Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 7

Request for Comment: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede?
Would editors support the inclusion of the following sentences (or something similar--feel free to suggest changes) in the lede: Omar has been accused of antisemitism by both Democrats and Republicans as well as Jewish civil rights groups for comments about Israel which they said perpetuated the antisemitic canards that Jews have dual loyalty, a charge which Omar has denied. There are a large range of secondary sources that corroborate this: WaPo, NYT, NYP, NBC, or whichever others editors see fit. ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Include. Extremely well-sourced, highly due, and most of the objections amount to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If editors think we should include an elaboration on Omar's denial, I'm fine with that although the nitty gritty should be kept to the body. ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with your reasoning until the last sentence. You should revise your comment to indicate the antisemitism is alleged. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment You're right. I removed that line. WP:AGF.


 * Comment I think something about the anti-semitic trope accusations is due in the lead, at least at this juncture, because these controversies have accounted for the majority of coverage Omar received in RSs since her election. However, I think this particular proposal is too long for the lead and unduly focuses on one of the three episodes. Eperoton (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment ModerateMike729: RFC postings should be neutrally worded - this notice includes a statement of your own preferences and asserts that your preferred version is well-supported by the sources. In the interest of making sure this RfC doesn't get bogged down in procedural disputes, I would suggest just removing the editorial commentary and rephrasing this to ask a straightforward question. Also — this really should go without saying — please don't insinuate that other editors are Nazis. Nblund talk 00:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include. Stories about this come out constantly. Here are five from the NYT.  . . . How much evidence does one need?Adoring nanny (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Largely agree with User:Eperoton, something can be included, this specific proposal no though.  nableezy  - 00:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. The anti-semitism allegations are one of the two most noticeable things about her term thus far. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea that the amount of heat this woman has generated over anti-semitism will not be relevant ten years from now is insulting. And, if that should be the fortunate case, then the lead can be rewritten when/if needed.  The lead now should conform with WP:LEAD, and one of the two main controversies generated by her is not in the lead.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Clearly a notable portion of her political career to date, and seems to be the most widely covered aspect so far making this WP:DUE. Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait and consider the 10 year test. It's possible that editors are correct that "The majority of coverage" from newspapers is related to this issue, but that's not necessarily dispositive here: Duncan Hunter has probably received more coverage for vaping during committee hearings than he did for his indictment - but the vaping is clearly far less significant from an encyclopedic perspective. Similarly, Hank Johnson's fears about Guam capsizing are probably the most widely covered story of his tenure, but I seriously doubt anyone thinks that gaffe belongs in the lead of his entry. Gaffes rarely make the lead paragraph unless they are career-changing, and we aren't there yet. We can't really explain why or how this is important for her bio because there really haven't been any meaningful consequences beyond some bad press so far. Nblund talk 18:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The US House of Representatives will now as of Wednesday pass the second resolution because of her, condemning antisemitism. That's certainly passing the 10 year test. That's certainly passing the majority of coverage. She's been in office only three months and this is what she is famous for. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And this dates back to 2012 with her "hypnotized" comments back then - which also got quite a bit of coverage over the years.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * are you sure? She made those comments in 2012, but I don't actually see any coverage of them until she ran for Congress. Certainly there hasn't been significant coverage of these events until very recently. the House is considering a simple resolution that indirectly rebukes Omar without naming her. For context: the House has passed 43 simple resolutions in about 36 legislative days. There's a decent chance that the average House member has passed more simple resolutions than they've had bowel movements in the 116th Congress. So lets not get too crazy calling this a historic event.  Nblund talk 00:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right, when was the last time the House passed two resolutions concerning antisemitism because of a member? These are not just "simple" resolutions. Let's not try to downplay anything. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Simple resolution" is the technical term for this kind of legislative document - it distinguishes them from concurrent resolutions, which have to pass the Senate. It's the easiest bill to pass, and it has no legal weight. I'll grant you that there's something unusual here, but the first resolution was the result of some legislative hocus pocus, and none of the coverage treats it as anything more. There's a real risk that we're misleading readers by documenting this kind of political theater like its substantively meaningful. Nblund talk 02:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well - it has been covered since July 2018 at least - JTA, July 2018, TOI, July 2018, Forward July 2018. So - at the minimum - it's been a major point of coverage for the past 9 months. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Disparaging comments about Israel might be expected to be noticed by Israeli and Jewish-focused outlets. A handful of such stories doesn't make it a major point overall. At the time Omar was a state legislator and running for U.S. Congress. Was there any major coverage in the American press before November/December 2018? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - but I suggest you strike the above. The Forward is a rather large national American publication, implying otherwise is unseemly. State legislators generally don't get covered nationally (heck - they barely get covered state-wide - typically they have very local publications) - and here she was. Most congressional candidates (or freshmen congresspersons) don't get national coverage. Omar's national coverage - e.g. AP wire in November, is mainly over antisemitism. In Minnesota sources pre-dating November - e.g. September 2018, or CNN in August 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence of The Forward: is an American periodical published in New York City for a Jewish-American audience. What is unseemly about calling a source whose homepage title is The Forward: News that Matters to American Jews "Jewish-focused"? And rather large? Where do you pull this stuff from? Here is what an actual source says: NPR: The Forward is a small publication with a Jewish-American audience.  nableezy  - 15:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In that November AP story, the anti-Semitism accusations are directed at Linda Sarsour, not Omar, who in fact had plenty of national coverage as a state legislator – she was on the cover of Time magazine in September 2017, and has been profiled by The Guardian (2016), Pacific Standard (2017), Associated Press (Jun. 2018), CNBC (Aug. 2018), and The New Yorker (Aug. 2018). There's nothing in these sources about her 2012 comments or any anti-Semitism accusations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you say that these are disparaging comments about Israel. No, they aren't. Her tweets and statements were rightly condemned as antisemitic because they were disparaging to Jews. Secondly, if in ten years you want to redo the lead you can redo the lead, but this is what is notable and noteworthy for Omar now. and it's darnright insulting to not have this in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read and internalize WP:BLP. To th point, she did not say one word about Jews.  nableezy  - 19:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you keep saying that, her tweets were condemned as antisemitic by Pelosi and the House Leadership, among others, and those tweets were deleted by Omar, and she apologized for those tweets. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you understand how RfCs work well enough to know that unilaterally declaring a consensus and inserting your preferred wording after 24 hours of discussion is not going to fly. Even the "yes" voters don't agree on an appropriate wording yet. This doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to a consensus, and continuing to add in a disputed wording makes consensus even less likely. This is counterproductive. Please self revert and leave the lead alone until we have some kind of resolution here. Nblund talk 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Everyone agrees the material is relevant to the opening. If you think the wording can be improved, by all means go ahead and make changes. Perfection is the enemy of progress; the text and wording of any sentence is never "perfect" when it enters and article and is always subject to change. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Everyone agrees"? Did you just miss my "wait" vote? Most of the editors who have previously participated in this discussion still haven't weighed in - are you just sort of assuming they've suddenly had a change of heart? I'm not trying to be condescending here, but are you familiar with how RfCs work? Nblund talk 19:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just hardly opened and way too soon to start making statements such as "everyone agrees". Gandydancer (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support mention of accusation of using antisemitic tropes -- not "antisemitism accusation". Imo, this title asked the wrong question. I would argue that both the 'hypnosis' and 'dual loyalties' accusations have been accused of being such, and thus should be combined in the lede -- i.e. . Perhaps a list of six or so word summaries in a parenthesis-- not a whole paragraph. I think and/or  may be in agreement with this roughly, based on their  comment, but shouldn't speak for them. --Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * specifically, I'm imagining something along the lines of:, possible parenthesis before the comma but can't think of a good parenthesis wording at the moment. --Calthinus (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, mostly. I said a very long time ago I dont have a problem adding something like that to the lead. What I do have a problem with is the users that seem intent on making this article The latest in the antisemitism allegations against Ilhan Omar.  nableezy  - 20:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A very sensible suggestion in my opinion, if all articles could expound upon blanket accusations of '-isms' like this, then Wikipedia's quality would vastly improve. If consensus favors this being included in the lede then I think we should at least explain the context in a way similar to what Calthinus is proposing. Elspamo4 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Include Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should address should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The allegations of antisemitism against Ilhan Omar following a series of incidents, mostly her remarks, have received extensive from reputable, independent sources like the NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, AP, and numerous others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include and work on wording. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not include. Something might be included, but not the text suggested above. This is a complex controversy, for example this must be included, but it is not reflected in the suggested text. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article you linked has nothing to do with allegations of antisemitism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it is exactly same story. That's the point: one must describe both sides of the controversy. Describing only one side or part is Libel and against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong. A racist attack against the subject in Virginia has nothing to do with allegations of antisemitism against her for her remarks on Israel and Israel supporters. It seems more like you're trying to juxtapose something where she is the victim with something where she's the alleged offender, and I find that kind of argument pretty questionable as far as WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is connected according to the source . It tells: Friday's incidents came as Omar has come under criticism from members of both parties for suggesting that pro-Israel groups effectively buy off politicians and push allegiance to a foreign country.. My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of the sources on the allegations of antisemitism mentioned the Virginia incident as happening to coincide in terms of timing, they did not insinuate that they were related, and it would be WP:SYNTH for you to suggest or imply as much in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless, this is a complex controversy and a developing story that needs to be properly described in body of page, prior to including this to the lead. For example, according to her, "the tactic of labeling critics of Israel as “anti-Semitic”—particularly Muslim ones like her—is designed to end substantive debate about U.S. policy toward the Jewish state." . Well, but this is actually happening, even here, in WP. It should not. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Please wait until the RfC is closed until you implement any result of it. If you think it's a foregone conclusion, get some admin or uninvolved editor to close it. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You actually removed text that is not the subject of this RfC regarding her policy positions on Israel. I'd appreciate it if you performed a partial revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm happy to wait for more opinions, but you clarify where in policy it says that no changes may be made until an RfC is formally closed? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mojoworker is right. According to WP:BLP a contentious disputed text should be included only if there is consensus to include. That means one should wait the closing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude from lead. Recentism and undue weight. Unless/until someone can find a reliable source indicating that this is a central theme of Omar's tenure or something. R2 (bleep) 22:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There have been four articles in the NYT covering the antisemitism accusations against the subject, along with a host of other stories by just about every other national media source—I won't list them out here, but frankly, calling the content WP:UNDUE has little basis. And WP:RECENTISM is not a blanket ban on covering recent events. It's far more nuanced than that, and it's a mistake IMHO to throw around WP:RECENTISM as if it can always be cited as a justification for removing something that's ongoing or in the not-too-distant past. This article already has several paragraphs dedicated to this controversy in the body, and it's perfectly appropriate per WP:PROPORTION and MOS:LEAD to note it in the opening. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think WP:RECENTISM applies here. It's about giving undue weight to recent events relative to the body of RSs. When a significant proportion of coverage the subject has received in RSs is about recent events, giving them significant weight is due. Eperoton (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You two might not think WP:RECENTISM or WP:UNDUE apply, but clearly there are a whole bunch of editors here who disagree with you, and I am part of that crowd. The proposal is that if we are to make an 8-sentence summary of Omar's biography, one of those sentences should be devoted to charges of anti-Semitism. I understand the topic has received plenty of recent coverage, but that doesn't mean that the topic will be considered quite so biographically significant ten years from now. R2 (bleep) 18:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The controversy involves comments dating back to 2012. That was almost seven years ago, and yet it's still something of interest, so this almost certainly will be of lasting significance. Whitewashing this from the lead is completely inconsistent with policy and detracts from the quality of this article. Readers' first impression based on this bare-bones opening will be that they will be best served learning about the subject elsewhere. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, since Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and we have to be especially catious with BLPs. If readers mostly care about the latest scandals involving public figures, there are plenty of other sources for that information. Since many claims here revolve around notability, it seems wise to wait for published sources to evaluate the significance of this in hindsight. Most sources on her 2012 remarks appear to be from late 2018/early 2019, so that's not a sign of enduring significance yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been the subject of at least four NYT articles over the two months. Selectively omitting negative information and disregarding prominent sources may be fine with you, but it has nothing to do with compliance with WP:BLP and creates a serious WP:NPOV issue. MOS:LEAD makes very clear this information should be noted in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, one of those articles ("Glorified and Vilified, Representative-Elect Ilhan Omar Tells Critics: 'Just Deal'" by Sheryl Stolberg, 30 December 2018) says nothing about anti-Semitism, canards, or tweets referring to Israel. Where does MoS say to include everything reported by the Times anyway? WP:BLPSTYLE specifically says: keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced. That's also part of NPOV. The events are recent and ongoing; see today's coverage by NBC and Politico. More is sure to come; it's prudent to wait and see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article you cited makes multiple references to her position on Israel as a target of criticism, and the follow-up articles focus on her alleged use of anti-semitic tropes and the fallout in Congress, including this one today. I don't see it as prudent to disregard WP:NPOV and omit any mention of her positions on Israel or the antisemitic trope controversy from the lead; If we're going to be consistent, prominent controversies must be addressed in the opening. That's policy, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a way to do this without raising BLP concerns or presenting the subject in an unduly negative light—I think if this RfC had been opened at a later time, or if the proposed wording had been slightly different, editors may have weighed in differently. I agree with your last point about there being more to come; My hope is that the arguments and positions of WP editors will evolve as well to account for that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that I've seen no justification for this iteration of the "wait and see" argument. Wait for what, exactly? For everyone to move on and lose interest? This is denying the opportunity for editors to craft the invaluable "first draft," which is a positive aspect mentioned under WP:RECENTISM. Each time the subject makes a new set of remarks, the argument remains the same, and certain editors insist that, no matter how many sources are provided, and how neutrally the explanation is worded, it presents a WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP violation (it doesn't). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...references to her position on Israel as a target of criticism are not the same as accusations of anti-Semitism, though there is certainly an ongoing push to conflate the two, here and elsewhere. The issue of MOS:LEAD (not the only relevant guideline; see MOS:BLP as well) hinges on the meaning of prominent controversy, with room for opinions on both sides. Such disputes do not imply that anyone is "censoring" or disregarding WP:NPOV, which actually states discussion of ... criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance ... This is a concern especially in relation to recent events... I think that pretty well describes the current situation. "First drafts" are the wrong way to go. Per WP:BLP, The idea that it is okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape does not apply: biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. If people do indeed lose interest in this, that's a sign that it doesn't belong in the lead section at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...references to her position on Israel as a target of criticism are not the same as accusations of anti-Semitism, though there is certainly an ongoing push to conflate the two, here and elsewhere. This is entirely unfounded, and I would suggest you retract it. The allegations of antisemitism are clearly laid out in the sources. And also, MOS:BLP supports inclusion in the lead: When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article. This policy assumes that prominent controversies will be addressed in the lead. What is being proposed is a single sentence to address the controversy. The significance of this controversy is clearly established by the way this has been treated by reliable sources; that "room for opinion" does not allow for you or anyone else to opine on what consitutes a legitimate controversy. WP:DUE requires each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources., not speculation and fast-and-loose assessments of cherry-picked pieces. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The allegations of antisemitism are clearly laid out in the sources. Yes, except for the one I specifically named. MOS:BLP also says Well-publicized recent events ... should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most notable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude - per WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and the fact that the phrasing actually misrepresents sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * These votes that cite policies without explaining how they apply (they don't require exclusion) should not be taken seriously. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP requires that we document what the sources say. And editors have provided enough sources to show that the line is perfectly WP:DUE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's actually UNDUE to not include in the lead. Without her tweets and statements, she'd barely be notable. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A lawmaker who unseated a 44-year incumbent in her first primary, became the first Somali American in Congress and one of the first two Muslim women in Congress, successfully sought to overturn a 181-year rule banning headwear in Congress, has been profiled by the BBC and The New York Times, and was on the cover of Time magazine, would "barely be notable"? Are you sure about that one? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And all that is in the lead, and she would have stopped receiving news coverage for that. Are you really saying that her tweets and statements are not DUE for inclusion in the lead? At this point in time, this is what is making her notable. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's actually not how notability works. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include - This has become a major issue over the last month. It's not a recent issue, it's an ongoing one that has recovered and is continuing to receive coverage. The lede should reflect that. Toa Nidhiki05 02:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude from the lead section and recommend that editors who don't understand the part the West Virginia state Republican Party has played in this latest incident educate themselves. Only half the story has been reported by most "reliable sources", and this has provided a wonderful opportunity for Democratic Party leadership to show that it is equally opposed to racism and Islamophobia in the Republican Party and antisemitism in the Democratic Party. Yes, and the law, in its majesty, equally forbids the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing loaves of bread. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude - WP:RECENT, POV, BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS Pokerplayer513 (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude- Per WP:UNDUE and the various other policies mentioned by others. AcidSnow (talk)
 * Exclude: fails 10YR test; undue at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude for now; WP:UNDUE for the lead. We don't include every controversy about a lawmaker in the lead just because it occupied a few news cycles. None of the sources support the idea (which many people are arguing above) that this is a major part of what makes her notable. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude If this becomes a defining part of her tenure, maybe, but so far this seems like an attempt to report how big a storm is from inside it. Parabolist (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of the arguments on this page are suggesting WP:RECENTISM somehow means that Wikipedia articles may not reflect recent or ongoing events. This is not the case. WP:RECENTISM is a far more nuanced policy, and it is not a reason to ignore or exclude events that have been developing for weeks or months. The policy itself states ...in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Every indication in the degree and depth of reporting on this—and the nature of an elected official facing accusations of bigotry-is notable. We should not be ignoring reams of coverage in making decisions over content, opining on whether a controversy is legitimate, or misinterpreting policies like WP:DUE which are based on what's been reported in reliable sources. This type of approach is unfortunate and will stifle any further debate on the matter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Except this is about the lede, where we have to be the MOST vigilant about those issues. If this was arguing for erasing the content from the body, I'd be more sympathetic, but it is not. Parabolist (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, and there is a specific policy that deal with how a lead should be structured and written, MOS:LEAD, and it notes that prominent controversies should be noted. This is a prominent controversy by any objective assessment of how it's been treated by authoritative sources like the NYT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And it also cautions against giving undue attention to less prominent controversies. Neither term has a clear-cut definition, and many widely covered controversies do not appear in the lead of a person's bio. If this were a matter of simply citing the right policy, we wouldn't need an RfC, but ultimately this does require some editorial judgement about the nature of the coverage and the likelihood that this will have lasting significance. Nblund talk 23:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * include wording Needs some attention but it’s ceetainly not WP:UNDUE when so many WP:RS outlets have reported on it Darryl.jensen (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude Mostly because it would be WP:UNDUE in the lede but also like others said, it should be held off until we see what comes of it. No problems with it in the body. Elspamo4 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude as others have pointed out, its undue weight. And the attention that the accusations of anti-Semitism have received are sort of proving her point about the outsized role that Israel and charges of anti-Semitism have in our politics. Also the claims that she said Jews have dual loyalty are innaccurate - to some degree the charges of anti Semitism are a straw man, see here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangabandhu (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Our job isn't to determine whether we personally think her point is being proven or not, or take sides in the debate. Rather, we report on what reliable sources are saying. As you said, they are giving it plenty of attention. Similarly, whether or not those accusations are really "strawmen" isn't for us to determine--a huge number of highly reliable sources are telling us that Jewish advocacy groups as well as politicians believe she perpetuated anti-semitic stereotypes. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for proving the opposite. Her tweets and statements were rightly condemned as antisemitic. IS there a reason you didn't sign your comment condoning her antisemitic tweeting? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that popular claim of anti-Semitism somehow proves anti-Semitism? She has never said that Jews hold dual allegiance, she said that members of Congress are pressured to hold allegiance to Israel, which this whole episode is a great example of. From the article I linked above, which you either didn't read or don't care to acknowledge The whole purpose of the Democrats’ resolution is to enforce dual loyalty not among Jews, but among members of Congress, to make sure that criticism of Israel is punished in the most visible way possible. This, of course, includes Omar. As it happens, this punishment of criticism of Israel is exactly what the freshman congresswoman was complaining about, and has on multiple occasions. The fact that no one seems to acknowledge that this is her complaint shows how spectacularly disingenuous Omar’s critics are being. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, not Omar's who actually apologized for her prior tweets. And you keep bringing in Israel, which I don't thin I mentioned. She was criticized for several tweets and statements, not just one. I also urge you to actually watch the C-Span replay before you call out those who are criticizing her as disingenuous. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly stop violating WP:BLP. It applies to every page on Wikipedia. Your personal views on her are utterly irrelevant, and you would be wise to keep them personal.  nableezy  - 19:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, that's a surprisingly unconstructive comment from a normally constructive veteran editor. R2 (bleep) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing unconstructive about it. I am just sick of editors downplaying her tweets. Her tweets and statements were condemned as antisemitic, and BLP does apply and BLP says I can say they were rightly condemned as antisemitic. We don't need to whitewash her tweets. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, her tweets aren't anti-Semetic. I say that as someone who identifies as Jewish. I hold dual allegiances to the US and common sense. You might check out how Wikipedia has handled the many baseless charges of anti-Semitism against Noam Chomsky, which merit one line, in passing: "His criticism of Israel has led to him being accused of being a traitor to the Jewish people and an anti-Semite". Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All valid concerns, but there is a lack of AGF and a dose of personalization in those comments. I don't mean to distract from the RfC, so I won't comment here further. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree should tone it down, and so should . I'm all for vigorously arguing policy points, but policy requires we discuss the subject in a detached, non-personal way. On the other side, Sir Joseph also has a point: it's pretty tiresome—and equally inappropriate—for editors to remark on whether or not the tweets were or were not antisemitic, and their opinions on why the tweets were not problematic. Too many of the arguments on this page are ideological and only make a passing reference to policy, without any thorough analysis (or explanation) of how it applies or the body of sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not apply to one word I have written on this talk page, and I dont appreciate the smug ping. I have nothing to tone down.  nableezy  - 21:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude as written. If there is agreement in the future to include something, Nblund has made a proposal that I think is reasonable.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include obviously very WP:DUE. All of the proposed wordings are fine summaries of these events that have continued coverage, but the best would be the one which mentions the allegations that are the most prominent according to reliable sources. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include - to most people in the U.S. (and the world), she's only known for one thing at this point, and this is it. The wording could be improved to be a little more unbiased - I put my suggestion below - but I think it would be silly not to include the antisemitism allegations in the intro. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a highly notable, but currently developing story. We should see how it ends, then properly describe it in the body of the page, and only after that summarize and include it to the lead. One question: what is the actual subject of the story? I bet this is not just "antisemitic accusations", but US-Israel politics. Another question: were these accusations something justifiable or they reflect badly on the reputations of accusers and others involved? - per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you for this reasonable analysis. To answer your first question: The topic we are addressing on this page are her alleged use of antisemitic tropes. That would mean the statements themselves, the reaction, and her response, and any other related developments. As to your second question, which is undoubtedly loaded, that kind of opinionated speculation is not appropriate for discussions about this article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I simply clarified why this should not be included in the lead right now. The actual story is developing and is not just about  "antisemitic accusations". My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be included in the lead because it's part of a bigger story? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Because it is not properly described yet in the body of the page.My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude for now, especially in the formulation proposed; although it's the news story du jour, it does not seem to be a significant enough part of her biography or notability as to be due so much space in the lead right now. Even if one disagrees with that, the RFC is still clearly, as Parabolist put it, "an attempt to report how big a storm is from inside it", when it naturally seems bigger than it is because it's in the news for the moment: but we have to avoid recentism, because we are not news. -sche (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude Looking through the wise prism that is the 10 year test, the only thing we are likely to remember and note is Who voted 'no' on the resolution to condemn bigotry, anti-Semitism while Omar voted yes. There is no deadline. If this is truely notable enough, time will tell. In the meantime, a significant number of sources indicate we should be cautious. The situation being what it is, forgive me but I am not ready to even imply that Omar, arguably a Semite herself, is an anti-Semite in the lead section of her BLP.--- Coffee  and crumbs  02:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a red herring. I watched the debate. They voted no for principled reasons, I urge you to actually read up on why they voted no or actually contact them and ask. And antisemitism only applies to Jews, not to Muslims, as you can see from the antisemitism page. Further, nobody is asking to label her an antisemite, just putting her tweets and comments in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument that antisemitism is especially reserved for jews has convinced me. I have changed my vote to Present.--- Coffee  and crumbs  03:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So your argument for exclusion is based on a) a misunderstanding of the definition of antisemitism and b) your personal opinion that allegations of antisemitism against the subject are not noteworthy, despite how they've been treated in the sources. Apparently you forgot this from WP:DUE: 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. And "Jews" is capitalized, by the way. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude. The whole thing is fuzzy enough already anyway, but even if this weren't it's undue for the lead. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude for now; long-term significance is still in question, so the section in the body should be sufficient for now. In my opinion, the story is too complicated to describe in the lead; I really don't think "some say Omar's comments are anti-Semitic; she and some others deny this" sums up the story satisfactorily, and anything more than two sentences in the lead would definitely be undue. Davey2116 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include. Our article is telling us that the 2012 comment that "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel", particularly the notion that Israelis had "hypnotized the world," was criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes. This continues to be an important part of her notability in 2019 due to more recent comments she has made. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude Too recentist and undue. This is not the kind of information a politician is primarily known for, especially when those accusations are quite unsubstantiated - heavily debated and among RS and arguably fueled by the lobbyists she criticized. It'd make the lead ridiculous to read in 2035 ridiculous to read by 2035. Sure, George H. W. Bush was widely condemned for being a war criminal, and where is such information we certinly don't include that in that lead ? . Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of us have less of an ability to envision the year "2035". Smile.png Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So the controversy is basically "all about the Benjamins" in your view? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Impressive way of construing another editor's view. Wow. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 22:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * —as two editors have already responded to your post please "strike-through" your comments if you wish to change them. This is outlined at WP:REDACT. I've restored your post to the form it was before the two of us responded to it. But please feel free to alter it using the strike-through method of making changes. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Exclude per NBlund and WP:RECENTISM. Also the actual proposed wording is obviously a total no-go (independent of the question of whether some discussion should be in the lead); the version proposed by NBlund below is much better.  --JBL (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include: per Manual of Style/Lead section. This is a prominent controversy.--Never Forget 2701 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude leave it for the body. Magherbin (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Include. I've seen articles on other politicians that list gaffes that could be attributed to anti semitism in the lede. Omar repeated common anti-semitic myths such as dual loyalty to the point that the House had to pass a resolution clearly targeted at her condemning hate. Shouldn't WP be more proactive in combatting blatant anti-semitism disguised as the ten year rule??? Kilometerman (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exclude as written; Omar was not personally called an anti-Semite by all the groups named. The sources I've seen put much greater weight on accusations of anti-Semitic comments or rhetoric. No opinion on whether a differently worded mention of the controversy should go in the lead section, but personally I find the arguments to exclude based on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS to be more convincing than saying simply that it's been reported in RS, so it's DUE. Due weight involves the entire body of sources on a subject, not just the most recent ones. We should know more about whether the controversy is central to her notability six months to a year from now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed wordings and additional discussion

 * My view is that this is still too recent and too uncertain to include in the lead at this point, but - if included - I do think that any mention in the lead should include: some sense of the time frame (early 2019), the important/surprising critics (e.g. Democratic leaders and Jewish groups), and the gist of the comments (criticizing the influence of groups like AIPAC). We should also steer clear of saying she has been "accused of antisemitism", because many of her critics have carefully avoided directly accusing her of antisemitism. Something along these lines might be workable: In early 2019, Omar came under fire from House Democratic leaders and a number of Jewish groups for Tweets and public comments that criticized the role of pro-Israel lobbying groups in the U.S. Critics alleged that the comments invoked antisemitic stereotypes, a claim which Omar disputed. Nblund talk 17:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While I prefer my wording above because it specifically addresses the "dual loyalty" charge, I certainly think this language is an improvement from including nothing in the lede and don't have any strong objections to it otherwise. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This needs to be reflected in the summary. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to be? I'm certainly potentially open to it, but would like to hear your rationale as I think WP:RECENTISM issues could be even bigger there. ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need something in the lead and I strongly support Nblund's version. Gandydancer (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)  PS:  Maybe "was criticized by" sounds more encyclopedic than "came under fire"?  Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also support 's version. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well right now there seems to be more support for excluding it from the lead entirely in the RFC, so this is a bit premature. And, oh by the way, that is why you, and other editor involved in the discussion, dont claim a consensus a day into it. The RFC runs for 30 days, we can determine what to do when it is closed by an uninvolved user then.  nableezy  - 22:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Opinions may change if more agreeable wording is presented, and consensus is not necessarily a vote count. Additionally, an RfC doesn't have to remain open for 30 days, nor is formal closure required if editors are willing to collaborate and find a middle ground. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer Nblund's version to the original one, but I think it makes it sound like only a few groups were criticizing Omar. So here's my suggested re-wording: Starting soon after taking office in the House of Representatives, Omar began to receive widespread criticism for public comments she has made, notably on Twitter, criticizing Israel and pro-Israel lobbying groups in the U.S. Critics have alleged that the comments invoke antisemitic stereotypes, a claim which Omar has disputed. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Gandydancer: I agree that "came under fire" is not great wording, but I didn't want to use the word "criticized" twice in the same sentence - but I'm the last person who should be weighing in on stylistic points. Korny O&#39;Near: I think that it's important to give a rough sense of who her critics were and where they were coming from per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The story is developing, but much of the coverage has noted that this dispute pits older/more centrist Democratic leadership against younger and more left-leaning pols - that divide would need to be reflected in the language. Nblund talk 17:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the "generational divide" here also makes the phrase "widespread criticism" misleading. Do we also mention the "widespread support" she's received? How do published sources characterize the issue? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Widespread support" is not what's described in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Theres another problem with these drafts, it implies that its just Omar disputing these claims. But it is not, eg.  nableezy  - 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit that "widespread criticism" is a little vague, but on the other hand singling out just House Democratic leaders implies that, for instance, Republicans haven't objected, or politicians outside the House. For what it's worth, a web search on "ilhan omar widespread criticism" returns quite a few notable sources, including this analysis in the Washington Post and this Star Tribune article, which both use that exact phrase about the reaction to Omar. It should also be noted that "widespread criticism" doesn't mean that everyone is criticizing her. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My problem with these proposals is not in saying who is criticizing her, but rather in pretending that Omar is by herself objecting to the claim that her comments are antisemitic. Sanders is saying the same thing, that the accusations of antisemitism are attempts to stifle legitimate criticism. Saying all these people are condemning her, and she disputes that makes it appear that her position has no support besides her own. That is not the case.  nableezy  - 20:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about "a claim which others, including Omar, have disputed"? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good here. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority position in the RFC seems to be, so far, to exclude it from the lead entirely. My position is we let the RFC play itself out and see if there is even a consensus for inclusion in the lead at all (which tbh does not seem too likely at this point). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RfC isn't about majority support <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And who said it was? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both the Washington Post and Star Tribune articles are from mid-February and describe the "Benjamins" tweet, which was not a direct rebuke of Israel. The proposed wording seeks to include her "hypnotized the world" and "allegiance to a foreign country" remarks as well. I don't think we have the sources to describe "widespread" criticism of all her statements, yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of these statements were criticized for drawing on anti-semitic tropes. We have more than enough sources to show that criticism came from many different corners: Democrats, Republicans, advocacy groups, etc. I don't like terms like "widespread" generally, but anyone advocating for that wording would certainly have the sources to support it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Great. Which are they? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * They've already been linked. WP:SHOWME. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's The Forward saying she was "criticized in the national media" for "hypnotized the world", and here's Vox saying "allegiance to a foreign country" created a "firestorm". Are those good enough? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easy to find sources that support a given framing for each individual remark (although "firestorm" is still pretty vague). I'd suggest looking at a wider selection of sources that examine the controversy as a whole, for instance: • "Ms. Omar’s comments about American Jews and Israel drew bipartisan rebukes in recent weeks, culminating Thursday with a House vote condemning anti-Semitism and other forms of hate" (NYT 3/8/19)

• "Omar’s remarks managed to outrage most of the American Jewish establishment and spark a battle of words within the Democratic Party" (Haaretz 3/8/19)

• "Omar's comments -- on the heels of a tumultuous week that saw her comments on pro-Israel lobbying shake up Congress" (CNN 3/8/19)

• "Omar’s criticisms of Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, which left Republicans and more than a few Democrats fuming" (Vanity Fair 3/8/19)

• "For the second time in as many months, the freshman Minnesota Democrat has provoked contentious debate on Capitol Hill over rhetoric that many lawmakers — including senior Democrats — view as anti-Semitic" (NPR 3/7/19)

• "...recent comments Omar made related to Israel that sparked criticism, including from fellow Democrats" (CNN 3/7/19)

• "...by Wednesday afternoon, the uproar over Ms. Omar had spread beyond the House, to the White House and the Senate" (NYT 3/6/19)

• "Provocative comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota have thrust the Democrats into an uncomfortable debate ... It's at least the third time she has forced older, pro-Israel Democrats who run the House into awkward territory over U.S.-Israeli policy" (AP 3/6/19) The general theme here is that the controversy has mostly happened on Capitol Hill and that the criticism has come mostly from other lawmakers, which "widespread criticism" doesn't convey. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I would likewise recommend you not cherry-pick quotes to support your argument and misrepresent what's been reported. A thorough analysis of all of the sources reveals criticism extended well beyond Capitol Hill: If you're going to quote sources and talk about "general themes," you shouldn't present such an incomplete picture. Now I actually agree that "widespread criticism" is inappropriate, as clearly some have come to her defense. However, the remarks themselves were certainly widely characterized in the sources as anti-semitic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Rep. Ilhan Omar's actions fuel fresh doubts, divisions in her district, Star Tribune: The uproar over Omar’s recurring comments challenging political support of Israel has quickly thrust the freshman member of Congress into a searing national spotlight. It is also dividing voters in Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, a diverse and deeply Democratic stronghold that easily elected her last fall.
 * Ilhan Omar’s Latest Remarks on Israel Draw Criticism, NYT: In an article for New York magazine about the bookstore event, the writer Jonathan Chait accused Ms. Omar of using the cause of Palestinian rights “to smuggle in ugly stereotypes.”
 * Rep. Omar apologizes for controversial tweets on Israel lobby after backlash from Democratic leaders, NBC: Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tweeted that she would reach out to Omar's office on Monday to discuss "anti-Semitic tropes." Omar tweeted that she would be happy to chat with Clinton.
 * Did you just cherry-pick three quotations while lecturing me about cherry-picking? Yes, one can find criticism beyond Capitol Hill for any given statement. Not surprising in our media-saturated culture. But the sources that examine the entire controversy largely frame the issue as a congressional dust-up. Since we are debating what wording, if any, to use in the lead section to characterize all of Omar's recent comments, we should stick to sources that do the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to quell any further doubts in the completeness of my picture, here are some more recent articles that take a look back at Omar's last few weeks: • "Omar has courted controversy with provocative remarks that some say invoke anti-Semitic stereotypes ... Omar faced yet another firestorm last week" (WaPo 3/10/19)

• "Ms Omar ... sparked turmoil within the Democratic caucus with her criticisms of Israel and suggestions that Israel’s supporters wanted lawmakers to pledge 'allegiance' to a foreign country" (The Independent 3/9/19)

• "The new lawmaker sparked a weeklong debate in Congress as fellow Democrats said her comments have no place in the party ... It wasn't her first dip into such rhetoric" (US News/AP 3/7/19) I'd say the specifics here still focus on the congressional turmoil. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And a few more: • "In the nation’s capital, Ilhan Omar drew an intense backlash ... She was accused by some lawmakers and prominent Jewish groups of anti-Semitism and playing on toxic anti-Jewish stereotypes" (NBC 3/10/19)

• "The freshman congresswoman, one of only two female Muslim lawmakers in the House, first sparked outrage last month ... Some Jewish lawmakers and organizations condemned her latest comments" (Haaretz 3/10/19)

• "Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ... [said] that she did not believe Omar's intent 'was to cause any offense' when she made remarks that were widely denounced by critics as anti-Semitic" (The Hill 3/10/19) Apart from the last source, which only mentions the "allegiance" quote and isn't directly about Omar, the focus here is on Congress and Jewish organizations rather than wider criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is helpful research, but I don't think the fact that news coverage has mostly focused on Congresspeople and Jewish organizations indicates that much - if there's a news story about someone in Congress saying something potentially anti-Semitic, those would be the two groups any journalist would go to first for comment. The descriptions in the quotes you found, I think, indicate that the perception is that the criticism is in fact widespread and not confined to Washington, D.C. Terms like "uproar", "firestorm" and "widely denounced", which are not being used in the context of these groups, seem to indicate that this is a widespread thing, even if most or all of the specific examples given are from lawmakers and Jewish groups, and some pundits. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, exactly. It's a problem to cite a couple of sources and say "look, the criticism is limited to these groups" when there are other sources, like the ones I linked, indicating otherwise. However, much as I hate to agree with Sangdeboeuf (kidding!) "widespread criticism" is a poor choice of words. Clearly, there is indeed some disagreement over how to properly interpret her remarks, and she's attracted both defenders and critics. Honestly, we're not going to achieve any sort of mention at this time of anti-semitism allegations in the lead, but I think at least mentioning that she'd been "outspoken" on the issue and explaining her positions is a step in the right direction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This controversy is still ongoing. This is likely to become a defining part of her tenure. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I cited a good deal more than "a couple" of sources, nor did I say that the criticism was "limited" to any groups. I said that the majority of published, reliable sources frame it as a congressional issue. According to Due and undue weight, that's what the article should reflect, notwithstanding the couple of sources you provided that might suggest otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a political issue, for sure, but the fact that the forceful reactions of her colleagues in the House received substantial coverage doesn't warrant minimizing this as a "congressional issue." The controversy reverberated across the political spectrum and has been addressed by numerous commentators, analysts, advocacy groups, and others, according to the sources, so, respectfully, I think your assessment is off. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the job of "numerous commentators" to comment on the latest scandals. That doesn't make their commentary (A) reliable or (B) an encyclopedic concern. Ditto for advocacy groups. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What other groups did you expect to be highly covered by RS? It kind of seems like they're just reporting on the most relevant groups--Jewish orgs, congress, etc. Are there specific other groups of people missing from the reporting that you think would make the comments more due? ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was addressing only the proposal that we say Omar's remarks received "widespread criticism", which I think is unduly vague. I haven't taken a position on the whether to mention the issue in the lead, yet. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm inclined to agree with you. It's quite vague. Why not just say Jewish groups and/or fellow congressmen. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have voted WP:DUE multiple times but your comment indicates you dont understand what that policy means. If the viewpoint of an advocacy group, commentator, or constituency of Omar’s has received coverage in reliable, secondary sources, it at least meets the basic requirement for inclusion. Your argument about what is or is not “encyclopedic” has seemingly no basis in policy and is essentially meaningless. The coverage on the controversy, which appears ongoing, is not merely a congressional affair but one of national and biographical interest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've quoted a dozen sources above that suggest otherwise. But go ahead and provide refs of a similar number and quality that you believe support the "national" scope of the controversy. Note that the sources I provided all evaluate the response to various remarks Omar made over a period of weeks, not just any one in isolation. As for encyclopedic content, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject") and WP:PROPORTION ("discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance") (my emphasis). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I now agree, at least for the time being. There are some proportion issues here, as I've come to accept. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:PROPORTION is a defense for including this material in the lead, if that's what you're arguing against (I have no idea at this point). On viewpoints, it does not matter whether the viewpoint was that of an analyst, commentator, advocacy group, or congressperson—if it's been published in WP:RS, it satisfies WP:DUE. In fact, suggesting that the input of a Jewish advocacy group weighing in on a controversy over alleged anti-semitism should automatically be dismissed as "not encyclopedic" reflects a complete ignorance of policy. The NYT presents the controversy as revealing a "generational divide" and also examines reactions among her constituents — and guess where I found these? The national politics section. The same could be said for CNN, NBC, AP, Reuters, or any number of national outlets—that's what determines weight. Demanding that someone show you a source to prove what's already been established is disruptive and a waste of time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ...if it's been published in WP:RS, it satisfies WP:DUE. No, it doesn't, not at all. Two or three reliable sources don't have the same weight as a dozen. "Proportion" implies a numerical relationship. Still waiting for the dozen or so RS that would show proportional emphasis on any nation-wide dimensions of this scandal. Just because national news outlets reported on this doesn't make it a "national" incident any more than, say, the Moulton Falls bridge case, which was reported on in multiple national and international outlets. Several of the national outlets you mention specifically focus on the fact that this was a Capitol Hill affair. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You are correct about the definition of WP:PROPORTION, and the vast majority of sources on Ilhan Omar either reference or focus heavily on her remarks on Israel and the fallout. And your other argument is simply ridiculous: A procedural vote would be a "congressional affair." Sustained attention from national, reliable outlets establishes the scope of this controversy. Additionally, coverage in WP:RS does satisfy the necessary condition of WP:DUE, and while it indeed isn't always sufficient when accounting for disagreements/lack of consensus, there comes a point where the degree of coverage makes it indisputable that something must be given adequate space in the article under the WP:NPOV guidelines. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some proof that the "vast majority" of sources mention this, let alone focus heavily on it. That's certainly not borne out by the sources currently used in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. The sources and content are abundant. There needs to be a section “Controversay” where all of the aforementioned sources are listed. Allison Gangi (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)