Talk:Ilhan Omar

This is being widely reported now, not just on investigative reporting blogs that Wikipedia doesn't approve of sourcing from. The largest circulation daily newspaper in her State is running articles about the "discrepancy" in her marriage records. This needs to be added to this article. ZeroXero (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Minnesota Star Tribune: New documents revisit questions about Rep. Ilhan Omar's marriage history

Washington Examiner: Dozens of documents indicate Ilhan Omar lived with Ahmed Hirsi while claiming to be married to Ahmed Elm

Free Beacon: Newly Released Docs Raise Questions About Omar’s Marriage History

As far as I can tell, we already cover the marriage issue in the "Personal life" section. If you would like to propose a reliably-sourced addition, you're welcome to do so. Note that the Washington Examiner is a right-wing political magazine/website and the Free Beacon is a right-wing political website. Additionally, the word "fraud" is a statement or allegation of wrongdoing not substantiated in any source and thus a violation of policy, so I have removed it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Star Tribune is probably better as a reliable source.[1] Kelly ^hi! 11:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

That is the same article. wumbolo ^^^ 11:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Strib is the source we should be using here. The problem is -- how?Adoring nanny (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Inserted. [2] starship.paint (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

... and I've been reverted. I don't really care, though, got other things to do. Someone else take it up. starship.paint (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Starship.paint, I would have reverted it, but NorthBySouth beat me to it. "There have been allegations" is not the way that we would cover something as serious of potential blp violation as a brother and sister marrying. The allegations come from right-wing blogs that are not reliable. The Star Tribune found no evidence. The tax filing issue is separate from the brother-sister marriage issue, and is much more includible . – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Muboshgu: - it's alright if you would have reverted. You (or anyone else) can propose a better wording. That was the best I could manage at that point, I'm sorry you guys felt it was not acceptable. I wrote that because of this talk page discussion. You can include the tax filing issue too, it's not a topic of interest for me. starship.paint (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it, because I think we need something better than the totally WP:WEASEL "there have been allegations" - if there aren't notable people putting forward such allegations, and they're just fever-dream partisan rumors rummaging around the swamp of right-wing nuttery, we have no reason to mention it. That a newspaper could neither "prove nor disprove" something is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

And I'll further add that allegations of criminal activity (and yes, that would be immigration fraud, a federal felony) require far more substantive sourcing and discussion. That no other mainstream source has in any way addressed these claims, even while Omar is unquestionably in the national spotlight, strongly suggests that they aren't to be taken seriously. If and when that changes, it can be addressed at that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I’m suspicious of contributors on here using “right-wing blogs” to discount something that’s being talked about widely on many credible national news outlets (not to mention cherry-picking the sources to ignore). And let’s try to stay away from that label to describe them - “Conservative publication” would be a more appropriate label for the Washington Examiner, not “Right-Wing”. We all know what connotations that label brings up and what circles it’s used in (about one step removed from Alt-Right).

As for the unfounded allegations, I mean, should they not be included under the Conspiracies tab...at a minimum? There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to the Obama Birther conspiracy. It doesn’t matter if it’s being floated around in a partisan way, it’s still a noteworthy event.

To specifically address this point “if there aren't notable people putting forward such allegations....”. I’d argue the POTUS is a notable person.

If the POTUS is discussing this on live Tv, then it should probably be addressed here.

And I say this, fully understanding that he says some of the most preposterous/absurd/factually incorrect things ever uttered by a World Leader (or functioning human being).

You can frame the allegations any way you deem appropriate until (if) the facts come out, but either way, the allegations should be included.

Nobody on here has made a strong argument why they should not be. One could easily make an argument they’re being omitted due to personal political bias of the moderator/contributor.

Thank you and enjoy your day.

SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The birther junk was a nearly decade long story with rather enormous coverage in reliable sources. This has yet to receive serious attention by reliable sources as it appears to be yet another of a huge pile of fake news. If it does receive serious coverage, it should be included. O3000 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re:

To specifically address this point “if there aren't notable people putting forward such allegations....”. I’d argue the POTUS is a notable person.
If the POTUS is discussing this on live Tv, then it should probably be addressed here.
And I say this, fully understanding that he says some of the most preposterous/absurd/factually incorrect things ever uttered by a World Leader (or functioning human being).
-SocialWikiWarrior

Seems like you've successfully refuted yourself. Not to be facetious, but in all seriousness, are we actually treating this extraordinary Trump fellow as a reliable source for... well, anything? I mean, one might assume any notable person can make any sort of outrageous and falsifiable claim, but it doesn't mean it necessarily warrants inclusion on a restroom wall, much less Wikipedia. Or are we obligated to repeat such shameless, obviously^{(one hopes)} baseless nonsense here on account of his prolific public notoriety?

~transmothra (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Birther Conspiracy started at the beginning of Obama’s run and then continued (to a much lesser degree) during his tenure. So I’m not sure where you’re getting “nearly a decade” from unless you’re counting his whole term. In that case, we’re at the beginning stage of Ilhan’s term and this conspiracy dates back three years already (to her campaign days in 2016). (Note: The amount of coverage a freshman Rep gets compared to a Presidential candidate is going to be understandably vast).

And what’s your definition of serious coverage? And from what sources would you except such coverage? You used the term “fake news”, but many would label Fox News (who’s basically the mouthpiece of the Republican Party) as also being “Fake News”. So which sources are acceptable? We’re not talking about the National Enquirer or some disgusting site like Stormfront running these stories.

I also want to make it clear that we’re putting this under the CONSPIRACY tab. We’re not substantiating it under Personal Life. It’s a conspiracy, so we should treat it as such.....but not ignore it.

Lastly, the Fact-Checking site Snopes found it necessary to do a thorough breakdown of the conspiracy (not sure if I’m permitted to post the link here, but I will upon request).

SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Transmothra - don’t look at it so much as it’s Trump saying it (who coincidently championed the Birther Conspiracy as well) but more that it’s the POTUS saying it. SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Excuse my typos - I think I used except instead of accept. I may have missed others (been a long day). SocialWikiWarrior (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree that for the time being the allegations that she married her brother should be excluded. However, what about allegations of bigamy? The article already details her complicated marital history (I had to read it twice to make sure I understood it), so it may be appropriate to explain that by being married to one man under the law and another under her religion led to allegations of bigamy to which she said she was legally married to one and culturally to another. Here's a couple articles about it from a quick Google search. (Redacted) https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/08/ilhan-omar-marriage-and-somali-culture-faq/. Emperor001 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have redacted an unreliable source that's unacceptable here - "Cockburn" is an anonymous gossip column and cannot be used as a source about living people per WP:BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I didn't have much time to do background check on my Google results so I wasn't sure which websites are known for propaganda versus news. Emperor001 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are you kidding? It's Wikipedia, leftist land of morphing standards. If she's sitting in federal prison convicted of immigration fraud they'll still be fighting including it. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, I think if such a thing happens, it would clearly be worthy of inclusion. But that's not what we have here - we have partisan rumormongering based on nothing more than purported anonymous Internet posts. When and if this rises beyond that, we can discuss it. Until then - it has no place here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not to worry, User:TheDarkOneLives, the genie is out of the bottle, and the "reliable" sources are starting to catch up. In the meantime, rather than getting cynical, it may be better to enjoy the hilarity.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Zekelayla: please discuss here as per WP:BRD. You have to follow WP:RS and avoid WP:SYNTH on WP:BLPs. Unless you have a reference that directly refutes Omar's beliefs, please self-revert. wumbolo ^^^ 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Wumbolo: I fail to see the synth. Omar said Popular Will was far-right. Popular Will characterizes itself as center-left. RS characterizes it as centrist. There are articles which explicitly contradict Omar on this and could be cited (e.g. https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/14/omar-criticizes-cold-war-policy-distract-socialisms-failure-venezuela/, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/rep-omar-backs-maduro-regime-shares-state-run-propaganda-on-social-media), but they are hardly more reliable and notable than the word of the party itself and the New York Times. Zekelayla (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

In order to mention this, you need a source that mentions Ilhan. The fact they call themselves social democratic and are members of the Socialist International and explicitly reject neo-liberalism does not mean they are necessarily so. TFD (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you insist, the above federalist article meets that description. Zekelayla (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

How about this language:

>Some commentators objected to Omar's use of the phrase "far right opposition".^[1][2] Guaidó's party, Popular Will, describes itself as progressive and social-democratic,^[3][4] while the New York Times described the party as centrist.^[5]

Op-eds are not WP:Reliable sources, see WP:BLPPRIMARY, and a single article in The Federalist is insufficient sourcing for such sweeping criticism. But looking at the references in the article, both of them suggest that Guaido is not a right-winger, which I just added. wumbolo ^^^ 20:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think the phrasing is poor. It implies that Ilhan is in error in her assessment of Guado, when in fact she is probably aware that he is a nominal socialist but does not believe that he truly is. The group she belongs to, the Democratic Socialists of America left the Socialist International two years ago because of their objection to its acceptance of parties such as Guaido's party which they considered right-wing. So it needs to be rephrased so that it is written as a difference of opinion rather than of facts. By comparison, Álvaro Uribe, the former president of neighboring Colombia also belonged to a member party of the Socialist International, yet is universally described as right-wing.[3] TFD (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wumbolo rephrased it, "She described Trump's action as a "U.S. backed coup" to "install a far right opposition", even though Guaidó is described as a centrist and a social democrat."[4] They wrote, "It doesn't imply that as it doesn't say her claim is false, and both refs saying it makes it WP:DUE as opposed to some WP:OR on the talk page " However it clearly does imply that Ilhan is wrong instead of holding a different opinion. Even if we accept Wumbolo's statement, it still presents her view as fringe.

Alan Macleod of the Glasgow University Media Group writes in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), "Everyone Washington Supports, by Definition, Is a Moderate Centrist" (March 23, 2019). Guaido is "a prominent opponent of the leftist government, championed by right-wing nations in the region keen to see the end of President Nicolás Maduro’s administration. Despite this, or rather precisely because of it, the media are presenting Guaidó not as a conservative (or further still to the right), but as a centrist social democrat who can unite a fractured nation."

Considering this is a biography of a living person, we should be careful. We would need to explain that different views exist. However, it is better to omit the controversy altogether and leave it to Venezuela related articles.

I have raised the issue at NPOVN.

TFD (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

FAIR is not a reliable source. If you can't find any RS saying what Omar says, her claim is in fact fringe. I'd agree with trimming/merging the section, but then plenty of editors will show up and complain about the length of the section about Israel. But we can try. wumbolo ^^^ 20:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, there is no consensus on its reliability. However, since the article is by an expert on media who is a member of the Glasgow Media Group and published by Routledge, it meets rs. ("Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.") It is certainly a reliable source for the statement that Guido's position on the political spectrum is a matter of opinion not fact. And as I mentioned at NPOVN, in the case of the BNP we require peer reviewed sources that say there is academic consensus about the position of the British National Party on the political spectrum, yet here you are willing to rely on the opinion of someone who has a journalism degree. TFD (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

SPS + SYNTH is too much for me, hopefully someone has a different opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 21:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:RANDOMLETTERS too much for me. Now go and find a reliable expert source that says there is consensus that Guado is center left or whatever you think he is. I found an expert source, so can you. The same author btw says the same thing in his book published by Routledge.[5] TFD (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@The Four Deuces: This MacLeod quote is unsuitable to begin with because it does not even characterize Guaido as on the right. It merely states that the media is not presenting Guaido as on the right. Darkly hinting he is a rightist =/= a stated opinion that he is a rightist. MacLeod likely avoids the latter since he does not have the evidence to back up such a claim. Zekelayla (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here's a source that is both a news article and by an expert in Latin American studies, specializing in Cuba and Venezuela: "Venezuela’s Right Wing Confesses to 17 years of Political Delinquency: The Amnesty Bill." In the article and in his book, Right-Wing Politics in the New Latin America, he describes the Venezuelan opposition as right-wing. The author in The Resilience of the Latin American Right; "Representing a Rightwing Agenda in the Context of Political Polarization" also represents the Venezuelan oppostition as right-wing. (p. 184)[6] I cannot find any academic sources that would refer to the opposition as left-wing. Bear in mind that Ilhan was referring to the opposition, not any particular part of it. TFD (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

A particularly polemical opinion piece, not a news article. Your second source looks OK. Although most sources characterize the Venezuelan opposition as centrist or big-tent, it might be OK to add to buttress the point that some source(s) has referred to it as right-wing (not far-right). That would be OK by me. But maybe those with a better understanding of WP:SYNTH would object? Zekelayla (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The opinions of journalists you agree with are authoritative, the opinions of experts you disagree with are polemical. TFD (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The phrasing added in the personal life section is either POV or OR (In addition, she apparently violated both US and Minnesota law by filing joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015 with Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi would require some source showing a conviction for some violation of the law, She says that in 2011 she and Elmi had a ... casts doubt on the reporting that she had a faith-based divorce, which no source has casted any doubt on). The material on the Trump tweet misrepresents the situation entirely, as several sources explicitly say the video was altered. nableezy - 20:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully disagree. The AP article, previously cited several times in the article, clearly states: "filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law" and there is no question or dispute that Omar did so. Not all law is criminal, and conviction isn't necessary for civil violations like IRS code. How would you propose a neutral inclusion of her (undisputed) filing tax of joint tax returns with a person to whom she was not legally married while legally married to someone else?

As for the video, common sense should suffice. The video wasn't "altered" in any commonly understood use of that term; it's inflammatory and prejudicial. Even the source with the "altered" headline makes clear that the only "edit" was the trimming down of the clip to an extremely short piece. No other changes were made to the video. And in terms of "context" -- it's the only description of the terrorist attacks, and nothing else in the entire speech qualifies that description in any way. All video is edited, and by these terms, literally every single video referenced on Wikipedia would be "altered". The use of the word is pure POV, regardless of source, and gives the false impression that the video was somehow "doctored" to give an impression contrary to the truth, which it clearly does not. There was outrage over Omar's description of 9/11 as "some people did something" -- and that's precisely how she described it in the speech, period.

And why have you removed the explication of the motivation for the rally? It's abundantly clear that it was not solely in protest of Trump--indeed, the previous citations make clear that much, if not the majority of the complaints were with Democratic politicians who failed to support Omar sufficiently, allegedly for racism, sexism, et al. This is directly quoting Omar and the organizers from the event itself. What part of that do you take issue with? Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Does the AP source say, explicitly, that Omar violated the law? Where? As far as the Trump pieces, if a reliable source says the video was altered and no reliable source disputes that it is altered then on Wikipedia the video was altered. I see no reason to engage in a debate based on OR. The sources say the video was altered, and you provide no sources that dispute that. You also took factcheck.org saying

We could not find that Omar has commented directly on the accusation that her words trivialized the attack, but she retweeted several defenders who said her comments were being manipulated and used out of context.

to source Omar has not directly defended her characterization of the September 11 terrorist attacks. That isnt quite what is reported, and either way serves to poison the well for the rest of the paragraph. The cited source on the protest (Essence) says nothing about the protest being against what they describe as racism, Islamophobia, sexism, and anti-immigrant sentiment from both Republican and Democratic politicians. It in fact directly says that [t]heir mission: demand that Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer formally disapprove of Donald Trump’s treatment of Rep. Omar and the incitement of violence against the Congresswoman. nableezy - 21:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The AP article expressly says Omar violated the law: "she had filed joint tax returns with her husband years before they were legally married and at a time when she was married to another man" and "filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law" -- how much clearer could that be? Can you more clearly explain what why you immediately deleted a neutral and topical edit?

As to the video -- the purpose of Wikipedia is to accurately convey information, not to blindly quote the headline from a single source, which may itself be biased. How was this video "altered" in a different way than every other snippet of video? Including a word like "altered" in this context implies that the video is in someway inaccurate, which it clearly is not. To include "altered" in this article is not neutral or accurate.

And as to the rally, you're correct, their mission is rooted in their disappointment with Democratic leaders. In the actual quotes I provided (and there are numerous other sources), it's abundantly clear that they're accusing the Democrats of Islamophobia, racism, sexism, and nativism. So you deleted an entire passage that clarified the actual reason for the rally was not simply "Omar blamed Trump and his allies for inciting Americans against both Jews and Muslims" as the original entry stated. This was not a POV issue -- I neutrally cited actual interviews with the women where they explicitly state their real reasons for the rally. Can you explain again why you deleted it? Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

What I would like is the AP directly accusing Omar of breaking the law. For the video, how is it altered? Editing a video does not typically imply intending to mislead as was the case here. As far as the rally, we typically prefer secondary sources over primary ones, and regardless the interview doesnt actually support most of what you included. It, for example, does not say anything about people protesting against racism, and only once discusses racism in explaining Omar's remarks (the line If you can’t find one, get another. And this is the, this is the fungibility that is at the heart of racism that Ilhan Omar was discussing when she said that some people do something, and all of us lose access to civil liberties.) nableezy - 04:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm doing my best to assume you're operating in good faith here, but I'm at a loss to understand much of what you're saying.

1. The AP isn't "accusing" anyone here—it is simply stating the fact that Omar broke state and federal laws. It couldn't be clearer. This is a continuous paragraph of two sentences, "Omar and her husband, Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi, filed joint tax returns for 2014 and 2015 — before they were actually married and while Omar was legally wed to another man... filing joint tax returns with someone who is not your legal spouse is against both federal and state law." There are numerous other sources with the same information.

Question: are you saying the AP did not report that Omar broke state and Federal laws?

2. The most accurate and unbiased statement is that this was an extremely short snippet of video taken from a longer one. It's not at all clear that there was an attempt to "mislead" anyone. Omar didn't make any other statement during the speech that contradicted or changed the meaning of her characterization of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Again, if the definition of "altered" is that video is edited in order to show only some part(s) of it, then all video is "altered". Would it be correct to say that footage of the moon landing was "altered"? Of course it's technically correct, but that would impute some sort of nefarious intent and would clearly violate NPOV. What happened here was that a "sound bite" or short clip of Ilhan Omar's speech, the only part of it where she referred to 9/11, was posted. The video, other than being edited in the exact same way as all video is edited, was otherwise unaltered. EVERY single short piece of video has been edited in the exact same way.

Questions: How and in what way did this video "mislead" anyone? All video is edited (or "altered") in the same way as this one was -- simply hitting start and stop on a video camera is doing the same thing -- so how is pointedly describing this video as "altered" compared to EVERY other video referenced throughout Wikipedia not POV?

3. Omar states that "the thing that upsets the occupant of the White House, his goons in the Republican Party, many of our colleagues in the Democratic Party, is that–is that they can’t stand, they cannot stand, that a refugee, a Black woman, an immigrant, a Muslim, shows up in Congress thinking she’s equal to them." A host of articles quote her on this (especially the Democrats not backing her more strongly) as THE primary reason for this rally.

Question: is or is not Omar accusing the President, the Republicans, and many Democrats of racism, sexism, anti-immigration sentiment, and Islamophobia?

nableezy is correct. AP does not accuse Omar of breaking the law. In the United States, people are not considered to be guilty of criminal offences unless convicted. For news media and even internet web-sites, there is the risk that claiming someone is guilty of a crime before conviction can prejudice a future trial, which is contempt of court, or result in damages for defamation. AP therefore has carefully avoided doing this. Whether or not they have however, Wikipedia articles cannot accuse people of committing crimes. Editors can get banned for doing that. By the way, learn to sign your posts and to indent. TFD (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Take a look at my suggestion here and tell me what people think about folding this into a larger section on Omar being targeted by Trump, since it seems to be a recurring thing that has been covered as such by sources. --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The current opening sentence is: Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (born October 4, 1982) is a Somali-American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2019.

It would be more precise to say: "Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (born October 4, 1982) is a Somali-born American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 05:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

We don't generally do that; where someone was born is not really important enough for the first line of someone's biography. Compare Arnold Schwarzenegger - "Austrian-American actor". Dan Crenshaw - "American politician." Norma Torres - "American politician." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Should probably just say American politician and talk about being born in Somalia later. nableezy - 06:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Per MOS:ETHNICITY this "should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.". It definitely doesn't belong in the first sentence. I would retain (second paragraph) - "she is the first Somali-American, the first naturalized citizen from Africa, and the first non-white woman elected from Minnesota," - as this is relevant to her notability (and the sentence indicates why) - but it doesn't belong in the first sentence. Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

That seems to be an acceptable compromise on notability. I see that the change has already been made. Jguttenburg (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I prefer Somali-born American because her notability was entirely achieved in the U.S. Also, Omar probably lost her Somali citizenship by becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. But I think her place of birth is very important to her story, routinely mentioned in articles about her, and therefore should be given prominence. TFD (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with TFD's assessment of notability, however, I'm concerned that other editors might see this as having some kind of anti-immigrant stance, especially in regards to recent claims made in the House of Representatives' recent resolution, which claimed the President said: "...that members of Congress who are immigrants or those of our colleagues who are wrongly assumed to be immigrants, do not belong in Congress or in the United States of America."

While it does differ from NorthBySouthBaranof)'s very well-supported examples (thank you for being so detailed). I do believe my initial wording to be the most succinct, and (in light of Icewhiz's valid consideration) to be especially relevant and notable, not only in light of future paragraphs in the article that highlight her national origin as significant, but because of the recent Congressional resolution on impeachment of the president. However, I will defer to others as to the appropriate wording. Jguttenburg (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Omar is an American politician - elected to represent the American people. While "Somali-born American politician" is perhaps better than "Somali-American politician" - both wordings suggest that Somali (or Somali-born) are adjectives that apply to her role in the US congress. I would posit they do not. We can cover the achievement of being the first Somali-American congresswomen further down in the lead - however we should not be seen as suggesting that this is relevant to her contemporary role (it certainly has garnered commentary - of some note - but commentary should be treated separately). Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I generally agree with Icewhiz. Her being born in Somalia is certainly relevant and should be included early on, but that isnt a relevant adjective to politician. A slightly different example, Barack Obama, says simply American lawyer and politician, and then says first African American ... . Raul Ruiz (politician) says American politician, then later born in Mexico. Pramila Jayapal says American politician, then first Indian-American ... . Mazie Hirono however says Japanese-born. Adriano Espaillat also says Dominican-American politician. I realize I gave examples that go against my position (I think those are wrong), just trying to be complete. nableezy - 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

So long as it is mentioned early on, I am fine with that. TFD (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think "Somali-born American" is the clearest and should be in the lead sentence. If it's good enough for Melania Trump... -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It should be removed from Trump as well. Icewhiz (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "Somali-born American" is fine on both pages, agree with MelanieN. This is just an important info because it appears in a number of publications about her. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

No, Wikipedia rules for biographies are clear that place of birth and/or previous nationalities are not included in the lead unless relevant to notability and are even more specific in that they state that the nationality included in the lead is the one under which the individual became notable. Omar became notable as a U.S. Citizen and furthermore as an American politician and not in Somalia (which she left as a child). She may likely not even have Somali citizenship any longer.Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Three points. (a) No, the place of birth is usually included. (b) This is not "ethnicity". There are many different ethnic groups in Somali. (c) This has been a matter of different recent controversies, was noted in a large number of sources, and therefore should be included. This is not a negative information about the person and extremely well sourced.My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the birth place is not usually included. See WP:Ethnicity. Quote: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability."Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• This is an obvious case when the place of birth is highly "relevant to the subject's notability." This is the first case in US history when a Somali-born women was elected to US Congress. This is not my opinion, but something a lot of RS tell. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I still agree with your point. While she maybe the first Somali-born woman elected to Congress, her Somalian birth has little to do with her achievements and/or notable position as a congresswoman. Her notability occurred entirely in the US as a US citizen. I think it would be more reasonable to suggest its inclusion in the lead if somehow she was still involved with Somalia in some notable way. After all, there are other politicians who are "firsts" in this way who do not have their ethnicity and/or national origins in their leads. Rashida Tlaib is the first American of palestinian descent elected to Congress yet we do not put her ethnicity in her lead. Simply being born a different nationality is not justification for inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your comparison is not a good one. Tlaib was born in the United States to Palestinian immigrants, while Omar was born in Somalia, then emigrated here. Somali Americans are a notable and sizable diaspora in the United States. Zaathras (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Why, NorthBySouthBaranof? soibangla (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, the sourcing and WP:DUE threshold for potentially-negative material about a WP:BLP is higher. The sources here are entirely debunking it and noting it's groundless, and they don't really indicate any sort of sustained coverage. Based on that I'd tend to say it's undue right now - it's just not a significant part of her biography. If anything, the coverage seems to make it more about Trump than about her. --Aquillion (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I tend to disagree that it's just not a significant part of her biography after Trump's comment yesterday. Before that, sure. But now it's DUE. And I'd prefer that you did not remove it four minutes after I opened this topic. Please restore it. soibangla (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I mean, this is a WP:BLP, so it's natural to be cautious. And I feel that automatically treating any internet rumor Trump mentions as relevant to the subject is a bit WP:UNDUE - again, the coverage seems more about Trump than about her. At the very least I'd want to wait per WP:RECENTISM and see how coverage develops. We could possibly also create a more specific section about Trump's focus on her and give it a sentence (or less) there; that would be both closer to WP:DUE and would avoid the WP:BLP concerns from giving so much focus to a rumor. I'm fairly sure there's a lot of sources now talking about Trump's fixation with her as a general topic, enough to support a section; and most sources (like these) reference that. Even then, this would be a tiny part of that section, just a mention that Trump has also brought up internet rumors about her without evidence - we probably don't need to go into detail on the precise rumors, since that's not the important part. The fact that she is a frequent target of Trump is an important part of her biography, yes. Most of the individual content of those attacks isn't so individually relevant. Basically, the story here is "Trump launches another attack on Ilhan Omar based on some random messageboard postings", not "random messageboard postings about Omar exist and here's what those posters said"; your section was structured in a way that put the focus on the latter aspect. --Aquillion (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're addressing DUE here, but it was tagged for NPOV, that's what I asked about. It's a big deal when a POTUS legitimizes as "fact" what was previously just another rumor about her life. Now it's a DUE aspect of her BLP. soibangla (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

First, I removed it for WP:DUE issues; I can't speak to the other objection, although realistically placing undue weight on something negative is also a WP:NPOV issue. Second, I disagree that the POTUS focusing on rumors makes them, themselves, a WP:DUE aspect of her biography, or that it legitimizes them or anything of that nature. What that does is make the fact that she was targeted by the president part of her BLP, since that's the focus of coverage. If you wanted to argue that it made the rumors themselves relevant on their own, we'd have to wait and see if there's additional coverage unrelated to the president's attacks using them. --Aquillion (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

WP:DUE is a section of WP:NPOV. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Aquillion and VQuakr have ably addressed the issue here - I adopt them as if restated personally. We're talking about completely-unevidenced rumors dredged out of the anonymous depths of the literal worst and least credible that the right-wing blogosphere has to offer. By foundational policy, we are not a news outlet, we avoid trafficking in sensationalistic scandalmongering and we can afford to wait and see before simply republishing anonymous partisan smears - particularly ones so deeply personal and damaging as an allegation of marrying a sibling to commit immigration fraud. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Trump repeated a false claim does not make it WP:DUE. It requires substantial coverage. TFD (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It has been extensively covered. Google news on: trump omar brother a lot of talk soibangla (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The thrust of the edit is not the rumor itself, but that the POTUS has now legitimized the rumor as "fact." soibangla (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

But the story is about Trump's use of racism and zenophobia. See for example the firstg story I got using your seaarch: "How Trump distorts facts to make Ilhan Omar seem like an enemy to the US" TFD (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit is not about racism and xenophobia. It's about how a POTUS has legitimized a rumor as a "fact," and that's why the topic has now become DUE. soibangla (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Trump's actual words were that there was “a lot of talk about the fact that [Ilhan Omar] was married to her brother,” and that he was “sure that somebody will be looking at that.” He wasn't actually legitimizing the rumor as fact - he was spreading the rumor. This is something he often does. Trump quote [7]; Trump often spreads rumors, [8] Llewkcalbyram (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

He was both asserting it as fact and spreading it as rumor, but now it's a rumor with the imprimatur of a POTUS asserting it as fact. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimized" in this context. The POTUS, himself, is obviously not a reliable source for things outside his opinions and positions - what the POTUS says and does tends to be significant, but we take our cue for how we cover that from secondary sources. And the secondary sources here are not "here's some rumors about Ilhan Omar", it is "Trump is attacking Ilhan Omar with lies again", which is very different. Like I said, I'd support a section titled something like "Targeting by Donald Trump" or the like, where this might deserve a sentence; but I don't think it justifies a section on the rumors themselves, because that isn't really the focus of coverage. Or, in other words, if you think that these rumors are now "legitimized" to the point where they're noteworthy distinct from the story of Trump targeting Omar, just wait a bit and we'll see if separate coverage appears. --Aquillion (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

IMO it's best to stay away from the area for now. The story is moving too fast, and WP:RS contradict each other.[9][10]. In light of WP:BLP and WP:WIKIVOICE, the only sensible decision is to leave it alone. As more sourcing becomes available, which it will, that might or might not change.Adoring nanny (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The content does not need to be removed per WP:BLP. Even though it's a private matter, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says that allegations that have been covered in reliable sources should be made note of. In addition to the other sources, The [New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/us/politics/trump-ilhan-omar-fact-check.html] has "fact-checked" these claims and thus given them attention. WP:WIKIVOICE concerns the writing and presentation, and requires that an allegation or accusation be attributed, not removed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

What does it matter if she married her brother? How is that immigration fraud? Should be covered under the 14th amendment.--Sandvol (talk) 16:46CDT, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This was mentioned above, but it seems worth spinning off into its own discussion. I feel the article could use a section on the way Omar has generally been targeted by Trump; this would avoid putting WP:UNDUE weight on any one of the false or misleading claims he made about her, while reflecting the way his attacks on her are increasingly covered. This would also serve as a place to put most of the Trump stuff without having it overwhelm the article (or as a place to give it the coverage it's WP:DUE, as appropriate, since it could become a major part of the article depending.) Here's some sources that seem relevant:

• USA Today, "Fact check: Trump’s false claims about Rep. Ilhan Omar"
• Factcheck.org, "Trump’s False Claims About Rep. Ilhan Omar"
• LA Times, "Q&A: Rep. Ilhan Omar is a favorite Trump target. What’s going on?"
• The Guardian, "How Trump distorts facts to make Ilhan Omar seem like an enemy to the US"
• Time, "How Rep. Ilhan Omar Rose From Refugee to Trump's Top Target"

There's a lot more sources about individual incidents, of course, but I feel it's important to find news sources that support the broader theme of "Rep. Ilhan Omar has been particularly targeted by Trump" or the like to avoid WP:SYNTH issues; we can include incidents there provided the sources generally put it in the context of this larger pattern. We'd also have to come up with a neutral title for the section that nonetheless gets across the basic thrust of coverage. Then we could mention more minor incidents like the one in the section above here, without giving them WP:UNDUE weight and with the context appropriate to the sources. It's silly to create a separate section for every single thing Trump says about her as if they're unrelated incidents, after all, when so many sources clearly tie them together into one topic. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me. I was just following the existing structure, but maybe it needs to be refined at this point. soibangla (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully more people will weigh in, since this would involve changing existing stuff, too - definitely the "go home" section, and probably the 9/11 comments section, would both be folded into this, since in both cases the notability of the incident seems to be primarily about her being targeted by Trump. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

This approach makes sense to me. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It has become an issue of very wide interest now that Angela Merkel, considered by many to have replaced the US president as the "Leader of the Free World", has commented on the incident and come out in support of Omar. [11] It seems to me that at this point we should have a fairly large section covering this ongoing verbal battle. Gandydancer (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The British leader Theresa May has also condemned the verbal attacks on Omar, see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48990760. The increasing international interest in the issue of the U.S. president's racism is good reason for greater wikipedia coverage. NightHeron (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Article only includes positive feedback sources. Heavily biased Kevin6543225 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you have examples, please provide them. I have posted a message on your talk page that provides links to policies and guidelines. It may be that you have a complaint against Wikipedia in general, which relies on mainstream media for news. If so, that is best addressed in policy discussions. TFD (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article says: "On July 14, 2019, President Trump tweeted that four Democratic congresswomen of color including Omar should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough."

The actual tweet said "So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

The tweet does not specify that it is referring to "four Democratic congresswomen of color" - that is an assumption that was made by people who see racial implications in the tweet, but not by people who think the tweet was written to exclude racial implications. ANd asking "why don't they go back" feels less harsh than that they "should go back."

I suggest rewriting that sentence as "In a tweet on July 14, 2019, President Trump asked "Progressive Democrat Congresswomen," presumably including Omar, "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough." "

I will add that revision because it seems to improve neutrality. Llewkcalbyram (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• @Llewkcalbyram: - Trump admitted he was referring to the four congresswomen: [12] So great to see how unified the Republican Party was on today's vote concerning statements I made about four Democrat Congresswomen. starship.paint (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• • My worry is that "four congresswomen of color" assumes they were singled out because they are POC, when they have also identified themselves as a group ("the squad")- a group of four congresswomen who all happen to be POC.

• • The cited article did not actually report that Trump "admited" he was referring to the four congresswomen; the closest the article comes is in quoting a tweet: "So great to see how unified the Republican Party was on today's vote concerning statements I made about four Democrat Congresswomen. If you really want to see statements, look at the horrible things they said about our Country, Israel, and much more. They are now the top, most visible members of the House Democrats, who are now wedded to this bitterness and hate. The Republican vote was 187-4. Wow! Also, this was the first time since 1984 that the Speaker of the House was ruled Out of Order and broke the Rules of the House. Quite a day!" Again, people will disagree whether or not this is a racist statement since it does not include explicit racist elements or language. 2605:A000:1505:17B7:F8B9:2222:C465:845C (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

There is no doubt who he was talking about; in his Wednesday speech he specifically named all four of them. He does appears to be attacking them as an identified group (a group which has been repeatedly named and criticized by Fox News; in fact his first tweet was inspired by something on Fox and Friends). He does not point out that they POC, although it is certainly no coincidence that they are, and in fact his "go back to your countries" line (when only only one is actually from another country) is a classic example of Perpetual foreigner logic. Bottom line, I agree with the changes made by Llewkcalbyram and Soibangla. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ihan Omar has been credibly accused of tax and immigration fraud, as noted in several major publications. There is no mention of those allegations in the article. To dedicate an entirely separate (and new) section without explaining the background of the those remarks is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

^{[citation needed]}. Be aware that defamatory claims about living people need to be supported by reliable sources. What are these "credible" accusations and who is "credibly" making them? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jguttenburg: If you do not support these claims in the next hour, I'm going to hat this thread as a violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@NorthBySouthBaranof: An hour is not a reasonable time frame for a request, as not everyone is constantly at their computer. If you have questions, feel free to ask them, but don't presume to place demands on other people's time.

• https://www.twincities.com/2019/06/07/ilhan-omars-tax-filings-scrutinized-heres-a-timeline-including-her-marriage-status/
• https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-violated-campaign-finance-rules-investigation-finds-as-questions-about-tax-status-arise
• https://theminnesotasun.com/2018/10/26/ilhan-omars-alleged-marriage-to-brother-occurred-at-time-of-massive-immigration-fraud/
• https://www.city-journal.org/html/curious-case-ilhan-omar-14724.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jguttenburg (talk • contribs)

• The Minnesota Sun is a partisan blog with a misleading name that's actually based in Ohio per their own contact information and has no reputation for fact-checking, accuracy or anything else - so that's not a reliable source and cannot be used here.
• City Journal is also a partisan magazine; the article you cite is a first-person opinion column written by a conservative blogger from Power Line. Opinion columns are not acceptable sources for claims about living people.
• The other two sources use the word "fraud" only in repeating what the sources state are claims made by "conservative pundits" and random conservative Twitter users. Again, that's insufficient to justify inclusion of such claims in a Wikipedia biography. We don't include every claim made about Donald Trump by random people on Twitter either. None of this adds up to "credible accusations" of criminal behavior, and as such, I'm hatting this thread. Please review WP:BLP - we have a policy-based obligation to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and an avoidance of sensationalism. Your demand that we include claims that Omar is guilty of federal felonies based upon nothing more than speculation, rumor-mongering and angry partisan tweets is categorically unacceptable. Other sites such as Conservapedia may welcome such nonsense; that's up to them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

If an allegation is to be included in the article, it must have been reported on by reliable sources—whether someone was "credibly accused" is not the issue. Also, unhatting this discussion—if this is a bad idea, no reason it can't be discussed, and the hatnote was probably in violation of WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Instead of getting information from right-wing blogs and searching reliable sources to see if they have picked up on them, it's better to begin with reliable sources and report what they say. As the Venn diagram shows, while sometimes what they report is the same, in most cases it is not. TFD (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Which sources initially picked up on a story is irrelevant. Once something has received mainstream coverage, it becomes WP:DUE. Such sources serve to correct the record, and that's why the latter are citable on Wiki and not the former. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Every year, newspapers cover what the president has on his Thanksgiving table, and what his family gets each other for Christmas. Editors should use discretion as to what is relevant to a biography. Just "I saw it in the news" isn't enough. Zaathras (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply