemitism" against Omar (the subject of the article) are given weight in reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times
 * Representative Ilhan Omar, who has been battling charges of anti-Semitism for weeks, apologized on Monday for insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group — a comment that drew swift and unqualified condemnation from fellow Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
 * Ms. Omar’s Twitter comment linking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, to political support in Washington for Israel played into anti-Semitic tropes that have their roots in the Middle Ages, when Jews were barred from entering most professions and thus became moneylenders — a task that Christians would not take on because of prohibitions against usury.

CNN
 * Omar's statement came on the heels of one from House Democratic leadership calling on Omar to apologize for comments they said included "anti-Semitic tropes."

The Washington Post Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The anti-Semitism accusations against Omar predate her short political career, which began with a 2016 successful run for a state legislative seat. Before Sunday, her accusers pointed most squarely at a 2012 tweet claiming that “Israel has hypnotized the world” — prompting her to apologize this month. She has also expressed sympathies with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which aims to apply economic pressure to change Israeli policy toward the Palestinian population — a movement that pro-Israel forces say is rooted in anti-Semitism.
 * The subject of the article is Ilhan Omar, not "Tropes in Ilhan Omar's tweets". Talking about "allegations of antisemitism" in a BLP article implies that the subject herself has been labeled anti-Semitic. Such allegations should also be attributed, not just free-floating. Currently, there aren't any such allegations described in the article. Since you're obviously an expert on lead section guidelines, I'm sure you're aware that we shouldn't be putting important information in the lead that isn't described in the article body. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Has her twitter account developed some sort of AI that enables it to push out controversial tweets without her involvement? Accusing her of using anti-semitic tropes is a hair's breadth from an accusation of antisemitism, which the article does currently address. If it's been somehow whitewashed since I last read it, that section should be revised to better reflect the sources above. And the NYT and WaPo were much more explicit about the accusations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you argue about? Everyone agreed with your latest version of this para in the lead I think. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead is still missing her views/comments on Israel-Palestine. I proposed this to be included in the third paragraph: As a member of the congressional Foreign Affairs Committee, Omar has also been an outspoken critic of Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns and expressed limited support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction campaign and criticized American advocacy for Israel and the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. Some of her comments on the subject have prompted accusations of bias, which Omar has disputed or apologized for. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion above, there is no consensus to include such version. Please start an WP:RfC about it if you think this is really important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I would agree, because a small group of editors shouldn't decide that they know better than the sources and disregard the relevant policies. I'll give it a few days. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment proves my point; "a hair's breadth from an accusation of antisemitism" is not actually an accusation of antisemitism. When referring to Omar, the NYT article uses the phrase "anti-Semitic tropes" five times, including direct quotations; "anti-Semitism" occurs once. The emphasis here is on the words, not the person. If you follow the link in that article from, you will see where it says: So these are described as largely politically motivated accusations unrelated to the "Benjamins" comment (which she hadn't even made yet). "Relevant policies" here include WP:No original research, which says we shouldn't go beyond what sources explicitly say, especially in a contentious BLP article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know time-wasting is one of your specialties, but none of this is relevant, and your suggestion of WP:OR is false. It's easy to throw around the term contentious BLP article to WP:STONEWALL the discussion, but the primary contention, that she has faced allegations of antisemitism for her position & comments on Israel ("bias," as I phrased it in my proposal), is entirely consistent with the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're so certain. Lots of people have "faced allegations" of plenty of things, including anti-Semitism. The issue is who is alleging those things and how it matters to the biography of the person in question. You can call that time-wasting if you like, but I happen to believe in Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You are dissembling and wasting other editors' time by raising non-issues and ignoring reasonable responses; the allegations have already been attributed to reliable, secondary sources like those above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple experienced editors have offered good faith arguments on both sides of this issue. It's quite normal for editors to disagree about what belongs in the lead paragraph and/or disagree about the definition of a "prominent controversy". Some editors object to this kind of material even in the article body. I disagree on that, but it's not a radical or wholly illegitimate position. There are a number of paths forward from here, but no one is stonewalling and "no consensus" tends to be the modal outcome of contentious issues. Nblund talk 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The first part of what you said is reasonable—however, I would have trouble accepting as a legitimate position any attempt to entirely purge any mention of a heavily reported-on controversy from an article. However, it seems that now is objecting to noting her views on Israel in the lead alongside on other subjects, even without mention of controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone suggest that we entirely purge any mention of either Omar's statements about Israel or the reaction to her tweets. Could you provide a diff for that one? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The "diff" is actually right above my comment in this thread; This was in response to Nblund's suggestion that Some editors object to this kind of material even in the article body. I disagree on that, but it's not a radical or wholly illegitimate position. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In other words, no one has suggested this. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a good idea to kill bad idea even when it's suggested hypothetically. What the lead is still missing, however, are her views on Israel, with or without any mention of controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Revised proposal for addition to third paragraph in lead

 * Omar has been outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, criticizing Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns, American advocacy for Israel, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying organizations such as AIPAC. She has also expressed limited support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction campaign.
 * To account for the concerns of other editors about the mention of controversy and WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE, I've omitted any mention of criticism or apologies. This is her position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as has been reported in the sources, and it would follow her position on other key issues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have a ref (preferably several) for the characterization of Omar as "outspoken"? I'm not seeing anything like that in the article, although I can imagine a source describing her that way. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This was in-part my own summarizing, but USA Today does quote someone calling her "outspoken." Roll Call also described her that way, specifically with regards to her stance on Israel. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is sourced, factual, non-controversial, and accounts for the concerns expressed on this page; please explain your justification for removing it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Outspoken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could mean either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, or neither. And even with more direct characterizations of Omar as "outspoken" from the likes of The Hill and The Washington Post, it's still an opinion, like calling her "frank" or "candid". It might be clearer and more neutral to say something like, A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has spoken against Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns... What do others think about it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ the above wording pending any objections. Also, there's no need to Wikilink Israel and Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Israeli settlement all in the same sentence. One link to the most specific topic is preferred. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections, the addition makes sense--thanks for the suggestion. However, the wording is a bit redundant--a frequent critic of Israel, but also outspoken about settlement policy? Could we drop that first clause and just say she's objected to Israel's settlement policy and military campaigns, or is that too tight? ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume this edit implies an objection, so I've tried A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns... as a compromise. "has been outspoken" is still a value judgement, so "denounced" is both more concise and more neutral. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Include- It is established that targeting just Israel is anti-Semitism add to the fact that she also attacked the Jewish Eliott Abrams on his loyalty96.67.10.107 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with "denounced", but the comma in "its settlement policy, its military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories" may not be due. Our artice Israeli settlement explicitly says "built predominantly on lands within the Palestinian territories". Adding a comma there unduly misreflects reality. Tsumikiria⧸ 🦙🌉 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This makes it all the more absurd that the controversies regarding her commentary on the conflict are not mentioned. A month later, this is still the most prominent element of her public profile, and will likely be for some time. Here's the latest example from the New York Times:

Her political positions on Israel as as noteworthy as the criticism that they have provoked, and we should not mention one without the other. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Did we not just have an RFC over including what you are now attempting to include? You see any consensus for that in the RFC?  nableezy  - 20:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) My recent edits to the lead did not fall under the subject of the RfC you are referring to. 2) That RfC is still open, and it's perfectly within mine and anyone else's purview to continue to cite additional sources and add to the discussion, as I just did above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this NYT article implies the anti-Semitism controversy is the most prominent aspect of Omar's profile. The article is about anti-Semitism in general, and the recent Omar controversy is a topical illustration of some aspects of that (not mentioned until halfway through the article). Using an article focused specifically on anti-Semitism to determine what is and isn't noteworthy about Omar's bio seems like an example of the composition fallacy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When all you have is a hammer etc. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)