This article was nominated fordeletion on 10 August 2016. The result ofthe discussion wasspeedy keep.
This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.This page is about apolitician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk ofbiased editing, talk-pagetrolling, and simplevandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnited States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related toMinnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofwomen on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofSomalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomaliaWikipedia:WikiProject SomaliaTemplate:WikiProject SomaliaWikiProject Somalia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFeminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIslam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAfrican diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic.
The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
This page isprotected. You must be logged-in to anautoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except inlimited circumstances)
There's been a lot of back-and-forth about this source. All else aside, it's a partisan source, which means that perWP:BIASED we would need to attribute that; but I also think that due weight needs to take that bias into account. A partisan source objecting to something she said just isn't due to the weight that it was being given here. --Aquillion (talk)19:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now that it is being compared to her husband's wealth. If the tweet exists, that could support it. She is being somewhat disingenuous in acting like she is poor, but she also attained that wealth via her husband.Metallurgist (talk)18:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a related vein, I'd like to point outWP:HOWEVER; presenting the facts without linking them implicitly with transition words like "however" helps us avoid editorializing or (unintentionally or not) insertingPOV in describing the relationship.~Malvoliox(talk |contribs)21:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm new here and made an account to talk about this so let me know if I'm missing anything. And let me first preface this with the fact that I don't think the written content of this Wikipedia page needs to change, I solely believe that the sources of Washington Free Beacon and The Economic Times, by extension, should be removed.
----
My issue with Washington Free Beacon isn't due to its partisan nature/hard right lean, but that it has failed multiple fact checks over the years.source1source2.
Then the other similarly low-to-middling-quality of factual reporting publication, The Economic Times, has also failed fact checks over the years and has even put out blatantly false informationsource1source2. This is relevant not only because it is listed as a source on this Wikipedia page, but also because it clearly sources information fromWFB that it mentions in itslinked article. Due to the similar wording and no additional information added, this makes the linked The Economic Times article more of a summary of the article WFB article it sources.
To compare this with Deseret News, a more reputable center-right leaning source with no known failed fact checkssource1source2, while they also mention WFB, they at least try to include other sources than just that one WFB article too. Such as directly linking fec.gov documents to back up their findings on Ilhar Oman's campaign funds or linking the NYT's interview with the her. This showcases more than a few tweets she's shared and a Business Insider interview that's noted in the WFB article, suggesting that, unlike The Economic Times, Deseret News at least attempted to do some level of research on their own beyond just quoting WFB.
-----
Now for WFB's actual article beyond it's reputation, there are a few issues. While the article does have some sources beyond its own publication to back up it's findings, the article also states things like:
- "Mynett and his business partner, former DNC adviser Will Hailer, were saddled with lawsuits from investors claiming they defrauded them out of millions of dollars."
This is misleading as it paints Mynett and Hailer as BOTH being the subject of multiple lawsuits despite WFB providing evidence of only one with Mynett as a defendant.
- "and he [Ilhan Omar's husband Mynett] and Hailer settled the lawsuits with cash settlements, the Washington Free Beacon has learned."
WFB's past debunked reporting(including against Ilhan Omar specifically) makes me hesitant to trust them solely on their word without another source to back up their claim.
- "Before Mynett left eSt Ventures in 2022, he and Hailer formed a subsidiary called Badlands Ventures to facilitate the firm’s marijuana investments. Badlands, in turn, received $3.5 million from a pair of South Dakota cannabis companies in early 2022"
This is also misleading because their only source to Mynett's involvement in this claim is a lawsuit against Hailer which only names Mynett in association but not as a defendant. There are instead multiple sourcessource1source2 that report that Mynett left the company prior to any deals made with the plaintiffs. This also falls in line with why the plaintiffs weren't also suing Mynett despite his supposed involvement. WFB doesn't make any clarifications to this.
------
This Wikipedia page already has more credible and/or more direct sources linked on the claims with 102 and 105, The Economic Times and Washington Free Beacon respectively, on them. So once again, I don't think the written content of the Wikipedia article needs to change. I believe that removing ET and WFB will keep higher quality reporting while lessening concerns for otherwise due to:
----
1. ET essentially being a summary of the sourced WFB article, offering no new or separate reporting
2. Both ET and WFB's multiple failed fact checks and history of misleading to blatantly false reporting
3. WFB's specific history of reporting false information against Ilhan Omar and, more specifically, her money sources
4. This particular instance of WFB's misleading content in the linked article
----
Especially when considering that 101-Deseret News fulfills the need for a right lean partisan source while also verifying that it's done its own additional research beyond just WFB's reporting that it mentions.Taraniee (talk)22:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability. SeeMOS:ETHNICITY. —Eyer (he/him)If youreply, add{{reply to|Eyer}} to your message.03:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Nope. This is entirely novel for this sort of article and certainly controversial.
Checking a few other US Congresspeople: Ted Cruz (US Senator from Texas) was born in Canada, Tammy Duckworth (US Senator from Illinois) in Thailand. Dan Crenshaw (US Representative from Texas) was born in Scotland and Juan Ciscomani (US Representative from Arizona) in Mexico. None of their pages mention the kind ofbackground you are asking for. They are all "American politician"s because they engage in politics in the United States.Slomo666 (talk)03:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me whether you're being disingenuous when you posit that Cruz's Canadian background has been as relevant to his political campaign as Omar's Somalian background has been to hers.
My "position" is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not the space to promote my position. Or anyone's, for that matter.
Thelede is a summary of the sections of an article. The rest of the article and the sources used do not give the kind ofWeight to ethnicity/background that would be required to list this so prominently. On top of that, it is generally wikipedia policy not to put so much emphasis on background. Her background is mentioned in the last paragraph of the lede, which is mostly summarising subsection "2018".Slomo666 (talk)13:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We mention it at the very end of the lead, which is the appropriate way to handle it. It clearly has coverage, but is not central to what makes her notable; so it should only be mentioned further down the lead, the way it is now, and not in the first sentence. --Aquillion (talk)20:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page is meant to be an encyclopedic biography of her life. While the endorsement is significant to the story of the election, it isn’t particularly significant to the story of her life.Innisfree987 (talk)19:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much every politician article has sporadic mentions of their endorsements. Are those not notable as well or just Omar? I do think there is a standard for this, if it isnt major or local, its not worth mention. So I am not advocating for every endorsement. In this case, it was a notable mayoral race for the city she lives in. ←Metallurgist (talk)03:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I would say that it doesn't fit with the purpose of a biography page to put a political endorsement on the endorser's page like you're proposing. It's not abouther. Sure, sometimes it could be notable to include endorsements on the endorsee's page, but that's not what this is.~Malvoliox(talk |contribs)04:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I am not saying every endorsement should go here, but this at least was in her city of residence. Would you also be opposed to her endorsement for governor or president? ← Metallurgist (talk)03:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes many Wikipedia articles are poorly written, with information added by a random accretion process when people dump things that were briefly newsy in with no real consideration for the article as a whole. This is a bad thing, not a good thing. --JBL (talk)18:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis should this not be included? Im not even necessarily disagreeing with you, but where is the policy basis for this, as it seems selective. I would not be surprised if almost ever congresspersons article had endorsements listed, which indicates a broader consensus for than the selective against here. I do agree with the accretion concern, altho I dont think that is correct on this issue. ← Metallurgist (talk)03:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text doesn't point out that that Omar is from Minneapolis or that the mayoral election was hotly contested. More importantly, it doesn't explain its significance to the article. Is it unusual for a member of Congress to endorse a mayoral candidate? Was it controversial? The sources don't mention it, meaning it's just trivia.TFD (talk)00:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is unusuality the only criteria for inclusion? Are we only including things that are unusual and controversial? That would violate BLP I imagine. Endorsements can be trivia, but I would think this example is not. ← Metallurgist (talk)03:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there's been some adding and reverting, I'm creating a talk discussion here.
A user or two have added reference to a 2018 interview quote where Omar, when asked about discriminatory policies such as theMuslim ban, says if America writes policy out of fear, it's white men they should target. The edit people have mostly made is to add a section under "Political positions" describing this as a position about 'white men', usually citing thisAP fact check. I reverted it once and see others have reverted this addition as well.
I am personally of the opinion that this statementa) Does not tell us what her political positions are, not fitting this addition and b) doesn't warrant inclusion in her biography for the statement itself.
It's a rhetorical device based on an "if" statement ("if fear was the driving force of policies to keep Americans safe"). The fact checking article that others cited to add the section describes that some social media posts shared a video without the statement to imply actual support for profiling white men. It's possible the media spin itself meets general notability, but it would probably fit better around other opposition/ media controversies later in the article. Other pieces about the quote are generally either opinion pieces, biased sources that are deprecated onWP:RS such as Fox, or stories about the video being shared online.
Just taking it here to avoid having the conversation in the comments. What kind of inclusion is warranted? Is this a part of her biography worth keeping?
It sounds like Omar is just using areductio ad absurdum argument of the form, "If you really believe Muslim profiling is okay for those reasons, then you should also think that profiling white men is okay for the same reasons." Some editors want to put in the second half out of context. Doesn't belong.NightHeron (talk)07:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Leave it out as it obviously invites misinterpretation. An editor's edit summary:why not change the name to something like “racial extremism” I found unfortunate.O3000, Ret. (talk)12:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this has caused some sort of real lasting impact I think it should be left out. We really should be asking if these "sound bite" sort of things should be in any of our biographies of political figures. In a sense, things like this are evidence of something, they aren't of themselves something. Kind of like politicians who are known for speaking flubs. Any particular flub is unlikely to be worthy of being in a biography but if a RS talks about them in summary then it may be DUE here as well (RS: Bush was known for flubs such as...). However, if we don't have such a source then we should avoid inserting "sound bites" as their context could be lost.Springee (talk)14:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Many biographical articles of people who have been the focus of some degree of controversy get filled up with "they said this; they also said this", both because opponents want readers to read between the lines and come to synthetic conclusions and because proponents want to give air to the subject's views. Neither is good. --JBL (talk)18:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have pblocked one editor from the article because they continued to insert this section and violated 1RR despite being warned. I agree with Springee - this was something that happened seven years ago and doesn't appear to have produced any lasting coverage, but if it is to be mentioned, it needs to be agreed here.Black Kite (talk)19:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you are going to combine these into an encylopedic treatment while avoidingWP:SYNTH how? "She said this, then she also said this, then she argued with JD Vance about that" is not in the ballpark of good encyclopedic writing. --JBL (talk)20:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill cite (see above) mentions the two incidents (and Omar herself refers to the "8yr old clip"). It's notWP:SYNTH when the sources make the connection.BBQboffingrill me21:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I keep coming back to is that this isn't a policy position at all, but a criticism of other policies that were enacted 7 years ago. I don't think it needs to be included at all.~Malvoliox(talk |contribs)18:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obvious reductio argument, not some sort of held racist belief that some people would like to add as such an interpretation. It has no place in an encyclopedia.O3000, Ret. (talk)22:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This edit by Gjb0zWxOb introduced contentious lede additions for the BLP. The one regarding antisemitism has been dealt with extensively in no less than three RfCs at this Talk page (the last two resulting in a clear no for inclusion):
I have undone these additions. It had been undone quite correctly when this edit was first made but were restored without basis ([1],[2]). [The edit also introduced salacious gossip regarding marital status which was promptly and correctly reverted back then].
Similarly,this edit by JayCubby removed the siginificant harrasment faced by this politician from the lede (offhandedly citing a comment by an IP). Something extensively covered in the body and affirmed by Talk page consensus repeatedly (and further confirmed by recent Trump attacks). I have undone this as well.
For any of these changes to go through/for want of a change of consensus, editors should discuss their edits here at the Talk page than unilaterally try to dismiss solid standing consensus.Gotitbro (talk)23:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done.NotJamestack (talk)02:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
Undone: This request has been undone. PerMOS:ETHNICITY, a person's ethnicity or country of birth is not usually included in the leading sentence, unless it's relevant to their notability. Ping @NotJamestack -Umby 🌕🐶(talk)03:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Nope. This is entirely novel for this sort of article and certainly controversial.