This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Minnesota Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: State Legislatures / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Somalia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is completely unfounded and based in misinformation and propaganda.

"Israel has hypnotized the world"

"It's all about the Benjamins baby"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, the pronunciation of Ilhan Omar appears to be /ˈɪlhɑːn ˈoʊmɑːr/, IL-hahn OH-mar, according to the ref at the end of this sentence, where she pronounces it herself.^[1] JayBeeEll has asked that I get consensus before including it. Thoughts from others? Wolfdog (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions about this have not changed in the last four years: an individual editor listening to a recording and writing down an IPA transcription based on that is, in my view, unambiguously an act of original research. --JBL (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You're saying that unless a reliable source verbatim says Omar's name is pronounced /ˈɪlhɑːn ˈoʊmɑːr/, you won't accept it. Of course, this is a near-impossible standard. Hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of pages however use reliable sources where a good-faith editor transcribes what they hear in a way that is consistent enough that dozens of other IPA-informed editors agree with the transcriptions; and editors/readers feel this is a very useful approach. (As one example of an internationally famous name, the article on Barack Obama provides a transcription with a source providing Obama's own pronunciation and a perfectly accurate transcription, one that all editors versed in Help:IPA/English would accept, but this too wouldn't meet your standard.) I assume the crux here is a matter of consensus more than any rigid policy, though it's certainly within policy for you to ask for consensus. So we can see what others say. Wolfdog (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an arabic spelling of her name that was removed, can that be added back for muslim readers and arabic speakers/readers? WP is a global project. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed several years ago for very good reasons, you should not add it back. Pinging all the users who took part in that discussion and have made any edits since 2021: @Zaathras, NightHeron, and Cullen328:. (I am JBL, currently traveling and not able to log in.) --158.144.178.11 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose adding the Arabic spelling for the reasons brought up in the previous conversation linked to by JBL. She is not an Arab and to the best of my knowledge, does not actually speak Arabic, although like all Muslims, she knows the basic religious phrases in Arabic. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire previous discussion and did not really see any "very good reasons" for not adding the Arabic translation.

I do think it is helpful for the 13% of Somali readers who are fluent in Arabic, and I do not really understand what the downside is. I do get that it is not information that would be beneficial to all readers, but how is it harmful? If it is marginally beneficial on the upside, but has even less to zero downside, then I would still argue for the Arabic language translation, as well as the Somali language translation included. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice for Somali-American, Somali-Canadian or similar Somalis to have the Somali and Arabic language translations included in their bios, here is just a short list I was able to compile:

Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi, Ali Jimale Ahmed, Abdi Kusow, Mohamed Haji Mukhtar, Abdi Ismail Samatar, among dozens of other examples that can be provided if desired. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a List of Somali Americans for more. Not every single one has the Arabic, but the overwhelming majority have Somali translation, so I went ahead and added that at least, while we deliberate still over whether or not to include the Arabic too (which I see as doing no harm, but adding some benefit to the article). Iljhgtn (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:Iljhgtn, I see you added the Arabic and Somali spellings for several of the members of that list today. I would still lean towards following the result of that previous discussion (though if we add Arabic here and elsewhere, Somali first makes a whole lot more sense, as we typically include native names first if there are alternate names in the lead). I would lean towards establishing a standard across the board for Somali American public figures whose language of origin is Somali, but I wouldn't say we've reached a general consensus. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them yes, in full disclosure, but still the overwhelming majority of the translations existed prior if you look through the full list. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The harm, in my view, is in the foreignization of an American. Surely you know that the subject of this article has received an enormous amount of Islamophobic animus. Highlighting an unreferenced pronunciation guide in a language she does not speak furthers the idea that she is something other than American. She's not an Arab and her name is not Arabic. Adding an Arabic name also implies that she uses an Arabic name, which we have zero evidence of. The rationale that WP is a global project doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, because there already is an Arabic Wikipedia, where Ilhan Omar already has a page. See MOS:LEADLANG: "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single equivalent name in another language may be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses." We've done that, for Somali, the language her name is in. Per MOS:NICKCRUFT: "Alternative names that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all. Excessive non-English language details can make the lead sentence difficult to understand." For these reasons, I oppose the addition of an Arabic name in the lead. TheSavageNorwegian 22:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If readers want to know how the names of American politicians translate into their own languages, there are foreign language wikipedias for that. TFD (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced we can leave the Somali only then as a single other language translation within the standard parentheses per MOS, unless more reliable sources use the Arabic for her name or new evidence presents itself, at which time we can revisit adding Arabic. Thank you both for commenting in this discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any support for this from anyone else; I continue to oppose it. Omar immigrated to the US as a child and has been known by the name in the title of the article consistently in the time she has been notable; the Somali spelling name is not well attested to in sources that I can see (and unsourced in the article, and not present anywhere other than the lead); the fact that you personally are the one doing this in many of the other examples you cite is good evidence that it is abnormal rather than normal for WP articles. So I have once again reverted the addition. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...the overwhelming majority of the translations existed prior if you look through the full list."

Feel free to check the list and not take my word for it. Including the Somali is very common, Somali and Arabic somewhat less common but second most common, and only in the rarest of instances is neither Somali nor Arabic used, regardless of my input. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus for restoring the Somali language translation of Ilhan Omar which would look like this (Somali: Ilhaan Cumar), which is in english characters and translates to appear loosely the same ("Cumar" vs. "Omar", and one extra "a" in "Ilhaan" vs. "Ilhan"). This edit was recently removed by an editor opposing both the Arabic AND Somali language translations. I came around to agreeing that the Arabic language version did not have consensus for being included despite being on many other Somali-American BLP articles (though I have added a few of those, but certainly not most). The Somali version alone, especially given that Somali is in English-Romantic characters, I believe also has a lower to zero risk of any "foreignization" potential downside, and only upside for adding context and native translation where it normally appears on a BLP when appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iljhgtn, thanks for your message on my user talk-page. As I said there, I'd prefer to keep discussion centered here. Here for me is the key point: if someone were going to convince me to take the view that Ilhan Omar has a Somali name, and this is an important piece of information about her, what I would want to see is evidence that "Ilhan Omar's Somali name is Ilhaan Cumar" is a piece of information that is reasonably well attested to in English-language sources about her. (You can see above that I also take a similar view about IPA transliterations.) As far as I can tell, however, it is almost never mentioned. So what it would take to get me personally to drop my objection would be evidence of this piece of information being mentioned in good sources about her. Of course to develop a consensus it is not necessary that you convince me personally to change my view -- but so far it does not seem like you have convinced anyone else, either. --JBL (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]