Talk:Ilhan Omar

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

Financial transparency issues: Campaign payments to E Street Group

"Since 2018, Omar's campaign has paid $586,000 to E Street Group, a consulting firm owned and operated by Tim Mynett. Omar married Mynett in March 2020, following allegations from Mynett's ex-wife that he was romantically involved with Omar in her divorce filings. At the time of Mynett's ex-wife's claims, Omar and Mynett had denied romantic involvement.

This information was removed because "there was never any wrongdoing found. this was a hot topic within right-wing circles for a blip of time." The section is not about FEC actions taken against Omar, it is about well covered and widely reported criticism of her campaign's spending in both local (https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/07/22/new-ilhan-omar-attack-ad-goes-after-1-1m-in-campaign-funds-paid-to-her-husbands-firm/, https://www.startribune.com/u-s-rep-ilhan-omar-severs-financial-ties-with-husband-s-political-firm/573094641/) and national outlets like the Washington Post that are considered highly reliable and can hardly be dismissed as "right-wing circles." This was reported by the Washington Post as drawing "renewed scrutiny of campaign spending." The total amount paid to Mynett's firm was over $1.1m, with over $400,000 paid since they married, representing approximately 40% of total campaign spending.

In a section titled "Financial transparency issues," this is a glaring omission. The section is not titled FEC Enforcement Action or Campaign Finance Violations, and this is a clearly identified issue with financial transparency that has been widely reported. Alternatively, a section could be created to more specifically refer to payments made by her campaign to her husband's firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atxwi (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The section also lacks mention of the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board's finding that Omar illegally filed joint tax returns with a man she was not married to, while legally married to another man. The Campaign Finance Board's report has been widely reported in reliable local and national sources and should be added to the article.

Atxwi (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree with @Atxwi::

1. Wikipedia doesn't shy away from covering suggestions of financial impropriety—even when multiple investigations have found no wrongdoing (e.g., the lead of the Kelly Loeffler article).

2. The finding that a public servant who legislates on taxation violated Federal and state laws by filing taxes jointly with one man while married to another is prima facie notable—as is the fact that she has criticized other politicians for refusing to release their tax returns, while failing to respond to calls (and an AP request) to release her own.

3. These are all well established, widely reported and impeccably sourced facts, and their exclusion lends a distinctly unpleasant odor to Wikipedia's editing process when it comes to politicians of differing stripes.

4. I would also note that I attempted to remove "conspiracy theories" from the "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment" section, as I'm unable to find any "conspiracy theory" mentioned in the article or cited sources (in which Omar is alleged to have been a conspirator—of course she herself has been accused of propagating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories). My edit was reverted, along with a non-responsive and mocking note, but I would again ask for the citation of any "conspiracy theory" in the text—otherwise, the term would appear to be, most charitably, "original research". I definitely see how claims that she married her brother point to her participation in a criminal conspiracy—but the article appears to have been repeatedly sanitized of those widely-reported allegations.

Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed to your point about Conspiracy Theories. As with any politician, Omar is going to have some people thinking crazy things about them (see the many wacky conspiracy theories regarding any other prominent politician). Why that is given highly disproportionate attention, including framing the overwhelming majority of criticism against Omar as racial attacks or undefined conspiracy theories is unclear.

It may make the most sense to add a section on her legal issues to her Tenure, as is done with Loeffler's article to accurately place the issues into the timeline of her congressional tenure. This should also be added to the lead. This has been a well covered topic regarding Omar in the media and in her legal issues. Unlike other examples that are featured in their article's lead (Loeffler), this encompasses known violations of state law rather than simple investigations into wrongdoing.

The same is true for the widely covered criticisms that Omar's statements are antisemitic. Reading the article's lead, you would be led to believe that the only reason Omar is controversial is the "death threats, conspiracy theories, harassment by political opponents and false and misleading statements by Donald Trump." Reverting edits that cover any reporting on Omar that is not explicitly positive, including judgements made by the state Campaign Finance Board that found her to be in violation of the law, is detrimental to the accuracy of this article as a whole.

Remarkably, her widely reported illegal filing (as found by the Minnesota CFB) of joint tax returns with a man she was not married to is actually cited in the article as it was a major story in the national news media, but has instead been used to cite the fact that she was married to him with no mention of the widely reported illegal filings. The same is true for Tim Mynett, where all major media coverage of the marriage includes the fact that Mynett's company was receiving payments from Omar's campaign while they were denying a romantic relationship alleged by Mynett's ex-wife and the subsequent hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to his company.

Atxwi (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Atxwi:, yes—as to the previous, my specific point was that none of the things listed in the section so labeled are in fact "conspiracy theories". Omar is alleged to have: been punched; received death threats; had her photo juxtaposing with the WTC on 9/11; been criticized for saying "some people did something"; told she can go back to Somalia; had her patriotism questioned; and been subjected to alleged "hate speech" characterized as "Islamaphobic" and "anti-immigrant". None of those is a "conspiracy theory" featuring Omar as a conspirator, and the only one that could possibly been construed as such is having her photo near one of the WTC—and the cited sources mention nothing of the sort. However, my removal of the term was reverted by an editor who's been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me with the comment "This was a terrible edit for more reasons than can be enumerated in an edit summary." For some reason, he also deleted her name in Arabic.

More broadly, I agree that there should be sections on both her legal issues as well as her reported antisemitism, and that they should be referenced in the lead. She is best known for being a Somali Muslim Congresswoman who wears a hijab; for her anti-capitalist and socialist political bent; for her shady finances, overlapping (re)marriages, and refusing to answer questions about either; and for her serial antisemitism and subsequent "clarifications". I have attempted in the past to include indisputed, widely reported facts regarding her violation of laws vis a vis her taxes, and was aggressively reverted.

As you wrote, this article is routinely sanitized as if by Omar's PR team. Look no further than the "Views on the Police" section above, where editors grind down any mention of the widely reported fact that she called a police department "a cancer" and "rotten to the core" in favor of anodyne statements about "rebuilding" and "reform"—by claiming an encyclopedia must avoid "eye-catching emotional" quotations. Wikipedia is increasingly a bastion of naked left-wing political advocacy. Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros, please knock it off with garbage comments like this article is routinely sanitized as if by Omar's PR team and Wikipedia is increasingly a bastion of naked left-wing political advocacy. We here are supposed to assume good faith and work collaboratively. You post shit like this, it gives off the impression that you want to "rebalance" the article by adding negative things about the subject, and that does not make it easy to collaborate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: in what way does the second part of the edit by @Atxwi: which you reverted here[[1]] "misstate what sources show"?

@Atxwi: The issue was not "a focus of criticism by her primary opponent and local and national media" because mainstream local and national media reported on the criticism, which is not the same as doing the criticism. NightHeron (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Agreed I have changed this section to reflect the fact that the widespread coverage focused on criticism of her campaign's payments to Mynett by a number of different groups rather than being primarily editorial criticism of those payments.

The two sources cited in the Personal Life section covering her marriage to Mynett report on the marriage as being notable in the context of two things: 1. Mynett and Omar's denial, months before announcing they were married, of being in any relationship at all following Mynett's ex-wife's claims that he was engaged in an affair with Omar. Their denials are in the headline of the main AP article cited, and Beth Mynett's allegations of Mynett's affair are a significant piece of the ABC article. As such, this section should include this coverage if we are using these sources.

2. The significant contracts Mynett's firm received from Omar's campaign before their wedding announcement, at which point they were denying romantic involvement, and the millions of dollars received after their marriage. This made Mynett's firm and Omar's campaign each other's largest contractor and client respectively, and is covered widely locally, nationally and internationally. This includes the AP article cited in the section.

I've added context to more accurately reflect the coverage in the sources cited than the current "Mynett worked for her campaign," which does not accurately reflect the focus of the coverage.

@Atxwi: Agreed that her denials of an affair are worthy of inclusion, given the wide reportage. I think it's worth including issues brought up by the comments by Professor Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey School in the AP story as to why he believes the episode raised legitimate questions about her honesty. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

References

December 13 edit summaries

I believe that the editor that added edits stated in the summary as merely adding sources was not accurately reflecting the actual edits. These edits should be reversed IMO. This is a BLP and this sort of behavior must not be tolerated. Gandydancer (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, you are free to challenge any edits on BLP grounds, of course. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Move these refs on down

Move refs down (I forget how to break this chain...) Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, do you mean to keep the references in the appropriate section? Use {{reflist-talk}} in the appropriate section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate description

I think it is inappropriate to describe her family as a moderate sunni muslim family. They are normal. Using the word moderate sounds like as if the extremists (in this case the Wahhabis) are the normal muslims. Her family is the normal way muslims are. The word moderate should be removed. Only sunni muslims should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semakpln (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I see your point. Most readers probably know little about Wahhabism, so perhaps we should make the sentence clearer by inserting "conservative" or "puritanical" (the words used in the lead sentence of the Wahhabism article) along with "rigid" before "Wahhabi interpretation". If we do that, the word "moderate" becomes redundant, so there'd be no reason to keep it. Then the who-clause would be: who were Sunni Muslims opposed to the rigid, puritanical [or "conservative"] Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. NightHeron (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Add IPA?

It seems that there should be an IPA template added to the lead section. Omar's full name (Ilhan Abdullahi Omar) could be difficult to pronounce, and IPAs are added in articles where this is the case. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I object to adding an IPA pronunciation without a reliable source to support it. --JBL (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: here is a source with the correct pronunciation. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe that source that the a in "Omar" is pronounced like the a in "cat"? The a in Omar Sharif's first name is pronounced like the a in "father". NightHeron (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Which is exactly why there should be an IPA. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Politicsfan4: But a reliable one. An incorrect one is worse than having none. NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Is GovTrack not reliable? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Probably not in this case; compare with [2]. NightHeron (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: I think that govtrack is more reliable than Google's automated pronunciation. Anyways, they both sound the same to me. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the reverse. They're not the same. The a in "cat" and the a in "father" are different. Most likely the "Omar" in Ilhan Omar is pronounced the same as the "Omar" in Omar Sharif, wouldn't you think? NightHeron (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: So should the IPA be added using the Google pronunciation as a source? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No, my opinion that Google's the reliable one here is just one person's opinion. For Wikipedia we need an authoritative source for what's correct. Probably both you and I are correct -- you that Google is not authoritative and I that govtrack is not reliable. NightHeron (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron: In any case, I would definitely support the addition of an IPA here. But where are we supposed to find a reliable source? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know -- sorry. That might be a good question to ask a more experienced editor than I am; you could use the suggestion in the welcome message on your talk page. NightHeron (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Far-left

If Majorie Green on the right of the Republican Party is reported (on Wikipedia)as far-right, then from a NPOV, should Omar who is on the extreme left of the Democratic Party be reported as far-left too.

Both have made anti Semitic comments.

Nonsense. Omar has not called for the killing of people she disagrees with. Greene has called for the execution of prominent Democrats. NightHeron (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that the only criterion for determining whether or not a US politician is far-left or far-right. As for Omar being on extreme left, please consider this article before replying. https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/ilhan-omar-voted-2019s-antisemite-of-the-year-613308 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.41 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Omar's remarks about Israel, and her apologies for some of them, have already been discussed at length on this talk page, so don't need to be discussed again. But even if she were an anti-semite (which has been disputed), that does not equate to "far-left". If it did, a large part of the far right would also be far left. NightHeron (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a poll conducted by stopantisemitism.org, a group funded by Milstein Family Foundation. The website defines criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitism and Adam Milstein was forced out of AIPAC for false Islamophobic claims about Omar and Congresswoman Tlaib. Omar's defense of Palestinians probably has more to do with her religion (Islam) than left-right politics. TFD (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I've read the page, and it seems to me like the page has a point of view issue. the opening does not mention Ilhan's controversial statements, instead opting to frame them as vocal criticism, and goes out of its way, both in the opening and later on, to describe comments made about Omar in a way which appears to be victimizing her. to use the opening as an example:

"Omar is the first Somali American, the first naturalized citizen of African birth, and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in the United States Congress. She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib) to serve in Congress.[11][12] She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, other harassment by political opponents,[13][14] and false and misleading claims by Donald Trump.[15][16]" should probably sound more like:

"A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies.[8][9][10] Omar is the first Somali American, the first naturalized citizen of African birth, and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota in the United States Congress. She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib) to serve in Congress.[11][12] Omar's criticisms of the State of Israel, the nation's settlement policy, and the pro-israel lobby in the United States, have drawn significant criticism from Jewish, Israeli, and Semitic groups, which they claim stem from anti-semitism, which they see as evident in multiple of her statements.[8][9][10]" Totalstgamer (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, this does not belong in the lead. Omar has taken controversial positions on many issues, and Israel is only one of them. The lead as currently written is accurate and well sourced. NightHeron (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, but im still kind of weary regarding the mention of criticism towards Omar. mostly in the sense that it feels strange to emphasize, especially in the lead, the existence of death threats, given that a significant amount of politicians recieve them. same thing for harassment, conspiracy theories, and claims by Donald Trump. On top of that, the section relating to her harassment online also seems strange to me in terms of its existence, and im not sure its particularly notable. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources make clear that she's a prime target of the right wing, and you'd be hard pressed to find another member of the House of Representatives who's been so vilified by the right wing. This is notable. If you have in mind well-sourced death threats against other politicians that are not mentioned on their BLP, by all means add mentions of them there. NightHeron (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources, most notably in the lead, just mention that "She has been the subject of several death threats, conspiracy theories, harassment by political opponents, and false and misleading claims by Donald Trump." I see what you mean, but that is very broad, and certainly doesnt appear to be notable in its own right, the same applies to the last part of the "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment" section, which simply argues that she's the most frequently harassed muslim-american politician, which is not very notable given the limited number of muslim-americans in congress. id apply this to a lesser extent to the "patriotism questioned" sub-heading Totalstgamer (talk) 16:07, 10 February

The source cited at the end of the section on "Threats, conspiracy theories, and harassment" discusses Islamophobic attacks on three Muslim American politicians and says that Omar was the prime target. This is notable because the right-wing attacks on her were explicitly connected to her religious faith, and because, of the three politicians discussed, Omar stands out as the number one target. NightHeron (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So the attacks against Omar are notable because they're connected to religious faith, and Omar has been attacked more than the other two individuals cited? that's hardly noteworthy, at least on Ilhan's page, though it would probably be notable within Threatening government officials of the United States. besides, there are other things that need to be addressed, such as the lack of reasoning for notability in the lead itself, as mentioned previously. Totalstgamer (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteworthiness is determined solely by the treatment of various topics about the subject in the body of reliable sources. While reliable sources may choose to highlight attacks against Omar because she is a Muslim, we highlight them because reliable sources do. If your main source of news is outside the mainstream, then expect to see a different emphasis either pro or con. But we don't balance mainstream sources with alternative ones. TFD (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The lead should reflect the body. This topic gets significant coverage in the body, ergo it is summarized briefly in the lead. (It gets significant coverage in the body because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.) --JBL (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I see, in that case, would it not be sensible to determine that the controversiality of Omar's actions or statements is also worth summarizing in the lead? given the vareity of sources that include, or center around, said criticism of Omar by a Jewish, Israeli, or otherwise prevalent group. this is far from fringe or alternative, in that, criticism of Omar is rampant enough to warrant a note regarding its status in the lead Totalstgamer (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell which of two things you are interested in: something currently in the body of the article that is omitted (or inadequately summarized) in the lead, or something in reliable sources that is omitted in the body?

(Separately, and not really central: the notion of "controversiality" is problematic at best. I think it is almost always better to replace a statement that something is controversial with a substantive statement about the nature of the controversy.) --JBL (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, what is worth mentioning in the lead is determined by the degree of coverage in reliable sources. If Omar walks on water, raises the dead and balances the U.S. budget and it receives only passing coverage, then it is not significant. TFD (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s not worth arguing about it here. Editors here have long ago discarded the idea that criticism of her for any reason can be included in any meaningful sense, so you might as well just move on. Toa Nidhiki05 20:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)