Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bari Weiss op-eds

They don't belong on this Wikipedia nor any other Wikipedia page. She's not a recognized expert on the history of anti-semitism nor anything else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You mean the columnist for the New York Times? WP:RSN says otherwise. Perhaps you should use that forum to voice your opinions about the reliability of sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Point me to the RSN discussion where it was agreed that opinion editorials in the NY Times are considered RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikieditor19920 understands the problems with using opinion pieces in BLPs -- just check out this edit summary! --JBL (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, op Ed's can be used to cite facts that need to be cited but are otherwise uncontroversial. Those facts usually have better sources that can be used. Bari Weiss' opinion of Ilhan Omar is as relevant for us as Glenn Greenwood's opinion ot Bari Weiss. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Omar responded directly to it, so that makes more sense to include than a random opinion piece, just like the Andrew Sullivan piece to which Bari Weiss responded. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

And by the way, the Weiss opinion piece and Omar's response to it received WP:SECONDARY coverage from Haaretz. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That should be added to the article. Not a primary source opinion by an ideological opponent. wumbolo ^^^ 19:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post was also cited. Primary does not equal bad, and since it's what initiated the exchange I don't see an issue with including it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, primary isn't always bad, but secondary is almost always better. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fortunately we have both in this instance! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• That development needs to be reflected on the page. One should also realize that views by people on Israel and whatever do evolve. I think something she said in 2012 does not desrve that much space on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Her apology should certainly be included. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

And it is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This quote is just one column out of a countless number. Why is it featured in an article about an entirely different person? It makes little sense. Ewen Douglas (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ewen Douglas: Because Omar responded to this one and the exchange received WP:SECONDARY coverage from Haaretz and other WP:RS. This is clear-cut WP:DUE. Read the above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear-cut WP:DUE based on what, exactly? haaretz is suddenly some major source for news on Ilhan Omar? You could perhaps make an argument for including this on the Bari Weiss article. Certainly not here. And it appears that other editors agree with me on this, and no one with you. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a WP:RS, but we also have the Washington Post (see above) and you've again misread the discussion. I'm stating a fact—the response by Omar to Weiss's op-ed received WP:SECONDARY coverage and is therefore WP:DUE. The initial objection was to including WP:PRIMARY opinion op-eds (which they all are) by themselves, and that's not what's being done here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It really is ludicrous to have a statement in reaction to the Op-Ed and yet not have a statement about the op-ed, that is just pure stupidity at its finest. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree with Sir Joseph here. Sterilizing discussion about -- let's be honest -- the reason most viewers came to this page does not a good article make. Let's face it -- a good chunk of people are coming here to read about this issue, and we must serve to our readers. --Calthinus (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Policy disagrees with you: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If people are coming to Wikipedia for hot takes on the latest breaking news stories, they're on the wrong website. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You do not have a monopoly on interpreting policy do you want me to regurgitate the diffs?. Per WP:Controversial articles, For a controversial individual or organization, it is likely that many sources have criticized the person or the group. A well-sourced summary of these criticisms should appear in the article, giving weight to the viewpoints in accordance to the weight that these viewpoints are given in reliable, published sources. The fact is that the notability of the subject has her role in controversies of these sort taking a central part -- hence relevant, and deserves indepth coverage. In this case the opinion piece recieved substantial secondary coverage, and a lot of the notability -- even the name recognition -- of this article's subject comes from that. Per proper policy, if we omit it -- or worse, as Sir Joseph noted, include the response to it but not the piece itself (classic spin tactic), we are being incomplete at best. Now please step aside and let people add relevant information.--Calthinus (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I shall respectfully decline your suggestion, thanks all the same (nor does your opinion of what's "relevant information" carry any more weight than mine). I notice you haven't provided any reliable sources to support your claim that notability of the subject has her role in controversies of these sort taking a central part – it would be helpful if you could do that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Right now on Google if you type in Ilhan Omar, the first suggestion is "Ilhan Omar twitter", the seventh is "Ilhan Omar tweet AIPAC". I don't need to supply an RS for a non-main-space argument that let's be honest, we all know is true.--Calthinus (talk)

"Ilhan Omar twitter": 38.4 million results" [[1]], versus "Ilhan Omar representative": 15.5 million results [[2]].--Calthinus 02:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Google search results emphasize recent happenings; imagine that. But "recent" does not equal "significant" and the Google test doesn't establish notability. What "we all know is true" might not in fact be true. I don't see what any of this this has to do with the topic of this thread, which is a single op-ed in the Times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Also per WP:BLP: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Unless Weiss is a recognized expert (unlikely, as she's a mere journalist), then her editorial is categorically not a reliable source to use for criticism of Omar. I've removed the citation to Weiss's editorial; anyone who wants to add secondary coverage of her remarks is welcome to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that requires removing the Weiss citation. The content in the article is sourced to WP:SECONDARY coverage of the exchange; the initial op-ed and Omar's response to it. WP:PRIMARY also says that Primary does not equal bad, and since here the content is supported by secondary sources, there is no issue whatsoever with linking to the original op-ed; in fact, it would probably be preferable to at least direct readers to what initiated the exchange.

And by the way, @My very best wishes:, can you explain a little bit more why you view a candidate's position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and allegations of anti-semtisim to be one and the same? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking your policies (Primary does not equal bad actually comes from Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, which is a supplementary page, not a policy). We have to use extra care with biographies of living persons. That policy suggests that we should definitely not link to external sites that offer contentious opinions about the article subject (my bolding): Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy and External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics ... In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. It should go without saying that opinion pieces in the NYT often contain content that goes against the spirit of BLP policy. The statement since here the content is supported by secondary sources, there is no issue whatsoever with linking to the original op-ed strikes me as highly disingenuous; obviously not all of Weiss's op-ed is supported by secondary sources. Indeed, if an author referencing a given primary source in the process of evaluating and synthesizing such primary sources were all that were required to render the entire primary source valid for inclusion, why would we ever bother with secondary sources at all? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The policy you cited completely supports my point and refutes yours. The full quote from WP:BLP is Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. In other words, the citation is permitted. The restriction that it is referring to is the one prohibiting the use of unreliable sources, which the New York Times, the paper the published the op-ed, is plainly not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

In other words, no it isn't (in all cases). The operative word there is may, which is emphasized in the policy. And please don't conflate op-eds in the Times with its news reporting. The latter is generally reliable; the former is not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's right—may means permitted. You're trying to twist that into somehow requiring removal, which is nonsense. And what is unreliable about the NYT op-ed section, exactly? The reliability of the publication and its reputation means they are likely to publish commentators who are considered knowledgeable in their respective fields. Do you have evidence otherwise? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

"May be acceptable" does not mean "is acceptable". Please find a dictionary. May be is used in a conditional sense here, not a broadly permissive sense. Regarding NYT commentators, RS guidelines are clear that opinion writing is generally not reliable for factual statements. The burden is on you to show that Weiss is a reliable authority on matters of anti-Semitism, not the other way around. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You are asserting that a policy that says something may be included means it cannot be included. The Weiss op-ed is not being used to source a factual statement; it's being used as a source for her opinion. The majority of editors agree in this section that the citation belongs, so I don't really need to show you anything if you're not going to be receptive to reasonable arguments. The New York Times reputation extends beyond its news department and almost certainly includes its opinion section; among its regular columnists are a world-famous economist, and any number of notable political commentators like Charles Blow, Frank Bruni, and David Brooks. If the NYT opinion section isn't reliable, according to you, I'm not sure which newspapers' is. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Who are the "majority of editors" agreeing with you (not that consensus is a vote)? I see most editors expressing skepticism that Weiss's opinion is at all relevant. You can equivocate all you like with the meaning of "reliable", but RS and WP:BLP are explicit: Opinion pieces are primary sources, while criticism of living subjects requires secondary sources. I know you are aware of this, since JBL pointed it out above. Who you think you're fooling by pretending that the opinion of an op-ed columnist (who is not Paul Krugman, David Brooks, et al.) is relevant to Omar's biography is beyond me. And no, I'm not using "may" to mean "can't". I'm using "may" to mean "subject to consensus, and furthermore, policy on external links in BLPs discourages this". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not an external link. We've already established that the Weiss op-ed receieved WP:SECONDARY coverage, so relevance isn't really in question. What you're objecting to is including the citation to the actual Weiss op-ed that the WaPo and Haaretz referenced in secondary articles, and to which the subject responded (the quote is provided in the article), and all you're doing is coming up with some convoluted policy argument that really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The relevant policy line on including a WP:PRIMARY to supplement a WP:SECONDARY has been quoted multiple times, and I won't do it again; however, nothing you're saying changes the fact that it permits inclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Lots of things are permitted for inclusion. That doesn't mean all of them are advisable. Relevance is definitely an issue; WaPo referencing one or two lines from an opinion piece doesn't mean everything in the piece is valuable info. The citation to the op-ed doesn't contribute to any meaningful understanding of the subject that the secondary sources (broadly speaking) don't already provide. Readers who want to read Weiss's take can click through from the WaPo or Haaretz pages. I don't see any benefit in providing a citation containing an external link to a primary source that we wouldn't use in the article by itself (reasons for which already having been explained). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're just moving the goalposts. First it couldn't be included, now it shouldn't. The WaPo didn't reference one or two lines—it referenced the piece and quoted a line, as did the Haaretz article. And I'm sure you're well aware that all citations lead to an external site, but External links refers to a separate subsection with links that are not cited in the body of the article. The paragraph in the article already covers the full dispute, explaining Weiss's commentary and Omar's response; despite your personal opinions about this commentator and what they have to say, citing the original piece would unquestionably add to the article without violating the two conditions set out by the policy earlier: WP:RS and WP:OR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920 the goalposts are going to do laps around the field, and the argument will go on till we're blue in the face. I'm sure you've experienced it, I sure have with all the Russian/Balkan/Caucasus nationalist skinheads I've dealt with in the past on here. There will always be some inconsistently applied argument to summon up to prevent people from making edits someone doesn't like. I'd say just call an RfC and let closers determine it -- AGF is important but so is realizing when the other side is not interested in coming to an agreement.--Calthinus (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Rather spurious arguments, I might add. First it can not, now it should not. It is quite obvious that Weiss's expert opinion on Omar has been covered widely in secondary sources - including WaPo. Omar herself responded to Weiss. It is quite clear that not only can this be included - it should and must be included. Icewhiz (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Since some people seem to have trouble with the idea that different arguments can support the same position, let me spell it out: (A) Most op-eds cannot be cited as sole sources of criticism in BLPs. (B) This op-ed should not be cited at all, given that (1) A applies to it and (2) any text it might support is already covered by third-party sources. Explaining A and then B is not "moving the goalposts"; it's providing multiple reasons for the same premise.

When users find themselves arguing strenuously for the inclusion of a citation that merely provides one person's contentious opinion and isn't needed to support the text, they should maybe ask themselves how exactly this is meant to serve the reader. The part about "expert opinion" is pure bullshit; Bari Weiss is a journalist and columnist. She's not a diplomat or scholar. No one has provided any published sources vouching for her as an "expert" on anti-Semitism whatsoever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf whenever I find myself arguing "strenuously" with you (trust me, it's not really strenuous) I know I must be on the right track. And you're correct, most editors on this page will have trouble understanding your shifting and inconsistent arguments. No one really cares about your biased evaluation (see ad hominem) of Bari Weiss. It's a thorough and well-researched op-ed, reliable WP:SECONDARY determined it to be relevant, and, perhaps most importantly, the subject responded to it. Therefore, the citation—without making any additional text edits to the article, even—provides necessary context to the reader. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

huh. nableezy - 16:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: Read the discussion above if you're confused. This an op-ed that received WP:SECONDARY coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not confused. When this was put this in it was an op-ed by itself. You seem to have widely different standards for inclusion depending on if the subject agrees with your own views or not. That strikes me as a problem. This probably is not the best place to discuss user conduct issues though. nableezy - 17:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You are apparently very confused, or makings up; either way, if you want to talk about user conduct, don't make accusations without evidence or having done your research. I don't know what you're accusing me of inserting. My first edit to the section included only secondary sources; another editor inserted the Weiss source, along with a secondary, as well as an in-text attribution, and I later revised what was already on the page without adding or removing any sources. Scroll up for my explanation of the difference between my edits to the page you linked and my arguments here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

After this edit was made, and when you made this comment, this was the state of the article. See how the only source about Weiss' op-ed is Weiss' op-ed? See how you are saying that the op-ed is reliable to use? See how that is the exact opposite position you take on this edit? Scroll up indeed. nableezy - 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy:Really going at it with the ad hominems, I see. You also happen to be completely wrong. Reliability is a separate issue from the propriety of using op-eds without that have not received secondary coverage. The Greenwald piece, as far as I could tell, did not. When I made my comment about reliability in the diff you linked above, the line about Weiss linked to both a primary and a secondary source (the original op-ed and the secondary source covering it). If the Weiss piece had not received any secondary coverage, I would agree with leaving it out. However, it has. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There was not a secondary source. The TOI source that was at the end of the sentence does not once mention the op-ed. I posted the permanent links for a reason. nableezy - 17:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nableezy I would add that the Greenwald blurb that Wikieditor19920 correctly removed is a false equivalence as it actually has a flagrant BLP violation -- Glenn Greenwald has criticized her pro-Israel and anti-Islam stances -- "anti-Islam stances" implies she is an Islamophobe. Nothing Wikieditor19920 has defended on this page that I have seen has anything nearly as damning as that accusation in Wikipedia's voice that he removed.--Calthinus (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I dont actually have even a little bit of a problem with that edit. Opinion pieces should not be used in BLPs, or most other articles for that matter. But in all BLPs, not just for biographies of people who share an editors view. But wait, we can have allegations of anti-semitism but an allegation of Islamaphobia is a BLP violation? You want to run that one back? nableezy - 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point: Wikieditor's edit on this page did not accuse Omar of anti-Semitism in Wikipedia's voice. The one he removed on Weiss' page did accuse Weiss of Islamophobia in Wikipedia's voice -- which is WP:BLP.--Calthinus (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Which would have been resolved by saying "what he describes as her anti-Islam views" now wouldnt it have? You can act like there is a difference here, but there is not. nableezy - 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This thread is now disrupted and confusing to follow; however, if you think they're the same, then go ahead and find a WP:SECONDARY that covers Greenwald's opinion. If you can, and you're able to frame it neutrally, you'll have no objection from me. However, I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

And right at the end of the next sentence was the WaPo piece referencing Weiss's op-ed, along with Omar's response. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see that, you are right that existed. Wasnt exactly a part of your justification, in fact it was only an hour later you even mentioned any coverage of the op-ed here. nableezy - 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: (Redacted) you're not citing policies that support your position. A secondary source quoting a single line of an essay means that the source found that one line relevant to what they wanted to say. That's where the evaluation and interpretation provided by secondary sources comes in. It doesn't follow that we should consider the entire essay relevant or direct readers to it. In fact, I don't see where either WaPo or Haaretz quote anything from Weiss's piece; therefore there's no justification for even using it as a supplement to the secondary-source coverage.

As for my "biased evaluation", your view that Weiss's essay is "thorough and well-researched" is no less biased, and is irrelevant to WP policies and guidelines in any case. If you can demonstrate that Weiss is a "recognized expert" on the history of anti-Semitism, by all means do so, since the claim of expertise is what I was responding to.

Omar responded to Weiss; so what? She is not herself a reliable source (go ahead and accuse me of "ad hominem" for saying that). If the response gets RS coverage, we can mention that. If the op-ed gets RS coverage, we can also mention that. We can go by what secondary RSes have to say. Neither makes the rest of Weiss's commentary that RSes chose to ignore relevant to a BLP article. Directing readers to that commentary would be the only reason to cite the op-ed here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: I'll just ignore the personal attack. You are indeed employing faulty reasoning by shifting your arguments, ignoring clearly-stated policy that does not support your position like WP:BLPPRIMARY, and showing clear bias in how you're evaluating the sources—reliability does not depend on whether you agree with the source's analysis.

And let's just review how Haaretz and WaPo referred to her piece:

WaPo Bari Weiss, a New York Times columnist, explained to Omar why many Jews found it so offensive in a biting commentary last week that prompted Omar to backpedal and apologize for not putting enough energy into “disavowing the anti-Semitic trope I unknowingly used.”

Haaretz Freshman Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar responded to New York Times writer Bari Weiss’ article on the anti-Semitic undertones of the lawmaker accusing "Israel has hypnotized the world" to carry out "evil."

And another: Forward This is not the first time Omar has apologized after being accused of anti-Semitism. After being called out by New York Times columnist Bari Weiss last month, Omar apologized for her 2012 tweet claiming that Israel had “hypnotized the world.”

We've now established that we have multiple secondary sources affirming the relevance of the op-ed and that it prompted a response from the subject. Now let's also review what WP:BLPPRIMARY states: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. The Weiss op-ed doesn't constitute original research, the source is objectively reliable, and it provides valuable context to the reader. And finally, let me clarify that what I and other editors are proposing is citing the op-ed, not changing the wording that's already in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same arguments you've made before. Yes, Omar responded – that has zero relevance to whether we consider Weiss to be a reliable source. Yes, WP:BLPPRIMARY allows primary sources to supplement secondary coverage subject to the restrictions of this policy. Well, what are those restrictions? They include requiring reliable, secondary sources for "criticism and praise". "Reliable" generally excludes opinion pieces, so there's one strike against the source right there. And there's very little "discussion" of the contents of Weiss's essay, as I'll demonstrate shortly. Indeed, The Washington Post mentions the exchange only in passing, by way of background to Omar's appearance on The Daily Show where Trevor Noah asked her about the tweet. I have no idea what you mean by "objectively reliable", but that's not how we evaluate sources in any case.

You've linked to the policy on due and undue weight, which says nothing about the "relevance" of primary sources. Instead, it talks about representing fairly all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Well, what are the "significant viewpoints" represented here? As described in the sources you've provided, Weiss "explained to Omar why many Jews found [her comments] so offensive" and described the "anti-Semitic undertones" of the tweet (The Forward saying she "called out" Omar doesn't really describe a "viewpoint"). The part Omar responded to also includes Weiss opining, "Perhaps Ms. Omar is sincerely befuddled and not simply deflecting". If all this summed up what Weiss had to say, I might be inclined to agree with citing her essay here, but it doesn't.

In the process of explaining the anti-Semitic undertones present, Weiss mentions Omar in the same breath as a Nazi propaganda film produced by "Joseph Goebbels himself", examines an unrelated, "controversial" tweet Omar wrote about Lindsey Graham as evidence of Omar's supposed "predilection for making accusations based on nothing more than prejudiced stereotypes", and says that all this proves "no party has a monopoly on speciousness". Her conclusion is that Omar represents an "intellectual climate that sees Jews as bearers both of monstrous moral guilt and of the secret power to conceal it". This goes well beyond analyzing a single anti-Semitic tweet.

Oddly, the third-party news outlets here ignore the implied comparison to Goebbels, the critique of Omar's "prejudiced" and "specious" reasoning, and making Omar the figurehead of an anti-Jewish "intellectual climate". If that's the kind of "valuable context" you hope to give readers, then you need to re-read WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your independent analysis of her op-ed and arguments disputing her points might be interesting, but it is also pretty blatant WP:OR. Perhaps you should write your own op-ed in response, but not here. Op-eds are not automatically unreliable; per WP:NEWSORG, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (emphasis added.) The viewpoint is Weiss's, and it's one that has WP:WEIGHT based on secondary reporting, so let's not get off-topic here. Again, policy allows inclusion of the citation, and because it initiated the exchange between Weiss and Omar, it clearly provides valuable context. That you find her or her points disagreeable does not change this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

On a further note, I find your last point about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP perplexing. Wikipedia editors and articles are subject to WP:NPOV; opinion columnists are not required to be neutral. Weiss, as a columnist, is stating her opinion; she is not making false factual assertions about the subject of this BLP. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how long you plan to keep repeating the same points again and hoping something sticks, but I certainly wish you luck obtaining consensus that way. Once again, "allowed" doesn't mean "encouraged". Consensus may determine that something should be omitted in many similar cases where policy does not strictly prohibit something. Likewise, no one is disputing that op-eds are reliable as primary sources. I thought I was clear enough that I meant "reliable, secondary sources" when I said that op-eds were generally excluded, but apparently not.

Your opinion that the essay gives "valuable context" is no less original research than my opinion to the contrary, given that none of the "context" – beyond the existence of certain "undertones" – is mentioned by any of the other sources. When you say Weiss's viewpoint has weight, which viewpoint, out of the several she put forward, do you mean? The viewpoint that Omar is some kind of anti-Jewish mastermind infiltrating the House Foreign Affairs Committee is certainly not given any weight by third-party sources here.

Finally, I'm not interested in disputing any of Weiss's assertions. I bring them up to show that most of what she has to say about Omar has received no independent coverage in the news media and is the kind of contentious opinion that we wouldn't put in an encylopedic biography anyway, so has little to no relevance here at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

...opinion columnists are not required to be neutral – that doesn't mean we go out of our way to direct readers to contentious opinions published about the subject, especially where they have been ignored by independent RSes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I'd call any comparisons of living people to Nazi propaganda ministers pretty sensationalist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue responding to these winding, dishonest arguments. You are now making assertions that are provably false:

• A) that doesn't mean we go out of our way to direct readers to contentious opinions published about the subject, especially where they have been ignored by independent RSes The Weiss op-ed has been noted by several secondary sources, including WaPo, Haaretz, and Forward.
• B) I bring them up to show that most of what she has to say about Omar has received no independent coverage in the news media and is the kind of contentious opinion that we wouldn't put in an encylopedic biography anyway, so has little to no relevance here at all. Quotes from three sources have already been provided directly disproving this—when a source says "Weiss's op-ed" they don't mean 50% or 25% or just the first two paragraphs—they are referring to the op-ed.
• C) You are misrepresenting what was written in the op-ed. She did not explicitly compare Omar to a Nazi; she noted Nazi propaganda's place in the history of the antisemitic canard of "Jewish hypnosis" and related why she deemed Omar's use of the term offensive. See as follows:

The Jewish power to hypnotize the world, as Ms. Omar put it, is the plot of Jud Süss — the most successful Nazi film ever made. In the film, produced by Joseph Goebbels himself, Josef Süss Oppenheimer, an 18th-century religious Jew, emerges from the ghetto, makes himself over as an assimilated man, and rises to become the treasurer to the Duke of Württemberg. Silly duke: Allowing a single Jew into his city leads to death and destruction.

She then gives Omar the benefit of the doubt:

Perhaps Ms. Omar is sincerely befuddled and not simply deflecting. Because sentiments like these, once beyond the pale of our public discourse, are being heard with greater frequency and volume these days, allow me to explain why this Jewish American, and almost every Jewish American I know, found her words so offensive.

• D) By definition, all op-eds contain some highly opinionated content. If they didn't, newspapers would stop publishing them, because they'd be so boring that no one would read them and no secondary sources would ever give them a lick of coverage. Fortunately, the very sensible members of the WP community who developed these policies acknowledge this; that's why an opinion piece may be considered reliable for that author's opinion, but not a statement of fact.

Your argument boils down to the fact that you find her opinions objectionable and therefore believe that we should omit the citation to her piece so that readers won't be directed to it. I'm not here to defend Weiss's arguments, but I will argue against double standards for content. There is no reason not to include the citation when it is permitted by policy and offers background to readers who visit this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

...winding, dishonest arguments... Pot, meet kettle. I've lost track of how many times you've repeated the same points ad nauseam in these WP:TEXTWALLs of yours. But I'll have a go at responding: (A) Weiss's op-ed has been "noted" how? As a simple call-out, or a "biting commentary" that explained "the anti-Semitic undertones" of the tweet. That leaves out a good deal of Weiss's commentary and omits any "discussion" of Weiss's arguments. (B) Why do the news media only mention one aspect of Weiss's commentary and leave out her statements about Omar as a person? The op-ed and Omar's response to it are mentioned as a thing that happened – you know, news – mostly in the context of the furore over the later AIPAC twet. Only Haaretz focuses on the exchange between Weiss and Omar, and a good 80% of that article is about Omar herself. (C) I said "Weiss mentions Omar in the same breath as" Goebbels the Nazi film, which is true, and called it an "implied comparison" to Goebbels. You're going after a straw man there. Is Weiss giving Omar "the benefit of the doubt" by asking if she's "sincerely befuddled", or making a sarcastic jab? Your analysis looks like WP:OR to me. (D) Yawn; more WP:OR. And no one is disputing that op-eds are reliable primary sources. You've repeatedly said that you're not proposing adding any content with the op-ed as a source, so I don't see what you're driving at with that one. (Etc.) What "double standards for content" are you talking about? I haven't said anything about the content of the article whatsoever. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason not to include the citation when it is permitted by policy and offers background to readers who visit this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

So you have said multiple times now. That is your opinion. Consensus may determine otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If not, I hope it's for a better reason than editors being prejudiced against her opinions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe all I've said about Weiss's opinions so far is that they are "contentious", and yes, somewhat "sensationalist". Are you suggesting otherwise? Because that would seem to be a shift from your repeated assertion that Weiss's op-ed is valuable simply as "context" and "background". Watch out for those moving goalposts now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"contentious"? Far from it - it seems there is wide bi-partisan recognition on the nature of Omar's statements. In an era of increased partisan polarization - seeing Democrats and Republicans both repudiate Omar for her statements is rather unusual. So no - nothing contentious or sensationalist here. Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As I stated above, Weiss has some very personal commentary about Omar's character, thought processes , and intellectual pedigree that goes well beyond repudiating specific statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any of that. What is clear is that you don't personally like her opinion—as you may or may not know, that is not a reason to keep a citation out of an article. Frankly, you're the only one I see in this section continuing to raise hell about it; everyone else seemed to understand and accept that an op-ed that's received secondary coverage may indeed be cited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been one long filibuster full of strawmen, Whataboutism, goalpost marathons, and all the like. There is no proposal to include anything from Weiss that is personal et cetera ("thought processes" -- what? I did not see that in the article...). As Icewhiz noted, in one of the most partisan eras this seems to be one of the (few) controversies that has the core right and the core left on the same side -- and, oddly enough, the alt left aligned with the alt right including David Duke, a staunch defender of Ilhan Omar on this issue [[3]] and the Venezuela one too -- really they do have some common isolationalist ground on foreign policy :). --Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: that's the third time now you've accused me of personally disliking Weiss's opinions. I guess if the first two times had no effect, this must be the one where it sticks, right? As I've already explained, most of Weiss's commentary got no "secondary coverage" in the sources provided. A few passing mentions are not the same as evaluation and analysis. I summarized Weiss's statements about Omar's character etc. in an earlier comment. Please explain how those statements do not count as "personal commentary". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Accuse you? Do you think you haven't made it blatantly obvious what your opinion about Weiss is? What do you mean "most of her op-ed got no coverage?" We have three quotes on this page referencing the op-ed. You are engaging in hairsplitting to the point of absurdity; they don't have to give a blow-by-blow of her every syllable. We have established that the op-ed received secondary coverage; per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we may now rely on the op-ed to supplement what's been addressed in the secondary sources. Including the citation is a no-brainer, because the page already discusses the op-ed directly. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To repeat, do you or do you not agree that the statements summarized here include personal commentary about Omar herself? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Who's statements, Weiss's, or your characterization of what she wrote? Neither is relevant to the discussion of how WP:BLPPRIMARY applies here. Weiss's opinions are just that; her opinions. The column's focus is Omar's remarks and Weiss's arguments as to why they are supposedly antisemitic. That's what was referenced by the sources above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as confirmation that Weiss did write personal commentary in her op-ed. As I already stated, a good deal of that commentary does not focus on Omar's tweet or the history of the trope she invoked. And three passing mentions do not constitute much "discussion" of the contents of the op-ed as described under WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not think her commentary was overtly personal. Nor does it matter—I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but the focus of the op-ed and what was noted by secondary sources was indeed her analysis of Omar's remarks. I'm not going to continue this debate; we have sufficient coverage to cover the exchange in the article, and we have reason (and a basis in policy) to include the citation. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that having the op-ed there doesn't significantly add to an understanding the article text, since everything there is supported by third-party sources. Readers can check the refs and click through to the op-ed from there if they are so inclined. What it does offer are tidbits such as her predilection for making accusations based on nothing more than prejudiced stereotypes – you really don't think that's "overtly personal" commentary? I have tried not to emphasize such language on a BLP talk page, but I don't see any other way of responding here. I don't believe we should go out of our way to direct readers to such material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

To a degree, I understand what you are saying. When a commentator says something that could be perceived as an unjust or vitriolic criticism, I can understand why it might elicit at least concerns about WP:BLP. I don't happen to think that Weiss's commentary meets that standard, but I also recognize that others might. For example, I would not advocate including some portions of her commentary that you pointed out, and leave it to what has been directly addressed by WP:SECONDARY sources (that way, we can avoid editors introducing WP:POV by picking and choosing what to include). However, I still maintain that the citation brings something to the table; because the exchange and op-ed is directly addressed, it seems odd not to include it. My position is that the most potentially inflammatory portions of the op-ed can be left out, but we should include the citation, and if readers so choose to follow it, let them make of it what they will. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Letting readers "make of it what they will" is not the mission of an encyclopedia. "We report, you decide" is the wrong slogan. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The mission of an encyclopedia is to provide information—or in this case, where the information is coming from. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And the goal of editors should be to follow policy, not make prejudiced determinations about which sources are cited and which are not based on which align with our personal sensibilities. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That "understanding" didn't last long, did it? That's the fourth time you've accused me of prejudice. Old habits die hard, I guess. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead, twitter, Breitbart, etc.

So, as usual Omar is the target of the right-wing loony brigade, this time realized in a series of edits by an IP and Ajackson12. Aside from the fact that Ajackson12 should probably be blocked for POV-pushing & edit warring (including terrible edits across a half-dozen articles), it seems like there are one or two decent sources here (Tablet and Haaretz). (Of course don't support the nuttiest bits.) Obviously inclusion of "look there was a tweet" in the lead section is a no-go. Overall, I think this version by Snooganssnoogans does a pretty good job of using non-garbage sources to record the parts of the events that might actually belong in an encyclopedic biography, with appropriate placement in the article. Although I am dubious of the idea of quoting tweets at all; surely there is a better way to include the information? --JBL (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

If you must have your twitter-twatter in the lede, it would be reasonable to include reference to tweeter Glenn Greenwald to whom/which the Member of Congress responded (the "AIPAC" scandal).126.243.120.157 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, but please avoid personal attacks. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

It's better to try to work constructively with editors, including those whose politics don't align with ours. Ajackson12 is capable of editing well, with this as one positive example (see WP:WTW). I've got my eye on the situation and will block if it's necessary, but hopefully it isn't necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes well I have no problem with Ajackson12's non-terrible edit. I would like to revise my earlier comment slightly in a different way, though: there is no Haaretz reporting, the Haaretz link is literally just a quote from Tablet, I am going to remove it as a source. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I see a slow edit war starting again. @Ajackson12 and Koncurrentkat: use the talk page, not edit summaries, to discuss whether accusations of Antisemitism belong in the lead or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m in agreement with you here, which is why the lead should stay as it was previously (containing that section) until consensus is reached. Now as to why the accusations of antisemetism should be in the lead- the purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. The article includes accusations of antisemetism, so too should the lead. Furthermore, the current version is well sourced and shows both sides, so there really isn’t a reason why it shouldn’t be in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajackson12 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. The article covers Omar's entire biography and political career, of which her criticisms of the Israeli government are just one part. There is no reason to single out just that part for inclusion in the lead.Wukai (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That’s the great thing about Wikipedia, you can add the rest! This sentence summarizes a section of the body, if you would like to summarize more sections then you should. And just to confirm, is there an objection to how the sentence is phrased, or just the sentence itself? - Ajackson12 —Preceding undated comment added 07:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding the rest would make the lead section too long. It's a short article. There is no need to get into any of her political views in the lead section. They are not usually mentioned in lead sections about politicians anyway. A brief summary of their political career suffices. See Keith Ellison, for example. Wukai (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

1. It won’t make it too long, right now it’s like 4 sentences. 2. This is very noteworthy, most of the coverage around her mentions this controversy. The only reason I can think of as to why it wouldn’t be included is a political bias for Omar, and an attempt to cover up what she’s said. Your previous edits to remove the lead and controversy section and bury the paragraph about this issue in the middle of the early career section only reinforces this. 3. To characterize this as a political view is misleading, it’s about the criticism that her political views have gotten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajackson12 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticisms of political views are even less notable than the views themselves. You have given no reason that the lead section should include either, when it is not standard for lead sections to do so. I doubt anyone will agree with you that it should. Certainly the criticism would not be "covered up" as it is described in great, indeed excessive, detail in the article.Wukai (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As the edit warring has continued, I have locked the page for a week. Figure this out without undoing each others' edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious that this material does not belong in the lead: it's unambiguously undue weight, and piling references that just rehash the same thing (including one of them twice, nice work) doesn't change that. Not really clear why we should pretend the user who keeps edit-warring to keep it in is acting in good faith, either: has anyone else looked at his edit history? --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The article currently locks poorly sourced smears into the lede. Admins should fix this immediately. And Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a clear consensus that the material Ajackson12 inserted doesn't belong in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Perhaps, given the pretty clear consensus here against the protected version, you could abbreviate the period of protection? --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I'll unlock it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be at least some mention, under her political positions, of her NO vote on a bill against FGM (female genital mutilation). minnesota-bill-against-female-mutilation-raises-opposition? Seems more than relevant given her belief and concerns of others about her. I do not think that qualifies as "right-wing loony" vandalism... and should think this absolutely relevant to feminist voters --Thorsmitersaw (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia: you can either edit the article directly or propose text on the talkpage for discussion. The article you linked (which is pretty good, and explains the context surrounding the issue in some depth) mentions Omar only once in passing, so it is not much to hang content on. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, the purpose of Wikipedia articles on politicians is not to help voters vote the way editors would like, it is to provide encyclopedic biographies of notable people. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thorsmitersaw:@Joel B. Lewis: I have added this controversy. It should be noted here as it is an important issue, especially if the news is abused. She voted yes, but she did criticize it. Often (right-winged) news sources claim she voted no, which is incorrect according to the final votes https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/votes/votes.asp?ls_year=90&billnum=HF2621&session_number=0&year=2017&id=285. Garnhami (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis: you call an official vote in the house a blog or a simple first source? This is an official voting and she voted yes. News media are lying about her vote, so yes, this is news that should be mentioned so people know she did vote yes and not no as some right winged news outlets claim. You do realize by NOT putting the fact that she voted YES aids in the lies regarding her vote? Right winged news outlets use the fast that she criticized it as a tool to come up with news that she voted no or is pro FGM , while it is not true. SO better to inform people here that she voted YES rather than ignore it completely. https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/votes/votes.asp?ls_year=90&billnum=HF2621&session_number=0&year=2017&id=285

Perhaps @Muboshgu: should take a look at it. I stand by my viewpoint: it is better to make a statement here about her voting YES and explaining the problems or backlash she faces by alt-right regarding certain lies that she voted NO. This is better than not mention it and leading people to the wrong idea. Also: keep in mind that the news from Judge Friedman made the case pop up again! So this is crucial information at the moment as this item is getting worldwide attention currently.

(ec) I have reverted you: your new section combines all the previous problems of sourcing (primary sources, blogs, and one passing mention from a conventional news outlet) with a new sin of unencyclopedic writing, synthesizing this non-event with something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Omar. And now we can add edit-warring to the list, I see. Wonderful. --JBL (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Venezuela again

The Venezuela section should be about Venezuela, not about Elliot Abrams. The current version strays awfully far from that.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The section is not on Venezuela per se, but on her opposition to the Trump administration's (from the article) decision to recognize Juan Guaidó as the president of Venezuela and other US actions.[78] She said that this was a "U.S. backed coup in Venezuela" and that Guaidó was part of the "far-right opposition". It is more about US actions in Venezuela than Venezuela itself. This being the case, and given the widespread media coverage of her opposition to Abrams being appointed the "Special Representative for Venezuela", it certainly seems relevant to the section as it exists. I reworded it to be more neutral and added non-partisan sources, as you requested in the summary of your revert.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiple problems here. First of all, regardless of the situation at the Atlantic as a whole, the Atlantic article in question is highly partisan. A more-neutral treatment, that looks at both sides, can be found in Vox[4]. Secondly, the article as it stands frankly reflects that bias by going into depth on Abrams past sins. Surely conditions in Venezuela are more relevant.Adoring nanny (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, The Atlantic qualifies as WP:RS and Raymond Bonner is a respected investigative journalist involved in reporting on/from El Salvador, making this a high quality source on the subject. And secondly, as I already explained to you, this section is on Omar's position on US policy in Venezuela, not specifically on the conditions in Venezuela. That's what makes her criticism of the newly appointed Special Representative for Venezuela, and especially his past actions in the region, absolutely WP:DUE. Feel free to add Vox as a source though.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I know this is probably what you mean, @Adoring nanny:, but we shouldn't get into the complexities of the Venezuela situation in this article beyond what's needed to clarify Omar's position on it. That would be straying towards coatracking. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I restored these materials because the events mentioned (including his denial of the El Mozote massacre and his involvement in Iran-Contra) were the highlight of the exchange between the two, and are referenced throughout mainstream media on this event. It is WP:DUE material. Adoring nanny has failed to prove that The Atlantic is an unreliable source and therefore should be removed. It is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia (see here).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The question is not whether the Atlantic is OK, it's whether that particular article is a good source. I'd suggest that when a plethora of RS are available, which is certainly the case here, it's more appropriate to avoid sources that describe only one side of a controversy, and to instead use sources that describe both sides, per WP:NPOV.Adoring nanny (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is a good source, from a reputable publication and a highly respected Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist. And you did more than remove a reputable source, you also deleted swaths of text which pertained to Omar's objection to Abrams, and the highlight of their exchange.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You keep repeating that like a mantra. Would you address my actual concern, as described above?Adoring nanny (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with the source, for reasons stated. It appears to me to be a case of WP:Idontlikeit. And how can there be two sides when Abrams was proven wrong on the issue the article covers in the first place? He played apologist for death squads and was proven wrong, and Omar refreshed our memories by calling him out on this because he is in a position to do it again in Venezuela.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"How can one cover both sides?" Vox makes a start. National Review [5] goes further, as presumably does the book to which that article is sourced. In particular, the way you have phrased it makes it seem as if the reports were universally accepted as credible at the time. That's simply not the case. Note also that, in your own characterization immediately above, you described Abrams as an "apologist" for death squads. But the evidence presented only shows that he was initially wrong. Does being wrong about something make one an "apologist" for it? In light of Munich, was Neville Chamberlain an "apologist" for Hitler? Should the New York Times be viewed as "apologists" for genocide, given that they have, for two separate genocides, failed to act on early reports that were in fact correct? Holodomor Holocaust And how should Wikipedia characterize Bill Clinton, whose administration did not call the Rwandan genocide a "genocide" at the time, even though the information available to them was indisputable at the time?[6] Obviously, going into any such issues in a way that is fair to Abrams would involve looking at what he knew at the time, whether or not he was in a position to stop it at the time, what he did when he found out, and a whole bunch of other issues that are not appropriate for Omar's article.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. The U.S. was directly involved in backing and training the forces involved in massacres in El Salvador and Guatemala, where as Clinton, to use one of your examples, was not training or financing Rwandan death squads, but I'm not going down this rabbit hole. That National Review article was full of unbelievable omissions and distortions on the US role in El Salvador and even more so on Guatemala. Other than that it's hardly worth responding to. And that Vox article is not as neutral as you claimed it to be, especially in regards to its blatant bias against the Venezuelan government, describing it as "evil". This is not a forum so I'm not going to go over all my quibbles (of which there are many) with what you posted above. The issue that remains it seems is The Atlantic article you so vehemently object to. In addition to the reliability of the source, which has already been verified, the highly respectable journalist who authored the piece was directly involved in so far as being one of two reporters to break news of the massacre to the public back in the early 1980s, for which he was maligned by the Reagan administration and right-wing media in an attempt to discredit him and therefore minimize the atrocity and our backing of the regime who committed it, and then finally vindicated by history. So not only is the source reliable, but also notable. This is why it should remain as a source, IMO.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

"Ilhan Omar’s Big Lie" in National Review is written by Rich Lowry, the magazine's editor. It's an editorial. NR often fails to separate news and opinion, and this seems like just another example of that. I wouldn't use it in any BLP article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be used as a coatrack to go after Elliot Abrams. But if it is going to do so, it should include Abrams' point of view. I've done that.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine. But I must point out that accusations of COATRACK fall flat given everything mentioned in that section about Abrams came right out of Omar's mouth, and widely reported in the media, making them notable. Now if an editor took it upon himself to include things not mentioned by Omar in the article, then that would be different.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

should the article mention Glenn Greenwald in the twitter quote section?

y/n126.243.124.11 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)