Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Views on the Police

Should we include a section on Omar's views on the police? She has called for the abolishment of the Minneapolis Police Department, per https://www.axios.com/ilhan-omar-minneapolis-police-department-7d0c6cf5-6179-4077-ba03-1ebc909f6bbe.html, https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again you're misrepresenting the source. She calls for "rebuilding" not "abolishing". The source quotes her words as follows: "A new way forward can't be put in place if we have a department that is having a crisis of credibility, if we have a department that's led by a chief who's suited for racism, if we have a department that hasn't solved homicide — half of the homicides in Minneapolis police department go unsolved. There have been cases where they've destroyed rape kits. And so you can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild. And so this is our opportunity, as a city, to come together, have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community, and just like San Francisco did — right now, they're moving towards a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to." NightHeron (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted her quotes similarly to the source. "Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) defended calls to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department following the killing of George Floyd, saying the department in its current state can’t be reformed.". If you want to replace 'abolish' with 'dismantle' that's fine. In another source, https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/501449-nrcc-turns-up-heat-on-vulnerable-democrats-over-omars-call-to-abolish, Omar says that "The Minneapolis Police Department has proven themselves beyond reform. It’s time to disband them and reimagine public safety in Minneapolis.". So, essentially, she does want to abolish/dismantle/disband the current Minneapolis Police Department. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to adding a sentence or two about Omar's views of the police issue in Minneapolis. However, per WP:BLP her views have to be rendered accurately, without misleading terminology. She has made it clear that she wants the current police force replaced by a different type of police force that performs better and is not resistant to reform. She uses the word rebuild. Omar's opponents, such as Trump, distort her views by trying to give the impression that she thinks that Minneapolis should function without a police force. That's obviously not what she says. Feel free to suggest text on this topic for the article. NightHeron (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Characterizing her views that she wants Minneapolis to exist without a police department is false--you're correct. However, she never makes specific recommendations (unless you have a different source). She has repeatedly said the current Minneapolis Police Department, in its entirety, is "beyond reform" and a "cancer." Additionally, per https://www.vox.com/2020/6/14/21290877/democrats-defund-police-omar-clybur, and other sources, a lot of more moderate Democrats have rejected calls to defund/dismantle the police and have distanced themselves from Omar's rhetoric. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What I quoted above, taken from your source, includes a quite specific recommendation: have the conversation of what public safety looks like, who enforces the most dangerous crimes that take place in our community, and just like San Francisco did — right now, they're moving towards a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to. Saying "we should do something like what San Francisco's doing" is hardly a call for radical defunding or abolishing. A difficulty that certain US cities such as Minneapolis have is that, regardless of how strong public sentiment is in favor of reforming the police department, the police union is fiercely resistant to change. That's why people such as Omar are calling for a complete reorganization/rebuilding. NightHeron (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue what San Fransisco is doing, and none of the sources mentioned clarify what San Francisco is doing. You are engaging WP:OR:saying "we should do something like what San Francisco's doing" is hardly a call for radical defunding or abolishing. A difficulty that certain US cities such as Minneapolis have is that, regardless of how strong public sentiment is in favor of reforming the police department, the police union is fiercely resistant to change. If you want to write about police sentiment or the specifics of police reform, I assure you, there are plenty of articles for that. But for now, I am just trying to summarize the main reporting of all of the sources: that Omar has advocated for the dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD--done, plain and simple. I am not calling her a radical, and I am not defending or opposing her statements. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

You made the claim that "she never makes specific recommendations" and I quoted from your own source showing that she does. If you don't think suggesting San Francisco as a possible model of police reform that Minneapolis should follow is specific enough (since you personally don't happen to know what San Francisco is doing), the other part of the quote makes another specific recommendation, namely, that while police officers are needed for certain types of crimes, non-police professionals could better respond to other types of disorder. Claiming that she's advocating "dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD--done, plain and simple" is a misrepresentation of your own source and a distortion of her views, in violation of WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If that's a distortion of her views, then The Hill (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/502650-omar-defends-call-to-dismantle-minneapolis-police-you-cant-reform-a-department), Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-dismantle-americas-economy-political-system-oppression), Business Insider (https://www.insider.com/ilhan-omar-supports-calls-to-dismantle-the-minneapolis-police-2020-6), and every other major media source must be sued for libel at once. Since you're so adamant about defending Omar from the slightest amount of negative press, I am willing to compromise a bit. We could say something like: "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department, claiming that the Department was "rotten to the root" and "beyond reform." Omar appeared on CNN and clarified that she believes in a police institution resembling San Francisco, where only certain crimes are investigated by police officers." I'm assuming she means that other crimes (i.e., non-violent crimes) should be handled by non-law enforcement (like social workers or whatnot) but she doesn't specify, so I don't want to put words in her mouth. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good start. You don't need both "dismantle" and "defund" -- please choose one or the other. I'd suggest changing "claiming" to "saying" per WP:SAY. Also, the part about San Francisco is a little inaccurate. She speaks of San Francisco "moving towards a process" where the police perform more restricted functions; she's not endorsing the San Francisco PD as it is right now. NightHeron (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it as a good start at all. There is no place for statements such as "Omar advocated to dismantle and defund the Minneapolis Police Department, claiming that the Department was "rotten to the root" and 'beyond reform.'" When we go about summarizing her position we should not be using emotionally loaded statements such as "rotten to the root." It still needs a lot of work. Gandydancer (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "rotten to the root" should go. Omar uses the word "rebuild": What you can do is rebuild. Perhaps the following revision of that sentence would more accurately summarize her views: "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department and rebuilding it." NightHeron (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The source says that Omar wants the Minneapolis police abolished and replaced. It doesn't say anything about her views on police in general. TFD (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also note Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, The Hill is a usable source but Fox is not to be used for politics and we have not rated Business Insider. Gandydancer (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, dead wrong...the close of the Rfc on Fox News said "for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable."[1]. It did NOT say Fox is not to be used for politics.--MONGO (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with "rotten to the root"? Those are her exact words, and that's exactly what's used in the title of the Hill article I cited. I'm trying my best to accurately convey her views on the Minneapolis PD. We should not be using emotionally loaded statements such as "rotten to the root"--hmm, well if that's the standard around here, then explain to me why we have this quote in her Military Policy section: "knowing my tax dollars pay for bombs killing children in Yemen makes my heart break," with "everyone in Washington saying we don't have enough money in the budget for universal health care, we don't have enough money in the budget to guarantee college education for everyone." Or this quote in her Israeli-Palestinian Conflict section: "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel". I would love to hear you explain to me how those quotes are not "emotionally loaded." Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A problem with the suggested wording that we're discussing (and recall that I called it a "good start") is that it gives undue emphasis to emotional, headline-grabbing phrases and does not have enough clarity about what Omar actually said. It says "dismantle and defund", and I suggested saying one and not both. Similarly, instead of including both "rotten to the core" and "beyond reform", I suggested dropping "rotten to the core". For example, we could say something like "Following the death of George Floyd, Omar advocated dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department, which she said was "beyond reform", and then rebuilding it." If we want to have more than one sentence on her views concerning the MPD, we could also say that she has recommended following the example of San Francisco in moving toward restricting police responsibility to certain types of crimes rather than the broad gamut of things that the police currently respond to. NightHeron (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems a bit contradictory. How can you "rebuild" something that is "beyond reform?" She wants no remnants of the Minneapolis PD. It should really be something like: "Omar advocated to dismantle the Minneapolis PD, saying that the Department was "beyond reform". Subsequently, Omar stated that Minneapolis should have a policing institution where only certain crimes are investigated by police officers." -- Then you could mention San Francisco. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Omar's words "you can't really reform" and "What you can do is rebuild" are part of the same quote (which I gave above, taken from your source). Her words advocating "a process where there is a separation of the kind of crimes that solicit the help of, you know, officers, and the kind of crimes that we should have someone else respond to" are also part of that same quote. They were not subsequent. So she doesn't see a contradiction between "beyond reform" and "rebuild". I think she's correct in seeing no contradiction there. People talk about "rebuilding a football team" after a series of disastrous seasons, and they don't mean that it will be anything like before. One can tear down a house and rebuild a (much better) house on the same lot. NightHeron (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right that: "you can't really reform" and "What you can do is rebuild" is part of the same quote. But, you're suspiciously avoiding a few keywords right in between those two quotes, AKA: "rotten to the root". Let's not engage in WP:CHERRYPICKING. If we're gonna quote that phrase, we might as well quote the whole thing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, there's no contradiction between "rotten to the root" and "What you can do is rebuild". A house can be "rotten to the root", and the new owners can tear it down and rebuild a much better house. You're trying to construct a linguistic problem in what Omar said, where none exists. As Gandydancer pointed out, when paraphrasing a quotation there's no reason to pick out something that sounds emotional over other parts of the quote. In this case the words "beyond reform" convey more content, because they convey Omar's rejection of an alternative approach of trying to reform the MPD without changing its fundamental nature.

I would appreciate it if you observed WP:AGF and not use words like "suspiciously" that question my motives. NightHeron (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is an example of what a good copy editor does: I wrote this: "Skraba says he met with Jean Paul Luksic, the Chilean billionaire whose family owns Antofagasta Minerals the parent company of Twin Metals, and “the big cheese” made a good impression on him leading him to believe the company will respect the Boundary Waters.[47" My copy editor changed it to this: "Skraba has said he met with Jean Paul Luksic, the Chilean billionaire whose family owns Antofagasta, and that Luksic made a good impression on him, leading him to believe the company will respect the Boundary Waters.[47]" Now I won't deny that I wanted to suggest that it is pretty foolish for this small town Minnesota man to call a billionaire from Chili, and one well known to be a crook at that, the ""big cheese" and talk as though you talked man to man with him and by golly you came away from your talk impressed with his sincerity, etc. But my excellent copy editor took care of that wish of mine and the wish to include the words, "rotten to the root" fall into the same category - as Night Heron said, "in this case the words "beyond reform" convey more content." That is the difference in reading a newspaper account and reading it in an encyclopedia. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue what Gandydancer is getting at. There's no reason to pick out something that sounds emotional over other parts of the quote. -- I agree, that's why I suggested we use the entire quote, so it's fully in context: “You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild”. This is a great compromise. I still feel like its a contradiction, but no matter! It's her exact words. And if you think it's fully necessary, then we could include San Francisco in the next sentence. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Both Gandydancer and I have been getting at the difference between a newspaper -- which typically looks for eye-catching emotional headlines and leads -- and an encyclopedia, which is supposed to put accuracy and content first. We both agreed that the phrase "beyond reform", which was part of a quote from Omar in your source from The Hill (June 5), conveys content.

The article only needs a sentence or two about Omar's views on the MPD, and those sentences can be paraphrases of what she said. We don't need long direct quotes. The first three subsections of the "Political positions" section (concerning Omar's views of "Capitalism and socialism", "Education", and "Health Care") consist of a total of 7 sentences, with no direct quotes. Her views concerning the MPD are certainly no more important than her views on those three issues, and in fact as a Congressional Representative (not a member of the city government) the police issue in Minneapolis is not part of her remit. NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would also appreciate it if you don't WP:AOBF. I was merely pointing out that you were engaging in selective quoting. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC) When did I ever accuse you of acting in bad faith? Could you please be more specific? NightHeron (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC) In heated disputes, users often remind others to "Assume good faith" (AGF) whom they perceive to be doing the contrary. However, like bad faith itself, the assumption of bad faith should not be assumed merely because at first glance it might seem to be present. By telling me to engage in good faith, you were implying, without evidence, that I was engaging in bad faith. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Please do your trolling somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks very much for striking the comment above; I apologize for my own wording, as well. --JBL (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out before, there are tons of instances in this article of eye-catching, emotional leads (see my comments on bombing children and Israel hypnotizing the world). How is: “You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root. What you can do is rebuild” a long quote? Since apparently we can't seem to agree on her views, then I think quoting her exactly is the best route to go (just like the sources do). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but doing what you want to do is not a compromise, and you don't have consensus in any case. Your intransigence on including the "rotten" phrase might mean that we can't form a consensus to add anything on the police issue, in which case this whole discussion has been a waste of everyone's time. NightHeron (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

How about we say something along the lines of: Following the death of George Floyd, Omar called for the dismantlement of the Minneapolis PD, saying that the Department has "proven themselves beyond reform." Omar hoped to see a new police department be modeled after the one in Camden, NJ . Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty accurate summary, except that readers don't know anything about the Camden, NJ police department, unless they read the source you've found. I think it's a fair and balanced source, but we can't assume that readers will read it. Perhaps it would be more helpful in this case to actually include the source's quote from Omar explaining what she means: "A new system will allow officers to address the most dangerous situations and serious crimes that our residents face, while ending the criminalization of poverty and disproportionate violence against black and brown communities." Instead of the sentence about Camden, we might include that quote or paraphrase it. We could include both the sentence about Camden and a sentence quoting Omar, but 3 sentences on this topic might be undue (or maybe not, I'm not sure). NightHeron (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That was my exact issue when we were discussing the San Francisco PD-- I had no idea what she was talking about and neither would the reader. In this case, what happened with the Camden PD is much more well known, so let's just hyperlink the Wiki: Camden. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, feel free to put that in. I might do minor copy-editing, but nothing more. Unless other editors disagree, that should conclude this discussion. Thank you for your willingness to compromise and seek consensus. NightHeron (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't want go back and forth 20 more times?--jk. Do I need to put something specific in the edit summary, like linking this discussion? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

"New subsection on views on police, see talk page" would suffice. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did we get this quote from: In a statement, the Minneapolis mayor said they planned to work to address "systemic racism in police culture." The only thing the NBC article states was that Jacob Frey, the mayor, was booed by protesters after he refused to commit to defunding the police. Even so, the quote doesn't seem relevant since it wasn't from Omar, nor was it specifically about Omar. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

• Omar's views on the police should be considered in the context of her proposals on police accountability[2] and her opinions on the BLM protests ("protests valid, destruction not"[3]).VR _talk 02:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

There's a tweet by Hufsa Kamal in the Patriotism questioned subsection. Please add this reference to the references at the end of the tweet. Thanks! 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC) 209.166.108.199 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: There are already RS for this claim and adding the tweet adds nothing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the existing sources for the tweet is archived, so if they become dead links - as news articles often do on the web - there will be nothing left linking the tweet to its source on twitter.com. Editors may still object to this edit saying it would be better to archive the existing sources than to add a reference, but they are advised to take on that labour themselves - I am 0% willing to do that for them when I've already formatted a reference to the tweet with an archive link. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Capitalism and Socialism

I deleted this section because I don't think it adds anything to the article. An editor re-instated it saying, "Please don't remove an entire section without discussing it in the talk; Omar's anti-capitalism views are well known and supported by RSs."[4] The section reads:

Omar does not self-identify as a socialist, though she has indicated support for socialist ideals.[81][82][83] Unlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, who were also elected to Congress in 2018, Omar was neither a member of nor endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

There is nothing however in the sources about anti-capitalism or socialist ideals or what socialist ideals means. Basically, Omar is one of 433 out of 435 members of Congress who do not self-identify as democratic socialist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

These are the three sources used: [5][6][7] The Intercept article states:

But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values and so I think as Democrats, we all share serious socialism ideals about providing for people and caring about our communities and making sure that government is held accountable in providing for its citizens.

Basically, she is saying that Democrats, in general, support these ideals. It is highly misleading to use this out of context to state in WikiVoice that she supports socialist ideals.

I see nothing relevant in the Politico article.

Refinery29 is a young woman’s fashion site. It only says that her campaign manager said she was socialist when she herself has denied this. It does say she did not sign a DSA pledge.

I see nothing about anti-capitalism related to this article. Removal of this subsection was correct. O3000 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000 and TFD are correct and I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. In US politics, the term socialist is a loaded term, usually seen as a pejorative. For example, Trump frequently accuses Democrats of being "socialists". The evidence in the sources indicates that Omar is not a socialist, and we don't normally have a section of a BLP about what the person is not. NightHeron (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The section was a little more nuanced than just stating "Omar is socialist." In fact, the first sentence states that Omar does not identify as a socialist but is warm to socialistic ideals. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think we're allowed to label someone a "nationalist" or a "socialist" (or state if they're friendly to nationalistic or socialistic ideals) even if the person in question doesn't use those terms-- so long as RSs use those terms to label that individual. For example, John Bolton's page clearly states that ...his political views have been described as American nationalist, conservative, and neoconservative. Bolton rejects the last term. Should we remove "neoconservative" from his lead, just b/c he dosen't use that term?--no, that's silly since most sources associate that term with him. As for Omar, she is frequently associated with the "Democratic Socialists" or the highly-progressive wing:

• [8]: host Daniel Denvir spoke with one of the leading lights of the democratic socialist movement, Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar.
• [9]: Rep. Ilhan Omar is a self-described “democratic socialist” who has made a name for herself as one the farthest-left voices in the House of Representatives
• [10]: Ilhan Omar is not a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and does not call herself a socialist, though she says she favors some socialist ideas.
• And, maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like an endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America [11]: DSA Wholeheartedly Supports Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar
• Lastly, in reference to the Intercept interview, you have to go through some mental gymnastics to conclude that Omar is not saying that she supports socialists ideals. Here is the whole quote: So for me, what I say to that is I believe in not having extra titles so I am a Democrat. But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values and so I think as Democrats, we all share serious socialism ideals about providing for people and caring about our communities and making sure that government is held accountable in providing for its citizens. All she is saying is that she doesn't like using 'titles,' but she feels deeply connected with socialism, and, according to her, most Democrats have socialistic sentiments.Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll let you all consider the question of including or excluding the subsection but I wanted to quickly comment on the dsausa.org link: it is a statement of support towards them against an Israeli government decision considered bigoted. I imagine they might also put out a statement like that in favour of GOP Reps. Zeldin or Kustoff if either of them were to become impacted by anti-Semitism as blatant as the Islamophobia in this case. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you're completely right. But, considering the fact that they issued lots of statements like this about Omar [12] [13], [14], it's safe to assume she is supported by DSA, if not formally endorsed. Additionally, Omar endorsed the DSA in her district [15] (something I forgot to mention). Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I’ll go through each point:
• On the Jacobin podcast, your quote is not from the podcast itself, but from a lead in to the podcast essentially advertising a subscription.
• The Independent article appears to be an opinion column (the voices section).
• I don’t think Common Dreams Is RS. In any case, I think most people support some socialist ideas.
• I already commented on The Intercept quote.
• An endorsement from DSA is completely irrelevant. Unless you want to include David Duke’s or The Proud Boy's endorsements of Trump as proof he is a white supremacist. O3000 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the Jacobin quote is from intro, but that's completely separate from the subscription part (which is just the last line of the intro). Common Dreams seems to be a more local, progressive news source, but it has featured lots of big name writers. As you admitted, most people support some socialist ideas, so why not include the socialist/ semi-socialist ideas Omar supports (some of which are listed in the sources)? I really think you need to reevaluate the Intercept quote. If Omar just said Democrats, in general, support socialistic ideas, then fine, we'll leave it at that. But she unequivocally said that "But the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values." How much clearer does she need to be? As for the DSA endorsement, you must have missed my other comment where Omar endorses the DSA in her district [16]. If the Proud Boys endorsed Trump, and Trump endorsed a local Proud Boy's chapter, then you could probably put 2 and 2 together. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The first two sources are clearly wrong. Omar is not a democratic socialist and does not describe herself as one. The DSA has a list of endorsements, which includes AOC, Tlaib, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman, who are all members of the DSA, but not Omar.[17] It could be though that the local DSA has endorsed her, as have many other progressive groups. (Note that her website says they endorsed her, not that she endorsed them.) That would mean that local DSA members would campaign for her, but the national organization would not. The DSA has backed various non-socialist Democratic candidates, including John Kerry and Barack Obama. The ideals of socialism Omar claims to support are basically ideals that most people support. It's like someone saying to Jews or Muslims that they support their ideals without actually belonging to those religions. As for Bolton, see my comments on adding him to the list of neoconservatives: "I have always found the list a problem because there is no clear guide to who is a neoconservative, especially after we advance past its origins and move from intellectuals to politicians."[18:21, 30 March 2018][18]

As a point of trivia, the founder of the DSA is credited with coining the term neoconservative. By it he meant fellow socialists who had converted to conservatism.

TFD (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, that's an interesting factoid at the end. John Bolton was just an example. There are plenty of articles that describe political figures using continuous terms. Tucker Carlson's page states: Carlson has been described in the media as a conservative or paleoconservative. Writing for New York magazine's Intelligencer, Park MacDougald called Carlson a "Middle American radical...". I don't believe Carlson ever described himself as a paleocon or a Middle American radical, but that doesn't mean those labels aren't true. Also, I should have stated this earlier, but I don't think we should call this section "Capitalism and Socialism," since clearly, Omar doesn't fall into either of those categories. I suggest we rename it "Political Ideology" or something of the sorts. Additionally, by listing the DSA endorsement on her website, she is, in effect, accepting the endorsement. This obviously doesn't mean she stands with DSA on every position, but it does show that her ideology aligns closer to democratic socialism. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

What John Bolton and Tucker Carlson say in general is irrelevant to this article. You seem to be indulging in a great deal of WP:OR. I suggest we have no section divining her ideology from poor sources and assigning labels thereto. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If you actually spent a moment of your time looking at what I wrote, like The Four Deuces did, you would know that I am not trying to include statements by Bolton or Carlson into this article. I am simply stating the fact that it is perfectly appropriate to assert labels or describe a person's ideology--as done on many other BLPs. Devoting just 2 or 3 sentences to her ideology, as we had before, is all I'm asking for. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

For one, you said I "admitted" most people support some socialist ideas. Well, then why should we include that here if it doesn't define her? Most people think murder should be illegal. No reason to include that either. You seem to want to attach a label that has become ultra-controversial (since McCarthy days) -- a label with so many meanings. I don't see how this is of benefit, any more than adding to the Trump article that he supports aspects of socialism because he supports some "ideals" that might be called socialist. In any case, it isn't supported by RS and isn't going to be added. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not the one attaching that label to her--she is. For the 100th time, Omar states in clear and precise language that "the ideals of socialism is one that is deep in my values." I am not saying saying 'socialism' is a good thing or a bad thing. If Trump said "the ideals of Nazisim is one that is deep in my values," that would be in the very 1st paragraph of his lead and he would be branded a Nazi without a second though. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have a PH.D, I would hope you understand out of context quoting. Enough. O3000 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually I bought my Ph.D online for $20--but don't tell anyone. The quote is in full context. She merely states before she doesn't like using titles or labels like socialism, but she feels very connected to socialism. Please stop trying to whitewash her own words or this article Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC).

You were cheated. I paid $15. No, it was clearly out of context. She goes on to say that these are ideals of the Democrats. Indeed, don't most people share the ideals she mentioned? Clearly she was not labeling herself a socialist per se. And, do not accuse me of whitewashing. That suggests that you are indeed trying to assign a negative label to her. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

<sigh> It appears that saying "My values are socialism, and those are also the values of my party" no longer means what it used to. I only accused you of whitewashing because you were so adamant about removing a potentially negative label. I try to assume good faith as much as possible. I apologize for that comment. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can infer anything from the endorsement, per synthesis. It's local organization is just one of many progressive groups that endorsed Omar. Donald Trump and the U.S. Congress endorsed Juan Gaido, who leads a socialist party in opposition to Nicolas Maduro, to be president of Venezuela. It doesn't mean they are socialists. Congress invited the British socialist leader Tony Blair to address them, where he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Other socialists honored include Anwar Sadat and Martin Luther King. Congress even named a public holiday after King.

I think though that NightHeron is right. Socialist is a loaded term in the U.S. while in the rest of the world it's usually just one of two major parties. When describing foreign leaders, U.S. media only use the S-word for socialists they oppose and never use it for those they support. So Maduro is routinely referred to as a socialist while Gaido never is.

TFD (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

TFD You make some excellent points. Would you at least consider including Omar's own words on socialism (see quote above)? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As in any other article, it would require a secondary source for interpretation and you would need to show that it is significant, i.e., that it is routinely mentioned in articles about her. It seems that why you want to put the information in is that you personally think it important, rather than sources do. But there are other sites to bring up information ignored in mainstream sources. And if mainstream sources pick up on it, then it could well find its way into this article. Articles are supposed to read more like the New York Times than Epoch Times. TFD (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

the British socialist leader Tony Blair oh lordy. Unsolicited advice: if you're making an argument that treats Blair, Sadat, and King as equivalent for some purpose, you're doing something wrong. Adding my two cents on the original question: the sourcing for the section was mediocre and a bit synth-y, but not really terrible (and better than a lot of garbage that gets tossed into "political positions" BLPs). I also thought that it did a pretty good job addressing the substance in an encyclopedic way. If there were a single more solid source that addressed the topic in a non-glancing way, I would support restoring it; as is, I'm in the "meh" column. --13:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you are missing my point. If there is nothing significant about Congress honoring socialist leaders, there is nothing significant about a Congresswoman saying something nice about socialism. Note that the parties that Sadat, Blair and Guaido belonged to were members of the Socialist International, as was the DSA. Socialism is such a broad tent that as you say, if you're making an argument that treats then as equivalent for some purpose, you're doing something wrong. TFD (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Fource Deuces: Normative and comparative arguments about what is "significant" and what isn't have less impact than what sources have treated as significant. The views the subject holds on capitalism and socialism are noted as significant by sources, and that takes precedence. There is nothing wrong with the edit and it should be restored. WP:WEIGHT is satisfied for inclusion in the article body. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the only source for Omar's mention of socialism was an interview and it was not reported in secondary sources, hence fails the test for significance. I suggest changing your daily news feed to CNN or something else more mainstream. Then you won't hear about far right criticisms and won't wonder why it isn't in the article. TFD (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Her name is Ilham

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

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