Jump to content

Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Ilhan Omar

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 1 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

RfC about allegations of an affair

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus of the discussion is to not include the allegation of Omar's affair. Voting was quite close with a small majority opposed to inclusion. Policy-based rationales for exclusions cited, amongst others, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:BLP. These are all valid rationales. Policy-based arguments for inserting mostly centred around WP:RS and, indeed, many sources were cited reporting the allegation. However, this, by itself, remains a weak rationale from a policy point of view. Absence of RS demands removal of the material in a BLP, but inclusion in RS does not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. BLP requires that if the allegation is mentioned, then Omar's denial must also be mentioned, but it does not demand that the allegation be included in the first place. The example at WP:PUBLICFIGURE was cited in support of inclusion. Others pointed out mention of an affair in this context implies an adulterous affair, and the alleged adultery was on the part of Mynett, not a public figure, not of Omar who is. SpinningSpark 12:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Should allegations of an affair be included in Ilhan Omar's biography? NightHeron (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose: According to WP:RECENTISM, we should ask whether this will remain notable over time. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Any non-amicable divorce proceedings are likely to include allegations by one side or the other. NightHeron (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is a headline from August 2019:
"Rep. Ilhan Omar denies affair claim in D.C. doctor's divorce filing"[1]
Here is a headline from March 2020:
"Omar marries political consultant, months after affair claim"[2]
That's August, September, October, November, December, all in 2019, and then January, February, March, in 2020. There are articles from the months in between, if you are interested. In any event, it looks like the WP:RS have kept up an interest in this affair. XavierItzm (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Widely covered by international media outlets, and additionally it should mention the scrutiny her campaign finance is facing. Toa Nidhiki05 13:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose no RS refers to them as anything besides allegations so per WP:BLP we aren’t anywhere near where we would need to be to include this information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    Horse Eye Jack, read the Public Figure section of BLP, or just look at the above section. "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
    If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." So, your oppose vote is covered by the BLP policy already. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    The allegation appears to be that *he* committed adultery not the politician, she appears to have been separated from her husband by then although I will admit that I find the story of her personal life nearly impossible to keep straight. As such mentioning that he is alleged to have been cheating on his wife is more about his personal life than the public figure this page is about. I think that the allegations of financial misconduct should be discussed, but not in the personal life section and not framed as some tabloid love affair. The WP:RS we have on the subject mainly talk about their relationship as a component of the campaign finance questions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    Horse Eye Jack, now you're arguing semantics. I didn't say anything about adultery. It is clear that this passes the RS and BLP threshold. That is all that is needed for inclusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    Affair in this context = adultery, does it not? The key allegation here is that Tim Mynett’s wife says he cheated on her, that appears to be part of the personal life of Tim Mynett (a non-public figure) rather than the personal life of Ilhan Omar (a public figure). That is the only part I am objecting to, I have to objection to covering either her relationship with Mynett or the resulting allegations of financial impropriety. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    Horse Eye Jack, I think we're in agreement then. As I said, we can fix the wording. The issue is that she had an alleged relationship with Mynett while Mynett was working for her, and Mynett's wife claims he cheated on her, then we have the financial stuff. Not that Omar committed adultery. I think the RFC is using affair in a very broad term. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed on all but this part "Mynett's wife claims he cheated on her” we cant mention that because Mynett isnt a public figure, marriage to a public figure does not make someone a public figure. I guess I disagree about the characterization of the RFC as using affair broadly too, the OP’s comment says "Any non-amicable divorce proceedings are likely to include allegations by one side or the other.” which is clearly a reference to the wife’s claims rather than the overall relationship or the financial aspects. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, please review the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures, which clearly contradicts your contention. SunCrow (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It doesn’t appear to contradict it at all. I also note that you are indefinitely blocked so you aren’t able to respond further. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, please review the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. Proof that the allegations are true is not required. SunCrow (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It's gossip, we don't need it on WP.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Selfstudier, is that a policy on Wikipedia and will you apply that to all politicians? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll let the closer decide if it is or it isn't. I will look at the facts of a particular case, I don't do hypotheticals.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, in some form, per Toa Nidhiki05. As of now, the current version is probably a bit longer than necessary/appropriate. It is also poorly written, with choppy and unexplained transitions from one topic to the next; for example, the relevance of the second sentence "Omar's campaign had worked with Mynett's company, E Street Group." is unclear. I also disagree with Toa Nidhiki05 about whether the connection to the campaign finance story should be made in the section titled "Personal life", since it's not about her personal life. --JBL (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, as per BLP, if allegations are in RS even if they are negative then we can include it. As was pointed out in the above section, the hypothetical case in the BLP is Omar's case. It has nothing to do with RECENTISM since this is an encyclopedia. Omar had an alleged affair with someone she worked with, she then married that person. That is worthy of inclusion. How we word that can be up for fixing, but it is pretty ludicrous to say that a Congresswoman's alleged affair and then marriage to that person gets no mention in an encyclopedia. I also note that Horse Eye Jack undid the edit after the RFC already started, something that is usually not done. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Patience (i.e. oppose) WP:TIND O3000 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. Per what Sir Joseph said. 2604:2000:E010:1100:2D9D:B47E:6528:6FE9 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No Whether or not allegations of sexual activities should be mentioned in biographies of living persons depends on the degree of coverage they receive in reliable sources. I don't think this bar has been met. TFD (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I see many RS articles devoted to the topic. How many do you feel there need to be? 2604:2000:E010:1100:8002:18E7:644E:5C26 (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Inclusion - WP:BLP describes this exact situation as something that belongs in a BLP: ". "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those source". Editors claiming is is not widely covered in reliable sources should learn how to use Google:[1], [2],[3] JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, and an RFC is unnecessary because the applicable policy is clear. As I stated in the prior section of this talk page, the challenged material on the alleged Omar-Mynett affair satisfies WP:BLP (more specifically, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures). The relevant policy language on BLPs of public figures reads as follows (I have added bold print for emphasis):
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported.
The disputed content is just like the second hypothetical set forth in the policy, and the denials of the affair are included. The content should stay in. SunCrow (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, what are your criteria for something that is scandalous enough to include? SunCrow (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not my criteria. It's Wikipedia's criteria, which I already cited in my oppose vote: will remain notable over time. NightHeron (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, NightHeron. We will have to disagree, then. This is a situation where a sitting member of Congress allegedly has an affair with a political consultant whose organization worked for her campaign. Both the sitting member of Congress and the political consultant deny the affair. Then, both the sitting member of Congress and the political consultant divorce their respective spouses and get married to one another. There is a good deal of media coverage. I don't think this is going away. "Will remain notable over time" sounds right to me. SunCrow (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Note that WP:RECENTISM is a general guideline about content skewing an entire article towards recent events, not a policy prohibition on individual events that occurred recently, which may indeed be notable and justifiable for inclusion. No one really needs to WP:SATISFY you, since it's clear you've made up your mind. If you believe that noting a widely covered months-long public scandal involving the subject causes the entirety of the article to be skewed, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not see that being a compelling argument for omitting relevant and sourced material. But don't confuse recentism with a policy that would mandate removal. (Matters are not helped by the inaccurate policy positions in the closed RfC above, positions which were appropriately corrected in the preceding RfC that has since been overruled.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include per SunCrow (both his statement and separate section above). For the sake of intellectual honesty, the inclusion of this content is clearly being disputed over politics, not policy. - DoubleCross (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and do not attack the motivations of other editors. WP:FOC. O3000 (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
😂 Of course. Absolutely! - DoubleCross (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
DoubleCross, could you please assume good faith? That laughing face is making me feel that you are saying "of course" ironically.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Mention in passing in articles about her getting remarried is not particulalry "well-documented." Compare with the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Gary Hart, the Profumo Affair. They were well-documented in the sense that information was published in reliable sources about them. TFD (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Those sources talks about her marriage. The allegations are mostly covered by non-reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, maybe you should double check that. Here's the link again to the Star Tribune for one: [4] "Omar announced their marriage in an Instagram post that did not name Mynett. The Minneapolis Democrat finalized her divorce from husband Ahmed Hirsi in November, several months after Mynett’s wife, a Washington, D.C., physician, alleged in court filings that he left her after becoming romantically involved with Omar. Mynett and his wife have also since finalized their divorce.
Both Omar and Mynett had denied having an affair." Sir Joseph (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Those are passing mentions. These sources are only covering her marriage. The sources that are covering the allegations are mostly Islamophobic.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, A passing mention? It mentions Omar and Mynett several times together and you are saying that we can't even include it here that they worked together? The Star Tribune is a RS and RS covered it. I showed you NBC, ABC, Star Tribune and the Independent. None of those are "right-wing" or Islamophobic, so you don't need to use straw-men or red-herring arguments to muddy the water here. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Could you provide reliable sources that were covering the allegations during the allegations? These sources are not covering the allegations. They are covering the marriage. This is a BLP, we need high quality reliable sources that prove that this allegation is notable to be included. We can't just include any sort of allegations by any random person. BTW, I have disabled the notifications (except my talk page). I will respond if i saw your comment in the watchlist. -SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam here you go: [5], [6], [7]. If you need help using Google, let me know. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Just FYI the New York Post is not a WP:RS per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources so thats something to keep in mind for the future (especially if you want to continue being condescending and snarky). Also SharabSalam appears to have a point the two articles from reliable sources are about Omar filing for divorce, not Mr. Mynett’s divorce and his wife’s allegations. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Be sure to let all know when WP:RS makes similar pronouncements about the Washington Post or NBC News, which are the first two links I provided. I can link to a dozen more, if need be, but i think it is quite obvious by now that both you and SharabSalam either have not tried to find sources, or don't know how. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
And please don't misrepresent what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says about the NY Post, which is "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. " JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Any reference in a reliable source is sufficient to satisfy WP:DUE. "Passing mention" is a trendy and amorphous term that ignores context and is usually used to support removal arguments, even though it's pretty meaningless. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
If passing reference was sufficient for inclusion there would be no need for the policy. But it clearly states, "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." TFD (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, your implication that the disputed content consists of "random allegations covered mostly by right-wing or Islamophobic sources" is completely at odds with both the content and the sources. SunCrow (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the articles already linked, reliable sources that reported on the affair allegations include the Washington Post (a separate article from the one linked by JungerMan above), USA Today, Fox Business, the Star Tribune (also here), the St. Paul Pioneer Press (also here) and the Jerusalem Post. - DoubleCross (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: on the basis of a wholesale movement to slime progressive politicians. This is one of numerous cases, essentially bringing oppo-research into wikipedia during the election season. You can see two additional attempts to bring slime into this article above on this talk page. We must be vigilant in resisting this kind of crap until it becomes real news. Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars crap doesn't count, even back page plants shouldn't count. Front page on the NYT, WaPo, on air mentions on real broadcast networks will indicate this is a real story and not just a political hatchet job. Trackinfo (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Trackinfo, so basically no policy reason other than you don't agree with it. (Just adding none of the sources presenting the information used on this page were sourced from the sources you mentioned. So it does seem very much that it's just that you don't like the negative information, which goes against the BLP policy.) Sir Joseph (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If you want a policy to base this on, I find this to be WP:G10. Trackinfo (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    WP:G10 is not even remotely applicable here. But go ahead, nominate the page for deletion based on it. It will be amusing for us, and a good learning experience for you. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    I am saying this content is designed to turn this article into an attack piece against Omar. Thus that content is appropriate to be deleted or more specifically to this discussion, not included. Trackinfo (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    Trackinfo, G10 is applicable to an attack page, not to one or two sentence in an article. Someone with over 100,000 edits should know the difference between an attack page and a biography article. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    I am suggesting that the push to include this in the article is a personal attack. People were sent to this article to push to include it, intended to turn her wikipedia into an attack against her, the subject of the article. As you can see from the additional comments, this is mostly WP:OR expanding into speculating about the circumstances of her relationship status. Its garbage that does not belong in the BLP. The "allegation" is phrased as "When did you stop beating your wife?" Trackinfo (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    Trackinfo, reporting what an article says isn't OR. if there is someone here with a push to violate wiki policy, it's not those who wish to include it. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    Trackinfo, can you clarify what you mean by "People were sent to this article"? If you mean any off-wiki (or otherwise) coordination or a clarion call, there is no basis for that and you ought to retract it (what "sent" you here to push to exclude?). I came to the article a week ago because I read on AP that Omar had married Mynett, whose company her campaign paid a substantial amount of money, and with whom she was alleged to have had an affair, and wanted to see how it was reported here (and if you look two sections above, you can see it hadn't been reported yet). The news is likely what brought everyone else here, including you. - DoubleCross (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Trackinfo, that is absurd. please review the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_oP_living_persons#Public_figures. Then, please retract your comments about a "wholesale movement to slime progressive politicians". There is no basis for that at all and it completely violates WP:AGF. Also, the cited sources have nothing to do with Fox News, Breitbart or InfoWars. SunCrow (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has not had the coverage that it needs to make it worth a mention in this BIO. Other than the MPLS Star-Trib where it is discussed at greater length, as one would expect, it is mentioned in several outlets - which does not mean that it was "widely discussed in the media". Several examples of "widely discussed" are correctly mentioned above. Also, I closely read what Trackinfo had to say about slime reporting and I strongly agree. I work several other political articles and in my experience one needs to constantly watch for it. I have found it helpful to think what information I would expect to find if I looked this person up at the sort of encyclopedia that most of us grew up with, Encyclopedia Britannica for example. It pretty much goes without saying that this allegation of an affair would not be included. Not today and not five years from now either. Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, please re-review the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. It is very different from your Britannica test. If we used that test, most Wikipedia articles would be less than half the length that they are now. SunCrow (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Exactly just what are you referring to at the bio site? Gandydancer (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment The community has refused to consider allegations (of anti-semitism) covered by the NYTimes as WP:DUE. Why would this be any different? Groupthink can lead to major errors in judgment, and that's a consistent problem at this page. I am not casting a vote, but there's no way that this gets into the article given the current trend. (Edit) Changed my mind. See below. When editors group together and make cursory arguments to selectively or minimize controversial information about a popular politician, the entire encyclopedia suffers a hit in credibility. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
So long as articles reflect reliable sources, then we have met policy. Now you may have a valid argue that the media is giving short shrift to any extremely important issue. But the whole point of WEIGHT is that we would defer to them to determine what was important. We could have decided to take a different approach, but that's the policy we are stuck with. If you want to argue about media bias, this is not the forum. But if you persuade the NYT, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, etc., to change their reporting, then I will agree that the article should reflect it. TFD (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not a forum where you should feel free to give your opinions on current WP trends and such. Keep in mind that those of us that are following this topic should not need to waste their time to read your personal opinion on what you see as the problems with Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Gandydancer, with respect, you had no problem with Trackinfo giving his opinions above about "a wholesale movement to slime progressive politicians". In fact, you even agreed with him. If Trackinfo is entitled to state his opinions, so is Wikieditor19920. SunCrow (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Stop cluttering my vote. We've already confirmed that policy doesn't require verification of the allegations, only that they be documented in reliable sources. See NBC, Washington Post, ABC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Wikieditor19920: Nobody is cluttering your vote... This discussion is under Zaathras’s vote... Please retract your inaccurate assertion about another editor. Also given how you’ve commented on other editor’s votes you can't really in good faith ask people not to “clutter” yours, don’t do it again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Widely reported in mainstream WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The allegation relies upom upon reputable publications. ~ HAL333 01:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:RECENTISM says: Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. That was the original reason I gave for excluding the allegations of an affair. I don't recall any response to this by those supporting inclusion. NightHeron (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    NightHeron, I did. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    Sir Joseph, no, you pointed to a paragraph from WP:BLP in arguing that inclusion does not violate WP:BLP (which others have disputed, because the allegation involves non-public figures as well). You also said that this has nothing to do with RECENTISM, which is correct. Your comment did not deal with that objection to inclusion, but only with whether or not inclusion violates WP:BLP. To quote User:Objective3000, we should have "patience," per WP:RECENTISM. NightHeron (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    If we're using RECENTISM as a standard here, why are there so many mentions of individual incidents of threats against her? Nobody is going to remember the individual incidents even a year from now. Toa Nidhiki05 03:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    NightHeron, RECENTISM says we don't need to include everything that happens, and we should wait to see what sticks. But a US Congresswoman marrying someone with whom she had a business relationship with and that person is alleged to have had an affair by his wife and the wife said the relationship was with the Congresswoman, is not something that is RECENT issue, that hits the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    If I understand you two correctly, a couple of years from now we'll remember that in the course of bitter divorce proceedings between two non-notable people the wife accused the husband of having an affair with a congresswoman, which they both denied? But we won't remember that one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress and the first naturalized citizen from Africa elected to Congress had to deal with threats and hatred directed against her? NightHeron (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron, a couple of years from now, we might well remember that a sitting, high-profile member of Congress divorced her husband and, shortly thereafter, married a man who was also recently divorced; whose wife accused him of having an extramarital affair with said sitting member of Congress; and whose consulting firm was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for services rendered to said sitting member of Congress. SunCrow (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/03/12/us/ap-us-congress-omar.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/got-married-u-s-rep-ilhan-omar-says-announcing-wedding-n1156221
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/omars-marriage-to-political-consultant-draws-renewed-criticism-of-campaign-spending/2020/03/13/a4311ea4-6543-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html
https://apnews.com/c1a31dbcc7adcf48667f799403873406
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ilhan-omar-announces-marriage-months-affair-claim-69555954
https://www.twincities.com/2020/03/11/ilhan-omar-got-married-minnesota-dem-ties-knot-to-strategist-tim-mynett/
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/03/11/rep-ilhan-omar-marries-political-consultant-tim-mynett/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ilhan-omar-husband-instagram-tim-mynett-married-divorce-a9397681.html
https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/government-and-politics/4994940-Rep.-Ilhan-Omar-marries-Dem-strategist-Tim-Mynett
https://freebeacon.com/democrats/ilhan-omar-is-her-new-husbands-biggest-client-public-records-show/
https://people.com/politics/rep-ilhan-omar-marries-tim-mynett/
http://www.startribune.com/ilhan-omar-marries-political-consultant-tim-mynett/568726242/
SunCrow (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

SunCrow - Exactly; it is ludicrous. Not only are we somehow supposed to accept as undue that so many reliable sources previously reported on the affair allegations, but also that, of all the reliable sources that subsequently reported on their marriage, every single one of them refers to those allegations. - DoubleCross (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As some here may be aware, I have in the past been -- vehemently -- against what I considered to be whitewashing/BLP paranoia on this page and for related figures. However, in this case, where the only "evidence" presented of their affair is the furious ex of Mynett and some pictures [[8]], this is frankly unencyclopedic and veering dangerously into tabloid style coverage. She is a politician, not a celebrity, and infidelity is not a (secular) crime. On the other hand, the coexistence of a business relationship to their romantic relationship -- she is his biggest client [9]... is notable) --Calthinus (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus, please review the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures. The allegations do not have to be proven true in order to be notable enough for inclusion. SunCrow (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not concerned with whether it is proven, but rather the nature of the "evidence" and the event being... distinctly tabloid in nature. The story is literally from his heartbroken ex. Do we really want that in a hopefully respectable encyclopedia?--Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus, we go by BLP and RS, and this has been in RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
RS is a guideline for which sources stand up to scrutiny, it does not mandate that if something is an RS it must be used. Sensationalist large-scale news outlets report all sorts of ~alleged~ crap. And as much as I am not a fan of Omar, I have this gnawing suspicion that if she wasn't despised by hordes of people on the right and on the left, this would not have ended up in the news either... because this gossip is not even newsworthy. --Calthinus (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus, Come on, she's a member of Congress. This isn't adding paragraphs into the article, but this is certainly notable to add a sentence or two about the alleged relationship. This is just the relationship that BLP mentioned for a reason. A politician has a relationship with someone not their spouse. And in this case, it's someone with a business relationship. Of course it's notable and not sensationalist. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, please remove the two sentences starting "A politician..." from your comment. It's a violation of WP:BLP anywhere on Wikipedia to state as a fact something that is only an allegation that was made in a divorce proceeding, one that's denied by both parties. NightHeron (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Stop the faux-policing of the discussion. He is clearly speaking in hypothetical terms, offering an example from WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Calthinus—I think the source addresses the trustworthiness of the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Which is not the subject of this discussion... If you want to rant about a politician potentially not having told the truth (big shocker) do it elsewhere per WP:NOTFORUM. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be that you wish to carefully excise that the alleged untruthfulness is related to an alleged affair? Is that your argument? Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack:, you earlier wrote, " I have to objection to covering either her relationship with Mynett or the resulting allegations of financial impropriety." Sir Joseph (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, with respect, the policy language at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures supports inclusion. SunCrow (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
On the subject of WP:BLP, note that the guidelines state: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. User:Sir Joseph has thus far refused my request that he remove two sentences above where he states as a fact that there was an affair, when it is only an allegation that appeared in a divorce proceeding. His refusal violates the guidelines. I hope he reconsiders. NightHeron (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@NightHeron: He drew from a hypothetical example from WP:PUBLICFIGURE which logically supports his argument. Stop the phony policing to prove a point. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
No, he wrote two sentences that state the allegation that's the subject of this discussion as if it were a fact. Assuming that the wording of those two sentences was inadvertent, I asked him to please remove them. Or he could have changed the wording from fact to allegation. But thus far he has done neither; I hope I wasn't wrong in assuming that his misleading wording was inadvertent. It is not phony policing to politely ask another editor to remove a statement (that presents allegation as if it were fact) that should not appear, per WP:BLP. NightHeron (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Editors are entitled to disagree, and there is not necessarily a "right" or a "wrong" answer here. Policy may legitimately support inclusion or non-inclusion, even though I admittedly think policy tips the scales towards inclusion. Also, I'm sure everyone is coming by their positions honestly and w/ the best of intentions. However, there are a number of fallacies that are being asserted repeatedly on this page that I think should be corrected if we are truly to get to the heart of what relevant policy/guidlines require/suggest.

1) The sources being relied upon here are not tabloids. Links have been provided to the NYT, WaPo, NBC, ABC, etc. Just because tabloids have also covered the matter, as tabloids are wont to do, does not mean that we should behave as if the reliable sources that have as well do not exist. Indeed, we should be acting as if the tabloids don't exist and looking only to those reliable sources. It is disingenuous to try and center the discussion on unreliable sources to try and characterize all sources that have reported on the matter as unreliable.

2) The allegations do not have to be confirmed, or even acknowledged (they can even be denied) so long as they have been reported in reliable sources they can be included. This is explicitly and unequivocally confirmed by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. See above for reliable sources. This also goes for suggestions that the allegations are a "smear." While the sourcing requirements are heightened for controversial information, the fact that something is negative does not require auto-exclusion.

3) WP:RECENTISM is a general guideline on how to structure article content as a whole, it is not a policy prohibiting inclusion of recent information. The text of this page clearly states this in the introduction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

  • WP:RECENTISM is not only concerned with entire articles on recent breaking news. It has a section titled "Article imbalance" that gives as an example: Thus, a political candidate's biography might become bloated with specific details related to a particular, recent election. The policy that Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included (from WP:RECENTISM) clearly applies within an article as well as in creating whole new articles. NightHeron (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe I acknowledged that RECENTISM applies to article content, but it is merely an explanatory supplement, not policy, and therefore is not controlling. WP:PUBLICFIGURE, on the other hand, is policy and controlling. RECENTISM is largely content-neutral and mostly concerned about timing, for example, where the subject of an article has a 50-year career but the majority of the page is preoccupied with say, the last six months. It does not require excluding the recent coverage, but rather, it allows for inclusion but suggests overall balancing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely agree here. This is what we should be talking about, rather than jumping just because the RSs NYTimes and AP and WaPo decided they wanted to see if they could do gossip girl better than Daily Mail and NY Post. RS != good source all the time. On the other hand a romantic relationship mixed with a business relationship on the part of an elected official opens of up potential conflicts of interest not unlike those noted in relation to Trump's own business assets.--Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude: There are policies that can be cited both for and against inclusion, which goes on to show that policies need to be more substantial. I'm against inclusion because a) I don't think that allegations about affairs belong to an encyclopedia b) the idea that an affair can be a (semi-political) topic or even a "scandal", is itself a political statement. Political viewpoints presented as objective information also don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include per The Washington Post:
Omar filed for divorce from her previous husband in October amid allegations that she was having an affair with Mynett, a consultant for her congressional campaign. Two months prior, Mynett’s then-wife had filed for legal separation, alleging Mynett was “romantically involved” with Omar.[3]

I find it distasteful that people are using RfC's as tools to silence WP:RS material that they do not personally like, BTW. XavierItzm (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And other editors find it distasteful that people are trying to include salacious gossip -- an allegation that emerged from an acrimonious divorce proceeding -- in a BLP, claiming that it's encyclopedic to do so. NightHeron (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron—dishonesty and salaciousness are two different things. Nobody is interested in her romantic life. This source questions whether Congresswoman Omar has been "fully truthful". Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, You mean that her denial would be dishonest if she really did have the affair, and for that reason Wikipedia should report the allegations, on the chance that they might possibly be true? NightHeron (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the burden is on you to present a good reason a reliably-sourced reference to possible dishonesty should be omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Two good reasons: (1) a source for possible dishonesty is not the same as a source for actual dishonesty; (2) it's unclear if the matter is notable over time (from WP:RECENTISM). NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
In a contested divorce trial, it is the job of the jury to determine which party is lying the least. I hope Wikipedia is not going to make a habit of including claims made in the heat of divorce. O3000 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Dishonesty is a problem if it possibly applies to congressional representatives. I don't think anyone is concerned with "claims made in the heat of divorce". "In its August complaint, the National Legal and Policy Center alleged that the campaign failed to disclose that payments to the firm “must be considered personal in nature” due to the reported relationship between its partner and the candidate." This is a reliably sourced suggestion by the National Legal and Policy Center that wrongdoing may have taken place. Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a point of order, this RfC is only concerned with the "claims made in the heat of divorce.” If you want to discuss the other claims this is not the place to do it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I don’t think there is much danger of that, if the subject wasn’t a politically inflammatory figure we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The National Legal and Policy Center is a biased source, not RS. The first sentence of their Wikipedia page is: The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is a right-leaning 501(c)(3) non-profit group that monitors and reports on the ethics of public officials, supporters of liberal causes, and labor unions in the United States. NightHeron (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
NightHeron—WP:NPOV, even in a WP:BLP, is not achieved by the omission of negative claims. It is achieved by presenting balancing claims. No doubt some defend the subject's actions as entirely proper and correct, and those views should also be included in the article. That is how an NPOV-compliant article is achieved. "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." This isn't an "either/or" situation. This is a "both" situation. We should be describing "both" perspectives on the propriety and impropriety of what sources say transpired. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The issue here is recentism and gossip, as several editors have already said. Wikipedia, unlike a newspaper, has no deadline, no reason to hurry. We can wait to see whether or not the salacious allegations are notable after some time has passed. The real POV problem is that editors who dislike Ilhan Omar are chomping at the bit to include anything against her that's mentioned in the newspapers or in some partisan source such as NLPC. NightHeron (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm in total agreement here. We need to be well-aware of our ability to harm those people whose bios we include here. We are anonymous peeps, possibly without any credentials what-so-ever, not scholars assessing her time as a governmental representative. When it comes to information that may be seen as harmful to the reputation of one of our governmental reps it must be repeatedly mentioned in numerous sources over an extended period of time, not merely in passing.Gandydancer (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a minor correct to the comment if the subject wasn’t a politically inflammatory figure we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.. Actually, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they weren't a political figure. WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The phrase "passing mention" has been repeated frequently on this phrase as if it reflects the coverage on this topic. This is inaccurate. Several articles have covered it. Even if it were more limited, any mention is enough to satisfy WP:DUE. Finally, Gandydancy suggests it is our responsibility to protect her credibility as a government official, given our own little-person credentials. I don't want to be curt, but this is ridiculous--and undoubtedly not an argument consistently made. It's our responsibility in all BLPs not to keep out negative information, but to ensure that it meets the requisite sourcing standards. It's also our responsibility per NPOV to include all relevant information, negative or positive, that's received substantial coverage in reliable sources. The only "credentials" required here are a willingness to collaborate and knowledge of applicable policy. That's all. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support including: Yes, this has generated lots of news coverage, as SunCrow has correctly pointed out, more than enough to be worth at very least one sentence in the article. Ames86 (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include per the sources cited by User:SunCrow above. Obviously we should include her denial and their subsequent marriage in the same paragraph. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Include SunCrow has provided sources from NYT, WaPo, NBC, ABC, the Independent, AP, Star Tribune, CBS and more. That's more than enough. The suggestion that we need to reach Clinton-Lewinsky levels of coverage before adding a sentence or two is not supported by policy or practice. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment everyone using SunCrow’s argument as their own should note that that user was blocked indefinitely on the 22nd for making disruptive edits including to this page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor's past conduct, which they may have made amends for, is not grounds to dismiss good-faith policy arguments. This violates WP:NPA. I suggest you redact it, @Horse Eye Jack:. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is dismissing anyone’s argument, per WP:ASPERSION please be extremely specific about how my statement violates WP:NPA. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's not play stupid here. You are insinuating he should not be listened to because he may have been sanctioned for a prior mistake at this page. This is completely irrelevant to the current discussion. From WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. SunCrow's arguments have presented a rational policy basis for inclusion, and i agree with him. You obviously don't. That's fine, but don't resort to criticizing him personally because his arguments have won favor with some editors. That's my piece on the matter. Thanks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I am insinuating no such thing. Please retract your assertion immediately as it violates WP:NPA as well as WP:AGF. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
The user's past conduct is not relevant to this RfC. I don't know why else you would bring it up the way you did except to use it to influence the discussion. Stop pretending otherwise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You need to assume good faith, if I was going to second someone else's argument I would want to know if that person had been indeffed the day before. Just FYI statements like "Let's not play stupid here” and "Stop pretending otherwise” are clear violations of WP:NPA which is ironic given how this conversation started, as a wise man once said "I suggest you redact it." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Unless the conduct was socking or to otherwise unduly influence the RfC, which it was not (it was at an unrelated page), then it is not relevant here and there isn't a good-faith reason for bringing it up as a consideration against their previous policy based arguments. See WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED, WP:GRAVEDANCING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is "bringing it up as a consideration against their previous policy based arguments.” What on earth are you talking about? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack, given that your original comment is apparently capable of being misunderstood, might I suggest you simply explain what you really meant? --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article. So if any editor is found to be disruptive, we need to closely evaluate their postings before agreeing with them. If their arguments are not based on policy or a correct application of policy, then they should be rejected. If someone was blocked for disruptive editing and has been reinstated, then we can assume good faith for their subsequent arguments. TFD (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I mean nothing more than that editors should note that SunCrow has been indefinitely blocked since this discussion began, as I said before if I was going to simply second their argument rather than make a policy based argument of my own I would want to know that (I would also be pissed if I had embarrassed myself by seconding their argument before anyone told me). Contrary to Wikieditor19920’s claim SunCrow’s conduct on *this* talk page was part of the reason they got banned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SunCrow so we aren’t talking about past or unrelated behavior/events. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
This RfC is not the place for a discussion about SunCrow's behavior, nor does that case seem to center on this page. If SunCrow's votes were socked, we would strike the comments. They were not. We do not litigate ArbCom matters in RfCs or provide notice about editors involvement there unless it is relevant in the way I already described. This discussion needs to be hatted before it takes things off track. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
No Wikieditor19920, you need to address your WP:NPA violations first... You can’t call out perceived PA and then launch into PA without any sort of boomerang at all. Explain yourself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Advice to Wikieditor19920—don't take the bait. Bus stop (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack:, my criticism of your inappropriate comments is not a personal attack. Everything I said above is accurate. I can't force you to acknowledge your own behavior, but I can and will hat this sub-discussion as off-topic and disruptive if there are no other objections. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I object, both to your suggestion we hat this "sub-discussion as off-topic and disruptive” and to the very suggestion that any of the participants in it have been disruptive. That appears to be a serious claim of misconduct which according to WP:ASPERSIONS must be accompanied by evidence (preferably in the form of difs). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Exclude per WP:WEIGHT, coverage in quite a few sources, but not that many when one considers her conroversial profile and no indication of anything resembling any public scandal on the fidelity matter, the 'trust' issue in making a denial that may possibly turn out to be dishonest, nor any financial impropriety in the professional/personal relationship. The policy arguments for inclusion rest on there having been a significant public scandal, not simply a background situation with the potential for such a scandal. Pincrete (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Procedural suggestion Can we reformat this RfC into votes and discussion? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This seems to me like the last-ditch effort of editors trying to stop what is a clear and obvious consensus at this point. It reflects poorly on them and their arguments and I don't think this is going to have the effect they thought it would. Toa Nidhiki05 14:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. And frankly, I can't imagine which direction anyone would think is a clear and obvious consensus. O3000 (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
You "can't imagine which direction anyone would think is a clear and obvious consensus"? The reliable sources weigh in on this. User:SunCrow alone presented a dozen sources, and other editors have presented additional ones. We aren't merely voting. Consensus is not decided only by a count of votes. The National Legal and Policy Center "monitors and reports on the ethics of public officials". "In its August complaint, the National Legal and Policy Center alleged that the campaign failed to disclose that payments to the firm "must be considered personal in nature" due to the reported relationship between its partner and the candidate." That is found in The Washington Post. I think the prominence of material in reliable sources should be a factor in determining inclusion or omission. Bus stop (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
As often happens in comments by editors who seem to have a strong POV against Ilhan Omar, you're ignoring the arguments made by editors who disagree with you, such as the fact that the National Legal and Policy Center is right-wing and hardly RS for this topic. NightHeron (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
It might be nice if you refrained from addressing my political positions especially as they are unknown to you yet you are saying I have a "strong POV against Ilhan Omar". Neutral point of view is achieved by presenting both sides of an argument sourced to different sources. You say "the National Legal and Policy Center is right-wing". If that is so, bring non-right-wing sources or left-wing sources to counter the supposedly right-wing source. A sentence can be constructed that both insinuates wrongdoing and suggests that nothing improper has taken place. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Or, don't bring right- or left wing sources in at all. And yes we know that counting !votes doesn't a closure make. But, the close is not at all obvious. O3000 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Source bias is often present and doesn't equal reliability, but the majority of sources here are non-biased independent news organizations (AP, WaPo, NBC, ABC), so this is not a central issue. NightHeron, any suggestion that editors here are weighing in because of a "POV" against the subject of the article is a blatant personal attack and I suggest you remove this comment. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The reliality is that WP:POV weighs against inclusion: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." No reason why this article should be an exception. Not being someone who gets their news from Rush Limbaugh, I would not have heard about the allegations except from editors on the talk page. TFD (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
You are citing WP:BALASP, which specifies that attention in an article should be proportionate to coverage in reliable sources. An "isolated event" is an event that received limited coverage. That's not what we're dealing with here. Nothing about that policy requires exclusion. On the other hand, the controlling and relevant policy is WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which specifies that when allegations (specifically using the example of a politician's extra-marital affair) are published in 1) multiple 2) reliable sources, they should be included. Multiple sources spanning weeks/months have already been provided covering this matter, and all are published in reliable outlets. WP:PF is clearly met. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, when allegations are made of, say, a crime by, say, an attorney general – not an allegation of an affair by an ex in a divorce. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
No, actually, the nature of the substantive allegations is unimportant; it's whether or not they have been covered in multiple reliable sources. See the example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course it's important. And who says it's substantive. WP:NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
E Street Group is run by Mynett. ("Following Omar’s marriage announcement, conservative critics raised concerns about payments by her campaign to E Street Group, which is run by Mynett.") "Since 2018, Omar’s campaign paid about $586,000 to E Street Group for a range of services that included digital advertising, fundraising consulting, digital communications and design. The campaign also paid $7,000 to Mynett directly for fundraising consulting before hiring his consulting firm."[11] Is The Washington Post also a right-wing source? Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
And when a legal authority makes some announcement, we'll include it. And no, WaPo is not a right-wing source. They are a neutral source reporting on what "conservative critics" are saying. They actually are a newspaper. O3000 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
You said "Or, don't bring right- or left wing sources in at all." You also say "And no, WaPo is not a right-wing source. They are a neutral source reporting on what "conservative critics" are saying." We can use any reliable sources, in theory. Obviously we have to use them sensibly, because we aim to have a neutral point of view. You also say "And when a legal authority makes some announcement, we'll include it." No one is saying there were legal charges, a court case, or a conviction. But a sufficient number of good quality sources strongly allege the likelihood of financial wrongdoing. Why shouldn't we apprise the reader of that? Bus stop (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
What good quality sources strongly allege such? O3000 (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Filings with the Federal Election Commission show Omar's campaign paid Tim Mynett or his firm nearly $600,000 since July 2018. Though it may raise eyebrows, family members, including spouses, can be on the campaign payroll as long as the family member provides services at a fair market value.
Larry Jacobs, a politics professor at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs, said the work needs to be reasonable and there has to be actual work being done.
Jacobs said constituents may question the way Omar handled the situation.
“Remember the story began with her denying a relationship, and now she’s marrying that person,” Jacobs said. “I think there are legitimate questions that constituents might ask about whether Congresswoman Omar has been fully truthful in her discussion of this relationship, and the nature of her marriage to a previous husband," whom Omar divorced last fall.
A relationship between Omar and Mynett was publicly alleged in August, when Mynett's then-wife, Beth Mynett, filed for divorce and accused her husband and Omar of having an affair. In response, Tim Mynett filed his own court document denying that he told his wife he was in love with Omar and was ending his marriage to be with the congresswoman.
When Omar was asked at the time whether she was separated from her then-husband or dating someone, she told WCCO-TV, "No, I am not." She has since declined to discuss her personal life.[12]
The above is from the New York Times. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
And I see no allegation at all there. And, I see no reason to include allegations of an affair. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Again—we are not discussing "allegations of an affair". Multiple good quality sources suggest it appears there was financial impropriety. Nableezy has reverted my change to the heading of this RfC. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about allegations of an affair. And no, I have not seen any good quality sources suggest that there was financial impropriety, and be careful about what you say in a BLP. O3000 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There are a ton of people who have already replied with that as the section header. The RFC question itself asks about the affair. Trying to recast comments already made as though they are discussing whatever you want to frame them after the fact violates, besides basic courtesy, WP:TPO. Please dont modify things people have already replied to. nableezy - 21:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Bus stop, Here is an article from CNN, Rep. Omar ordered to reimburse campaign committee after state board finds spending violations feel free to add to the article about the financial issues, this RFC is about the alleged affair which has plenty of sources. The financial issues also has plenty of sources but isn't the point of the RFC and I don't think people would want to make another RFC to show how biased Wikipedia is. There are multiple RS covering the financial issues Omar faced from her campaign to the payout, some of it is in the article. That some people will go to great lengths to omit information from this article, yet include every cough or sneeze on other politicians is not a good thing for this encyclopedia.Sir Joseph (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, WP:BALASP is part of WP:POV. Also, WP:PUBLICFIGURE provides an example where a politician is alleged to have had an affair and there is a public scandal. So it fails BLP. Bus stop, you quote from the Washington Post does not mention the alleged affair. Also, your rhetorical question about whether the Washington Post is right-wing is disingenuous. It's article clearly says that these concerns were raised by "conservative critics." (It uses conservative as a polite word for right-wing.) I note that the most extensive coverage of allegations against Omar, and which is cited in much of the right-wing press, is the Daily Mail, which has been banned as a source. Note they even had to pay compensation to Melania Trump for republishing defamatory gossip against her. TFD (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Right, and that's exactly what this is: a public scandal. Whether or not "conservative critics" have commented on it has nothing to do with satisfying sourcing policies and WP:DUE. And as I noted in my earlier comment, the fact that unreliable tabloids may have also reported on this does nothing to diminish the reliable sources that have reported on this. See these four WaPo stories covering the divorce, affair, and ensuing campaign finance scandal: [13][14][15][16]. Here's the AP documenting the same. And WP:NOTNEWS applies to reporting that is 1) routine (routine as in the content, i.e. crime blotters and sports pages, not the general practice of news organizations to report on scandals involving politicians) 2) original (not applicable) or 3) covers an individual in the context of only a single event (e.g. the other involves parties who are not public officials). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, Here's another source, one way on the left, Ilhan Omar Issues Denial On Allegations She Had An Affair With Married DC Political Consultant note it uses the word "scandal" which of course, IMO, is not needed anyway since allegations of a politician having an affair is a scandal, by default, but for some people and for some politicians, I guess we need to bend over backwards. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
An allegation of an affair is not a scandal. And why on Earth are you bringing in an obvious non-RS? Seriously, these are BLP violations. O3000 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I looked at all five sources and could not find the word "scandal". People, would you please remember that this is a BLP. And, I'm getting tired of responding to claims that sources say things they don't say. This is a waste of time. O3000 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces—you say "Also, your rhetorical question about whether the Washington Post is right-wing is disingenuous." Sorry to say I happen to be ignorant of the political leaning of that publication. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
If you are going to comment on the content of political topic articles, you should be aware of the major sources that are used. The Washington Post, along with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, are the most respected newspapers in the United United States.TFD (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bus stop: sounds like you’re saying that you lack the competency to edit articles about American politics, especially contentious ones. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack—Thanks for pinging me. I don't concern myself so much with the political leaning of a source as I do with the quality and prominence of the source, and its relevance to a question editors are addressing. No matter the political leaning of a publication, if its material is very relevant to a question being addressed by a group of editors—that source assumes a position of great importance, and is hard to ignore. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself clearly so feel free to ask me for clarification. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
[17] it doesn't say it's one of the most respected, it's a very heavily circulated paper in the US, but it is left-leaning. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, why would you just select a source (Media Bias/Fact Check) that Wikipedia editors deem "generally unreliable" to evaluate a source deemed "generally reliable?" (Both of these sources are evaluated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.) The Encyclopedia Britannica article on the Washington Post says that it is "usually counted as one of the greatest newspapers" in the United States. (Perennial sources says that Encyclopedia Britannica has "a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.") Bus stop, anyone familiar with the Washington Post would know that it is a liberal (i.e., supports pro-big business Democrats) publication that sees both Trump and the Squad as threats to America. But unlike right-wing media, they articulate their policy differences with Omar, rather than scandal-monger.TFD (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces—Thank you for pinging me. We don't want to become paralyzed over an inordinate concern with the perceived political leaning of a source. If the material contained in a given source is exceptionally relevant to the question we are addressing, then we may want to use it—regardless of the publication's perceived political leaning. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Include Reliably sourced, relevant. The "exclude" votes seem to be mostly WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Khirurg (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Exclude at this time. The content is tabloidy and the high level and quality of sourcing that would be needed to show that such content was DUE and appropriate in a BLP does not seem to be met. Like anything, if as time passes (say, a year; let's not just re-rfc things monthly) this turns out to be given (ongoing) weight, it can be re-discussed. -sche (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times, AP, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, are all reliable sources that meet BLP. This entire vote is based on a false premise. Whether or not something is "tabloidy," whatever that means (such as if it's something also covered by tabloids, doesn't determine content. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We look to reliable sources only, and they are numerous here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Time for closure This discussion has obviously run it's course. The "exclude" votes focus on the fact that tabloids have covered this and cite WP:RECENTISM. This is wrong in two respects: nowhere does RECENTISM require exclusion of material simply because it happened in the past few months. Second, the quality of sources here plainly meets BLP standards and those for WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikipedia consistently includes this type of material, even if controversial, to ensure that all articles are in compliance with WP:NPOV. Certainly there are other arguments that have been expressed here, but most are rather frivolous and ignore the controlling of sourcing per WP:BLP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions, if you want a discussion to be closed place an entry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure rather than repeating your argument again at the end of the section. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I’m sure the closer will make their own evaluation of the !votes without your help. Eisenhower was alleged to have had an affair, and it’s not mentioned in his article, even though it’s not a BLP. This is about an allegation made during divorce proceedings; and we all know how accurate they are. This is a BLP. O3000 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It has been repeated ad nauseam and established via WP:PUBLICFIGURE that it's not our job to sit and question if the reported allegations are true. See the numerous articles on allegations of sexual misconduct against politicians, divorces, etc. We've already shown that this meets sourcing requirements for BLP. We've already established that the degree of coverage means inclusion is almost certainly required per NPOV. Stop the tenuous arguments, wikilawyering, and repetition. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Use and misuse of the term, the way you just used it its a WP:PA. If you want to persist then per WP:ASPERSIONS you need to make a full argument with diffs to justify the serious accusation of wikilawyering you have made against Objective3000. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
More nonsense from an editor trying to prolong pointless arguing and get the discussion off track (and who tried to bring an unrelated ARB committee action against another editor into the discussion). Inclusion is not only justified, but required. All these exclude votes repeat the same flawed arguments. The majority of votes here recognize that. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The point is to reach a consensus not count votes, but its interesting to note that by votes there appears to be an exact tie of 18 exclude and 18 include. I’ve genuinely never seen an RfC with this many opinions so evenly matched in votes before and I just wanted to congratulate both sides on mostly keeping it civil and making strong policy based arguments. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. The exclude arguments are specious and weak, and ignore key sources. Editors excluding have mostly bludgeoned this discussion with irrelevant points or personal attacks, including your violating WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED with SunCrow and suggesting Bus stop "lacks competence" despite evidence to the contrary. It's amazing that this proposal has garnered the support it has in terms of raw vote count, since this is a popular politician and there's a significant degree of POV-pushing here (see this RfC and last page for non-policy based arguments about content, e.g. "unencyclopedic," "unfair," "she is not X so even if sources report accusations of X we shouldn't include X," etc.).Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Okay, this is me offering you an olive basket. And this is you spitting in my face.” Turk Malloy, Ocean's Thirteen. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack—you wrote "@Bus stop: sounds like you’re saying that you lack the competency to edit articles about American politics, especially contentious ones." Can you just stop it? At WP:TPYES we find "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It wasn’t independent commentary it was my summary of your "Sorry to say I happen to be ignorant of the political leaning of that publication.” If you’re claiming ignorance of the political leaning of the Washington Post then yeah you might not have the competence required to make the sort of nuanced arguments about American political articles you’re making. If you disagree with my summary or want to amend your words let me know. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack This is the second time you've made a claim about another editor and then when called on it pretend you didn't say it and act as if you are a victim. Your insults are not "summaries," and your inference that unfamiliarity with a particular publication involves WP:COMPETENCE raises more questions about you than it does about anyone else. No one is looking for your disingenuous "olive branches," just stop making snide remarks about other editors and then refusing to claim responsibility for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, you have 78 current edits to this TP, and you claim everyone else is bludgeoning? And you claim 18 other editors are engaging in irrelevant points, personal attacks, and violations? And you repeatedly attack another editor? O3000 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
And you appear to have 46. Your point is? Toa Nidhiki05 23:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
43, and my point is obvious. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye Jack—you are making up your own terminology when you refer to "independent commentary". Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BLP as nicely explained by User:Suncrow. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now I tend to agree with the concern raised by Trackinfo in that there seems to be a tendency to smear politicians (it's not just progressives that get the treatment). What ever the truth of the affair allegations may be, it seems at this point they are largely allegations and haven't had a significant impact beyond gossip. That may change in the future but for the time I think it's best to be conservative in what makes it too the article and err on the side of exclusion. Springee (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.startribune.com/dc-doctor-alleges-her-husband-left-her-for-rep-ilhan-omar/558480212/
  2. ^ http://www.startribune.com/ilhan-omar-announces-new-marriage-months-after-affair-claim/568734842/
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/omars-marriage-to-political-consultant-draws-renewed-criticism-of-campaign-spending/2020/03/13/a4311ea4-6543-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html

Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

30/500

An administrator has weighed in here, El_C, and stated that since the RfC isn't about ARBPIA, the 500-30 restriction is not in effect. Therefore, it appears that there is no restriction against non-confirmed users participating in the above RfC, even if they cannot edit the article directly. If another administrator or anyone else believes this to be incorrect and that there are more arguments to be made on either side, please feel free to re-open the discussion; for now, it seems like the primary issue is resolved. Other debates about content probably belong in the thread above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It looks as if editors who do not fulfil the 30/500 conditions have voted above. This they should not have done. To quote from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions:
"All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing"
and:
"The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. [..]. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc." (my bolding)

Unless someone can point me to another policy, I will strike their above votes/comments, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, this article is not under 30/500 nor is it under ARBPIA. Portions of this article are under ARBPIA. Only those sections that are related to ARBPIA are subject to ARBPIA."A portion of the article Ilhan Omar, along with other articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies resulting from four arbitration cases (see WP:A/I/PIA). " Sir Joseph (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph Do you really see this as unrelated to the fact that pro-Israeli people have tried to cover her in as much dirt as possible (just like with the rest of "the squad")? I don't. Anyway, I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests, Huldra (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Huldra, Please try to AGF. I can try to turn it around on you as well. We don't need to apply restrictions when it's not necessary. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir Joseph I don't see that I have not AGF; I am just stating the facts that the votes here, in this RfC, follows the "usual divide" in the IP area. Is this a pure coincidence? Huldra (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Huldra, you can call it what you wish, there are other RFC's on this page too and the RFC bot brings people here, and other people commenting all over, people have this page on watchlists, not everything is IP related. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Your argument depend on the assumption that people want to include this, independently of her IP opinions. Frankly, I rather believe in the tooth fairy, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Huldra, Sure, let's ignore it because after all, she is just a member of the United States House of Representatives. You keep asking others why the push to include, so flip the mirror. Just because you have a focus on the IP conflict, please don't bring the IP conflict into other articles. If you don't usually edit US politician articles and then suddenly find yourself in a politician article, don't be surprised when someone tries to add a sex scandal. It doesn't always have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Do we include all unsupported allegations by ex's in the BLPs of member of the United States House of Representatives? I hope not...Huldra (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Huldra, Are they covered in RS? This is literally the case specified in BLP. "Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." Regardless, this has nothing to do with Israel-Palestinian conflict. So please don't try to bring your issues into this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Is this a public scandal? No. There is an angry ex., making waves. Now, the Levinski-affair; now that was a public scandal. And your assertions that Ilhan Omar's opinions about IP-issues has nothing to do with your campaign to have these unsubstantiated allegations into her article... are...touching. Huldra (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Huldra, Do you mind holding up a mirror and asking why you have such an aversion to including something that multiple RS reported on, and one that we would include for any politician? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
That's the point. We wouldn't include it for any other politician unless it had received more than passing mention in mainstream sources. If you think they should run stories about it, write to CNN, the New York Times etc. and then we'll have something to use. But it's not our role to correct their deficiencies. Even the normally reliable New York Post doesn't find it interesting. TFD (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, Here's the New York Times: Omar Marries Political Consultant, Months After Affair Claim Sir Joseph (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't currently have access to the article. But you please describe in three to four paragraphs what they say about it, so we can trim it down for inclusion. TFD (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, No. You are aware that in the RFC all that is asked is that one or two sentences be included, right? Those who want this included are not asking for a whole section on this, just that her marriage to Mynett have the full context. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, I'll give you some ABC news though, which is also a RS.
Omar marries political consultant, months after affair claim "U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota has married a political consultant who worked for her, months after the two were accused of having an affair, which she denied." That's the first sentence. Is that enough? Also, not sure why you said the NYPOST didn't cover it, here's the NYPOST, Critics question ethics of Ilhan Omar’s marriage to embattled campaign consultantSir Joseph (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
As discussed, mainstream sources only mention the allegations in passing. The problem is that if you get your news the from New York Post or similar sources, you're going to find an entirely different emphasis. Things ignored by mainstream sources become big issues, while what MSM considers Can you explain why readers should find allegations about her sex life interesting? TFD (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, that's now moving the goalpost. BLP policy is that RS covers it. RS covers this. First you said I should write to the NYTIMES, etc. I showed you the NYTIMES, ABC News who covered it. That covers the BLP policy. It's not up to us to ask why people care about politicians and scandals. All that we should care about is that at the end of the day, a mention of this, whether a sentence or two is worthy of inclusion. Not just "Omar married Mynett." Sir Joseph (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
It's pretty straight-forward: in this case, since the RfC isn't about ARBPIA, the 500-30 restriction is not in effect. El_C 03:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Apparently you haven't been following the discussion because the relevant policy is not rs but weight, specifically balancing aspects. Obviously CNN and the New York Times are rs. No editor has argued they are not. But before I repeat what I and other editors have already said in this discussion thread, you might want to review it first. TFD (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
like the example given at BLP?

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.

I don't think it's worth it to keep going in circles, there is RS, there is BLP that is covered and there is nothing in this that is part of the IP conflict, so no point in continuing this. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Note the words "there is a public scandal." Where is your evidence of that? It may be that you think there should be, and perhaps you are right, but until that happens we need to follow policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The "scandal" is that the ostensibly honest public servant is seen by reliable sources to be untrustworthy. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything in that article about "scandal" or "untrustworthiness". Please be careful what you say about a living person. O3000 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we close this discussion because an administrator has clearly indicated that ARBPIA does not apply to allegations regarding a politician that are unrelated to the I/P conflict, merely because the politician has voiced strong and controversial opinions on the conflict? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilhan_Omar/Archive_19&oldid=1136813885"