Talk:Ilhan Omar

Removal of alleged anti-Semitic remarks drawing criticism in the lead.

For no good reason at all, Omar’s alleged anti-Semitic remarks drawing criticism is removed from the lead. An argument used to justify this was that it was already noted in the article later, but the fact that information which notes possible bigotry is excluded is nothing but a violation of WP:NPOV. Why should Omar get a pass on this sort of thing when her congressional contemporaries such as Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, and MTG all have their radical views put to the forefront of their pages as is rightly done?

Unless I can see a good reason why for this removal, I’m just going to assume that some people feel the need to protect Omar’s reputation for some inexplicable reason Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between (1) a political figure realizing that her remarks were interpreted in a way she hadn't intended and apologizing for the unintended effects of her words, and (2) political figures such as the ones you mention proudly standing by their extremist statements. NightHeron (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The "she apologized for her remarks" information can presumably also be included. However, your complete removal of this from WP:LEAD is inappropriate. Normchou ^💬 16:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't that too much detail for the lead? I would think that the fact that it was unintentional and she apologized means that it's not notable for the lead. NightHeron (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, overblown incidents along with retractions/apologies is far too much detail. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"Apologizing for the unintended effects" is a sort of backhand apology though, like a "I'm sorry you were offended". It's not terribly sincere. Zaathras (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is not terribly sincere just your opinion, or do you have a source? NightHeron (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a widespread opinion: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it pursuant to this 2021 RfC which found consensus against including it in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Do examples of antisemitic remarks made by Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Donald Trump or the numerous accusations (falsely in his case) made against Jimmy Carter figure in their leads? One gets the impression here that people think a defining characteristic of anyone critical of Israel's behaviour is what their attitude to Jews, as opposed to any other ethnic group, is. There are thousands of examples of people like Lauren Boebert, Sue Myrick, Newt Gingrich amd Stephen Herbits making racist statements about Arabs (in his case against Pierre Besnainou) which never appear even in the relevant articles. Prejudice is ignorable except when you can insinuate it as assuming defining importance for anyone critical of Israeli policies. If you are antisemitic but pro-Israel, then the fact is negligible.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If they are a defining part of their history, they should be. Omar had a House Resolution passed by a bipartisan crowd. None of these others had such notoriety. Buffs (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Who says it's a defining part of anything, or should be? WP:NOTNEWS right? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Many careers have been destroyed in the US and the UK, because criticism of Israeli occupational policies is spun as antisemitism (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy). There are books on this, the latest being a masterly work (Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the 'Collective Jew',)(2022) by Antony Lerman, who is a leading authority on antisemitism and provides an extremely detailed forensic history of how this term is abused and its political manipulation.

To reply to the opening claim re Lauren Boebert, yes, her radical view (pretty normal among Republicans) are mentioned in the lead, but not her Islamophobia, which is antisemitism targeting Arabs. Wikipedia is one of the few venues where neutrality obliges us not to allow articles to be replays of the stereotypes and caricatures that are part and parcel of contemporary political discourse. What may define Ihlan Omar is an acute concern for the diffuse contempt, hatred or fear of people of Arab background or Muslim faith commonplace in several Western democracies. Whenever that concern touches on what Amnesty International and Human Rights say is Israeli apartheid, politicians get hysterical and the issue is no longer whether those determinations are verifiable, but whether she, in saying the same things, is targeting Jews, and not the problem of human rights.Nishidani (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

her radical view (pretty normal among Republicans) Was that really necessary? That's like saying AOC's positions are "pretty normal for Democrats": they really aren't. Buffs (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact the House resolution passed kinda proves Nishidani's point. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There was already a thread open about this. Why was it necessary to start a second? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should include the fact that critics of hers have accused her of antisemitism in the lead. But, if we do, we should not include it devoid of context as a throwaway line at the end of the lead, and instead put it in the context of the controversial nature of criticising Israel in American politics, as an addendum to the bit in the 2nd paragraph. But I think enough ink is already spilled in the lead regarding Omar and Israel. Endwise (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Some inexplicable reason? You’ve been on the talk section of wiki before, haven’t you? 49.130.128.87 (talk) 01:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The allegation of antisemitism is subjective at best. For example, the alleged "hypnosis" trope is practically unheard of. It's not even mentioned in the Stereotypes of Jews article. Israel is a sensitive topic in the context of American politics, which is why the topic of Israel is wrapped in cotton wool. There's not a single statement of Ilhan Omar's that can be criticized as blatantly anti-semitic. That's why I say it should NOT be included in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulrego (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This is completely unfounded and based in misinformation and propaganda.

"Israel has hypnotized the world"

"It's all about the Benjamins baby"

These are extremely common anti-semitic tropes commonly touted in the middle east abiut the Jews and there supposed control of the world and the movement of money. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion ended more than 8 months ago. Please develop some experience editing non-contentious areas in Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm responding to someone who commented 6 days ago. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding appropriate linkage for a term

This is a relatively minor note, however, under Rep. Omar's heading for 'Support for Human Rights' one of the lines in reference to her criticisms of the Saudi Arabian Government is "The Saudi Arabian government responded by having dozens of anonymous Twitter troll accounts it controlled post tweets critical of Omar". I think it would be a better if the line in which the word 'troll' is present had the associated linkage to the Wikipedia page Troll (slang). Currently as it stands, there is no broader context within that subheading or Rep. Omar's page itself in which the meaning of that term would be clearly understood by a theoretical reader of this page who is unaware of internet slang. LosPajaros (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. Since the article is currently protected, I have added the appropriate edit-request template. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 March 2024

Recommend to remove the words directly referencing Danold J Trump, as it creates an unsourced liable targeting a political party and shows a bias stance on behave of wikipedia. If there is source material including it would easily mend this as well 2600:100A:B1C0:1345:2567:6E80:6802:63AE (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Edit request is not specific enough. Trump's name occurs 70 times in the article in various ways. You haven't said which occurrence you believe is unsourced. NightHeron (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

in the third paragraph, the author said something that is NEITHER of the sources. "as a result of her background" Please do not put your own bias into an article. These should be factual Rikochetrt (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: How is "racist threat to shoot her" (from the title of the BBC source) not a "death threat...as a result of her background"? The wording in the article is backed up by the sources. NightHeron (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with Rikochetrt. The statement, "She has been the target of derogatory comments by political opponents, including Donald Trump, as a result of her background," is biased. I submit that nobody gives a flip about the fact that she is a Somali or a Muslim; her background has zero to do with her political opponents' criticisms of her. She is, instead, criticized for her political positions, affiliations, and statements, including a perceived ingratitude for the Country she fled to and now calls home, and a widespread perception of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bias on her part. The phrase "as a result of her background" is comparatively groundless, unless you want to quote apologists for her (surrogates, biased), or people with skins too thin to be in a contact sport like American politics (babies who dish it out but can't take it). I therefore believe it is a biased view and should be removed. Mluklu7 (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Your post is full of your own opinions. Our opinions don't matter here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Your post about my opinion is merely YOUR opinion; and your opinion, given your unhelpful tone, genuinely does not matter to me. The claim mentioned in the article is still based on bias, and is yet another attempt to paint this individual with a victimization status, and her opponents as racists, all of which is utterly unfounded. That biased claim is what lacks both facts and truth. Mluklu7 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC) You provided no references. Ergo, it is your opinion, as are your new opinions about motivation and your many churlish insults. Enough. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

All public figures are exposed to criticism and threats

The introduction says Omar has been the target of criticism by political opponents and has received death threats. These statements can be made about every politician of standing and yet are missing from other Wikipedia pages. Is there some reason Omar's criticism and threats are relevant? 108.4.153.106 (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources currently referenced in the article, she has been subjected to a far greater level of serious and credible death threats than most other members of Congress. If coverage of a similar level of threats exists for other members of Congress, but is not reflected in the Wikipedia articles about them, then please add well-referenced content to those biographies, in compliance with policies and guidelines. 08:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)