Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 15
This is an archive of past discussions about Ilhan Omar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
"American politician" vs. "Somali-American politician"
For a very long time this article began (essentially) "Ilhan Omar is a Somali-American politican ..." (or sometimes "Somali American"); for example, Nov 2018 (just before being elected to Congress), Jan 2019, March 2019, May 2019. More recently, some editor or editors have removed the "Somali" (or "Somali-") descriptor from the first sentence. Unlike the silliness about her "Arabic name" above, this seems to me misguided: her notability derives in significant part from her background (she is the first Somali-American elected to any legislative office in the US, etc.). I propose that the modifier be restored. The relevant guideline is MOS:ETHNICITY: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.
-- it seems to me that the qualifiers are amply met in this case. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- Her notability stems from the fact that she's a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, and before that the Minnesota House. How much does being Somali factor into her notability? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- She was notable before she was elected -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilhan_Omar. She received widespread national news coverage as the first Somali-American elected in the US. (This is covered in multiple places in the article, along with a detailed discussion of her ethnicity/background.) --JBL (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- She has indeed received a lot of coverage focusing on her Somali upbringing. I'm torn on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- She was notable before she was elected -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilhan_Omar. She received widespread national news coverage as the first Somali-American elected in the US. (This is covered in multiple places in the article, along with a detailed discussion of her ethnicity/background.) --JBL (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with the above user. Furthermore it is unclear whether she even retained Somali citizenship after immigrating and becoming a U.S. Citizen, thereby making the label "Somali-American" questionable anyway, but nonetheless her notability is entirely as an American politician in the U.S.A. I'm not sure how her ethnicity/place of birth figures into her notability at all to warrant inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is beside the point (i.e., it doesn't control what the first sentence should say), but you are absolutely wrong about the first part: the descriptor "Somali-American" is about her ethnicity/birthplace, it has nothing to do with her nationality, and it is attested to by an infinite number of reliable sources. About the second part, if you read the lead of the article you will see it already contains a detailed discussion of her Somali background, because it correctly reflects the content of the article. The question I am raising is whether, in addition, it should begin by describing her as a Somali American. --JBL (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just realized there was an earlier discussion of this that I missed (probably, this is when the removal happened): Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_10#Heritage_and_Nationality. It does not look to me like there was consensus for the removal there. --JBL (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- In the first sentence it should not mention "Somali" because I think that wouldn't be appropriate considering that it is followed by "politician" and she was not a politician in the Somali. Also I think this case is very similar to Obama and in the Obama article the first sentence doesn't say "African", etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @SharabSalam: Barack Obama is not African. Ilhan Omar is Somali. Nevertheless, Barack Obama's article mentions that he is African-American in the second sentence. --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- In the first sentence it should not mention "Somali" because I think that wouldn't be appropriate considering that it is followed by "politician" and she was not a politician in the Somali. Also I think this case is very similar to Obama and in the Obama article the first sentence doesn't say "African", etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, then based on what Mr. JBL said, I think I further stand by why the term "Somali" should NOT be included in the lead. The lead per Wikipedia guidelines as stated in WP:Ethnicity already mentioned above should only describe nationality by default, not ethnicity or place of birth or prior nationalities unless the latter are somehow directly relevant to her notability. Simply being born in Somalia or being born a Somali citizen does not mean that said descriptor should be included in the lead. We don't have any information that she retains Somali citizenship, whereas we know for a fact she is a U.S. citizen as such is a prerequisite for her political office. Also, her Somali birth has little to no relevance to her notability as a U.S. politician. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't made my mind up 100%, but I think it's worth noting that while she has recieved considerable press for being the first Somali-American congresswoman, even more headlines mention her faith first. Your average headline would say "first Muslim woman elected to congress"(well, tied for first). I think we should leave the lead as-is. Also note, Rashida Tlaib has the same lead, American politician, with Palistinian-American further down. Let's leave the lead alone. TheSavageNorwegian 02:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Thesavagenorwegian: Rashida Talib was born in the United States, and the fact that she's Palestinian is much less widely noted than the fact that Omar is Somali. (Just compare the coverage in the two articles.) --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Apoorva Iyer: I am happy to be called by my username (Joel B. Lewis) or by my abbreviated username (JBL); but if you want to use a title/honorific, the correct choice is "Dr.", not "Mr." --JBL (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I see your point. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Please learn how to indent and thread your posts correctly. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I am sorry. I am not that familiar with the way to indent on wikipedia. do you have a source I can look to to learn/could you let me know how? Also, Rashida Tlaib being born in the USA does not change the situation one bit. Being born in a different country does not somehow make that country more relevant to inclusion in the lead, just as being born a certain ethnicity does not either. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, here is the link: WP:THREAD. (I have fixed the indentation on the comment right above this one, I hope that's all right.) Substantively: being born in a place is a more significant connection to that place than not being born in that place. So it is not particularly surprising that Tlaib is not called "Palestinian-American" in the first sentence, and the fact that she is not does not shed much light on the case of someone like Omar with a much stronger connection (both in terms of biographical significance and notability/coverage in reliable sources). --JBL (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think I disagree here. Being born in a place may offer an obvious biographical connection to that place, but as to whether that is notable and worthy of inclusion in the lead is an entirely different question and one akin to asking whether someone's ethnicity, religious background, or other information is also information worthy of inclusion in the lead. Rashida Tlaib is known for being Muslim, Palestinian-American, and a variety of other things but those are not included in her lead. Similarly, I don't see why we should include Ilhan Omar's birthplace in the lead. Just because she was born in Somalia does not automatically make that relevant to her notability and worthy of inclusion in the lead. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Regardless, I think a great place to look for guidance on this issue is the part of WP:Ethnicity that states "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." Ilhan Omar achieved her notability as a U.S. citizen and politician in the USA, not as a Somali one. News articles may highlight her Somali heritage as they may highlight Rashida Tlaib's Palestinian one but that does not automatically make it worthy of inclusion in the lead just as their mutual muslim backgrounds, which are also notable and mentioned frequently in the media, are also not included in their leads. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Also, this is a side note and not directly relevant to the topic at hand, but I'd like to note that being born in a certain place doesn't always even give you a significant connection to that place. Take, for instance, people who immigrate as infants or toddlers from another country. These people have no memory or connection to their place of birth over their US-born counterparts. This isn't Ilhan's case, but just thought I'd provide food for thought. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Many of your comments have the following feature: they live entirely at the level of generality and fail to deal with the particular details of this particular biography. Such comments do not add anything to the discussion. —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I addressed the fact that media sources like to highlight her Somali heritage/birthplace. I provided a comparison to other aspects of her background which are also highlighted in the media but yet are not included in the lead. I referenced Wikipedia guidelines on the issue as well. What is your reasoning for inclusion of her birthplace in the lead beyond that it is mentioned in media sources? Why should we include it in the lead over other qualifiers that are also equally addressed for her in the media such as her religious background? I feel like I need more specifics from your end to justify how her Somali heritage is directly relevant to her notability as a U.S. politician before I can be on the same page. If the only reasoning is that she is the first Somali-American elected to office, etc., then I'd point out that Rashida Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American elected to office and birthplace outside the USA as discussed previously is not somehow a greater reason for inclusion in the lead. Also she is one of the first muslim congresswoman so technically her religion is also important for the lead if we are looking at it from that angle. I think it is better that these factors are mentioned a few lines later as opposed to in the first line. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Many of your comments have the following feature: they live entirely at the level of generality and fail to deal with the particular details of this particular biography. Such comments do not add anything to the discussion. —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, here is the link: WP:THREAD. (I have fixed the indentation on the comment right above this one, I hope that's all right.) Substantively: being born in a place is a more significant connection to that place than not being born in that place. So it is not particularly surprising that Tlaib is not called "Palestinian-American" in the first sentence, and the fact that she is not does not shed much light on the case of someone like Omar with a much stronger connection (both in terms of biographical significance and notability/coverage in reliable sources). --JBL (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I am sorry. I am not that familiar with the way to indent on wikipedia. do you have a source I can look to to learn/could you let me know how? Also, Rashida Tlaib being born in the USA does not change the situation one bit. Being born in a different country does not somehow make that country more relevant to inclusion in the lead, just as being born a certain ethnicity does not either. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Usually hyphenation would mean that Omar was a politician both in Somalia and the U.S. By comparison, Einstein was a German American scientist, Peter Lorre was a German-American actor, but we wouldn't say that Reagan was an Irish American politician, because he never held office in Ireland. TFD (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I’m not sure I agree with this analysis, but assuming consensus is reached to include, we can then discuss which form to include. (The earlier discussion was leaning towards “Somali-born American”, which I also like and skirts the hyphen issue.) —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think the qualifier of "Somali-born American" doesn't really solve the issue either. We still have to ask why her birthplace is worthy of inclusion in the lead. Being the first of Somali birth or heritage in her position isn't any different than Rashida Tlaib or anyone else of other ethnicities being the first of their heritages to be elected to their offices. Just because she was born there it doesn't somehow make that more worthy of inclusion in the lead. And then by that logic do we have to include her religion in the lead too? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- I’m not sure I agree with this analysis, but assuming consensus is reached to include, we can then discuss which form to include. (The earlier discussion was leaning towards “Somali-born American”, which I also like and skirts the hyphen issue.) —JBL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- It seems obvious to me that "Somali-American politician" is the correct and accurate category for a naturalized citizen, as the second paragraph shows. Compare Arnold_Schwarzenegger is an Austrian-American actor, filmmaker, businessman, author, and former professional bodybuilder and politician. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, I disagree. I don't see in what way that would be obvious. Unless your place of birth is directly relevant to your notability (ex: you achieved your notability in that country prior to immigrating to a different one), and/or you remain a citizen of that country, why would you include it in the lead? Especially for Omar, who achieved her notability as a U.S. Citizen only and has no evidence of retaining Somali citizenship, I think the label Somali-American would in fact be inaccurate. I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger has dual citizenship. Not only that, but Wikipedia is pretty clear on this too in WP:Ethnicity. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop bludgeoning the conversation: you have repeated the same thing over and over again, and other people are entitled to discuss without this bad behavior from you. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I wasn't even aware that "bludgeoning" was a thing. I think you can be a little kinder in your tone. I responded to this previous user's post as it repeated many of the same points brought up before that had already been discussed. I will be sparser in my commenting here from now per WP:Bludgeoning. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'd prefer that we keep it as it is with "an American politician..." in the first para in the lead and then introducing her Somali heritage in the second para as we do now. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I wasn't even aware that "bludgeoning" was a thing. I think you can be a little kinder in your tone. I responded to this previous user's post as it repeated many of the same points brought up before that had already been discussed. I will be sparser in my commenting here from now per WP:Bludgeoning. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please stop bludgeoning the conversation: you have repeated the same thing over and over again, and other people are entitled to discuss without this bad behavior from you. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, I disagree. I don't see in what way that would be obvious. Unless your place of birth is directly relevant to your notability (ex: you achieved your notability in that country prior to immigrating to a different one), and/or you remain a citizen of that country, why would you include it in the lead? Especially for Omar, who achieved her notability as a U.S. Citizen only and has no evidence of retaining Somali citizenship, I think the label Somali-American would in fact be inaccurate. I believe Arnold Schwarzenegger has dual citizenship. Not only that, but Wikipedia is pretty clear on this too in WP:Ethnicity. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Schwarzenegger came second in the Mr. Universe contest when he still lived in Austria and before he became a U.S. citizen in 1983 was famous as a body builder featured in Pumping Iron and had starred in Conan the Barbarian. So he was an actor both before and after he became a U.S. citizen, while Omar was never a politician before becoming a U.S. citizen. TFD (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Trump tweet about "go back and help"
The article leads the reader to believe that the President said she should go back, but he never said "should". The article says - should "go back" to the "places from which they came". This paraphrases his tweet in such a way to lead the reader to believe he used a racist trope. Go back and help is quite different in meaning. President Trump said "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." The article eliminates "and help" which makes it out of context. He never said she should stay there, as the racist trope goes. In fact he says "Then come back". The link to the racist trope is unfair and biased. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.25.58 (talk)
- They came from the US. O3000 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- The article does not say that Trump used the word "should". Your statement that the article misquotes Trump as using the word "should" is false; in the article only "go back" is quoted from Trump, and the word "should" is an accurate paraphrase that is outside the direct quote. NightHeron (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please note: After my comment pointing out that the previous comment (claiming that the article misquotes Trump) was wrong, an IP-editor made edits in that earlier critical comment, changing the wording so as to make it appear that my comment was wrong. This violates talk-page guidelines, see WP:TPO (Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning). NightHeron (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- From WP:REDACT: if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. NightHeron (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- Articles rely on the interpretation in reliable secondary sources. Why btw doesn't Trump go back to Europe and fix their broken health care systems and open borders? TFD (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- There are two issues here. One is the substantive, real-world one; on that issue, the IP's post is utter and complete BS, as well as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. The second issue is about whether that wikilink is appropriate as currently used, and regrettably the IP is correct that this is questionable; see MOS:LINKQUOTE. It would be much better to include that link separately, elsewhere in the same sentence or in a separate sentence. (Reliable sourcing of the racist content of Trump's post will not be hard to come by.) --JBL (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Trump's attacks on Omar
The current wording criticism from Donald Trump
puts Trump's vitriolic tweets and lies on the same level as responsible criticism. In keeping with the descriptions in the main body, I've changed this to false and misleading claims by Donald Trump. NightHeron (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- NightHeron, I reverted this per WP:BRD, especially for the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Malerooster, what?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- NightHeron I also feel that just "criticism" is rather weak. His tweets or comments on her were a bit more than just criticism. Criticism is rather neutral and does not necessary mean it was "bad", yet the stuff that Trump said was rather racist and blunt (and wrong). So perhaps acerbic criticism is better or even something in the line of blatant criticism?Malerooster what do you think?Garnhami (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Garnhami, what is wrong with what NightHeron said, "false and misleading"? Also I dont understand what Malerooster was trying to say. Were you trying to reference WP:BLP or WP:BRD.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- NightHeron I also feel that just "criticism" is rather weak. His tweets or comments on her were a bit more than just criticism. Criticism is rather neutral and does not necessary mean it was "bad", yet the stuff that Trump said was rather racist and blunt (and wrong). So perhaps acerbic criticism is better or even something in the line of blatant criticism?Malerooster what do you think?Garnhami (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- Malerooster, what?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I took the terms "false and misleading claims" directly from section 6.5 of the main body: He [Trump] made a series of false and misleading claims about Omar
. NightHeron (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
- When it comes to Trump, numerous articles now use the terms false/and or/ misleading as a WP statement. Gandydancer (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- What were the "false and misleading claims"? NightHeron, our job as editors is not to shill for the article subject. You need to calm down. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Wikieditor19920, You actually need to calm down. Stop accusing others of bad faith. Also, your question is already answered in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- What were the "false and misleading claims"? NightHeron, our job as editors is not to shill for the article subject. You need to calm down. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)