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).

Her name is Ilham

On Twitter she said her name is Ilham, she change the m to an n, but it’s not clear whether she legally changed her name or just uses Ilhan as a nickname https://twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1317600147321257985 Thomasdelbert (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In the same tweet she says she prefers "Ilhan" and that is how she is commonly referred.VR _talk 17:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bulk deletion about relationship with Turkey not appropriate

Hi, @NightHeron: - I'm sure we can work out our differences here rather than bulk delete well-sourced sections wholesale. Let me know what you'd like to modify and I'm sure we can find some reasonable compromises! --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your proposed edit to the talk-page rather than continuing to edit-war. That's required by Wikipedia policy (see WP:ONUS). Since it seems you've been editing for only 3 weeks, I can understand your not yet being familiar with WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and WP:BLP (biographies of living persons). Please read and adhere to those policies when editing Ilhan Omar. Another relevant policy is WP:OR (original research). To start with, your first sentence is an example of OR, because of the way you choose to link misdeeds of the Turkish government with Omar. Your wording in wikivoice blatantly violates NPOV and reads like a political attack on her. If you can come up with neutral wording that does not go beyond what multiple reliable sources are saying, then please suggest it here on the talk-page. There are many editors who watchlist this article, and some of them may wish to comment. NightHeron (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Delighted to have the chance to talk here. In my experience with other pages, gracious editors (and even very rude ones!) are happy to modify the language of well-sourced and otherwise legitimate edits to a page, rather than bulk-deleting sections whole-cloth they find unpalatable, thereby talking the first shot in an edit war. But you are right, my experience is limited, and maybe those have just been fortunate encounters (or perhaps my interlocutors were equally inexpert with Wikipedia). I'm very glad we discuss matters in a civil way here. With apologies for poor formatting (and perhaps other Wiki faux-pas):

You deleted in full the following sections:

→In 2017, at a moment when the government of Turkey had jailed more than 50,000 academics, teachers, journalists, court officials, judges, police, and military personnel following the failed coup of 2016, then-State Representative Omar participated in a closed-door meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in New York City.

I can certainly appreciate the concern about the first clause. Perhaps we might stick with this:

→In 2017, then-State Representative Omar participated in a closed-door meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in New York City.

This is surely important to have somewhere on the page; although Rep. Omar's relationship to Turkey has been widely discussed (by people from across the political spectrum: cf. e.g. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/ilhan-omar-turkey-armenia-kurds-imperialism), not much about Turkey, and absolutely nothing about Erdogan, appear on the page currently. This seems like a non-negligible shortcoming.

You also deleted the following section:

→In her official explanation of her decision to vote "present" on H.Res. 296 to recognize the Armenian genocide, Omar appeared to use specific language and arguments, including the phrase "leave it do the academic consensus" promoted by the Turkish government and its lobbyists. Another argument advanced by Omar, that "true acknowledgment of historical crimes against humanity must include … earlier mass slaughters like the transatlantic slave trade and Native American genocide," was described by Slate magazine as "classic what-aboutism."

I'd be very happy to discuss further whatever seems objectionable here; both the article by NBC and by TheHill.com note that Rep. Omar appeared to have cribbed official Turkish talking points. I trust that both of these outlets meet the definition of a "reliable source"? (I felt that the citation showing those talking points in action added value, but I'm happy to dispense with it! Incidentally, in view of Rep. Omar's extensive critique of foreign lobbying power, this also seems highly pertinent; but that is neither here nor there.) I'd also be happy to discuss the best way to capture the gist of the Slate article.

Another block of text you deleted ran:

→In an op-ed published in October 2019, Omar argued against imposing sanctions on Turkey on the grounds that sanctions tend to hurt ordinary citizens in the country sanctioned, but suggested that sanctions targeting individuals or the purchase of arms were more appropriate; Omar then voted against a sanctions bill that was designed to target banks or entities involved in the arm trade on behalf of Turkey.

It is unclear to me what crosses the line here. The first sentence simply summarizes Rep. Omar's own words in a neutral manner. The second again summarizes in a very neutral way both the bill itself (which I cited) and reporting from the New York Times about the bill. Again, I would be happy to discuss different language that you might feel is more suitable.

Finally, there was the following block of text you deleted:

→In 2019, it was revealed that Omar had received a large campaign donation from a Turkish lobbying group led by, Halil Mutlu, a cousin of President Erdogan. Mutlu was present at the 2017 clash between Erdogan's bodyguards and peaceful protestors in Washington D.C.

Again, this seems to be a mere statement of fact. I can see that it may seem tendentious to put Omar in a sentence next to the violence outside the Turkish Ambassador's residence. But it also seems to me that Mutlu is not well-known enough to be introduced without further context, and, as it happens, the two things Mr. Mutlu is known for in the American media seem to be that he is a) a Turkish lobbyist, b) President Erdogan's blood-relation, and c) played a role in the aforementioned violence about the Ambassador's residence. Again, I am happy to modify this as is appropriate, but I can't see why campaign donations are not fair game for inclusion here? Based on her past remarks, I feel confident that Rep. Omar would agree with me on this point, and I have been consistent in flagging up similar campaign donation stories on political pages across the spectrum; this is valuable information that surely belongs in "any summary of existing mainstream knowledge" relating to a politician.

Finally, I am perplexed by the fact that you have just now deleted the following edit:

→According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, Omar's political campaign paid her husband's consulting firm nearly $2.8 million during the course of the 2019-2020 election cycle.

This is hardly a "major edit" to a page, so I can't imagine it would need any consensus to be added (and I'd be grateful to see where such a policy is stated - my apologies again for being new). What is more, it is a factual assertion that has been widely reported on by plenty of sources (whether or not either of us like Fox News), and at any rate, we can all go to the FEC filings for ourselves, so the basic facts aren't contested. Nor can I see how this articulation of the point might violate any POV issues here. Can it be appropriate to delete a neutrally-stated, widely-reported, credibly-sourced factual assertion without any explanation whatsoever? Perhaps I am wrong, but that very much feels like the first shot in an edit-war - which I have no doubt neither of us want.

With my thanks to you - and to any other editors who may wish to comment - for your consideration Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Publius In The 21st Century Let's not cast aspersions at other editors. There was a lot wrong with your edits, and NightHeron did the right thing by removing them. Please also remember to link diffs (it's really hard to follow without them). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The text is written in a prejudicial tone. Saying that Omar met the Turkish president at a time when he jailed people implies she endorsed the crackdown. For all we know, she asked the president to release them. Also, reporting a $1,500 campaign donation as "a large campaign donation" is a misleading, since her campaign cost $5.5 million. Contrary to your edit, the donation did not come from a lobbying group, but was a personal donation from Halil Mutlu, who lobbies for Turkey but whose main occupation is as a doctor. Mutlu has made many political donations including to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.[1] If I could buy political influence for $1,500, I'd be reaching for my checkbook. Maybe I could be appointed Secretary of State or Postmaster-General or something like that. TFD (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Eight former U.S. secretaries of state signed a petition against the United States resolution on Armenian Genocide. Former presidents including Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and Barack Obama and current president, Donald Trump also opposed a resolution. You need to provide that context instead of implying that Omar's vote was somehow pro-Turkey. TFD (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks to all! I cast no aspersions. So, as far as specific feedback goes, I see that I should drop 'large' from campaign donation. Happily done. I am certainly happy to drop the clause regarding the jailing of academics etc. in Turkey, as I tried to make clear in my post just now. It is also correct that Yahoo News misreported the nature of the donation from Mutlu - they attribute it to TASC, but reference to the FEC page makes clear that you are right, TFD. So in fact I'd be very happy to drop both two sentences about Mutlu for the reasons you specify, TFD As for edits, the main one, the one discussed at length in the above posts, was this [2] added by me - my apologies for failing to include them, talk, and thank you for the guidance. The final sentence in my post refers to this [3]. In my post on this talk page, I tried to go through each of my edits point-by-point, spelling out what seemed like it needed to be changed (including deleting the portion about Turkey jailing people in 2017 - though, for the record, you rightly point out, TFD , that one read that as prejudicial only if you assume that the writer is prejudicial - we might well assume that she was asking Erdogan to release the jailed academics, and I in no way suggested otherwise!) and also defending what seemed legitimate. I am also happy to add that the Secs of State, Carter, George W., Obama, and Trump opposed the resolution, and also that it passed the House 403-15, with Omar being the sole Democrat to vote Nay. Naturally I will be happy to continue to modify content and citations in line with other specific feedback presented! Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Another problem is WP:UNDUE, that is, paying excessive attention to a minor issue. If you can propose a brief text that's neutrally worded and supported by sources, that would be helpful. NightHeron (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Just to clarify, you mean a brief text that includes everything about Rep. Omar's relationship to Turkey? In that case, might I ask what you mean by brief, more or less? Thanks!

Finally, might I kindly ask on what grounds you rejected the recent reports that Rep. Omar's campaign has paid several million dollars to her husband campaign firm? As far as I understand, it would at least be appropriate to state a reason before summarily deleting an edit made in good faith?--Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Brief text means a 1-sentence neutrally worded summary that accurately conveys what multiple reliable sources say about it. Anything more would be WP:UNDUE.

The grounds for rejecting your other edit is that it is sourced only to Fox, which is known for airing unreliable attacks on Democrats. The wording implies that she did something wrong, and this needs much better sourcing, see WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi NightHeron, could you please elaborate why anything more than 1 sentence would be undue? Having examined the parameters laid out in the page to which you linked, a one-sentence limit-by-fiat seems quite arbitrary, especially when one considers that e.g. her views on Venezuela get three paragraphs. Might I kindly ask you to elaborate on the precise criteria underlying the strict one-sentence diktat? Note that this one sentence would need to encompass: a) her very widely-discussed vote on the Armenian genocide bill, which prompted i) widely reported concern that her language explaining her vote closely mirrored official Turkish talking points and ii) widely reported concern that the arguments she made to defend Turkey were inconsistent with her other positions on human rights; b) a widely-discussed vote on sanctions against Turkey, which i) also involved her writing an Op-Ed in a major news outlet and also ii) occasioned relatively broad discussion about the inconsistency between the stated position in the Op-Ed and Rep. Omar's actual vote.

Ideally, this sentence would also simply note Rep. Omar's unusual meeting with the head of Turkey in 2017 (not many state-Reps meet with heads of gov. of major countries); in view of Omar's comments about the power of foreign lobbying in U.S. policy, it would note her relationship to members of the Turkish lobby. Incidentally, I do not consider these things to be inherently good or bad, and there is no implication that someone is a 'double agent' or anything odd like that; it simply provides important context of exactly the sort one can find in Jacobin Mag - not the place where one finds normally finds anti-Omar screed.

Finally, regarding the campaign payments, I am only too happy to avoid Fox, though I do note it is widely used in other biographies of living persons, and I just wondered whether there is a uniform policy on this across Wikipedia, or if that is decided on a page-by-page basis. I would be happy to link to the FEC filings themselves, since the basic facts of the story are not in question. I am more surprised by the quarrel with the language used. Might I kiindly ask what specifically about this sentence -- "According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, Omar's political campaign paid her husband's consulting firm nearly $2.8 million during the course of the 2019-2020 election cycle." -- is not neutral? Or rather, might you perhaps suggest something that would be more neutral? Incidentally, is it common practice to undo good faith edits summarily and without explanation? I had understood this was not in keeping with best practices for editing, but perhaps I am mistaken. With all my thanks Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Given that you seem to be a new user not yet familiar with core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, I suggested that whatever you want to add on this topic to what's already there should be limited to a sentence (or two short sentences) with neutral wording and good sources. And no, the FEC filings themselves are not what's meant by good sourcing; see WP:RS. I immediately reverted your edits in line with WP:BLP, which says in part: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research). NightHeron (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Since Congress votes on thousands of bills and resolutions every year, we need secondary sources to establish the importance of any one vote before we include it. We can't say well former presidents and secretaries of state took one side, members of congress took another and this is how Omar voted, what do you think? The implicit message you want to convey is that Omar is a friend of an authoritarian leader and condones genocide. But anyone can put together information and imply lots of things. We only report these accusations if they receive widespread coverage in reliable sources. In that case, experts across the spectrum will weigh in and the subject will reply. It's not our role to raise issues that no one else has.

I notice that you didn't say that we should explain how expert opinion views the vote. Most people agree that genocide is wrong and should be condemned hence on the surface this makes Omar look bad. But others, including those responsible for foreign policy, think that it is not the role of the U.S. Congress to judge other countries, particularly considering the U.S. very poor record in human rights. It's easy to condemn a genocide that occurred over 100 years ago, without acknowledging that the U.S. has killed more people in the Middle East than the Turks did.

TFD (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, TFD I'm delighted to discuss specific line edits regarding the text I have proposed. I will note that I cited several credible sources noting the blowback Omar received, which was widely reported in the press and has been discussed by commentators across the spectrum, from Slate to Jacobin Mag to stuff further right. On the other hand, I'm not here to do foreign policy pub-chat with strangers - I can't imagine this being a constructive exercise, furthering any of Wikipedia's core goals, or even staying civil very long. With best wishes --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I note that much of what you want to add is already in the article written in neutral terms in the "Human Rights" section:

Omar opposed the October 2019 Turkish offensive into northeastern Syria, writing that "What has happened after Turkey's invasion of northeastern Syria is a disaster—tens of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee, hundreds of Islamic State fighters have escaped, and Turkish-backed rebels have been credibly accused of atrocities against the Kurds."

In October 2019 Omar voted "present" on H.Res. 296, to recognize the Armenian Genocide, causing a backlash. She said in a statement that "accountability and recognition of genocide should not be used as cudgel in a political fight" and argued that such a step should include both the Atlantic slave trade and the Native American genocide. In November, after her controversial vote, Omar publicly condemned the Armenian genocide at a rally for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

I would also note that a Jacobin article co-authored by Michael Brooks of the Majority Report, which you provided, generally should not be used as a source. While op-eds generally are not considered reliable for facts, the major problem is what degree of weight their opinion deserves. Normally I would only include opinions that had been picked up in mainstream media. I don't think that Jacobin is sufficiently influential that views expressed in it should be added to every topic where they publish an opinion.

TFD (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. Since you cite, apparently approvingly, several sentences elsewhere in the article pertaining to the material in question, may I take it that you would not find a one-sentence limit for this material, such as that suggested by NightHeron, to be appropriate?

Incidentally, I agree that a Jacobin Mag article is not an appropriate source. That is why I scrupulously avoided using it as one in my original post. But it does provide evidence of broader discussion and interest of the issues in question, and not only from traditionally anti-Omar sources, which is the reason I have since adduced it in the talk pages here. With all my thanks Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

As per TFD I fail to see why any expansion is needed for content already in the article. Biographies must not obsess or give undue coverage of incidentalia. Every congressperson has a wiki bio. How many of them carry detailed info about their attitude to Turkey and the genocide issue? Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Total agreement with Nishidani and TFD, and thanks to the editors who have taken the time to explain in detail how this place is supposed to work... Gandydancer (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all! So NightHeron proposes a 1-sentence section, while others feel that the individual incidences are adequately addressed - in what amount to 5-6 sentences - elsewhere. Obviously the two are not compatible, and I am happy to continue to hear what others think and proceed accordingly.

I am more puzzled, however, by the argument made by Nishidani. That every congressperson has a wiki bio hardly seems relevant here. (One might also ask how many congresspeople have a three-paragraph section dedicated to Venezuela?) No doubt every page matches, or ought to match, the important and newsworthy actions taken by that congressperson. So it seems the question at hand is whether at least two very high profile episodes involving Turkey (the Armenian genocide vote, and the Turkish sanctions vote) where Ilhan Omar intervened in a way that gathered a great deal of news coverage that has since become part of her story deserve a separate sub-heading (we might consider the issue of the alleged white phosphorous attack a third - see below). This is no more and no less than what has occurred on this page with respect to Omar's two notable interventions regarding Venezuela; if there is an important difference I am missing, I am happy to hear where I mistaken and will even more happily concede to a well-articulated argument on this point. (Conversely, we could also delete the Venezuela section on the grounds that we should not be "obsessed" over "incidentalia" (sic); but this would strike me as a loss for Wikipedia readers, since in my experience, the demarcation of discrete sections is an important way of making pages clearly intelligible for the many users of this site who come here in a hurry to scan for particular topics. That is of course up for debate, and, as has been very thoughtfully observed many times, I am a new editor, if not a new Wikipedia user.)

Incidentally, other incidents that are notable but are not currently on the page would also, I submit, belong in this section. These are, namely, an unusual (though again, by no means sinister!) relationship with the head of Turkey, use of what were widely reported as official Turkish talking points on a sensitive political question (the Armenian genocide), a clear tension between her positions on (at least some) Turkish human rights questions and those regarding e.g. Israel or Saudi Arabia, and political donations/official meetings with the head of the Turkish lobby (which would be less notable if Omar were not a politician who had spoken out forcefully on the topic of foreign lobbying and its influence on the domestic political process). What is more, adding a separate section would also have the benefit of allowing us to include other notable incidents also involving Turkey, including Omar's response - also widely reported - to Turkey's alleged use of white phosphorous on Kurdish civilians in Syria. This would give readers the benefit of appreciating that 1) Ilhan Omar has indeed engaged with Turkey in a notable way that deserves treatment in its own right, and 2) this relationship is complex and has a number of different facets.

If the consensus - formed on well-articulated, consistently applied principles - is that a separate section is not merited, of course I will accept this, and am very glad to have the chance to engage in serious, point-by-point discussions of the questions in play here. Naturally, I, too am also grateful to editors who appreciate, in word and deed, "how this place is supposed to work." I have always respected Wikipedia as an egalitarian, democratic resource that belongs to no one, where no page is the private fief of any special group, clan, or tribe, and all editors of good faith are welcome to contribute in a collaborative spirit. With my thanks again for your serious engagement Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct that weight ought to match, the important and newsworthy actions taken by that congressperson. However, Omar is a high profile congresswoman and what you want to amplify has received relatively minor coverage compared to her overall coverage.

Omar's meeting with Erdogan received no coverage at the time and received trivial coverage after it was first reported by PJ Media. Omar actually met him along with a delegation of Somalis from her state. Right-wing media then provided fact free speculation. Ironically, Erdogan's image among conservatives has changed now that Trump apparently likes him.

I assume that your major if not only source of news is alternative conservative media. They weigh newsworthiness very differently from mainstream media. They would for examle provide minimal if any coverage to information that could not be presented in a negative light. Their role is to trash people they do not agree with rather than attempt to explain them. That's not to say that mainstream media lacks bias. But since weight is based on coverage in reliable sources, you would be better advised to read mainstream sources and ensure that articles correctly reflect the weight they provide. But you have to decide that is what you want to do, otherwise you will find yourself engaged in lengthy talk page discussions that ultimately lead to no changes to articles.

TFD (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A quick response, since I'd like to hear what others, such as NightHeron and other editors active here might have to say. I'm very sorry that I couldn't manage to get you to engage in a thoughtful way with any of the points I have made above, and I hope that others here will be more considered about engaging with the genuine question of one heading, multiple major news stories (Armenian Genocide resolution, Turkish Sanctions) + smaller points, v. many different sentences scattered throughout the article. But this bizarre ad hominem attack will not do, and does no service to you or the reputation of the quality of discussion on this page. (Even a brief look at my edit history will show what an odd claim you have made - certainly the defenders of Leonard Leo are laughing somewhere in Texas.) With all my thanks to other editors for serious consideration of the good faith points made above Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify: (1) When I referred to you as a "new user", I meant that you opened an account less than a month ago; of course I did not mean that you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia as a reader. Please don't take offense. (2) I did not propose adding a sentence. The consensus among editors who've commented in this thread seems to be that the current coverage of matters related to Turkey is sufficient, and I concur with that. However, since you clearly disagree and think that some important material is missing, I suggested that, rather than proposing a "bulk" addition of text (your word for it), you would do better to propose brief text that's carefully worded in compliance with Wikipedia policy on neutrality, sourcing, and no original research. NightHeron (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Criticism, which is not a policy or guideline but is respected advice, criticism should be scattered throughout the article rather than concentrated into a criticism section. The reason is that it is difficult to have a neutral criticism section. I don't see that any of your edits to Leonard Leo would dismay his defenders. In any case no one has reverted or objected to any of them. They certainly don't have the same tone you used in this article. TFD (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What is not mentioned is that Turkey has close relations with Somalia, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on famine relief, helping refugees and economic development. Erdogan and his wife invited members of the Somali diaspora to meet them in the U.S., Canada and UK, presumably to discuss Somali issues. When Omar and other Somali refugees met with him, she was the only elected Somali state legislator in the U.S. Erdogan also met with Somali refugees in Canada, including Ahmed Hussen, who would become a federal Liberal legislator and Minister of Immigration and Citizenship. Sources like PJ Media omit that context in order to promote conspiracism. TFD (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This is, as almost invariably with TFD's comments, illuminating, and tacitly brings out one aspect of encyclopedic obligations that is rarely mentioned, but illustrated in experienced practitioners' contributions. When issues like this arise, dedicated editors look at the whole context, do background analysis to see what the larger picture is, and often note that a large part of the context is simply missing. It is not our work (WP:OR) to remedy the lacunae by connecting the dots etc. But the background picture allows one to evaluate where the 'pointy' contentious matter is coming from, i.e. in this case, one can see that a very complex picture of Turkey-Somali-Omar relationships is, unfortunately, missing from the mainstream record, or, cherrypicked by minor antagonist sources which suppress the context to score a few cheap points by caricature. We neither censor facts that might appear negative, nor connive with the politicization of the facts. We just weigh the material in the balance of WP:Due/Undue and try to - it is no easy matter - establish our coverage in terms of importance and relevance within the framework of what the best available sources say. An encyclopedia is not a tabloid skew(er)ing reportage in terms of the widespread factoid reductionism characteristic of even much careless mainstream coverage. What may be spun as a frantic heated blip in the news cycle will only assume its relevance or irrelevance years down the line, when scholarly overviews can assess it with more detachment. Thanks TFD.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to all. First, process. Let me please say that I appreciate very much that the level of discussion has returned to something more serious than: bizarrely off the mark ad hominem attacks; attempts to derail technical questions about proper formatting into debates about contentious matters of American foreign policy; statements of irrelevantalia; and, most dishearteningly, a stubborn refusal to engage in a serious way with any of the points that I tried to make. For better or worse, Wikipedia has no training program, so one must simply learn by doing and learn by example, and up to last night, it did not seem that the example of some apparently very experienced veterans active on this page would lead me nearer to the Elysian fields of Wikivirtue; one did catch a sulfurous whiff, however, of those benighted netherworlds of Wikiculture I have sometimes read about in those alternative conservative rags like Slate, The Atlantic, and The Guardian. (Turns out even we mouth-breathing neanderthals can heap up the pseudo-Joycean adjectives and coin cheap Latinate neologisms!)

Second, content. I am of course happy to defer to the consensus here, not least because I'm not actually that invested in Ilhan Omar, her page, or her connections to Turkey, though these latter do seem worth thematizating in their own right. Ironically enough, it seems that the strongest possible case for doing exactly this point comes from TFD's more considered remarks (which, though certainly insightful, is simply what any one who took the trouble to read the original Jacobin Mag article would already know...). That is precisely because it would not be uniformly critical nor would it include only the "frantic heated blips", but also some of this very valuable context. It strikes me that it would be a tremendous service to everyone who wanted a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the strengths and contradictions of Omar's foreign policy stances to know this whole picture, good, bad, and neutral alike. I also appreciate, however, that we may need to wait for better coverage by mainstream sources before we can enter this important story in the domain of the encyclopedic. So I express my thanks to Nishidani for his last remark, which actually was illuminating, and which I take to heart.

Third, what comes next. To be frank, I am much more interested in spending time and energy making more visible the network of dark money that has exerted a powerful influence over the US Federal court system and and is now working to suppress voters, something I think is an excellent fit for Wikipedia and its open, democratic mission; this is in fact why I joined Wikipedia some weeks ago, and have spent far too much time in odd battles there here (TFD you continue to perplex - you are no doubt busy, but surely that there was a heated 3-week long back-and-forth there, with many reversions, re-reversions, and even an edit-war with what I am sure is someone's shadow account sock-puppet, is intelligible at a glance?) But that time seemed well spent - at least Leo is now a bit more publicly linked to a network of nefarious dark money shell companies, and, And wham presto! at the end of the day, all in the right Wiki tone! (Without contraries no progression, eh, Nishidani ?). One step is to create a number of pages about key players and LLCs/501(c)3s that have been written about plenty in the right sources but currently have no page on Wikipedia; if anyone else is interested, as a new and clumsy Wiki editor I could obviously use the help. I have a number of drafts I'd be grateful to discuss with anyone who finds this a worthwhile endeavor.

I do, however, think Omar's page has some important gaps. At the very least, it seems to me that it should record: 1) that there is an odd situation going on where her campaign pays her husband's consulting firm millions of dollars, which of course also has its context but remains anomalous and also happens to be the subject of an open FEC complaint (yes, I know who filed it, TFD. That doesn't mean it is spurious); 2) that Omar's intervention in the Armenian genocide debate very closely mirrored official Turkish gov. talking points. I know, it would be terrible to amplify the claims printed by those neo-fascist rags like WaPo, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, TheHill.com, and NBC who have reported on both these things. So, what is the best way to proceed there? NightHeron, I am grateful for what has been one of the more generally constructive approaches, and am happy to proceed as you or others who wish to proceed on a serious basis here see fit. With best wishes to all Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What a lot of words; and so few of them devoted to discussing potential improvements to this article. Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages? --JBL (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, JBL; your interventions elsewhere on this page have been most helpful in showing a new editor what kind of behavior to avoid on a talkpage. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

While it might be helpful to have a more nuanced understanding of Omar's foreign policy, the policy for inclusion is weight. The publishers of reliable sources evidently knew that Omar met the president of Turkey but did not consider it scandalous and provided little coverage. Similarly, they knew that Omar's campaign hired her husband's consulting firm, but saw nothing wrong. You omit to mention she hired him before she became involved with him and it is entirely legal to hire one's husband provided the work done is reasonably billed. I note that when I searched the story, the first sources to come out were The Sun, the Daily Mail and the New York Post, which are all unreliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and hence establish no weight.

We both know that mainstream sources provide unjustified coverage to trivial matters and ignore important ones. Nonetheless policy requires us to provide the same weight they do. I personally agree with the policy because I do not think that using a consensus of editors to determine what is important would provide better results and would probably be unworkable.

TFD (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your second paragraph is well-taken, TFD. I am less sure about parts of the first paragraph. The first site that comes up for me re: campaign finance issues is WaPo. Moreover, this continued to be an issue throughout the primary, along with her opponent's FEC issues. Presumably WaPo (especially quite a lengthy article) and Minneapolis Star Tribune are considered legit? Second, what about my second point? Two sources I found very quickly are NBC and TheHill.com which I assume are both iron-clad? Parenthetically, I think the point would be perhaps be less pertinent had Omar not put the influence of foreign lobbying on domestic political events. I propose that each point should get at least one sentence which represents the issue fairly. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not whether something can be reliably sourced but whether it has weight. The fact that Omar's primary opponent decided to repeat a conservative allegation against her and this was picked up by local media does not establish weight for someone who is one of the most widely covered members of the U.S. Congress. There is literally enough stuff out there in reliable sources to write a lengthy book. Google news shows 256,000 articles about her.[4] Our challenge is to determine which of these stories should be included. We do that by assessing the amount of coverage each receives. We don't do that by deciding that stories extensively covered in alternative media but largely ignored in mainstream media need wider coverage.

Also, as I pointed out above, we already have a paragraph about her Armenian genocide vote, so I don't know why your second point is about whether or not it should be included.

TFD (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My original sentence was "In her official explanation of her decision to vote 'present' on H.Res. 296 to recognize the Armenian genocide, Omar appeared to use specific language and arguments, including the phrase 'leave it do the academic consensus' promoted by the Turkish government and its lobbyists." It is for inclusion of this point I have been advocating throughout. The connection to official Turkish talking points specifically observed in both articles, and in plenty of others from high-quality sources. With other politicians, this would matter less; for politicians who crusade against the power of foreign lobbies on American politicians, it is a non-trivial part of the story. I don't claim that this deserves paragraphs - a sentence, a clause would be fine. If you would prefer that I put this in the "All about the Benjamins" section, I'd be happy to do so.

On the campaign finance point, can it really be that an open FEC complaint against a sitting politician, reported at length by multiple reputable sources merits less space on that politician's page than her appearance in a music video by Maroon 5? Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your bulk edit adding a section on Turkey was written from an anti-Omar POV. Despite its length, which gave undue emphasis to that minor issue, your addition did not include any balance. Your sources did include context and some responses from Omar, but you only cherry-picked the attacks on her. The sentence you want to add doesn't come close to being NPOV-compliant, since it insinuates that Omar is a pawn of the Turkish government. There is plenty of reason to doubt that, including the context that TFD provided in this thread and the fact mentioned in the article that Omar condemned the Armenian genocide at a Sanders rally. Before you propose text to be added to this article, you should reread WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

The reason for not including the FEC complaint has already been explained. You might also want to read WP:DEADHORSE. NightHeron (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your sources don't actually say the term is promoted by the Turkish government and its lobbyists but attributes the observation to Armenian rights groups. You also falsely attributed the statement about Whataboutism to Slate, when it should have been attributed to the writer, Joshua Keating. Per BLP, we can't add false information about people. In any case, this discussion has gone on long enough. Other editors don't support your suggested changes, although you have been able to present your arguments and to reply to objections. TFD (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@NightHeron: Before you lecture new users about policy, I suggest you better familiarize yourself with the ones you cite, specifically WP:OR. WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH does not apply to comments on talk pages; it applies solely to content in articles.

As for the content on Turkey, I believe there is some possible WP:SYNTH in at least some of the challenged content, but the solution is not wholesale removal. The segments of text that are inappropriately linked can be detached or removed with more precision. Any of her commentary on the Armenian genocide or interactions with Turkish officials can be included. We should not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. WP:PRESERVE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The OR that I objected to was in the article, not the talk page -- namely, the way the added text that I reverted gave the impression that Omar approved of human rights violations by the current government of Turkey.

No one's throwing out a baby. The article at present contains information about the Turkey issue. The addition that I reverted gave undue attention to a relatively minor matter, in addition to its problems with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The references to OR were all about the talk page. As I explained, the criticisms are all in the article in the appropriate places and there is no need to create a separate criticism section. It's better style anyway. Compare the approach: 1. "She said this. This is why she said it. This is who criticized her and why." 2. "She was criticized for what she said. This was her response." TFD (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: At the beginning of this thread, I responded to the OP concerning OR in their addition to the article: To start with, your first sentence is an example of OR, because of the way you choose to link misdeeds of the Turkish government with Omar. I was not referring to something in the talk page. Of course, I completely agree with what you've written on this matter, including your comment that "this discussion has gone on long enough". NightHeron (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's some talk page OR: Do you think that the reason for criticism of Omar has anything to do with the fact that she is a left-wingprogressive black Muslim woman? TFD (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. She's not even particularly far to the left by international standards. Most of what she's asking for (such as health access and affordable higher education for all) is standard fare in many countries in Europe and elsewhere. But in the US, simple common-sense proposals get stigmatized as "left-wing". NightHeron (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to progressive. TFD (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)