This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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)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.
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)
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?
Why, NorthBySouthBaranof? soibangla ( talk) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
it's just not a significant part of her biographyafter 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Stop providing excuses for Trump's comments.Where have I ever done anything of the sort? O3000 ( talk) 12:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Megan Rapinoe criticizes ‘Send her back’ chant and Trump during Charlotte appearance"; could also be edit to related article about Trump. https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/scott-fowler/article232807607.html#storylink=topdigest_latest— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ilhan Omar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line that states that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the "leader of the free world" is both wrong (It's traditionally been the US President) not-sourced, and inflammatory. This is a unabashedly politically biased article... It's true that Trump misquoted Omar, but many of the things Omar has said have been deemed to be anti-Semitic, inflammatory, and racist by the US House of Representatives among others, yet this never appears in the article. Omar has simultaneously been criticized from many other angles as well. 31.154.47.226 ( talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
It's interesting that Omar is not accused of making false and misleading statements; I don't understand this. For instance, she claims that the president is racist and hate-filled and the like but these are subjective opinions and not provable empirically. "She alleges ..." would be much more objective. Additionally, this section needs to add a number of "alleged" words. For instance, a statement reads, "[Trump] misrepresented comments [Omar] made in 2013, falsely claiming that Omar had praised al-Qaeda." Because it is impossible to prove that Omar has never praised al-Qaeda, or to prove pretty much any other negative, the wording of such statements presents a prejudice on the part of their author(s).
Article only includes positive feedback sources. Heavily biased Kevin6543225 ( talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is so bias it’s almost comical. Why is her 9/11 comment “some people did something” downplayed in the “Threats, Conspiracy Theories and Harassment” section? Lottasmells ( talk) 19:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The article says that Ms Omar spent "four years in a Dadaab refugee camp" and in the next paragraph it says that the family first arrived "in New York in 1992". Dadaab refugee was constructed in 1992, so there's some inconsistency there. Mastetson ( talk) 11:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
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)
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)
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)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.
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)
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?
Why, NorthBySouthBaranof? soibangla ( talk) 23:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
it's just not a significant part of her biographyafter 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Stop providing excuses for Trump's comments.Where have I ever done anything of the sort? O3000 ( talk) 12:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Megan Rapinoe criticizes ‘Send her back’ chant and Trump during Charlotte appearance"; could also be edit to related article about Trump. https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/scott-fowler/article232807607.html#storylink=topdigest_latest— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Ilhan Omar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line that states that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is the "leader of the free world" is both wrong (It's traditionally been the US President) not-sourced, and inflammatory. This is a unabashedly politically biased article... It's true that Trump misquoted Omar, but many of the things Omar has said have been deemed to be anti-Semitic, inflammatory, and racist by the US House of Representatives among others, yet this never appears in the article. Omar has simultaneously been criticized from many other angles as well. 31.154.47.226 ( talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
It's interesting that Omar is not accused of making false and misleading statements; I don't understand this. For instance, she claims that the president is racist and hate-filled and the like but these are subjective opinions and not provable empirically. "She alleges ..." would be much more objective. Additionally, this section needs to add a number of "alleged" words. For instance, a statement reads, "[Trump] misrepresented comments [Omar] made in 2013, falsely claiming that Omar had praised al-Qaeda." Because it is impossible to prove that Omar has never praised al-Qaeda, or to prove pretty much any other negative, the wording of such statements presents a prejudice on the part of their author(s).
Article only includes positive feedback sources. Heavily biased Kevin6543225 ( talk) 23:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is so bias it’s almost comical. Why is her 9/11 comment “some people did something” downplayed in the “Threats, Conspiracy Theories and Harassment” section? Lottasmells ( talk) 19:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The article says that Ms Omar spent "four years in a Dadaab refugee camp" and in the next paragraph it says that the family first arrived "in New York in 1992". Dadaab refugee was constructed in 1992, so there's some inconsistency there. Mastetson ( talk) 11:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)