Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Nationality, Religion, and Lead

I must admit I am a bit confused as I thought we already had a Talk page discussion previously on this topic, but some users want to include "Somali" in the lead. Per WP:Ethnicity, "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." In the past when we have discussed this, some users have rightfully brought up that she has received a lot of press regarding both her Somali heritage as well as her Muslim faith. I was firmly against inclusion of either in the lead previously but am more open minded if arguments are brought forth that these are critical enough to her identity and notability so as to be included in the first line of the bio. I still retain the position however that her notability, having been achieved in the USA as a US citizen and us not having any evidence for her retention of Somali citizenship, that her Somali heritage be elaborated on later down instead of the first sentence. I feel similarly regarding her Muslim faith. I am a bit confused about those who wish to include one in the first sentence but not the other, however, as I am not sure how that would be justified. I am open to discussion. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, she is clearly an American citizen as she is in the US Congress. Her background must certainly be included in the body, as it is. But why label her in the very first sentence with a word that racists, one of whom was convicted of making death threats against her, will grab onto and not bother reading any further? And frankly, what does her choice of religion matter enough for the lead? She is not a religious figure. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely see that point. I also feel it would be better not to add so many labels into the first sentence but rather elaborate on them later on. Not to mention, her notability is first and foremost as a US politician. Everything else really comes second and therefore should be elaborated on later. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The expression "Somali-American politician" implies that she was a politician in Somalia. We don't know if she is a citizen of Somalia. On the other hand, if we are referring to ethnicity, we don't do that for most politicians. We don't call Obama for example a "Kenyan-American politician." Of course her religion and ethnicity are important and should be mentioned. TFD (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with TFD. Until a source shows she served as a politician in Somalia, which would be unlikely since she left Somalia at age 6 and arrived in the USA at age 10, there should be no mention of that in the sentence that refers to her being a politician. As it is mentioned later in the lede, her ethnic background, her being the first Somali-American to reach that level is noteworthy. Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

"Somali American Politician” (no parenthesis) *does not* in any way imply that the subject was a politician in Somalia... Not sure where that argument comes from. I’d include it, I think our bar should be where the subject was born. If they immigrated to the US they should be noted as X American but if they were born in the USA to immigrant parents then I think noting that they’re X American is more problematic. Also can’t emphasize this enough, its Somali American not Somali-American. Lets be clear though, "Somali American” isn't a nationality, her only nationality appears to be American so there is no question there. As for her religion I would leave it out, its already in the inbox and it is uncommon for the lead of an American politician to include their religion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on your criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia rules on biography ledes per MOS:Ethnicity are pretty specific that place of birth, ethnicity, and previous nationalities are not included in the lead unless directly relevant to notability. Her simply having been born in Somalia is not sufficient reason to include it in the first sentence. Furthermore, it is in fact per MOS:Ethnicity only nationality that is included in the lead, and as mentioned earlier we have no evidence that she retains Somali nationality. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well when you click on Somali American the subject here is literally the first image there... Nobody is arguing to include place of birth (Mogadishu) in the lead. Somali American is also an identity not an ethnicity. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how her being a part of that category has much to do with the lead, specifically first sentence of the biography though. Her notability as both someone of Somali heritage as well as Muslim faith are included further down within the lead. Also her place of birth, Mogadishu, as you know, is in fact in Somalia, which therefore is also her place of birth, which per MOS:Ethnicity is not included in the lead unless relevant to notability. Basically my question is why should we include it in the first sentence? And if we are saying she is notable enough for her ethnicity/heritage/place of birth that it should be included in the first sentence, why not do the same for her religion which she is equivalently if not more notable for? I hope we aren't talking past one another. I am not very convinced that either should be in the first sentence, as her notability is foremost as a US politician and all else secondary Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your reading of MOS:Ethnicity is loose and I don’t necessarily agree. You view Somali American as a statement of both ethnicity and place of birth, I disagree on both counts... Its an identity, one which is very important to the subject of this page. Also on a purely technical note Somali American says literally nothing about place of birth or country of birth so that line of argument is completely dead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is it in the first sentence? We don't describe Barack Hussein Obama II as an African-American politican in the first sentence per WP:MOS. We say he is an American politician and note he was the first African American president further in the lede. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel the need to repeat myself, my argument is that we include identity not that we include ethnicity/heritage/place of birth. I feel thats a very different argument and I’m not sure you’ve yet realized that it is my argument. How we want to parse that identity or whether or not to include it is a secondary question, do we want to make some sort of universal standard or do we want to go by self identification? Perhaps a mix of both? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I am confused how the phrase "Somali American" would not refer to either previous nationality, place of birth, or ethnicity/heritage. What sort of "identity" do you mean to categorize this as if not one of the aforementioned? There are many forms of identity including political, religious, ethnic, racial, etc. and I am genuinely confused how you define this if not ethnic/place of birth/heritage. I feel that argument is not a strong one, as I find it difficult to believe that saying someone is "Somali American" can be interpreted in a way that does not refer to either ethnicity/heritage or previous nationality/place of birth. I am confused as to how you see my reading of MOS:ethnicity as "loose" when I feel I abide by it rather strictly. But as I said earlier I am open to being wrong and proven otherwise. If you have a good explanation, I am all ears. Also just fyi, we have indeed already included the phrase "Somali American" and hence her "identity" within the lead and this Talk page section is solely regarding inclusion in the first sentence of the biography. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I am looking forward to your explanation and feel I have made my point sufficiently and want to avoid WP:Bludgeon. If I have something new to say or you have a new point that we can address, I will comment but otherwise I will give it a rest and let others have their say. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

She's American. There are currently 28 foreign born congressfolk. Only three others don't simply say American. O3000 (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only that, but almost every member of Congress is descended from immigrants. It's not clear whether Somali American refers to ethnicity, nationality or place of birth. If it's the first, there is no reason to make her an exception. As for the second, we don't know if Omar has Somalian nationality. I don't mind though saying she is a Somali-born American politician. But we should never use ambiguous phrasing. TFD (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment MOS:ETHNICITY notes that nationality should be noted where it is relevant to the subject's public profile. The fact that she is Somali-American is relevant to her public profile, namely because she is the first Somali-American member of Congress. See Time. @Apoorva Iyer:, you have no consensus to make this change and it contradicts policy. Kindly revert yourself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, she is in fact described as "Somali American" later within the lead. This Talk page section is about whether the descriptor "Somali" is warranted in the first sentence of the article. I would argue that while she is known for her Somali heritage, she is also equivalently if not more known for other aspects of her identity (such as her Muslim faith) as well but we aren't including that in the first sentence (as I think we shouldn't, considering her notability is first and foremost as an American politician and not her ethnicity/heritage or religion). I'm not sure why we are singling out her heritage/birthplace for inclusion even before her nationality in the very first sentence of the lead, considering we aren't doing this for any other labels she has that she is also notable for. That seems to be selective application of the exception of notability made in MOS:Ethnicity. Anyway, I have stated my points already, anything more I say to this effect will just be rehashing what I have already pointed out.Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It says that nationality should be mentioned in the first paragraph, not the first sentence. We don't actually know however whether Omar is a Somali national or ever was. I found btw very few descriptions of her as a "Somali American politician." Even some of them added "in the United States." Ted Cruz isn't described as a Cuban-American or Canadian-American politician although he was born to Cuban parents in Canada. Trump is not referred to as a white American president, Obama is not called a Kenyan-American politician.

While U.S. politicians are always U.S. citizens, unlike some other countries, I find that comparison with servicemen might be useful. If a Mexican who is not a U.S. national served in the U.S. Army, we would not called them a Mexican soldier because they were not serving Mexico. If they were a citizen, we would only call them a Mexican-American soldier if they belong to a unit segregated for Mexican-Americans. TFD (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not about "segregation." I don't believe "Somali-American" has a negative connotation. It is worth noting because she has been widely recognized for being the first Somali-American to hold a congressional seat. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes the term segregation was used to describe a racist policy in the United States, put the term in its ordinary sense merely means kept separate. But let's not get distracted by red herrings. You wouldn't call a Mexican person serving in the U.S. army a Mexican or Mexican American soldier would you? Not because it would be racist, but because it would be confusing. Calling Omar a Somali American congresswomen could also imply that that Congress has seats reserved for Somali Americans, similar to what Iran and some other Muslim countries do. but AFAIK Somali Americans do not vote together for a congressperson to represent them, but vote with everyone else. Bear in mind that this is an international encyclopedia, and many readers may not be familiar with government in the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Over and above the 'ethical' matter of whether her ancestry should be stated in the opening sentence, I often find hyphenated forms ambiguous or misleading. The use of ancestry-nationality is fairly well established in US usage (the Kennedy's are Irish-American, De Niro is Italian-American, Dukakis is Greek-American etc), Apart from the issue of whether Nationality-Nationality is following this 'standard' ancestry-citizenship format or whether it means dual citizenship or (possibly in Omar's case), a born-in-another-country-American citizen, there are other ambiguities. The Anglo-Irish, such as Wilde or G B Shaw, were protestant, culturally English, born-in-Ireland, British citizens, now that use is rare, except historically, but the term would usually mean mixed parentage. Anglo-Indians again were originally mixed race Indians, but now can mean English-born of Indian descent, or Indian born of English descent. In the Balkans many groups are referred to by nationality-ancestry (a Bosnian-Serb has/had citizenship and residence in Bosnia, but was of Serb ethnicity/ancestry ie nationality is the adjective, ancestry is the noun). Except where the person is a bog-standard American-born-American whose ancestors-came from-another-country, (ie where the adjective = ancestry) and where a link takes one to a standard definition - I always feel that the two elements should be phrased more explicitly, (whether dual-citizen, mixed ancestry, or born-somewhere-else/whatever). Pincrete (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not her "ancestry." She was in fact born in Somalia. This element of her background is a notable element of her public profile. Hyphenated forms are standard in U.S. English, as you already acknowledge. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I was using 'ancestry' as a generic term for ethnicity/race/inherited culture/whatever ie where you or your folks came from. So, is Omar a dual citizen? Would Somalia-American tell me where she was born? Why would I not think it meant her ancestors came from Somalia? Why would I not think it meant she had mixed parentage? Why would I not think it meant she was, or had previously been, a Somalian politician? What does it actually tell me? The standard US usage is based on a fairly standard back-story, ie grandparents, great-grandparents or earlier migrated to the US.Pincrete (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think anyone is questioning that she was born in Somalia or that her heritage is an important part of her notability. It is already included in the lead. What we are questioning is inclusion in the first sentence of the biography, and that too even before stating her American nationality. She is notable for many things apart from her primary notability as a US politician including her ethnicity as well as her religion, but we appear to be singling out her birthplace for inclusion in the first sentence of the biography even prior to her *primary* identity as a US politician. That is strange and I think requires more justification. Just because she was born in Somalia and received press for it does not justify the sort of positioning we are giving it in her biography. I understand that there is sometimes a convention of hyphenating individuals, but even with being more specific with the qualification, (Ex: "Somali-born American"), the question about why we are placing her birthplace even before her nationality and that too in the first sentence still stands, especially when we are not doing that with her religion and other notable aspects of the individual. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, just as a comparative example, Rashida Tlaib is notable not only for her identity as a US politician but also as the first "Palestinian-American" in Congress as well as her Muslim faith. I understand Tlaib was not born in Palestine, but she has received comparable press for her Palestinian roots as Omar has for her Somali origins, yet we do not see Tlaib's ethnicity expounded on in the first sentence. It is in the lead, but a few sentences down. I understand that each article needs to be evaluated separately for what is appropriate for the individual in question and am not saying that this article need follow Tlaib's exactly. What I am saying is that an individual may have notable factors about them apart from their primary notability but that doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion in the first sentence. I think if we want to include such notable factors in the first sentence, especially before their primary notability, we have to have some further justification as to why we want to do that. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's make this clear; there is a certain racist element in American politics. It is always present and has been through the existence of the USA. It is their desire to categorize people by race. They want to post, as a primary element of content, that Omar and Tlaib are not "American", they are "Other." By moving their ethnicity, the ethnicity of ANY politician into the first sentence, we are prioritizing the racial element and playing in to the racist agenda. Trackinfo (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Apoorva Iyer, just to nitpick but Justin Amash came before Tlaib. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fair enough, thank you for that correction. Although it does seem that the same can be said about his page as said about Tlaib's. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

We don't use hyphenation for other politicians born outside the U.S.: Ted Cruz (Canada), Tulsi Gabbard (American Samoan), John McCain (Panama Canal Zone), George Romney (Mexico). And their place of birth was significant because their American citizenship is not protected by the 14th Amendment (unlike ironically Ilhan Omar) and therefore some people have argued that they were not "natural born citizens" eligible to be president of the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Christ why are we doing this again? Anyhow here are the past discussions for those who enjoy gouging their eyes out: July 2019, November 2019. --JBL (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS:BIO is pretty clear on this, 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. That being American. She is a member of the US Congress, not a Somali-American Congress. Finally, per WP:BRD, this article has been stable with American politician for quite literally months before it was added without comment here. You dont get to force changes into articles like this, establish a consensus for your addition before starting to try to edit-war it in. I am removing Somali from the first sentence. nableezy - 21:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar was already notable before she was elected to Congress. She was already notable before she was elected to anything. The reason that she was notable was that she was going to be the first Somali-American to hold elected office in the United States. The reason that the section you quote has words like "usually" and "in most cases" is because there will be exceptions -- Omar is about as clear-cut an exception in this regard as is possible. --JBL (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Kennedy and Obama were notable too for having been the first Irish Catholic and African American presidents but we don't described them as hyphenated Americans. No one has explained why she should be singled out. TFD (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's some wonderful whataboutism, but maybe you should go look at some early versions of Barack Obama. Here's how it started in July 2004: Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is a Democratic politician from Chicago, Illinois and only the third African-American to deliver a keynote address at a Democratic National Convention. In other words, once upon a time, Obama's notability did derive in substantial part from the fact that he was black, and that was noted ... in the very first sentence of the article. In July 2008, when he was the presumptive nominee (and a sitting US senator), it had been demoted all the way to ... the second sentence. In the current version of the article, after he has served two terms as president, this insignificant biographical details is ... still in the second sentence. People who are notable for ethnicity/race/national origin should have that notability noted right at the beginning of the article, and Omar is an exceptional example of that. (The reasons Kennedy is a poor comparison are manifold and obvious, so I won't bother with them, except to note that if Ilhan Omar is elected to the Senate, and then the presidency, and then assassinated, I can promise that you will not find me arguing that being a Somali refugee is still a key part of her notability.) --JBL (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that Omar's Somali ancestry/birth should not be mentioned in the lead. They are arguing that it should not be in the opening phrase. Your Obama example does not say "Barack Obama (born August 4, 1961) is an African-American politician from Chicago, Illinois ... Oh by the way, he's a Democrat and a Senator". Pincrete (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete: The current version of the lead places a description of the geography of her district in the first paragraph, but no mention of the most notable and remarkable things about her. I could be very happy with a rewrite that merged the current second paragraph into the first, significantly reducing the amount of boilerplate (geography lesson, dates of elections, past and current offices, and political party) that precedes the stuff for which she is notable. What do you think of that as a way forward? --JBL (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi JBL, I am open to a lead rewrite as a way forward. Maybe we can see what other users have to say about the idea? I hope we can all come to an agreement on what that rewrite would look like. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm UK, and therefore somewhat unfamiliar with US conventions, consequently I haven't voiced a personal opinion so far in this discussion beyond saying that Nationality-Nationality is often ambiguous to European readers (does it mean dual citizenship, mixed parentage, distant ancestry .. or in this case born there}. However, the 'edit war' has been about inserting ethnicity/birthplace in the opening phrase, which personally I find both crass and ambiguous. Some kind of re-jig seems an excellent idea, but I'm a watcher who came here merely for the RfC and noticed this discussion! I'm not the one to persuade. Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, she was notable before being elected to Congress, when she was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives is probably when she became "notable" for our purposes here. And whaddya know, that's actually when an article was first created for her. Compare for instance Tammy Duckworth, the first person born in Thailand to be elected to the House and the first elected to the Senate. an American politician. Omar is not notable because of her race, ethnicity, or place of birth. It is exceedingly rare, outside of perhaps royalty to people who still believe in nobility by birthright, for anybody to be notable for their ethnicity/race/national origin. She's notable because she was elected to a state legislature and then to a national legislature. nableezy - 17:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Good example, its noted elsewhere in the lead though "Duckworth was the first Thai-American woman elected to Congress, the first born in Thailand elected to Congress” just not in the first sentence. Have we come to a consensus yet about whether this discussion is about the whole lead or just the first sentence? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to restructure first two lead paragraphs

It seems to me that the root of the problem here is that some of the most notable/interesting information about Omar (she has repeatedly been the first member of several groups (Somalis, people born in Africa, hijabis, etc.) to hold the offices she has held) is only mentioned in the second sentence of the second paragraph, after vastly less crucial information (the geography of her district, the years in which she was elected, etc.). Therefore, I propose a rewrite of the first two paragraphs of the lead, along the following lines. I hope to find agreement on the basic principle of the thing, so the specific proposal below should be viewed as tentative and subject to improvement.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (born October 4, 1982) is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district since 2019. She is the first Somali-American, the first naturalized citizen from Africa, and the first non-white woman to hold elective office from Minnesota. She is also one of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan) to serve in Congress.

Before serving in Congress, Omar was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016 on the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party line, representing part of Minneapolis. Her congressional district includes all of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs.

Thoughts and suggestions are very welcome. --JBL (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Party allegiance? Present text implies that it might be different from her Minn HoR days. I would suggest in, or immediately after the 'US Representative for' sentence. It's the sort of basic info which is essential even if it may not be very interesting. nb posted by an Englishman who barely understands anything about US poitics. Pincrete (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I like the rendition you provided, but would place the sentence regarding the Minnesota House of Representatives as the second sentence and have the sentence regarding her heritage and then the sentence regarding her religion be the third and fourth sentences respectively. Let's see what others have to say. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have implemented something along these lines. Per Pincrete's suggestion, I kept DFL in the first paragraph, and made a few other minor changes to what is listed above. --JBL (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Date of Omar's arrival in the US

In diff, a user points out that in this interview at 1:32, Omar notes that this Wikipedia article is mistaken, and that she arrived in the US in 1995, not 1992. Indeed, although this article cites a New Yorker piece which says "Omar arrived in busy, dirty New York in 1992", the Washington Post says "Shortly after her family was cleared in 1995 to come to America, they traveled to Nairobi to watch an orientation film for new immigrants. [...] Then she would recount arriving in a New York City that was cramped, dirty and populated by panhandlers." Other refs also agree with the 1995 date. I have updated the article. Long-time editors of this article will recall that this is not the first time a few sources have gotten dates wrong: some sources listed her birth year as 1981 rather than the correct 1982 (given in other refs). -sche (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• 1992 is not internally consistent with the rest of the New Yorker article. It notes she fled Somalia at seven (i.e. October 1989-October 1990), and was accepted into the US four years later. Taking the four years as an estimate of 3.5-4.5, this puts her arrival no earlier than April 1993 (Oct 1989+3.5 years) and no later than April 1995 (October 1990+4.5). The arrival could be even later if there is a significant gap between being accepted and actually arriving. Seems like a typo. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, seems like a typo.EliteArcher88 (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Way Forward Act

I'm not seeing any secondary coverage of this in relation to Omar in a quick search (at least, not in reliable sources.) That makes it probably WP:UNDUE to bring it up, and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. The only usable secondary source cited is Snopes, which doesn't mention Omar; and worse, the summary of the bill used in the disputed edit doesn't really reflect any of the three sources cited, which are more nuanced and measured in their language. But that part doesn't really matter because there's no purpose to workshopping a better description unless there's secondary coverage establishing that Omar's cosponsering it is relevant and meaningful - digging through a politician's voting record and trying to use that to establish their views is the sort of thing we need to rely on a secondary source for rather than doing it ourselves (especially because the meaning of a vote or cosponsorship isn't always obvious at first glance, eg. if a vote was party-line it may not mean as much; or they may have voted for it as part of a deal; or voted down something to vote up an alternative, etc.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few sources showing her support for the bill. Congress.gov, showing her as a co-sponsor, Cliafornia Globe, and The Day. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Those sources just mention her as one of a group of supporters of the measure. That is not significant coverage. Using brief mentions in a few places to conclude that this is significant enough to put in her BLP violates WP:OR. NightHeron (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Rep. Omar filed joint tax returns before she married husband AMY FORLITI , Associated Press•June 12, 2019

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota campaign finance officials said last week that Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar misused campaign funds in violation of state rules. They also revealed that 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.

This issue is not addressed in the Wikipedia article Justaseeker2 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what change to the article is being requested. Please make edit requests in a "change X to Y" format. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

Omar has paid Tim Mynett’s consulting firm a total of more than $878,000 since 2018 — including $189,000 just weeks after the couple announced they were husband and wife. Calicchio, Dom. (2020). Ilhan Omar paid $878G to new husband’s consulting firm, data show: report. FoxNews.com. 24.125.163.200 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't post edit requests until you have gained consensus for changes. TFD (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I found the url for that Fox News article. They cite Richard Painter saying the arrangement "should not be allowed", but that it is allowed by ethics law. Other lawmakers with spouses doing campaign work for them include U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., and U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., the Post reported. I bet the IP isn't as interested in those bios. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Father's Occupation

https://sahanjournal.com/remembering-minnesotans-lost-to-covid-19/he-was-loved-by-everyone-the-somali-community-remembers-nur-omar-mohamed-who-died-of-covid-19/ It is not in any sense defamatory to link the obituary where her father's occupation in Somalia is noted as a colonel if the page is listing his profession. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Was her father a teacher trainer in Somalia or in the US? Sources differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Category

I removed the Category:Anti-Zionism in the United States in this edit as the article does not discuss Omar in these terms. Pls see WP:CATDEF. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Omar is an outspoken anti-Zionist. The last line in her lead section reads: "A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies." Revert the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Financial transparency section

I would vote that the financial transparency section be decoupled from her time in state politics and moved to its own section, and beefed up with more recent news, e.g. https://www.twincities.com/2019/08/28/ilhan-omar-under-scrutiny-first-marriage-then-fidelity-now-a-federal-campaign-complaint-and-a-state-fair-death-threat/ MaineCrab (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That "news" is not recent; it's over a year old. As far as I know, nothing came out of the old complaints made by conservative anti-Omar sources. Are there any recent mainstream sources for this? This source doesn't belong in the article, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"more recent" meaning more recent than her time in state politics, which the story is. The news is of an FEC complaint. If it went nowhere, her page can reflect that. I would think an FEC complaint is noteworthy for a politician, but perhaps they happen all the time, I'm not an expert. MaineCrab (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2020

Please change "He made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar, including allegations that she had praised al-Qaeda, argued for leniency with ISIS recruits, and "smeared" American soldiers who had fought in Battle of Mogadishu by bringing up the numerous Somali civilian casualties" to "He made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar, including allegations that she had praised al-Qaeda and "smeared" American soldiers who had fought in Battle of Mogadishu by bringing up the numerous Somali civilian casualties." The very source that was cited directly states that Omar did, in fact, plead leniency for ISIS recruits in a 2016 federal case. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No, the source does not use the word "leniency" or any synonym, and neither did Omar's letter to the judge. Omar is quoted as saying the convicted young men made a "consequential mistake". In her letter, she called for "compassion" instead of multi-decade sentences. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen. I think you are mistaken. You are correct that Omar did not specifically use the term "leniency". However, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, leniency is defined as "treatment in which someone is punished or judged less strongly or severely than would be expected" . That was exactly what Omar was calling for in her letter. She strongly cautioned the Judge not to sentence the defendants to "30 or 40 years" and instead called for a "restorative approach." No matter how you want to define a "restorative approach" it is, undoubtedly, more lenient than decades in prison. Please reconsider. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not mistaken, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and I will not reconsider. Neither Omar's letter to the judge nor the article that reported on it used the word "leniency" nor any synonym. You are engaging in original research when you interpret and spin her words and the words of the source to conclude that what she said amounts to a call for leniency. Original research is not permitted as a matter of policy. We accurately summarize the sources and do not add our own interpretations. That kind of comment is fine for a blog post or your Facebook page or your Twitter feed but personal commentary is forbidden by policy on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, is the NY Times a RS? "Ms. Omar wrote a letter to a federal judge asking for leniency in sentencing on behalf of nine Somali-American men, who were found guilty or pleaded guilty in 2016 to charges that they tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State." [1] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, and thank you for finding an actual reliable source, Sir Joseph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, not to nitpick, but what was the source for inclusion? Claiming Trump lied is a BLP issue and we should not just put those in the article without a valid source, which we didn't have, the reference used said the opposite, whether it used the word "leniency" or not, it showed Omar wrote a letter, that should have been enough for you to remove it as being contentious as a BLP issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I did not add the content. I responded to an edit request that brought forth a specific source. I read that source and it did not support the proposed edit. You found other sources that did support it, and I immediately conceded the point. Is that clear? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, The sourced used clearly said Omar wrote a letter to the judge asking for compassion. While the source didn't use the word "leniency", to claim Trump lied about it is not OR as you claimed. Asking for "compassion" in a letter to a judge isn't SYNTH to say that's asking for leniency. Regardless, as per BLP, that should have been removed considering the source clearly said Omar wrote a letter to the judge and you know very well that Trump wasn't lying with his statement.

But whatever. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought the matter was resolved but I guess you want to argue that compassion is a synonym for leniency, which I don't buy. Now that actual reliable sources describing her letter as "leniency" have been brought to the discussion, I see no point in discussing it further. Do you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I don't see any reason to continue. I'll just leave it with a question for you to ponder. Until I brought a source, would you have edited on the Trump page that "Trump lied when he said Omar asked for leniency for ISIS recruits" using the original reference which showed that Omar did write a letter but didn't use the word "leniency?" Have a good night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. I do not recall ever editing the Trump biography and if I did it was minor. Trump has told so many genuine lies that I have no interest in adding this stuff to his bio. The question before us was whether one specific source supported removing content. That source didn't. Once you identified good sources, the matter was resolved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump said that Omar had "pleaded for compassion for ISIS recruits attempting to join the terrorist organization." That is false as stated. She was not asking for compassion for people who were being recruited into ISIS. She was talking about former ISIS members who were prisoners awaiting punishment. What Trump did was like saying that someone wanted "compassion for someone who was attempting to rob a bank" rather than "compassion for someone who was convicted of attempting to rob a bank and was awaiting punishment." Asking for compassion in sentencing or arguing for mitigating circumstances is not the same as expressing sympathy for the crime they were convicted of, which is what Trump was claiming she did. The article's sentence in question is okay as it is. NightHeron (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, Snopes, which of course may not be a RS, but most certainly does lean to the left, does indeed say Omar advocated for leniency. "In 2016, Omar wrote to a U.S. District Judge on behalf of a man convicted of terrorism offences, advocating "restorative justice," rehabilitation, and leniency over a "long-term prison sentence."" [2] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: and here Fox News uses the word leniency as well with regards to Omar and men who tried to join ISIS. [3]. Here is the NY Times saying Omar wrote a letter to the judge pleading for leniency. [4] "Ms. Omar wrote a letter to a federal judge asking for leniency in sentencing on behalf of nine Somali-American men, who were found guilty or pleaded guilty in 2016 to charges that they tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Cullen328: Neither of you responded to my point. Did you read it? I was not disputing sources or quibbling about the words "leniency" vs "compassion". My point was that Trump's statement was highly misleading. He said that Omar expressed compassion for people who were being recruited to ISIS, as if she were sympathetic to terrorism. The truth is that she was calling for compassion for people in the punishment stage, presumably because of specific mitigating circumstances in their case. That's a very different thing. So it is correct to say that that was one of Trump's misleading statements. NightHeron (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, that is SYNTH. Trump said she wrote a letter asking for leniency for ISIS recruits, she did. It's irrelevant that she wrote it for rehabilitation reasons, the fact is as RS pointed out, she did ask for leniency and Trump's statement, in this case is correct. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, that is not SYNTH. The headline and first sentence of the source describe Trump's attacks on Omar as "misleading" and then one-by-one contrasts what Trump said about Omar with the actual statements by Omar. The words "misleading" and "false" are in the source, I didn't synthesize them.

I'm surprised you don't see the difference between someone asking for leniency in sentencing vs expressing sympathy for the crime. NightHeron (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, the article was fact checking all of Trump's statements. Some of his statements were false or misleading as was pointed out, but as even the factcheck pointed out, Omar did write a letter, so it's not difficult to say in this case, Trump wasn't lying, which is why RS says "Omar asked for leniency" unless of course you don't consider the NY Times a RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, The source's headline is "Fact-checking Trump’s misleading attacks on Omar, Ocasio-Cortez in North Carolina." That article title says that the statements of Trump that it's fact-checking are misleading attacks. I'm going by what the source says. You're engaged in OR, because you're of the opinion that one of the "misleading attacks" is not misleading. You're entitled, of course, to disagree with the source, but we should go by what the source says, not what some editors' own opinion is. By the way, you still haven't answered my question about whether or not you see a "difference between someone asking for leniency in sentencing vs expressing sympathy for the crime"? NightHeron (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, the request was to take out the part about her letter, which the fact checker showed she did write and as I showed RS specifically said she pleaded for leniency. I'm not sure why you're asking me about expressing sympathy for the crime when that wasn't the issue, it was that Omar plead for leniency. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Expressing sympathy for the crime was exactly what Trump claimed when he said that Omar had "pleaded for compassion for ISIS recruits attempting to join the terrorist organization." Don't you see how misleading that is? The source included that claim by Trump in its list of misleading attacks for good reason. NightHeron (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, please read the OP's request again. All he asked for is to remove the statement that said "argued for leniency with ISIS recruits." THAT IS ALL. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, Yes, I know what the OP wanted to remove. Let's examine what the source says: Omar wrote a letter to a federal court judge seeking compassion for a defendant in an ISIS conspiracy case. The conspiracy charge was that they traveled to the Middle East with the plan of joining the terrorist organization ISIS. The source quotes from Omar's letter: "As you undoubtedly deliberate with great caution the sentencing of nine recently convicted Somali-American men, I bring to your attention the ramifications of sentencing young men who made a consequential mistake to decades in federal prison," she wrote, adding that "such punitive measures not only lack efficacy, they inevitably create an environment in which extremism can flourish, aligning with the presupposition of terrorist recruitment." She does not express sympathy for ISIS or for terrorist recruitment, as Trump alleged. In fact, she argues against an excessively long prison sentence by saying that it will play into the hands of the terrorists. That's why the source lists Trump's allegation as an example of a misleading attack. The original sentence in the Wikipedia article was simply paraphrasing the source when it included this allegation in the list of false and misleading statements by Trump. NightHeron (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

NightHeron, not sure why you keep missing the point, the OP asked to remove the following words, "argued for leniency with ISIS recruits" not sure why you are bringing in other stuff. There is no point in continuing this discussion. Have a good night. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, That's exactly my point, and indeed, it's the opposite, it's if the source quoted supports inclusion, which it didn't. Again, the source used to reference the claim in the article did not adequately support the claim, which was a BLP violation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done as per the NYTIMES which said that Omar wrote a letter to the judge asking for leniency, so the claim that Trump lied about that is a BLP violation and not false, so no reason to include here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

and FactCheck, [5] Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, you have been here for a long time and are not a newbie like the OP. You know very well that contentious material in a BLP must be sourced to to indisputably reliable sources. It is disingenuous and irresponsible of you to bring forward a source that you admit "of course may not be a RS". Stop it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I removed a BLP. And the NYTimes is the source, and FactCheck, and FoxNews and Politifact. Are you saying NYTimes is lying? You said RS doesn't use the word leniency. This is from the NY Times:

""Ms. Omar wrote a letter to a federal judge asking for leniency in sentencing on behalf of nine Somali-American men, who were found guilty or pleaded guilty in 2016 to charges that they tried to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State."

So, please tell me how we can have in this article a claim that Trump lied about Omar pleading for leniency when she did. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, Exactly. Contentious material MUST be sourced. It says Trump lied, and the sources say he didn't. The BLP violation is yours stating we need to keep that in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You found a good source. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, and I didn't take it out until I found a source, and I noted that in the edit summary in my edit and I added the NYTimes in the article as well because it had more references, especially when removing something from an article is not a BLP violation in any event, which is what the BLP was asking for. This was contentious and a BLP issue and should have been removed especially when the sourced used to include didn't say that Trump lied. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User: Sir Joseph for your professionalism.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Voter Fraud?

There is a Youtube video with allegations of Ilhan Omar being involved with voter fraud. It's just two days old and already comes close to one million views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWK56l2VaLY Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? Shai-Huludim (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A Youtube video is not a reliable source, see WP:RS and WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/minneapolis-police-omar-ballot-harvesting

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/09/28/trump-has-turned-ballot-harvesting-into-a-rallying-cry-against-mail-in-voting-heres-what-it-is/

Shai-Huludim (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is Project Veritas, a group known for deceptively edited videos and not close to a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice to see the puke funnel still operates smoothly. The Daily Mail, so we know it must be legit! --JBL (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Legit enough for the Minneapolis police department to investigate. This will be in the article. I dare you : )Shai-Huludim (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please go troll elsewhere. --JBL (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing more coverage of this; may be encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.107.191 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing Project Veritas claims has been proven to be truthful. Right wing echo chambers do not establish significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. The number of sources probably isn't a good metric unless those sources are independently attempting to verify/fact check the claims made by Project Veritas. So far, this has mostly just been ignored by reputable outlets, and those who have covered it have simply reported what PV said. Nblund ^talk 17:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Today's New York Times has an article that characterizes the Project Veritas video attacking Omar as "disinformation" (see "Project Veritas Video Was a ‘Coordinated Disinformation Campaign,’ Researchers Say", [6]). NightHeron (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Numerous local news agencies-- https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/09/29/project-veritas-report-accuses-ilhan-omar-supporters-of-illegally-harvesting-ballots/, https://www.twincities.com/2020/09/28/project-veritas-video-alleges-widespread-voter-fraud-in-mn-with-u-s-rep-ilhan-omar-at-head/, etc.--have reported the alleged ballot harvesting/voter fraud. It should definitely be mentioned somewhere. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It would do everyone good to read Snopes’ analysis of this. https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/29/project-veritas-ilhan-omar/ starship.paint (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The first Project Veritas video relies heavily on Snapchat clips originally posted by a Minneapolis man named Liban Mohamed. But Mohamed never mentions Ilhan Omar. Instead, he mentions Minneapolis City Councilman Jamal Osman

Although the second video promises with its title that an “Omar Connected Harvester” would be “SEEN Exchanging $200 for General Election Ballot,” it’s unclear what’s going on in the clip. All one sees in the video is two unidentified men speaking Somali in an outdoor setting, discussing filling out a voter registration form. At one point, money allegedly changes hands.

Additionally, we note that what are presented as the most incriminating aspects of what the man states sound like audio clips taken out of a recording of a longer conversation.

We also note that our efforts to independently verify the accuracy of the Somali-English translations produced by Project Veritas have so far been unsuccessful. We asked McCabe who translated but didn’t receive an answer.