Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Where’s the Controversy section?

It seems that the page should have a Controversy section, similar to other politcians. --63.243.196.34 (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Here. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no controversy section, but the information is spread throughout. The lede does not contain any criticism or negative remarks, however, as editors have not had a consensus; a large number oppose any mention of criticism or controversy, regardless of how notable, in favor of a more whitewashed "she opposes the occupation" comment. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF O3000 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

How would you re-phrase that? "Omar sides with the globalists at the UN?" TFD (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There needs to be a separate section for Controversy. Allison Gangi (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of photos

Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, photos should be Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. It is difficult to justify multiple photos of the subject in each section, particularly group photos. The photos should also be relevant to the section. A photo of her holding a baby (by all indications not hers) has nothing to do with her "personal life" and does not belong in that section, or anywhere else in the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant to her campaigning. Could be moved to that section. nableezy - 14:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Or better yet, keep it on her campaign website and not on Wiki, so we can avoid being a WP:SOAPBOX. People don't come to WP to see politicians kissing babies, and it's an image that conveys nothing meaningful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance of her campaigning for the photos to choose. The baby photo at Media appearances is also insignificant and irrelevant.--Never Forget 2701 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the baby-kissing photo. Headshots and other photos of her delivering speeches or with colleagues should be used judiciously and can also have more general captions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You have once again added the head shot which demonstrates nothing what so ever except perhaps what you expect it to show. I've again removed it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Unclear what you mean by except perhaps what you expect it to show. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead section - proposals for wording allegations

Regarding this: I've asked @Thryduulf: to clarify or modify their close, because I don't think it clarifies much or offers a reasonable summary of the debate, but, as it currently stands, there's no consensus favoring any particular wording. There was widespread opposition to this specific version in the rfc and it leaves out mention of her prominent defenders, and seems like it is vague about the nature and the extent of the comments. It may make sense to propose some options here and get a sense of what would receive wide support. Nblund ^talk 13:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've responded in detail on my talk page, but in summary I stand by my closure. It is not for me (or any other discussion closer) to mandate a way forward or to suggest a specific wording, but discussion is usually the best way to achieve consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: There should probably be an RFC for the wording that should go in the lead. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

So what wording do people think should be used w/r/t putting the anti-semitism allegations in the lead? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

One thing I would point out (per Nblund's revert) is that since the RFC started, there has been a substantial backlash against the accusations against Omar which argues that she has been singled out and targeted because she's a Muslim, especially after some of the stuff in the "threats, conspiracy theories and harassment" section. It might be worth mentioning that as well. The issues covered in this section in particular were just breaking when the RFC was closed and seem to have substantially changed the tone and nature of mainstream coverage about Omar. I'd even argue that it satisfies the "until there is another significant event they are involved with" clause in the RFC close - while it happened a day before the RFC was closed, the significance wouldn't have been obvious at the time. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And Nancy Pelosi in Ireland said that she could not say anything bad about the U.S. president but decided the embargo did not apply to Omar. TFD (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Aren't the comments perceived as anti-semitic separate comments from the 9/11 comments? They could be grouped together, but they could be grouped separately. We may want to do another RFC. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Blaylockjam10: you can't easily separate them if you want this article to keep a chronological structure. An RfC requires coming up with several choices. wumbolo ^^^ 10:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I've asked for a review/clarification of the RfC close here. Nblund ^talk 13:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

her antisemitic comments have nothing to do with her other comments or her targeting and it should not have have been removed from the lead. Stop gaslighting people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP. Please stop your repeated accusations of antisemitism. Use words like allegations as do other editors. O3000 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment The lead should address the anti-semitism controversy, which is the subject of continued attention in reliable sources[1][2] and is of clearly of enduring significance, in as succinct and factual manner as possible. One possible version: Omar's remarks on Israel and suggestions of "dual allegiance" among American supporters of the state have been criticized as drawing on anti-semitic tropes and prompted censure from her Democratic House colleagues. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920: "censure" in this context usually refers to a specific formal process. She was criticized by party leaders, but censure was never really on the table. More broadly: singling out this specific quote seems out of step with contemporary press coverage, which tends to lump the comments together and which discusses prominent defenders and prominent critics. Nblund ^talk 18:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a general problem here. Anyone of note, if expressing a critical opinion about the I/P realities, gets hammered with anti-Semitic charges and allegations, yes, in the usual RS, and this forms the basis for extensive coverage on each wiki bio. At Jeremy Corbyn, that eventually reached 20% of the whole article on his life and political career, massively violating WP:Undue and also WP:BLP. Whatever editors decide, they should be aware that such sections should avoid bloat, be stringently factual with undue coverage when all we have are allegations that form part of the media pressures of contemporary political discourse. They should be worked out collaboratively on the talk page before being posted, for if edited directly into the article, each snippet leads to counter edits, which spiral into pure bloat.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, Your entire comment is both off-topic and inappropriate. I'll remind you that you just completed a one-week ban for similarly ill-advised commentary on the I/P conflict and about other editors. I'll suggest you keep that in mind before I ask you to explain what you mean by "the usual RS." Also, all other editors should not be giving their take on whether her remarks were or were not anti-semitic or whether the criticism was "disproportionate" and should instead focus exclusively on what's been stated in reliable sources.

Nblund, Omar has indeed been the subject of a formal censure in the form of a House resolution (even though it did not mention her by name, it is acknowledged in every reliable source that her remarks prompted it). However, if we want to simply address criticism generally, that could be an appropriate route and I would agree if that's what you're suggesting, though there should also be some type of attribution. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No, she was not censured. Keep in mind that this is a BLP. O3000 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

From the New York Times:

A formal condemnation of anti-Semitism that is up for a vote in the House this week has touched off a furious debate between older House Democrats and their young liberal colleagues over whether Representative Ilhan Omar is being singled out for unfair treatment over her statements on Israel.

The resolution, likely to be voted on Thursday, grew out of Ms. Omar’s suggestion last week that pro-Israel activists were pushing “for allegiance to a foreign country” — a remark that infuriated leading Jewish members of the House, who say it played into the anti-Semitic trope of “dual loyalty.”

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The simple resolution condemning bigotry definitely wasn't a formal censure. Some sources may have used that term in an informal sense as a synonym for "criticized", but censure is historically fairly rare and essentially requires the censured representative to receive a public dressing-down on the House floor. If Omar were censured, we would all know it. I think the wording I proposed had some level of support from both sides, so it might be worth considering as a starting point. I think we could add a sentence about the backlash to the backlash and I'd be reasonably content. Nblund ^talk 19:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Our text runs to 3663 words of readable prose. The I/P section has 811 words. I.e. unless I've mistaken things by rushing this check during an ad break for a Montalbano Tv show, about 20-25%. (aside from the absurdity of making separate sections on 'Human Rights' (other countries) and the 'Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'.) In one we bundle up her indictments of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Brazil, while the other section makes a special distinct question of the same issue when it comes to Israel. I know this is customary practice based on the theory of exceptionalism, but it is highly suspect in principle. Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, again please stop claiming there was a censure. It is false and a rather strong BLP violation . O3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a blatant BLP violation to claim that Omar was censured. Please stop making repeated false statements on a BLP. All pages on Wikipedia are subject to WP:BLP, including talk pages. nableezy - 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

And using a source about a future vote when it happened in the past is a bit curious. What actually happened is the House passed, with Omar's support, a resolution that "ondemned anti-Semitism and discrimination against Muslims in equal measure, a shift from a draft circulated Monday that rebuked only anti-Semitism. Neither mentioned Omar nor her comments specifically." nableezy - 22:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I understand your reasoning about why censure may not be the ideal term, and I'm certainly going to consider your original proposal as a launch point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I object to the wording of this proposed addition to the lede by Feminist; my proposed compromise was essentially entirely rejected, so I've returned to status quo ante. I agree that there should be some mention, but clearly the mention of the accusation has to be balanced by her actions and response, not merely three words saying "she denies it." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

To balance the accusations and denial, we can have "Omar has been accused of antisemitism by both Democrats and Republicans as well as Jewish civil rights groups for comments about Israel which they said perpetuated the antisemitic canards that Jews have dual loyalty; she has repeatedly condemned antisemitism and rejected the accusations, saying they are driven by her opposition to Israeli policies." Which combines both the proposal by ModerateMike729 and your edit. But that may be too long.

Alternatively, we can have "Omar has been accused of antisemitism by Democrats, Republicans and Jewish civil rights groups for comments about Israel, although she has condemned antisemitism and argued that the accusations were driven by her opposition to Israeli policies." feminist (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That second version works for me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: This mostly works for me, but I see nothing in the article's body that mentions her arguing that the accusations were driven by her opposition to Israeli policies, so I don't think that should be included unless something is found that can also go in the article's body. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I think this is mostly fine: "Omar has been accused of antisemitism by both Democrats and Republicans as well as Jewish civil rights groups; she has repeatedly condemned antisemitism and rejected the accusations, saying they are driven by her opposition to Israeli policies." My only quibble is the part about her saying that the accusations of anti-semitism are driven by her opposition to Israeli policies, since I don't see that mentioned in the article's body. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Blaylockjam10, from a Google search I found [3] and [4], it seems like she is making a distinction between criticising Netanyahu and antisemitism.

How about "Omar has been accused of antisemitism by Democrats, Republicans and Jewish civil rights groups for comments about Israel; however, she has condemned antisemitism, drawing a distinction between criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and being anti-Semitic."? feminist (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: That seems fine to me and should also be added to the article's body. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. feminist (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The 'antisemitic canard that Jews have dual loyalty' is, I presume, taking from newspapers again, totally unaware that noting a community with attachments to two countries maya have split loyalties at times is not automatically an anti-Semitic canard. The Israeli political scientist Gabriel Sheffer made his academic reputation theorizing dual loyalties as common to all diasporic populations, and in context, the American political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007 pp.146-150) used it distinguish between the earlier anti-Semitic use, and its contemporary use to refer to pro-Israeli Americans and organizations which exert a constant (legitimate) sectorial pressure to ensure Israel's interests are uppermost on their political agendas as Americans. It means that when Chuck Schumer goes on the record as stating:-

My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov and I believe Hashem, actually, gave me the name as one of my roles that is very important in the United States Senate, to be a shomer for Israel, and I will continue to be that with every bone in my body.”

he is openly avowing that he perceives his role as not only one of loyal service to American democracy but, and for him it is not a contradiction, a loyal guardian of Israeli interests in the U.S. As the technical sociological literature states, this is common to many communities, and in itself, is not anti-Semitic. It's the way diasporas work: my own tribe the Irish had no problem in admitting such a dual loyalty. Newspapers can keep churning out the meme, but the reality belies the automatism of such charges, and we shouldn't be citing the equation as simple, proven, mainly by taking for granted what linked (poorly edited) pages assert, as has happened here. It is accepting at face value a sloppy equation/canard to make out protests at what speakers regard as undue influence regarding Israeli policies in the occupied territories is merely prejudice of a most vicious kind, hatred of Jews. Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: regarding this. Can you show me where a prominent Democrat directly called her anti-Semitic? The body of the article doesn't support this claim. Pelosi explicitly disputed this claim, and this is also closer to recent coverage of the statements, which says that "many felt" the comments "played on anti-Semitic tropes about money and dual loyalty." Similarly, I recognize that there was a controversy about an earlier remark in 2018, but it doesn't appear that it received much coverage. Can you show me where prominent Democrats criticized her before 2019? If the time frame is longer we can say "late 2018 and early 2019", but what's the point of not stating a time frame at all? Nblund ^talk 22:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: According to this article, the top 5 House Democrats said in February that she used anti-Semitic tropes. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. They said she used anti-Semitic tropes, they didn't say that she was herself anti-Semitic. Nancy Pelosi (the person who coordinated that message) is the same person who said here "I feel confident that her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude". It might be considered a minor point, but it's clear that there is an intentional distinction being drawn between evoking an anti-Semitic trope and having personal hostility toward Jewish people. Nblund ^talk 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The top Democrats condemned her for what they described as explicitly anti-semitic remarks. I believe the response when asked by reporters by most of them on whether she was anti-semitic was "no comment." However, this is hairsplitting. She has been the subject of accusations of anti-semitism for her remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I kind of agree that it's hair-splitting, but it's intentional hair-splitting that apparently matters enough for Pelosi et al. to consistently avoid saying that she's anti-Semitic. The article body actually doesn't offer any examples of anyone calling her anti-Semitic. Why are we eschewing a more precise wording and attributing a view to someone that they don't actually hold? Nblund ^talk 12:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to a BLP, hair-splitting may be required. If no prominent Democrat has called her anti-Semitic, then why would we claim otherwise? O3000 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

POLITICO, a very reliable source, specifically said she faced allegations of anti-Semitism from prominent Democrats. USA Today says the same thing. There are multiple other sources available that detail that Democrats did indeed condemn her remarks as anti-semitism and also gave specific examples of lawmakers. While I’m not surprised there have been repeated attempts to water-down language here, I am very deeply disappointed at some editors reliance of their own interpretations rather than the clear statements of reliable sources. Her remarks were clearly and widely condemned as anti-Semitic, including by members of her own party - and that’s undeniably fact. Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct. BLP doesn't mean we put what's reported in reliable sources through a filter. Multiple NYT pieces similarly describe her as facing accusations of antisemitism. Also, let's be clear that she did not public apologize for the second round of remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Part of what she appears to have been saying is that accusations of anti-Semitism are common when one criticizes Israel or Netanyahu. I’m just saying that this is a BLP and let us take care that we don’t prove her point for her. O3000 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s not a BLP violation to report what reliable sources say. The fact you basically accuse anyone who says what the sources say of a BLP violation frankly comes off as a threat to me, and I really suggest you stop. If you have a serious concern, report it on the noticeboard - but I doubt you’d get anywhere, because it’s not a BLP violation to report what sources say, which is that her comments were widely perceived as anti-Semitic by people across the political spectrum, including people in her own party, and that they were specifically drawing on the anti-Semitic tropes of rich Jews controlling politics and dual loyalty. This is what sources say, and it’s not remotely a BLP violation to say that. Toa Nidhiki05 13:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have repeatedly warned against claims here that she was censured by Congress, and will continue to do so. That is a serious BLP violation. O3000 (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s not all you’ve done it for and you know it. If you have a concern, either report it or stop threatening to. This is the sixth time you’ve posted here, all of which were to warn or threaten people about BLP violations - I think we get it at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 13:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have made no threats. O3000 (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05:, I think you're being careless with your reading here. The Politico source is the only one you cited that has lawmakers accusing Omar herself of anti-Semitism. Every other source says that her comments were considered anti-Semitic. Here are the quotes, the subject of the sentence is in bold:

• USA Today: tweets that drew accusations of anti-Semitism from both Republican and Democratic colleagues two weeks ago
• Sun Sentinel: comments from a Muslim Democratic colleague that were widely seen as anti-Semitic.
• Fortune: tweets that were condemned by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats as anti-Semitic.
• CBS: comments on Israel and Jews that were widely denounced as anti-Semitic.
• NPR: comments by Omar that lawmakers said played into anti-Semitic tropes, although she was not named in either measure.

You say it's "watering down" but it's simply more consistent with what most sources are saying, more consistent with Pelosi's comments, and (oddly enough) more consistent with what you yourself are saying: Comments were widely perceived as anti-Semitic. You also didn't answer the question for sourcing regarding the time frame of the criticism. Nblund ^talk 15:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources affirm that Omar has been accused of anti-semitism for the nature of her remarks, and the phrasing suggested by Toa Nidhiki05 adheres to that of the NYT: Ms. Omar, who has been facing accusations of anti-Semitic bias for weeks, has herself been the target of Islamophobic attacks, including a death threat in Minnesota. What exactly are you opposing here, Nblund? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Accusations from whom? That sentence does not say that prominent Democrats or Jewish Civil Rights groups called her anti-Semitic. The source also quotes Steny Hoyer saying "I don't think she's anti-Semitic" - so the discrepancy is fairly clear here. I'm having a hard time seeing how you can simultaneously call this "hair-splitting" while also insisting that we can't change it. If there's no difference, why not err in favor of the more precise wording? Nblund ^talk 18:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think "called her anti-semitic" is the wording that was proposed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The wording here was "accused of anti-Semitism". Nblund ^talk 18:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

She has been accused of anti-semitism (for her statements). That does not purport to read her mind. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

So, just to be clear: you believe the guy saying "I don't think she's anti-Semitic" is accusing her of anti-Semitism? If you don't see any difference, then why not just go with the current wording? Nblund ^talk 19:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Toa Nidhiki05: Can you explain this revert of my reword which you said to be inappropriate? This is her lead. I didn't change the meaning of that sentence to any degree. To start a sentence in her lead with the subject being her critics is jarring to read, and, as Nblund has noted, inconsistent with what sources wrote. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Nblund To be clear, I am going off the description offered by the NYT, not some guy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: the "some guy" I'm referencing is Steny Hoyer, the House Majority leader and the second ranking Democrat in that body. The first ranking Democrat (Pelosi) is also saying: "I don’t think the congresswoman is anti-Semitic." Pelosi and Hoyer wrote that statement criticizing the tweets. This is the Democratic leadership. These are the people we're attributing that claim to. The Times source you cited earlier does not say that Democrats and Jewish Civil Rights groups accused her of anti-Semitism. It references "accusations of anti-Semitism" without specifying who made those claims. If you have a different source for that, please share it. Third time: if you don't see any difference, then why not just go with the current wording? Nblund ^talk 00:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yesterday and today, Trump accused numerous people, including Republican leaders at the FBI, of a coup d'état, an act of treason punishable by the death penalty. We need to be careful about what some people claim in these strange days. Let us stick to WP:10YT when it comes to dramatic statements in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, here is a source indicating Jewish civil rights groups (the ADL) criticizing her remarks as anti-semitic. The NYT describes "accusations of anti-semitism" likely from an array of groups, without engaging in the kind of hair-splitting reasoning that you suggesting we should. Frankly, I think the biggest issue is that it doesnt' reference her remarks. Something like Omar's comments about Israel, including suggestions of foreign allegiance and that money was driving American support for the state, led to accusations drawing on anti-semitic tropes. And Objective3000, the continued fallout and level of controversy regarding Omar clearly demonstrates this a long-term significant event; try to avoid making superficial comparisons. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Good God. Are you serious? How are you not getting this? Read the title of the letter: "Ilhan Omar's comments were anti-Semitic rhetoric, let's not beat around the bush". Calling her remarks anti-Semitic and calling her anti-Semitic are two different things. Your proposed wording also calls her remark anti-Semitic without saying she was accused of anti-Semitism. Are you actually even disagreeing with me? Nblund ^talk 03:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop splitting hairs and objecting to wording put forth by reliable sources (the NYT) with your own flimsy analysis of events. What do you honestly think prompts an "accusation of anti-semitism" other than someone's actions or remarks? Do you think that her critics are mind readers and are criticizing her for her thoughts? They are accusing her of anti-semitism based on her comments. And Objective300, can you explain exactly was "not neutral" about my edit? First of all, the sentence in the lead is wrong—the controversial remarks had nothing to do with Israeli policies, it was about American support for Israel. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Where does the New York Times say that prominent Democrats, Republicans, and/or Jewish civil rights groups accused her of anti-Semitism? The source you provided earlier doesn't say that. The Greenblatt article also doesn't support that. I think your reading comprehension is good enough to understand the distinction being drawn, but if you really don't see the difference between "she was accused of anti-Semitism" and "she was accused of making comments that drew on anti-Semitic tropes" then why not compromise and go with the latter?

I agree that she wasn't really criticizing Israeli policies, I think it would be more accurate to describe her as criticizing the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups in the US. I do have a problem with saying she "doubled down" on later remarks - it sounds a little non-neutral, and it's an English idiom that might be unfamiliar to some readers. Why not just say she apologized for one comment but not for the second? Nblund ^talk 15:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Remarks about the influence of the US pro-Israeli lobby are usually connected to Israeli policies; and it does not necessarily mean the person making those remarks is anti-Semitic. Let’s not stretch what the sources say. O3000 (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nblund, I'm willing to alter the wording if you think it's problematic, but she did in fact double-down on the later remarks. 3000, I'm not sure if you're being intentionally ironic, but everything you just said qualifies as unadulterated "stretching" in the worst way. Your impression about what's typical of "remarks about the pro-Israeli lobby" and what they are "connected to" is meaningless. And I will repeat this for you, and anyone else who feel so inclined to make similar comments here: whether you, I, or any other editor thinks her remarks were or were not anti-semitic is utterly, totally, and completely irrelevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would characterize her response as "standing pat" in Blackjack lingo, but that probably illustrates why we should just avoid colloquialism altogether. I'm fine with saying that she has disputed the characterization and/or that she apologized for the first remark but not the second. I agree that saying she apologized is not exactly accurate. Nblund ^talk 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol. Fair enough. Perhaps something like "reaffirmed" or "refused to apologize for" would be preferable, as well as her assertion that she was "misconstrued" or "mischaracterized." (Just throwing out words.) Do you also agree that her comments, the controversial ones, were about American support for Israel, not "Israeli policies?" I'm specifically referring to the "Benajamins" tweet and the subsequent "required to pledge foreign allegiance" remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually fine with the current wording. Actually, we should not state that she issued a blanket apology. She did not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think she "reaffirmed" or "reiterated" her criticism of lobbying by groups by AIPAC, and said her comments were being misconstrued. I'm actually okay with leaving her apology aside, because I don't actually see a huge difference between her response in both cases, but other editors might not be. I agree that she wasn't directly criticizing Israeli policies, so "American support" is an improvement, but she criticizes American support for Israel all the time without much controversy. What really got her in trouble were her characterizations of the lobbying efforts behind that support - so my preferred wording would be "the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying groups". Nblund ^talk 17:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with "the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying groups". In her extended remarks she mentioned other lobbies. Also agree with misconstrued and reaffirmed. O3000 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

We already mention "what she describes as the influence of pro-Israeli lobbying groups" in the prior sentence. We should not reiterate this, and even the word "influence" is loaded and inappropriate if not qualified with "what she describes." If we're going to describe her remarks in the lead, we should be specific about what she was referring to, i.e. "money driving American support for Israel" and suggestions of "foreign allegiance." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Her exact wording is too detailed for the lead. Suggestion:

In early 2019 Omar was criticized by a number of Democrats, Republicans and Jewish civil rights groups for comments about American support for Israel that they said drew on anti-Semitic tropes. Omar apologized for her wording, but reaffirmed her criticism of the influence of pro-Israeli and other lobbying groups.

O3000 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I dislike a "number of" as a quantifier here; she received widespread criticism. The second half of the first sentence is good. The next sentence gets off-track. We shouldn't say "she apologized for her wording." Frankly, I don't think it's fully clear that she did. She appeared to apologize for the offense her remarks caused initially, but later repeated them and "doubled down." I think that it would be accurate to say she initially apologized, but later reaffirmed her statements and said they had been mischaracterized. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

She received support on Capital Hill as well as criticism. I don’t see how it’s not clear that she apologized. She said: “I unequivocally apologize.” She said this in reference to her use of tropes. That is, she apologized for her wording – but not her sentiment. She then continued: “I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry.” She reaffirmed her criticism, without the bad wording. O3000 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's actually the case. She apologized for the first set of remarks, but not the second. I think that her "wording" was identified as problematic in both instances, with the difference being that she reaffirmed the latter without apologizing. As far as support, sure, she had some defenders, but I recall the vast majority of attention in the sources being dedicated to those who condemned her. Her apology should be noted, but it shouldn't be extended to the other remarks. I'd like this to be presented fairly but not in a way that's too wordy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well, she apologized for the first comments, but not the second. "A number" seems like it's probably the best we can do as quantifier. Early coverage did focus primarily on her critics, but since March the coverage has focused quite a bit on her prominent defenders and the generational divide among Democrats on this issue. Nblund ^talk 20:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The generational divide described by the NYT is important, but I think better left for the body. Covering that in the lead would require expanding the third paragraph rather significantly, unless you find a concise way to do it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)