Talk:Linda Sarsour: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 625: Line 625:


Regarding [[Special:Diff/793784215|this edit]], the [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/nyregion/linda-sarsour-cuny-speech-protests.html ''New York Times'' article] about the CUNY speech protests says: {{quote|[P]rotesters held signs with images associated with the often racist and anti-Semitic language used by what is known as the '''alt-right''', a far-right, white nationalist movement [...] The controversy over Ms. Sarsour’s appearance is the latest dispute in a heated national dialogue over free speech on university campuses [...] This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour [...] Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the '''alt-right'''.}} To me this is pretty clear in placing members of the [[alt-right]] at the rally. However, the text was intended simply to attribute a general attitude to protest over the speech; maybe it would be clearer to say that the above were "protesting Sarsour's CUNY speech" instead of "protesting Sarsour's speech '''at CUNY'''". —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 23:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Regarding [[Special:Diff/793784215|this edit]], the [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/nyregion/linda-sarsour-cuny-speech-protests.html ''New York Times'' article] about the CUNY speech protests says: {{quote|[P]rotesters held signs with images associated with the often racist and anti-Semitic language used by what is known as the '''alt-right''', a far-right, white nationalist movement [...] The controversy over Ms. Sarsour’s appearance is the latest dispute in a heated national dialogue over free speech on university campuses [...] This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour [...] Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the '''alt-right'''.}} To me this is pretty clear in placing members of the [[alt-right]] at the rally. However, the text was intended simply to attribute a general attitude to protest over the speech; maybe it would be clearer to say that the above were "protesting Sarsour's CUNY speech" instead of "protesting Sarsour's speech '''at CUNY'''". —[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 23:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

== Sangdeboeuf, article ownership issues. ==

How many times has Sangdeboeuf immediately reverted user's edits without any discussion? Clear ownership issues here. I think it would be wise if s/he stepped away for a while. [[User:ZinedineZidane98|ZinedineZidane98]] ([[User talk:ZinedineZidane98|talk]]) 23:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 3 August 2017

Template:BLP noticeboard

Template:Friendly search suggestions


When will the article be available for editing?

And on what reason is it locked? ImreK (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC) To me it looks like somebody is trying to cover up Sarsour's tweets endorsing shar'ia law. Wikipedia is rapidly loosing credibility with this activity. ImreK (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a claim that has not been substantiated. You are analyzing the primary source which is not reliable for that claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pretty well-established this woman is a proponent of Sharia and tweets hate speech against former Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimic86 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, reliable sources including the Washington Post have called such claims "false." Other posts have falsely claimed that she supports the imposition of Islamic law on the U.S. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TWITTER and WP:USINGPRIMARY it is totally acceptable within Wikipedia rules. There is no controversial statement being made, there is no editioralizing going on, and in fact using someone's social media on the Wikipedia page of said person IS acceptable and a reliable primary source, the WP guidelines explicitly say so.. Mark Miller, you are out of line here. There would only arise an issue when we ONLY use Twitter as sources for this article. Testosterenbom (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think that book's title is "The Hjabi(sic!) Monologues". Somebody is really being unreasonable with this edit ban. ImreK (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Malone Kircher, Madison (November 15, 2016). "Fake Facebook news sites to avoid". New York Magazine. Retrieved November 15, 2016.

Mark Miller, do you mean to say that Wikipedia cannot quote the person in question because the mode of communication being used is Twitter? Even if it is that person's own Twitter account? That seems absurd. If it is the subject speaking with their own account, how is it unreliable information? I came here looking to see why this page was so empty despite the subject being of high public importance at the moment, and this is why the page lacks information?! Concerned Wiki User 23:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.191.39 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Under the section; "Reliability in specific contexts" it also states;

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately; do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."

--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked; "...Wikipedia cannot quote the person in question because the mode of communication being used is Twitter?". No, that is not what I am saying. Quotes from living people must be attributed to a published source. Contentious quotes require multiple strong sources and the use of quotations itself has a very specific guideline as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "Even if it is that person's own Twitter account?". Yes, especially if it ONLY that person's twitter account. We cannot write original research. We only summarize the published information so that the claims can be easily verified as accurate and fairly summarized, using reference that meet a set criteria.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the section of "WP: Identifying reliable sources" under "Self-published sources (online and paper)" it states;

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media.

--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 'self-published research'. No expertise on any subject is being claimed. It is not biographical material, it is autobiographical because you can quote her directly, leaving out the possibility of interpretation becoming a problem.
Twitter is simply a forum for the expression of opinions, and that expression is surely relevant and accurate in the case of public figures making their opinions known via Twitter. Donald Trump's page seems to have a direct Twitter quote or two, albeit sourced not directly from Twitter but from news sources. There are sources to be had on this subject's tweets too. The subject is currently mired in controversy over her opinions, not whether or not she is an expert on the subject of Sharia or anything else. That controversy is a subject of public interest, and deserves to be accurately documented here. At present, someone like me wondering who the hell she is and what she actually believes cannot use Wikipedia to discover the truth. I had to trawl through multiple sources to see what the story was. Concerned Wiki User 00:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.191.39 (talk)
Tweets are often used to document a candidate's support for stuff. For if Trump tweeted "I want to build a wall," on Twitter, that could be used a source or be quoted. Sarsour claiming that Shari'a is "reasonable" according to the Tweet previously referenced, does not make her an advocate for Shari'a law. There is no concrete evidence of fighting for shari'a save for that one tweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah9901 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets are only notable for Wikipedia if they have been commented or reported on in a reference already published by a reliable author, publisher and source.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Mark Miller says. Some of the tweets below (I'm paraphrasing--"wouldn't it be nice to pay no interest?"), are they supposed to prove her support of sharia law? Which begs the question of what sharia law means, what it means when she talks about, what kind of implementation we're talking about, etc. It's because of that also that we need secondary sources--good ones, not blogs that repeat talking points and cherrypick a quote or tweet or two.

    Which reminds me: User:MSGJ, will you have a look at the second footnote, with the link to The Guardian? It's to an opinion piece by the subject herself, and should thus not be used as a reference for anything--for all practical purposes it just serves as a link to her writing, which we should avoid. The two other notes there seem to be fine. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that Drmies suggestion that self-authored pieces are not usable is supported by policy, given that we allow self-published sources (per WP:SELFPUB & WP:BLPSELFPUB). However, in this case, the self-authored source does not appear to verify any of the information in the sentence to which it is attached. Support removal. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 22:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Isn't it common sense? If you allow for self-sourcing, if you allow content based only on self-sourcing, then basically you allow for the inclusion of every single factoid. Every single blogger in the world can have an article of unlimited size because editors can include every single opinion the person has ever had as long as that person has written it up. At some point, my dear Ryk72, we have to start working with some common sense. Surely you know that not everything can be captured in policy. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, In short, "no, not as a total blanket ban"; but explanation would be off-topic for this discussion, and we're in rude5 agreement for removal; happy to discuss elsewhere (and happy to be enlightened if wrong). And I thank you for the term of endearment. I had not known you cared, and am touched. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Clarify: Agree that we do not allow articles based only on self-sourcing; and that we should not include references that only serve as links to the referenced work. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously I agree with your first point, Ryk72; as for the second, esp. for journalists, politicians, other public figures this is touchy. I have seen hundreds of those articles where "Mr. X supported this or that position (on Jerusalem, abortion, Beyonce, etc.)" is sourced to an op-ed they wrote, and as far as I'm concerned no opinion is notable until secondary sources make it so. (This is a recent example.) But at least in this case we agree, and that's a start. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Vanamonde93, are we locked because of this kind of stuff? I think we can settle this real quick--for reasons outlined above we shouldn't be citing by way of and linking to Twitter. I think that User:Testosterenbom, who has 24 edits on Wikipedia, is simply not aware of the importance of proper sourcing, of the requirements of WP:BLP, etc. Note that "Testosterenbom" is also the author of a speedily deleted talk page which attacked a living woman--I should think that a warning/word to the wise should suffice here, in this article where they are inserting improperly verified information on a high-visibility article in a toxic world, so that the rest of us can go back to improving the article. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: That's a fair point, but I don't entirely remember the circumstances as I have been rather busy in RL since protecting this. I will review this situation in a few hours when I get the time: if you return before then and feel the protection unnecessary, please go ahead and modify it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I took another look. Honestly I'm not sure why I didn't do exactly as you said, back when I protected it. In any case, I have downgraded to EC protection because semi-protection clearly did not stop the BLP vios/this is still a highly visible and sensitive article. Fix away. Vanamonde (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that these tweets can be used as cited references. W.r.t WP:TWITTER, they appear to fail points 2. & 3. Other editors opinions may, of course, vary. In any case, what we cannot do is make any inferences or conclusions from them, per WP:NOR. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [ec with Ryk] Snopes is considered reliable, yes. As for the rest of your comment/summary, there's a lot of unpacking to do here; it's just really complex. What TWITTER does not give us is a license to include "Ariana Grande said that she supported covering pre-existing conditions under Trumpcare"--in other words, a statement doesn't become noteworthy because a person made it. I'm not concerned here with reliability (and editors reading WP:TWITTER should realize that not all tweets by subjects about subjects are true--people do have reasons to lie, about age for instance) but with editorial judgment and article content. So no, it's not just about "drawing conclusions from [tweets]", though that is certainly an issue here and, as I said above, in this case it's made worse by the fact that there is huge gap between different understandings of what sharia law is supposed to be--or even what "support" means. If someone tweets "sharia law in principle requires greater self-awareness of one's morality" (I'm just making something up) that doesn't mean that person "supports" it. Etc. Yes, original research does enter the conversation. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

I think this snopes article should be included once the article is editable again. Wolflow (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source;

Is it strong? Well, it's a fashion magazine but it does have editorial oversight and a record for fact checking so it would have some limited use if the author has some expertise. It might be useful for cultural or women's issues.

Who is Mattie Kahn? She is a writer in new York that has appeared in ELLE magazine and Vanity Fair. She has expertise and experience writing about women in a cultural sense.

Sarsour was the subject of social media attacks only a few days after helping organize the 2017 Women's March .[1]

Some might argue we should have multiple references for this. Are there other sources that meet Wikipedia criteria to verify this claim?

The News editor of Colorlines wrote this.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Women's March Organizer Faces Islamaphobic Attacks on Social Media".

Should this be added? Perhaps however, we like to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are not here to add the latest news item at the moment it appears. It happens but...when we have controversial subjects, time always helps clarify issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source that verifies the claim; [1].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post is indeed a reliable source. That particular article mentions the claim from other sources that she supports Sharia law, but it does not quote any of her tweets that are quoted in those other articles. Instead, it simply dismisses the claim that she supports Sharia law as being "Islamophobic." In my opinion, this is irresponsible journalism on the part of Huffington Post. They should have quoted her tweets, instead of dismissing the claim that she supported Sharia law.
Here are four of her tweets:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170123220836/https:/twitter.com/lsarsour/status/534073703588700160
"10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame."
https://web.archive.org/web/20170122172847/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/116922589967949824
"shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics"
https://web.archive.org/web/20170123022332/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598327052727615488
"You'll know when you're living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn't it?"
https://web.archive.org/web/20170123195630/https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598326262218813440
"If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn't taken over America."
Bk33725681 (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tweets are not RS as per wikipedia policy.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting Israel

Here is a source that states that she said "Israel has right to exist."

http://ikhras.com/fake-activist-exposed-the-real-linda-sarsour/

If this article is cited, there should be some discussion of the Arab-Americans who are accusing her essentially of being a sell out. Jonmayer18 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a Controversy section

edit As detailed above, there is a Snopes article summarizing some of her controversial public statements and public conduct, including (i) a very controversial affiliation, and (ii) controversial comments on banning women from driving. I don't think her comments on "Sharia law" are particularly controversial since there is so much public misunderstanding of Sharis law and she was not supporting a controversial aspect of Sharia law (at least as it applies to her area of expertise (which is not finance). If she were putting herself forward as an economic expert then supporting a ban on interest would be controversial but in context, I think she is just trying to point out how misunderstood Sharia law is.) However, there is another article quoting her public statements and controversial statements toward other women, and she HAS put herself forward as a women's advocate so I think these comments from 2011 merit identification. Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twitchy is a partisan site on the level of Media Matters for America; we should generally avoid partisan clickbait and seek high-quality mainstream reliable sources. Examining that link, again, all it is is a bunch of tweets back and forth, with little to no context or actual secondary-source reporting. I don't think that is useful here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is then Huffington Post "non-partisan". They were massively campaigning against Trump and make their money based on pageviews, so "clickbait" is a very POV-way to say "earning money with page views". Don't get me wrong, but the way Wikipedia documents things here looks like "fixing history". Part of the story is missing and the rest is only backed up by equally partisan media outlets. ImreK (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current article refers to attacks online by Islamophobics, but does not provide the context for those attacks, which includes the tweets identified above. Shouldn't there be some context to explain the current text? The way it reads right now, unnamed people are angry with her and attacking her on the basis of her religion. However, reviewing the articles above it is clear that there is some context to the controversy beyond just Islamophobia. Further, while twitchy and breitbart are partisan, snopes is not. And the huffington post is also partisan, but it's been cited. There ought to be some context added here. I suggest:
Subsequent to her appearance at the Women's March, many conservatives questioned whether she was an appropriate advocate for feminism based upon prior public comments she had made regarding religious law and prior personal attacks on other female leaders.
then you can mention the islamaphobia point. Jonmayer18 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Last, shouldn't there be some fodder added from her New York Times front page profile?
As it stands, the alleged Islamophobia attacks are completely out of context. It still looks to me like some people are really busy covering up her pro sharia tweets. ImreK (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She had a very controversial run in with the well known Islamic reform promoter Ayaan Hirsi Ali that is surely relevant to this section. Fox News - Ayaan Hirsi AliCdOl0lO (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP concerns make this non-viable based on that single flimsy source. An entire two-paragraph section based on one short blurb is totally insufficient and WP:UNDUE. A review of WP:CSECTION may also be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this on it's own might not constitute adding a new section. All of the other controversies that have been slipped into the rest of the article and this together might not constitute a controversy section. But how is Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking directly about the issues that Linda is involved in, also in relation to her own comments to her, on issues that Ayaan is involved in a "flimsy source", given a notable person as Ayaan is and Fox News are. You can probably see I have added a section on this page to discuss this.CdOl0lO (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's this from the Eastern Director of Simon Wiesenthal Center (not just a random talking head): Linda Sarsour Is ‘An Arsonist In Our Midst’ | MK17b | (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already include a substantial number of opinions about Sarsour's political viewpoints and positions; I'm not sure how the addition of one more would benefit this article. Wikipedia biographies are not compilations of every opinion, positive or negative, ever expressed about a particular person. What from that particular article do you believe should be included, and why? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues and consensus

I have reverted a substantial edit to this article on several grounds, including failure to adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. For one, the addition cites and quotes several sources which are highly partisan and which do not meet reliable sourcing criteria for claims about living people, notably FrontPage Magazine, the Daily Caller and GatewayPundit. Secondly, it uses terminology which is inappropriate; the words "accusation" and "allegation" suggests criminal activity when nothing of the sort seems to be so much as claimed by anyone. Thirdly, as has been discussed above, Sarsour's tweets are a primary source and we should be looking to significant reliable secondary sources for analysis, and if that can't be found, we should avoid making claims based on what someone may or may not interpret from them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof - I've added some context for how she rose to such prominence of leading a major progressive march. Her accomplishments did not begin with the March and I think this is well documented in reliable sources. In addition, there is a sentence which states that "some suggest" she was a victim of islamaphobia. I happen to agree, but there was a context to the controversy and I don't think the lone "huffington post" link is reliable, or, if it is, it reflects POV as discussed above. There needs to be references to the controversies generated leading up to the event and after (i.e. de-partnering with some pro-life groups, her vocal support of religious law which many feminists do not believe is supportive of feminism, the decision not to let Clinton be referenced at the march, and her attacks on some conservative female activists). I can't really see a basis for including the huffington post article--which is based on a series of quoted tweets--and at least one of the many article citing and discussing her own tweets. I think the algemeiner is a fair perspective from the "other side" of the huffington post piece (which as others have pointed out (ImreK), glosses over the basis of some of the questions that have been raised). Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected and reviews required

I've upped the protection on this, extending the time it is protected and requiring reviews of edits due to extensive BLP violations, etc. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Due to the ongoing edit war, I have made this article sysop edits only until things get rectified. I suggest using sources like AP and Reuters and keeping things as boring as humanly possible. If you have a strong feeling (good or bad) towards the subject, I suggest you don't edit the article about her, at all, as clearly neutrality is a challenge for some folks here. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Washington Post? https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/attacks-target-muslim-american-activist-after-dc-march/2017/01/26/2e1758b6-e416-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html ? I don't think its nice to say that "neutrality is a challenge for some folks here." As you can see from the WaPo article, there are concerns about alleged ties. Also, for 3 weeks, this article cited a one sided huffington post piece with nothing explaining the controversy. Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article precisely proves my point — it says the only "evidence" anyone cites for the Hamas claim is "a picture of her at a convention of Muslim civic leaders, standing with a group of people that included a Milwaukee activist whose brother was arrested in Israel in 1998 and convicted of giving $40,000 to a Hamas leader." That's not evidence, it's guilt-by-association smearing through three levels of the game Telephone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I agree we need to be careful with identifying "alleged" ties, when they are inflammatory. I never drafted anything about 'alleged' Hamas ties, but when someone else did, you said that American thinker and Jerusalem Post aren't reliable sources because they don't fact check or present both sides. Here, this WaPo article says "she has acknowledged publicly that members of her extended family have been arrested on accusations of supporting Hamas." I am not the one who asked for such a source, you are. Perhaps you don't think it justifies adding anything, but it exists. Yes, I agree there is not enough regarding the photograph to say anything concrete in wikipedia, but there might be at a later date. Sarsour is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Trump regarding exclusion of refuges and non-citizens. I thought that was interesting.Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revert based on BLP grounds

I have reverted edits which make claims about Sarsour sourced only to a link to the American Thinker, an extremist right-wing house organ known for publishing white supremacist/nationalist garbage and certainly not a mainstream reliable source for claims about living people. In addition, none of the cited sources state that Sarsour's comments about "female public figures" were "attacks" and the interpretation of "minimizing" is based upon personal analysis of a tweet (which, as discussed above, is to be avoided because of the limitations of that medium). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Thinker is a not considered a reliable secondary source. We cannot use it. I support your decision. Thanks User:NorthBySouthBaranof. I saw you brought the situation to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm going to defer to other admins, since I have been following the situation here. Keep me posted on what happens. Missvain (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by NorthBySouthBaranof

In this edit, NorthBySouthBaranof misrepresented quoted sources. First of all, Algemeiner says clearly "Other critical reports focused on her comments minimizing Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women", but NorthBySouthBaranof changed it for simply "comments regarding Saudi Arabia's treatment of women", which is misleading, since that could mean that Sarsour is denouncing the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia instead of minimizing them (what the source says). Second, NorthBySouthBaranof repeatedly accused a conservative online magazine of being "white supremacist", without providing evidence or reliable sources, as an excuse to keep out the accusation of (Redacted). As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why the American Thinker can't be quoted with proper attribution just like other organizations and opinion articles that are mentioned in this article.--Yschilov (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have redacted a poorly-sourced and highly-defamatory claim about a living person from the above text; find a reliable source for the claim or it has no place on Wikipedia. If you need assistance understanding what is and is not a reliable source, please see the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't respond to my comment, you only tried to censor me. But in case you are interested, other sources also highlight her alleged connection with Hamas, such as this one and this one.--Yschilov (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yschilov. Just letting you know, that Jerusalem Post and the Daily Caller are not reliable secondary sources because they are non-neutral publications. Therefore we cannot use them on Wikipedia. If say, the AP or Reuters talks about a connection to Hamas, then we can consider using it in the article. You can read more about reliable sources here. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea about Wikipedia's policy, don't you? Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.--Yschilov (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are, however, required to be fair, accurate and have a reputation for fact-checking, and The Daily Caller is not known to have a widespread reputation for any of the above. When writing about living people, we are required by policy to write with sensitivity and an avoidance of sensationalism. Claims that a living person has ties to a terrorist organization are highly defamatory and should only be included if it is clear that mainstream reliable sources are reporting such. We should avoid claims made only by highly-partisan outlets whether on the left or right side of the spectrum. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Missvain (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post article simply repeats the existence of "a Daily Caller report" and the Daily Caller article, besides being not a reliable source (it's also a right-wing house organ), is the worst sort of guilt by association smear campaign and has no place as a source here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "minimizing" comment, please see the extensive discussion above about analysis of single tweets; the claimed comment "minimizing Saudi Arabia's treatment of women" which the piece cited was a single tweet. As encyclopedists taking a long view of things, we should be avoiding the inclusion of opinionated analysis of a person's single tweet — it's well known that 140 characters limits the ability of a person to include context or nuance. It is not fair to the article subject, in my opinion, to describe a 140-character comment about a single part of Saudi Arabia's as "minimizing" everything else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, partisan sources are acceptable, provided they are attributed. Calling something "right-wing" or "left-wing organ" doesn't mean anything. It's like saying "I don't like it".--Yschilov (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan sources are only acceptable in matters regarding living people if they are reliable sources and the American Thinker is absolutely not viewed as a mainstream reliable source. If you disagree with that categorization, you are welcome to open a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, but this is a longstanding consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If we had a Reuters or AP article discussing this subject and wanted mention that the American Thinker or whatever had mentioned it also or to quote something, that would be different. It can't be the primary source for information given that it is not a mainstream publication. Missvain (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the American Thinker right now, but the Daily Caller, and a reliable secondary source like a newspaper which published that claim. Here's another source. It's all over the web. The woman is accused of having ties with Hamas. It's a fact.--Yschilov (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replace American Thinker (in my sentence) with the Daily Caller or Jerusalem Post. We also can't use Snopes for this. Find me an AP, CSPAN, BBC, or Reuters source and we can talk about these things. Missvain (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to decide that we can't use the Daily Caller (with attribution) or Jerusalem Post? JP is a known Israeli newspaper and is extensively used in WP.--Yschilov (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have things entirely backwards; the onus is on you to justify inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything; we are an encyclopedia and we are not required to repeat those accusations in our biographies. To the contrary, our policy on biographies specifically requires us to avoid spreading unsubstantiated rumors and gossip. You are new to editing this encyclopedia, so I suggest that you take time to read our policies before editing controversial and contentious articles, particularly biographies of people whom you have a personal or political opposition to. If you have joined Wikipedia in order to make articles about people you dislike portray them negatively, you are on this encyclopedia for the wrong reasons. We are not a vehicle for you to smear people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I"m an admin who isn't very impressed with the fact that JP just cited the Daily Caller. Find some more reliable sources, outside of JP quoting DC and we can talk. As a journalist, my editor would fire me if I wrote a piece about an unverifiable claim found on a Libertarian-leaning news source. Find me another source, like I said before, AP, CSPAN, CNN, BBC, whatever, to back the claim and I'm all ears. :) Missvain (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come here to "portray" anyone. I just found out about this organizer of the "Women's March" and all the surrounding controversies, including her support for theocracy and links to Hamas. I think her rejection of such claims must be presented also, but to hide those accusations doesn't seem to be a reasonable option.--Yschilov (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are now welcome to discuss your proposed inclusion of this material, but you must gain consensus among editors that it is suitable for inclusion; the only reliable source here is the Jerusalem Post, and the Jerusalem Post briefly mentioning that outlet's unsubstantiated claims before reporting on the widespread condemnation and rejection of the claims does not seem to really belong in her biography. As the Biographies of Living Persons policy dictates, this article must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. If reliable, non-partisan sources substantiate the claims, they can be revisited; otherwise, we should not allow this biography to become a vehicle for partisan guilt by association smears which are, at this point, entirely contained within the right-wing blogosphere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With your criteria, we shouldn't present her controversies regarding Saudi Arabia and Sharia law either. I propose to include the accusation of Hamas links together with her rejection of such claims.--Yschilov (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On that note I suggest you two busy yourselves elsewhere on wiki and let an admin review your case. This article is going to stay sysop locked down for the time being. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And all of this drama happens less than 5 days after I removed full protection on this article, in the hope that folks would work things out...wondering if I should have just left it locked. Vanamonde (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should. Sorry your good effort didn't work out as planned :( I did my best to calm the storm! Missvain (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about Washington Post? This article discusses the allegations, its a reliable source, and it discusses the allegations from all angles, including providing a chance for Sarsour to respond? https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/attacks-target-muslim-american-activist-after-dc-march/2017/01/26/2e1758b6-e416-11e6-a419-eefe8eff0835_story.html ? I'm less concerned about addressing the alleges ties and more concerned that the Huffington post article is cited with muddy description "some say" To me that violates Wiki's policy on Weasel Words. I propose to identify the author by name.Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali genital mutilation controversy

My edits regarding Lindas comments toward Ayaan Hirsi Ali were reverted because they should have "not such lavish, insulting detail". Might I remind the editor that that is exactly what "Controversy" means, and if readers find it insulting that these statements have been made, they should be equally as insulted if they are censored. Everything was factual, notable (Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel are very notable, including that Ayaan is a victim of genital mutilation and speaks often on this point, and in relation to Islam) and referenced. Ayaan spoke at length on this issue, so this summary is anything but "lavish", given that she also addressed Linda's stance on Sharia Law, which was not even mentioned in this summary.

If you really can't stand Linda having a section named "Controversy", with this and all the other points that have been weaseled to not look like a controversy, would you care to suggest a title under which to put this information?

For reference this was the added text: "" In February 2017 Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an atheist, feminist, critic and advocate of the reformation of Islam criticised Linda for making an abusive tweet about her in 2011, equating her with Brigitte Gabriel, a journalist and anti-Islamic activist, suggesting that they should be assaulted, and that she wished she could remove their private parts because they "don't deserve to be women."

Ali, a victim of genital mutilation while living in Somalia, criticised Sarsour as a "fake feminist" who is not interested in universal human rights, in reference to Linda's appearance at a Women’s March in Washington DC in January 2017.[1] "" CdOl0lO (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Defender of Sharia': Ayaan Hirsi Ali Slams Women's March Organizer". Fox News. Retrieved 2 February 2017.
To rehash what I said above, if the best you can find is this one brief blurb from a short Fox News talking heads bit, this is WP:UNDUE. Going into such lavish detail about Ali is non-neutral in the extreme, since this article is not about her. Being "equated" with Brigitte Gabriel is vague to the point of being confusing, even having read the source, and more substantial, neutral sources would be needed. Since this is blurb summary of an interview which lacks a byline, it's only barely even WP:SECONDARY. Rushing to including every mention of a controversial figure in a Wikipedia article is WP:GOSSIP, which is not part of Wikipedia's function. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These statements reveal pertinent facts about her, especially in the light of current events, Lindas part in them, and all surrounding it. Regarding the equating of the two, well.. the "=" sign is an equation in any language, literally. Or if you did not care to check the reference (presumably as another successful swatting of a ranting islamophobe, without looking into what was said) I will type the exact line of Linda's tweet "@lsarsour Brigitte Gabriel= Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She's asking 4 an a$$ whippin'. I wish I could take their vaginas away - they don't deserve to be women". If you are confused by saying that Bridgette is being equated with Ayaan, I can only guess it is a cultural thing. Everyone I know would agree the first sentence would be best described as the two being equated. Ayaan is the primary source, speaking and verifying the tweet about her from Linda, published by Fox, the secondary source. Yes Fox are partisan, but not more so than many other major news organisations, and Ayaan would describe herself as left leaning, with fox right leaning. I see no reason to doubt the validity of this source. It's not "the best I can find", I'd never heard of Linda Sarsour before today, I'm not sitting here trying to slander her. These are pertinent facts. And no I don't usually watch fox news either.. I haven't seen more than Ayaan talking directly about this tweet, for me at least that is enough to know it is legit. If it does happen that more sources than these need to be found, I will look in the coming days, and I have no doubt they will come.
I agree that giving lavish detail about Ayaan could be non-neutral, but here it is directly relevant to Linda's important stance on genital mutilation, feminism, and Shari Law, and Linda would have known this about Ayaan as someone tweeting about her, the act, and it being an important topic surrounding feminism and Islam generally, which they both aim to address - clearly from different angles. That's why this is not simply WP:GOSSIP.CdOl0lO (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the point that including some details about Ayaan is not "lavish", it would be lavish to say that Ayaan is also a "Somali-born, Dutch-American activist, author" as these points have no relation to this statement. The statements made about Ayaan were given to give enough background to put the statement in it's full context, and no more. All of the facts mentioned may be seen as insulting to some, but their potential to cause insult derives directly from their relevance to the issues addressed in this article. Relevant facts (assuming validation from sources) should not be censored because they may be insulting to some viewpoints, or applauded by others, when this relevant. Omission of this type is addressed in WP:NPOV. The paragraphs could be reworded to ensure this, granted.CdOl0lO (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We use independent sources to determine what is and is not pertinent. Yes, she did equate the two of them, but the section you added was ambiguously written (it was not clear who was being equated to who) and provided no necessary context. Why where they equated? Who, other than Ali, actually cares? Did a single, very nasty tweet from 2011 start a "controversy", and was it in any way encyclopedically significant? It doesn't appear so from the one source you provided. Assumptions about what Sarsour did or did not know about Ali are WP:OR at best. This was one tweet, and no matter how obnoxious it was (and it was very obnoxious) it's not a controversy without secondary coverage. It's telling that the Fox news blurb did not actually include the tweet, or even a bowdlerization, as it removes readers' ability to assess the sincerity of the tweet for themselves. That smack of "outrage culture" to me, but again, without secondary sources, it's nothing at all. You mention that Ali is the primary source, but that's the problem. We don't want primary sources. As an encyclopedia (a tertiary source) Wikipedia strongly favors WP:SECONDARY sources. This coverage is short, lacks context or any indication of lasting significance, and it's only partly secondary. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "criticism" section is being cut down and right now mostly consists of rebutting criticisms that are not even explained. I wrote the intro part of her "political advocacy section" -- now I think that the point of the criticism section is lost--anyone can investigate whether criticisms are valid or not, the point of the section is to identify them. I propose to identify the criticisms neutrally and fairly, rather than cram them into one setence. Also I think the abortion rights point belongs in the criticms section. Last, the sentence defending her based on the article by Deepti Hajela is out of place -- its not criticism so I propose to delete it. If we had separate sections for each critique maybe counter criticism would be appropriate, but not presently. I plan to expand the three citations to Emerson, abortion rights, and Ali/Malcom. Jonmayer18 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have to balance two concerns here. One, reflect criticisms fairly; another, reflect them with due weight. A BLP is not a receptacle for all criticisms made of a person, but only for the ones that reach a certain threshold of prominence, and then they need to be presented with due balance. I'm concerned that your version gives an undue weight to the criticisms in relation to their coverage in RSs, but I will let it remain and see what others think. Eperoton (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current citations in the "criticism" section was subject to a pretty extensive discussion above and resulted in what's in there after admin review. The addition of a counter "weight" now is subject a relevance threshold: how is the Deepti Hajela article addressing any one of the criticisms at issue? Her article addresses false reports in the far right media that Sarsour wants to "replace" the US system with Sharia. That would indeed be an unfounded criticism which is why its not what in the current article. The current article identifies a critique that Sarsour defends religious laws that oppress women and she has attacked anti-Islam female activists who have first hand experience. Could your citation move up and be put after the huffington post citation regarding accusations of islamaphobi? The current placement of the sentence leads to the inferences that it relates to the prior sentence when it does not. Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly don't want to imply a misleading connection between different types of criticism, but we also don't want to implicitly validate other criticism by separating it out into a special "non-unfounded" section. In fact, it's the only criticism that has received coverage in independent RSs. I think we should rather merge the two statements to strengthen the sourcing to Huffington Post, which on its own should arguably be treated according to WP:BIASED for politically charged statements.
I'm not sure if you saw the summary of my edit reverting your attribution to the AP reporter. AP publishes newsroom reports and occasional editorials. Its news reports are a WP:RS and can be used to sources factual statements without attribution, unless there's evidence of disagreement between RSs. The attribution to AP was there to mark a transition rather than for policy reasons. This is different from usual opinion pieces, which can be used to source statements only about opinions of the author and hence need attribution. Attributing a statement unnecessarily is a form of editorializing which casts doubt on its factuality ("Some say that the earth is round") and hence violates WP:NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been extensive media, criticizing Sarsour's tweet regarding Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel. Both domestically and internationally. Including:

New York Times[2], Fox News[3], The Washington Times[4], The Spectator[5], The Daily Caller[6], Independent Journal Review [7], The Daily Wire[8], The Post Online (Dutch)[9], The Daily Telegraph (Australia)[10], Toronto Sun [11], Herald Sun[12], Document (Norway)[13], Kattukse Vrienden Voor Israël (Dutch; Blog)[14], Calgary Sun[15], Real Clear Politics (Highlight of Bill Maher's HBO show, which mentions the tweet)[16], Breitbart[17], The Daily Caller [18], Actuall (Spanish)[19], Swarajya (India)[20], ABC Nyheter (Norwegian)[21], The Christian Post[22], The Spectator[23], Prochoix (French)[24].

While not all of these are WP:RS, the amount of reporting on this is an indication that WP:UNDUE does not apply and that mention of this incident is more than warranted TAG (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to look at every link here, but they seem to be hosted blogs or opinion columns. Many public figures generate a large amount of critical commentary. To pick a couple of random examples, one could compile a whole book of criticism of Betsy Devos or Eric Holder, but these articles mention those criticisms very sparingly, based on news stories in major sources which state something like "X has been criticized". In contrast, here we have criticism without independent RS coverage accounting for half of the section about her political activism. Eperoton (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While yes, some are opinion column, you do jump to the conclusion (because you aren't going to "look at every link here") that most of these links are opinion columns. They're not. Actually, a large amount aren't. Additionally, hosted blogs in RS publications, such as the Women in the World hosted blog of the NY Times[25] is generally considered an acceptable source. The restrictions on blog usage are to restrict criticisms from random joe-shmoe-nobody's personal blogspot posts.
I'm not saying it's appropriate to have an entire section on this issue, but it would be appropriate - given the weight of coverage - to have at least one line that says "Following the 2017 Woman's March she received sizable criticism over an obscene tweet made against Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali."TAG (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's the thing about the "obscene tweet", and it has to do with general BLP principles. What we have in those columns is spin about the tweet, without any fact-checking by RSs. Even my attempt to quote the tweet itself in a footnote in order to report facts rather than innuendo has been removed. Treating BLPs as a repository for criticism plucked directly from primary sources opens the door to any kind of false, libelous accusations. Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy? P.S. Just to be clear, I appreciate the efforts by you and other editors to arrive at a fair-minded summary of the primary sources, but I don't believe this is what we should be doing according to policy. Eperoton (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Armchair General: Sorry, I actually missed the first paragraph of your reply. Can you point me to the links which are RSs? Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RealClearPolitics[26],The Washington Times[27], Fox News[28], ABC Nyheter (Norwegian)[29], Independent Journal Review [30], Herald Sun[31].
Additionally, both the NY Times, The Christian Post[32], and This Daily Telegraph (Australia)[33] piece should go to RS board for review.TAG (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. None of this looks to me like independent newsroom coverage of criticism. The Fox News link is a summary of their own programming. The others appear to be opinion columns or media blogs. We should be especially cautious about sources that don't have a clear separation between news and commentary. Editorial control and reputation for fact-checking is the basis of reliability for news sources. For example, the Herald Sun piece is presented as news, but our article identifies Tim Blair as belonging to their opinion section. Ironically, the criticism that has the most going for it from a policy standpoint is the accusation that Sarsour is signaling support for ISIS when she raises her finger. It's covered by AP and Daniel Pipes' column gets weight from his academic credentials. In any case, I think we'd be both wasting our time by digging deeper into these minutia, at least unless my concerns get some traction here. Eperoton (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan Hirsi Ali

The opinion of Ayan Hirsi Ali is not exactly what I'd expect on the BLP of another person in a "criticism" section, cf. WP:BLP#Balance. For comparison, Cyndi Lauper's criticism of Madonna is unsuited for a Madonna BLP.[34] –2A03:2267:0:0:5482:DF43:D187:726 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a concern. At first I thought that tweet crossed the threshold of independent mainstream coverage on account of the NYT ref, but on closer inspection it seems to be a hosted blog of an organization called Women in the World. The organization is related to journalism, but its blog is not an established news outlet. I think we should quote the tweet itself, in preference for reporting facts rather than innuendo, but I would suggest moving it to a named footnote and placing Ali's name alongside the other two in the preceding sentence. Eperoton (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^.^b Resolved by you among others. OP: –2A03:2267:0:0:D554:BD9D:B9B5:805 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hosted blogs in RS publications, such as the Women in the World hosted blog of the NY Times[35] is generally considered an acceptable source. The restrictions on blog usage are to restrict criticisms from random personal blogs. Use of this as a source should probably best be taken up in the RS noticeboards TAG (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the policy says. Per WP:NEWSBLOG, "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." There's no evidence that NYT fact-checks this blog. I kept it because the organization has something to do with journalism, but we don't know who wrote the piece. The ref has since been removed. Eperoton (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically because it says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution" is why I feel that this source should go to the RS Noticeboard. TAG (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could take it to the noticeboard if there's an active dispute about it's reliability. I think it's ok for quoting a tweet, but I won't press this point, at least for now. My point in this section had to do with notability. Coverage in NYT would make a controversy notable in itself; coverage on this obscure blog does not. Eperoton (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reverted which repeats unreliably-sourced claims

I have reverted an edit which simply repeats poorly-sourced, polemic claims about Sarsour, based upon a source that simply lists those claims while noting that the evidence for them is flimsy at best. If the best sourcing for these claims that can be found is the far-right FrontPage and the certifiably-nonsense GatewayPundit, it doesn't belong in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you need a border-line conservative source, the Center for Security Policy is "relevant" (=WP page exists, described as "not very highly respected" by the BBC), and their publication See no Sharia ISBN 1530234336 also exists, available online as PDF, 272 pages, about 15 lines cover Linda Sarsour, incl. 7 lines quoting Linda Sarsour. –2A03:2267:0:0:E109:A231:1DCA:CA56 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your revert on the grounds that you've misunderstood/distorted the point of the article which wasn't to regurgitate but, in keeping with the raison d'etre/modus operandi of the website, verify the claims about Sarsour that have been made by those websites, which is why the authors state at the end of their article that they tried to contact her to ask her about the claims and, more importantly, noted that they did not receive a response [from, presumably, her]. Blagamaga (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it again on BLP grounds; the fact that they make no effort to investigate the veracity of the claims and simply end with "we haven't heard back from her" makes it nothing more than regurgitation. Do not reinsert it unless there's consensus on this page to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that sentence in full you would realize that: 1) their efforts to verify the claims is evidenced by their attempts to contact her via e-mail and Facebook and 2) your assertion that their statement of the fact (what incentive would they have to lie?) that they didn't hear back from her "makes it nothing more than regurgitation" just makes no sense at all. Be advised that your continued inability/refusal to understand this basic point will result in further action by me to move this content dispute upwards along the dispute resolution hierarchy. Blagamaga (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what one may think of reliability of this website, I see no indication that ignoring their query was a significant incident in Sarsour's biography. Eperoton (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true (perhaps you meant autobiography) but doesn't mean that it's not significant to her biography, much less her biographical account on Wikipedia. Blagamaga (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean biography as in WP:BLP. Whether or not it's significant depends on how much independent coverage in RSs it receives. If she pleaded the fifth it was reported in newspapers, that would be significant. If she didn't reply to an email, and no one but the folks who sent it seem to find it notable, that doesn't belong in a BLP. We wouldn't even report it if a major newspaper noted that someone didn't return their call. That's not news in itself, much less encyclopedic content. Eperoton (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Analytically, most of the content that's in the article hasn't received "much independent coverage in RSs" but that is not stopping us from thinking that the content is not insignificant (i.e. doesn't warrant removal) so what's the difference here? Blagamaga (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except for some criticism sourced from opinion columns, this article is based on independent coverage in RSs, as far as I can tell. If you ask me, using opinion columns for criticism directly is problematic for a policy standpoint, but many editors accept limited use of such sources, and on this point I go with whatever consensus happens to converge to in each case. Not replying to an email is a different category. Frankly, this is the first time I've seen anyone want to put such information into an article. Eperoton (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But you wrote that the significance of a piece of biographical content depends on how much independent coverage in RSs that it receives and not on whether or not it is "based on independent coverage in RSs" so the fact that you've written just that makes it seem as if you're agreeing with my argument that the main consideration in deciding what biographical content to include on the Wikipedia biographical page of a living person isn't/isn't just "how much independent coverage in RSs" that that content receives. But in any case (and for the sake of moving the discussion on), to be sure, the article isn't an "opinion column," it's a fact-finding article that is produced by a reliable source and the confluence of her political status, the gravity of the claims against her and the importance of the main article to the shaping of the public's opinion/debate about her makes her non-response to the claims a legitimate matter of public interest and therefore warrants inclusion in the article. Blagamaga (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in RSs is the main criterion for inclusion, per WP:NPOV. Some sources are reliable for facts and others only for opinions of their authors. Selecting sources from the latter category based not on independent coverage but rather on our own assessment of their significance in problematic per WP:NOR, but sometimes there is a good reason and consensus for some of these choices. I don't see a good reason for this particular proposal, nor a consensus for it. As I wrote above, the issue here is not even reliability of the source, but significance of Sarsour's non-response. Your assessment of its significance appears to be OR and it is not shared by other editors. Eperoton (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right to exist

I have reverted an edit which reinserted the weasel-worded claim that "others have stated that Sarsour denies Israel's right to exist." We have a reliable source in which Sarsour is directly quoted as stating that Israel has a right to exist; this places a high bar for the inclusion of claims to the contrary. The cited source for the claim includes no evidence that it is Sarsour's viewpoint nor any direct quote in which she makes such a statement;, but rather makes a bald factual assertion unsupported by anything. Thus, at best, we must include the contrary claim only as a cited opinion of the source's author, not as a weasel-worded unnamed "others say" — and frankly, I would oppose even that inclusion, on the grounds that it places undue weight on a highly-contentious negative claim not apparently supported by the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three sources in the topic above, and you have seen that, so I am not sure why you say there is only one source.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you believe "The Washington Standard" is a reliable source, because it's not remotely one; moreover, the article you cite is a reposted opinion piece by Pamela Geller, a right-wing political pundit who self-published it on her own website, thus also failing reliable sourcing standards. The algemeiner source is similarly an opinion piece by someone widely viewed as a right-wing Islamophobe, and nowhere does the opinion piece state that "Linda Sarsour denied Israel's right to exist;" so I'm not sure why you believe it supports the claim you're making. If you disagree, please provide the line in the opinion which supports the claim that Sarsour denies Israel's right to exist.
The broader problem is that you're not finding dispassionate news stories by mainstream publications, you're finding thinly-veiled hitpieces published by fake news sites and right-wing commentators. Meanwhile, the Associated Press specifically reported one month ago that Sarsour's acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist ... earned her criticism by some Islamists as a self-aggrandizing “house Arab. The weight given to a right-wing political pundit's clearly-biased commentary on a person they politically oppose is not the same as the weight given to a reported news story by a mainstream media organization. We are not a site for republication of political hit-jobs by a person's political opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you stopped describing every website/article/person/opinion that you just happen to not like as "unreliable," "hit job/pieces," "fake news sites," "right-wing" and "Islamophobe." It won't lead to constructive edits on the main article, it's not going to make people who disagree with you inclined to engage constructively with you and it just makes you sound desperate to puff up her biography. Blagamaga (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to make the case on WP:RSN that "The Washington Standard" (an obvious fake news site) is a reliable source, I invite you to open a discussion there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who is making that accusation so I'd strongly advise you to take yourself up on that invitation. Blagamaga (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, I've reinstated a narrower and more precise version of the criticism that you've removed ([36]); two other editors have already allowed the inclusion of this kind of criticism ([37] and [38])and at any rate it is what you also allowed too in your edits ([39], [40] and [41]) until you inexplicably changed your position on this issue from at least the 26th of February. Do not revert this edit as there's already been 4 (including you) editors who have okayed the original version of the edit that I've reinstated. Blagamaga (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Serious WP:WEASEL and BLP issues here that should be resolved before restoring, not by edit warring. We have a direct quote saying one thing, and a single, context-free sentence stating as fact the exact opposite. We cannot just leave it hanging like this. Just saying that "it has been alleged" without going into any details is very messy. Linking all these in a chain like this is WP:SYNTH, as well. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting a compromise on how the text should be edited, it would help if you proposed what changes you have in mind on here first instead of just blindly and one-sidedly reverting my edits as you did here [42]. Blagamaga (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what I did, and everybody else can see the article history as well. The burden is on you to include this quote and to provide context which explains the conflict. The talk page is the place to do that, not the article. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already have (3 users including NorthBySouthBaranof had already okayed the original version of the edit that I had reinstated before you decided to engage in your mindless edit warring). Blagamaga (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, "mindless". I don't agree with that interpretation at all, so why don't you hold off and wait until a more clear consensus emerges. Going through my recent history and reverting my edits to totally unrelated article appears to be WP:POINTed behavior, and is not productive. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you don't/won't but that's because my legitimate (and courteous) revert of your revert ([43]) has subsequently mysteriously led you to edit my edits in paroxysms of rage. If there's some substantive point/argument that relates to the content dispute at hand that you'd like to make, then do so; otherwise you're just stalling for time while pretending to take the high ground. Put up or shut up: it's that simple. Blagamaga (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the aforementioned conversation/debate I propose that the following sentences:

"Sarsour does not support either Hamas or the Palestinian authority and has expressed support for Israel's right to exist, but also believes in nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israel.[10] She has been described as a proponent of the BDS movement,[22] but Sarsour has said that she supports the right of Israel to exist.[10]"

Be combined into this:

Sources have variously described Sarsour as holding contrasting positions on the question of Israel's right of existence ([44], [45], [46], [47]) a proponent of the BDS movement (cite to existing sources) and a supporter of nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israel (cite to existing sources). Blagamaga (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Paroxysms of rage" would be a pretty good band name, I wonder if it's already taken. That's not going to work. Sources do not describe her as holding contrasting positions, you are describing her that way based mainly on one specific outlet. That's WP:OR. An op-ed which calls her a "Jew hater" is not a usable source for statements of fact about her, either. We have multiple sources saying that she supports Israel's right to exist, and one which says she doesn't and provides no other context. Without something else to support/explain this, it just flat-out doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) Blagamaga (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a sidenote you are one tricky guy/gal/dicky/dick not only did you revert this poor bastard's edits with the comment of "Revert non-neutral changes from WP:COI editor" ([48]) you're also the same person who welcomed that editor to Wikipedia! ([49]) What you've just done is kind of the social equivalent of rape by deception, but seeing as how you're really good at doing what you do, why not put your energy to good use, get off Wikipedia and join the CIA? Blagamaga (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent interview, Ms. Sarsour confirmed to the Nation maginize, and the Nation published her confirmation, which resolves the above dispute[1]. Ms. Sarsour does not support the existence of a Jewish state of Israel. The prior source that NorthBySouthBaranof has been relying upon is an anti-Israel activist site which essentially says that she supports Israel's right to exist as a critique of her. The Nation is a more reliable source, it is more recent, and it avoids any ambiguity as to what was meant in the prior interview. The current article is inaccurate, which is problematic for a BLP. Jonmayer18 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have two sources for her support of Israel's right to exist -- a direct quote and a statement of fact from AP which is not attributed to any activist site. Where does she say in the Nation interview "I do not support the existence of a Jewish state of Israel"? We can refine her position on this issue, but our formulation needs to have direct support in RSs. Eperoton (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest to refine? The direct quote is from a non-reliable source that seems to be an attempt to ATTACK her for supporting Israel (or giving in to pressure from the mainstream). As for the AP article, it's unattributed and pre-dates the Nation article. Bottom line: the NYT published an article questioning whether a vocal critic of Israel, but not other countries, is standing up for women in light of the success of women in Israel compared to other countries. Ms. Sarsour sat for an interview with the Nation in response and the interviewor's headline is: you can't be a feminist and a Zionist. This clearly relates to her "support" for Israel's right to exist. Not sure why we need a "direct" statement when the only prior RS is an indirect statement. We are not supposed to be doing original research anyways.Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what universe is NY1, a major news station in the largest city in the United States, a "non-reliable source"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonmayer18: AP is a RS for facts, and we use their statement of fact. NY1 reported a direct quote from Sarsour, and it's a RS for that quote. Both are used verbatim, and there's no OR involved. In contrast, the rest of your comment above involves inferences that would violate WP:OR. If we have a more nuanced description of Sarsour's position from a RS, we can use that too, but without OR. Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: I'm ok trying to nuance the issue based on the Nation interview and the other interviews you've cited (although I don't think its an inference that someone with such firm anti-Zionist views would be opposed to a Jewish State of Israel, but I trust wikipedia readers to understand that). (Sorry my comment above related to the prior citation to Ikhras, which I did not think was reliable. Yes, AP and NY1 are reliable, although in this case I think the positions they identify I believe have been superceded.Jonmayer18 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonmayer18: I think we've taken the currently available sources on this issue about as far as they allow us to go without OR. We've already summarized the actual statement about feminism and Zionism from the Nation. I happen to think it's likely that Sarsour's vision of one state solution is incompatible with Israel retaining its status of a Jewish state. If she states so explicitly in a future interview, we can reflect that, but we can't edit based on such inferences. Eperoton (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely incorrect. This biography currently cites an indisputable reliable source in which Sarsour is directly quoted as stating that she supports Israel's right to exist. Please direct me to the statement in a reliable source where she says Israel does not have a right to exist. Her expressed opposition to certain interpretations of Zionism does not constitute a statement that she does not believe Israel should exist; that is your personal interpretation of her statement and editors' personal opinions have no bearing on what we write in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Northbysouth I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you will have to accept that Linda Sarsour does not believe in a Jewish state in historical Palestine. She has referred to Zionism as "creepy" and she gave an interview with the Nation where she said that a feminist, such as herself, cannot also be a Zionist. Are you doubting the headline of the Nation article or are you saying that someone can oppose Zionism but support the existence of the Jewish State of Israel? If your POV is the latter, please explain. Zionism was and is the political movement for a Jewish state in historical Palestine/Israel (although not necessarily in ALL of that territory). It has many opponents and they all deserve to be treated fairly. It is fair--not POV--to say that an opponent of Zionism opposes the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Indeed, from an Arab Palestinian's perspective, its quite understandable. I don't see why youd want to hide it. Lets square away this difference.Jonmayer18 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not under any obligation to explain my POV, because my POV isn't an issue here. You don't have a reliable source that says she doesn't believe Israel has the right to exist, and to the contrary, we have at least two reliable sources in which she is either quoted as saying Israel has the right to exist or it is stated as a fact. That's the end of the story here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No talking on the talk page? Whatever the basis was for the AP article (I assume that's your "indisputable" RS, not News NY1), it pre-dates the Nation interview. I don't know what changed her mind, but if you want to talk through the steps of her political development I suppose thats ok. I think we need to cover her position accurately, not politically.Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for your preconceived desires, Sarsour does not say in the Nation interview that she doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist. You cannot invent words she does not say or twist statements into other meanings merely because you want to depict Sarsour in a certain manner. Conservapedia may allow you to do that, so that might be a better place for you to participate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your past editorial history demonstrates that you have had issues with properly citing reliable sources and with misrepresenting those sources as relates to people who have expressed opposition to Israeli policies. @Malik Shabazz: has discussed this with you previously, and I suggest that before throwing yourself into another such issue, you educate yourself on our foundational content policies relating to living people, verifiability, reliable sourcing, original research and synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the situation with Malik Shabazz, I had cited an article within an RS but he dug into the citations within the article and had a good argument that the article itself was inaccurate on the relevant point. His tone and demeanor were inappropriate however. He was removed as an admin after he apparently, among other things, told other people to "suck [his] dick" and referred to a user as a "Jewboy". This merited removal for cause. I believe there may be some other sanctions. I have never been called a conservative in my life and you don't know my desires. I would ask you to please read The Wikipedia policy on [personal attacks] Jonmayer18 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are being rude and resorting to ad hominen attacks. Malik was removed as an admin i believe, so I'm not sure whether my dispute with him really supports you. As you seem to have forgotten, I built out this article with many points about Sarsour, including that she worked to secure two Muslim holidays for NYC school district. I'm familiar with and I have read all the policies you cited. Have you? As to the point at hand: The Nation article is an RS, it is not original research, can be verified by clicking on it and it indeed says that Sarsour is opposed to Zionism being part of the feminist movement, of which she is a leader. I gather you don't see a quote from her, but the AP article does not have a quote either. There is a prior quote where she calls Zionism, "creepy" and "racist"[2]. I think that twitter cite is ambiguous and of course it is original research, but perhaps is assuages your concern with accuracy. Assuming you aren't just opposing my edits on personal grounds or out of loyalty to Malik Shabazz, how about these changes in asterisks.
She **has stated that she** supports Israel's right to exist,[18][10] and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all."[10] Sarsour has been described as a proponent of the BDS movement.[19] **She has questioned whether Zionists can be feminists**.[cite]
If the scope of our disagreement is whether someone can oppose zionism and believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, its not so terrible. Its just an article.Jonmayer18 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thenation.com/article/can-you-be-a-zionist-feminist-linda-sarsour-says-no/
  2. ^ https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/263651398250545152?lang=en

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Template:Formerly

69.124.66.136 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what you want to change.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel right to exist revision.

I really really really don't want to get into a Israel-Palestine argument with anyone but I'm gonna put this out there. I think that this statement, on the article, needs to be revised: "She supports Israel's right to exist, and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all."

From my understanding, based off of commentary from many experts on the demographics of the region, a "one-state" solution is in fact a de facto end to Israel's existence!? I'm not sure what the best rewording would be. TAG (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can only reflect assertions explicitly stated in RSs, which the passage you quote appears to do. Making article changes based on inferences like the one you suggest would violate WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion you appear to be attempting to draw is your original synthesis of two separate ideas, and that is explicitly not what Wikipedia is about. That she supports Israel's right to exist and prefers a particular political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian question are not inherently mutually exclusive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying toWP:SYN. It just appears (from my understanding of the general consensus view on this issue) that these views are conflicting in nature and perhaps that should be noted. However, I'm not trying to make waves, I will back off from my suggestion for revision. TAG (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for Jihad

Grayfell, I noticed you accused me of "misrepresenting the source to make a political point" in this reversion. If we could assume good faith for a moment, let's take a look at the source: "Activist Linda Sarsour, co-chair of the 2017 women's march against Donald Trump, called for a "jihad" against the president at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) convention in Chicago over the weekend." That's the very first sentence of the non-partisan RealClearPolitics piece. Mind explaining the rationale behind your claim and edit a bit more, please? Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit emphasized the most incendiary part of a newspaper article without bothering to include the larger context. This isn't a newspaper article, this is an encyclopedia. We don't pick what has the most punch, and we sure as hell don't ignore the rest. We try to include context and nuance in deference to BLP. As an experienced editor you should know that already. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article literally led with the fact that Sarsour called for Jihad against the POTUS. Journalists tend to lead with the most important part of the story, unless he/she tries to bury the lead by putting information that does not advance his/her preferred narrative near the end of the article or further back in the newspaper. Just to be clear, you are opposed to the phrase "called for Jihad," when the source says "called for Jihad." Do I have that right? Perhaps we could work together to ensure that the sources are represented accurately while maintaining neutrality, instead of accusing each other of bad faith and patronizing our fellow editors. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RCP piece isn't non-partisan and it's not a newspaper article -- it's a media blog by a former Breitbart editor. In any case, there's enough press coverage of these statements to support a clear presentation of what she actually said rather than just how it was spun left and right. Eperoton (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it's not a huge deal for me. I just don't appreciate false accusations in people's reversions. Not really helpful to fostering a collaborative environment. Maybe someone will do a RfC down the line regarding the wording. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AGF doesn't mean ignore POV. The Washington Post article supports that the only reason this is significant is because Breitbart and their colleagues flip-out whenever they hear the word 'jihad'. Even Breitbart acknowledges that she didn't in any way call for violence, so... why does this matter? There's nothing here other than spin. The comments were from a routine speaking engagement, and would otherwise not be worthy of any mention at all. The Washington Post article clearly explains that the speech "at first gained little attention". She used a word that her political opponents don't like and refuse to understand. If we provide enough context to explain this, it's likely going to be undue, but if we don't, it's a BLP violation. That seems like a good sign this is the usual political farting and outrage culture, and should just be removed until more substantial sources come along. If we are going to include it, we need to provide context. Not optional. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, if it weren't for her encouragement to wage Jihad against the United States government, the speech wouldn't have been notable. But she did, so here we are. No matter how we feel about the word's evolution, it carries a far different connotation today than it did on September 10, 2001. This isn't my personal view - it's a demonstrable fact. Left-wing blogs and newspapers (Salon, WaPo, NYT, etc.) are defending Sarsour as well as Islam in general, while independent and right-wing outlets (RCP, Daily Caller, Breitbart) are criticizing Sarsour. Sarsour is presently defending her remarks on Twitter, and attacking her critics at regular intervals. Whether or not this incident should be a significant part of Sarsour's life is irrelevant - it is significant. And there is context. I included Sarsour's denial that she was calling for violent Jihad, rather than peaceful Jihad. But as I said, it's not a huge deal at least on my end, and I see other editors are already modifying my first draft which is great. I was just a bit taken aback by a stranger on the Internet suddenly accusing me of bad intentions, as I assume I'm here for the same reason that you are: to improve and expand the encyclopedia. Cheers. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subtle. If you want to dismiss reliable "Left-wing blogs and newspapers" and defend sources you obviously already agree with ("...encouragement to wage Jihad against the United States government") as being "independent and right-wing outlets", than you're not approaching this neutrally. I'm not accusing you of bad intentions, I'm saying that your edit was not acceptable because it misrepresented sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that in contention? Sarsour used the term Jihad, but she claims that she did not mean violence. I don't think any RS are saying that she didn't use the word Jihad or reference the White House/federal government. I switched up my language out of style, not "agreement." I find writing to be more interesting when the same terms are not used repeatedly - but I have no opinion of the content of Ms. Sarsour's speech. I have no problem saying that left-wing outlets defend Sarsour, while right-wing blogs and newspapers criticize Sarsour. My main point is that it's become a huge story for the media all over the political spectrum, emphasizing its notability. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point, still. Slicing them into ideologies without regard for how reliable they are, and trying to present both 'sides' as relevant or somehow equivalent, is not appropriate. This is false balance, and again, you have very obviously chosen a side here. The way you've framed this content and attempted to frame this discussion favors unreliable sources and tabloid-like language over BLP compliant content.
She never "claimed" she didn't mean violence, she didn't mean violence as the preceding context very fully shows. She went out of her way to establish that jihad meant something completely unrelated to violence. Where, other than the great right-wing flip-out, is the word "wage" used? It's loaded language selected for emotional impact. This behavior isn't Wikipedia's problem, but it's not something we should take seriously, either. She was using a word to a Muslim audience that actually understood what the word meant. Wikipedia should advocate for information and literacy, so we should also attempt to use the word correctly, and shouldn't validate gossip or similar outrage-driven pandering. Grayfell (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I started outlining the laundry list of reasons why The Washington Post and The New York Times are not reliable, I wound up over on the AE board so maybe we could chat about that on my talk page. The word "wage" is not used in liberal outlets, only on conservative outlets (or "right-wing flip-out", as you prefer to call them). This information is reflected in the material. As WP:RS dictates, biased sources are very much usable, so long as they put in the proper context. But I agree that we shouldn't use wage in the article. It seems to make people very angry, indicating that it's NPOV language. I'm happy with the material as is. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on anti-Semitism

I've again removed a paragraph citing two primary sources to contrast Sarsour's statements on anti-Semitism[50] with an opinion writer's response to them.[51] This kind of material is WP:UNDUE unless reliable, secondary sources have commented on the exchange specifically – such sources are needed to maintain an impartial perspective, per WP:BALANCE. The phrase "mendacious claim" also runs afoul of WP:BLPSTYLE, unless once again specifically quoted in secondary sources. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust survivors

This is not "guilt by association" since she supports BDS and works with Rasmea Odeh (those are the main concerns of the survivors). It's definitely not "undue" since letter to New York Governor is notable and supported by a reliable secondary source (Jpost is a known newspaper). I would say anything that involves 100 Holocaust survivors is notable enough to be mentioned. You can write Linda's supporters response (if there's any), but you won't remove this sourced content just because it's inconvenient for certain political agenda.--Chupamus Vergus (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's very little in reliable sources to support a significant "association" between Sarsour and Odeh, so it's WP:UNDUE to make reference to it here, at least without more than a single biased source to back out up. The Jerusalem Post being a "known newspaper" is irrelevant – not everything published in any newspaper is suitable for an encyclopedia. And the Holocaust and its surviving victims are scarcely pertinent to this biography – Sarsour is not directly connected to anything related to the Holocaust. The relevant policy is WP:BLPSTYLE – the material and source paint Sarsour in an unduly critical light, and therefore should not be included without more thorough sourcing to back up the noteworthiness of this event. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has been opened at the BLP noticeboard on this issue.[52] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who made this edit, based on consensus reached in BLP?--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Sangdeboeuf, why do you think letter by Holocaust survivors doesn't deserve at least a sentence? What is your objection based on Wikipedia's policy?--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated my objections at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Linda Sarsour. Discussion should take place there to avoid duplicate discussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't raised a logical concern based on policy explaining why the letter shouldn't be mentioned at all. I understand if you don't want to dedicate an entire paragraph to it, that's why you trimmed the letter to a single sentence. But to remove it completely is not acceptable.--Twodayslate 66 (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the burden to achieve consensus is on those seeking​ to include disputed material, not those seeking to remove it. Please make an argument for inclusion at the BLP noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: User:Twodayslate 66 has been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic archiving

Since this page has grown far beyond the recommended size of 75K, I've added automatic archiving to the page. Feel free to adjust the parameters or remove the archive bot if unwanted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

I've placed a good deal of material from other sections under § Controversies, because a variety of secondary sources explicitly refer to "controversy" or "criticism" of Sarsour's words and deeds. My goal is not for this section to be a dumping ground for criticism of Sarsour. As other users have noted,[53][54] BLPs are not for recording everything ever said about a person, and should especially avoid cherry-picked opinions and quotes. As long as we only cite reliable sources that explicitly comment on "controversies" from a disinterested perspective, then we will continue to build a quality encyclopedia article, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my edit referencing Sarsour tweet on Sharia law

Sangdeboeuf, you are removing edits which simply contain the subject's own words. You are manifestly not "disinterested" in the subject. I have repeatedly tried to put a controversial tweet by Sarsour (which she has acknowledged making) into the article. My sources are called unreliable because they are deemed "conservative." No one has directed me to Wikipedia's list of acceptable liberal sources. Wikipedia's own article page on my source CNSNews.com states nothing deeming it unacceptable or tabloid. Indeed, it points out that it was started by Brent Bozell -- have you read the Wikipedia on him? His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, and National Review. He is a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular on television news shows. Rather than undoing my edit -- simply a tweet from the subject herself -- why not ADD the liberal source you find acceptable. Good luck with building your "quality encyclopedia article." Christian B Martin (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to propose on WP:RSN that a right-wing house organ run explicitly as a right-wing platform may be used to support claims about a living person who is opposed by that ideology, but I don't think you'll find a different answer. We are not about finding "liberal" sources to balance "conservative" sources, we are about writing neutral, balanced and fairly-written articles based on independent reliable sources, written with an eye toward sensitivity, an avoidance of tabloid tawdriness and a sense of humanity toward our article subjects. We are not here to regurgitate or feed partisan media frenzies of any particular sort, and taking tweets out of context is a classic example of such. To say that Sarsour adheres to sharia in her personal life is supportable by the sources. To suggest or intimate that she wants to impose sharia as civil law is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the material here that was sourced only to Snopes.com. Since that site chooses its topics based on urban legends, pseudoscience, gossip, and rumors (often for the purpose of debunking them), anything sourced solely to it is definitely WP:UNDUE for a biography, in my opinion. The conservative style required per WP:BLP necessitates removing the material until better sources are found. The Women in the World piece is probably a good place to start (and yes, I know that it cites the Snopes article – it's more reliable because it adds another layer of verification of the content in question). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea that we should be looking for "neutral" sources. Neutrality is a concept that WP:NPOV applies to behavior of WP editors rather than sources (plus, in this day and age of US politics there are hardly any sources considered neutral across the political spectrum). WP:BIASED sources may be reliable for facts, or a source may be reliable only for the author's viewpoints. The key concept per WP:V is "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", which may be academic, institutional, or professional. Per WP:NEWSORG, "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. "News reporting" is a key phrase, which refers to the traditional institutional separation of the newsroom and OpEd departments. CNSNews.com seems to have that separation, though I think the jury is out as to whether it's a "well-established news outlet". WP:BURDEN "to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", which includes reliability. There should be very good reasons for using a source that's not reliable for facts in a BLP, even with attribution -- for example, if the criticism can be shown to be WP:DUE because it's covered as news by independent RSs. Eperoton (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More important than using neutral sources is using mainstream sources, which may or may not be neutral on a given topic. However, where reliable sources disagree, we should cite other, secondary or tertiary sources that comment on the disagreement from a disinterested perspective, per WP:BALANCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is disinterested if it isn't another word for neutral? We should cite them, of course, or rather we "should like" to cite them. I fear we ain't gonna find them on this topic, however. Eperoton (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism section

I think this article needs some of its content from the section on controversy moved to a new section called criticism, with additional details. This person has been criticized by many notable public figures, including Sam Harris and Courtney Love. Additionally, the tone of the whole article seems very defensive, and it needs a review by a senior editor. On the talk page, too, at least two editors seem to have personal connections with this person who are refusing to consider or are outright twisting criticism by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CRITICISM - separate "criticism" sections are deprecated because they essentially create a WP:POVFORK within a given article. Critical and supportive views should be balanced within each section the article in accordance with their prominence in reliable sources. That a singer and actress has criticized someone is not necessarily worthy of inclusion. As for the claim that anyone here has a personal connection with the article subject, you need to support that claim with evidence presented on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard or withdraw it as casting aspersions on other editors is strictly prohibited. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of the editors I mentioned. Calling someone a singer as if to dismiss their views is offensive. Sam Harris is a noted public intellectual. I gave a partial list because this article is close for editing and there is no way to edit it, but there are many prominent public figures who have criticized her views and it is important to mention them here to make the article more diverse. I object to you and another editor dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as vandals. I stand by my view that the tone of this article is very defensive, and an explanation is provided for everything someone has said about her or every time she has done something distasteful, as if to protect her from being depicted as negative. I think it is against editorial neutrality to protect someone's image on Wikipedia. I repeat that this article needs a review from a senior editor to protect it from clearly biased people like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You either need to present evidence for your claim at the appropriate noticeboard or withdraw it and apologize to me. Of course, you have no evidence because it's patently false. Making wild, unsupported and false allegations about other editors is strictly prohibited as a personal attack. If you continue, I will request that you be administratively sanctioned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am presenting arguments. Your threat for sanction says more about you than what I am interested in discussing, which is neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to engage with an editor who makes malicious, false statements about me. Nor am I required to. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "explanation provided" alongside criticism of Sarsour comes directly from the cited sources. To cherry-pick the criticism and leave out the response would violate Wikipedia's policy of neutrality – specifically, the requirements of due weight. This is not about "protecting someone's image", but about adhering to Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons, which must be written fairly, cautiously, and with awareness of potential harm to the subject from published claims about them. Criticism of a person is not appropriate unless reported on by a reliable, secondary source.
Why anyone would conclude that the article is overly favorable to Sarsour is baffling to me – criticism from several people, including columnist and editor Emily Shire, leaders of the ADL, and other Jewish leaders, is presented without comment. If anything, there's currently too much focus on criticism of Sarsour, but that is what the available sources choose to report. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sangdeboeuf, I do understand your point, and please assume that I am only interested in improving the article. Regarding my view of it being defensive, here is one example: There is currently a section in the article on her views about Israel-Palestine conflict which begins with what she has stated about it. Another widely discussed current topic, especially here in the US where this subject lives, is immigration and assimilation. Is it unreasonable to expect something about her own views on Sharia law (not what Ayaan says about it which is currently what appears) which she has defended multiple times? Especially when such statements have led to notable people such as Sam Harris accusing this person of being divisive? Is this irrelevant?

I will chime in, part of the problem is you have made no substantive suggestions (until now) beyond "I want to see criticism of her". So it might help matter if you provide.
A. Some actual text you want to add
B. The source you wish to use to support it.
As an example, you have provided no sources for the claim Ms Sarsour supports Sharia law, which you want to see criticized. The problem here are that
1> As far as I can tell we do not yet mention he views, so there is no need to have a criticism of them.
2> You have provided no evidence for what her views are.
3> You have provided no evidence as to what Mr Harris has said about it.
4> You have no demonstrated this is a noteworthy or major controversy.
You need to provide more then just a list of demands, you need to make an argument based upon reliable sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above points. What is relevant is determined by how much coverage something has received in reliable sources, per the Neutral point of view policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have now provided specific changes with evidence in the three sections below.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia law

No we cannot call her a sharia law advocate, we might be able to say "she has been called a sharia law advocate".Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC) And we do say just this in the article, so what needs to be changed?Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This person has been called a Sharia Law advocate, so it should be mentioned in general, not just something on Ayaan has accused her of. The following references call her Sharia defender or pro-Sharia law-- [1][2][3]The article currently mentions Ayaan Harsi Ali calling her a "sharia defender" based on an NY times article but doesn't mention that very same reference which adds "As to the accusations that Sarsour is a defender of Sharia law, the fact-checking website Snopes looked into the claims last week and found that Sarsour has indeed posted messages on Twitter that seem to take a defensive stance about Sharia law. Snopes’ calls to Sarsour seeking clarification have not been returned.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I( fail to see what you are trying to used Snopes for, we do not use Snoopes an an authoritative site. We can change the text to read "she has been describes as an advocate of Sharia law". But then we also need to add her responses to these other claims.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article calls her a defender quoting Ayaan but it should also say advocate based on my citations.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your suggested text?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of Israel piece you cite is unacceptable for use in the biography of a living person, because it's an opinion column with zero fact-checking; please read the top of the column, which says quite clearly, This post has been contributed by a third party. The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post. By the post's own admission, it has not been fact-checked or edited by a third party at all; this means it's not even useful as a WP:NEWSBLOG, because zero editorial controls have been applied to it. It fails our requirements as an independent reliable source.
I'm not aware that "Israel National News" (an apparently-strident Religious Zionism media outlet) is a reliable source here; it's a debate worth having, but we shouldn't be citing specifically-partisan media outlets for claims of fact about living people they oppose. In-text attribution is probably fine.
We need to be quite clear and precise about what Sarsour has said and has not said. She has said that she adheres to principles of Sharia in her own life; I don't see any reliable sources cited which say that she's an "advocate" for making Sharia part of American civil law. She has certainly discussed Sharia principles on Twitter, in an apparent effort to educate people as to what it means and does not mean, and how she believes the public image of Sharia has been twisted both by Islamophobes and by extremist Muslims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think then we can add her own comments, and then something about the reaction to them (sourced to RS).Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Personally, I was OK with the previous version, Sarsour adheres to Islamic religious law, or sharia, in her personal life. Sarsour has discussed the meanings and values associated with Sharia, including varying interpretations of the code's requirements, her acknowledgment that some Muslims have used it to oppress others, and what she views as public misconceptions of its tenets. Somali-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali criticized Sarsour as a "defender of sharia law." It succinctly and factually sums up what her tweets and comments about sharia directly say, and then includes an opinion statement that she is a "defender of sharia law." We can let readers decide at that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could change "Somali-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali" to "critics".Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, how about "critics, including Somali-born activist," because that way we do identify at least one specific person holding that viewpoint and don't just genericize it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd avoid saying "critics" unless a reliable source explicitly refers to criticism by more than one person. That seems like obvious editorial synthesis to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both Fox and Israel national news call here that, so maybe just at an attribution to them as well?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. If we quote Fox and INN, then why stop there? Why not find out what Stormfront and Infowars have to say about it? Any such criticism needs a reliable, secondary source to support it, otherwise BLPs would just be a morass of conflicting opinions, where the most strident ones inevitably take up the most space. That doesn't serve the interests of an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because Stormfront and Infowars is not RS. If Fox says it, we can quote it, even though you don't like Fox. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how reliable sourcing works. There's no test that marks a given publication (like Fox) "reliable" for everything. context matters in gauguing reliability in particular cases, and the burden to achieve consensus is on the person(s) seeking to include the material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Observer reports: "Sarsour has noted on Twitter that sharia law also forbids the charging of interest on loans, and that Saudi Arabia has a generous paid leave policy for new mothers." A lot more information on this issue in that article. [4] I don't think there is any dispute that she supports Sharia Law, no matter how one wishes to explain it away. Icantevennnnn (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "supports Sharia Law" is a non-sequitur. Supports it how? The source doesn't say and it references claims by "the right-wing Clarion Project think tank," which we aren't going to give credence to here. The only statement of fact the article makes about Sarsour's views is that Sarsour has noted on Twitter that sharia law also forbids the charging of interest on loans, and that Saudi Arabia has a generous paid leave policy for new mothers. If you want to include that particular quote from The Observer, I'm fine with that. We're not going to leave readers with the impression that Sarsour supports imposing Islamic law on the United States (or anywhere else) because that's not supported by the sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the new topic, if she has said "I support sharia law" we can include that, would anyone care to provide a link to her actually saying this?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a devout Muslim she supports sharia law (e.g. in her personal life, as a choice by Muslims, etc. - there are sources for this I believe) - that's not the "question" here - but rather does she support the imposition of sharia law on non-Muslims. She has spoken out against banning Sharia law (local initiatives). I don't believe she ever called for the imposition of sharia law or the forced conversion of non-Muslims to Islam explicitly. These are, I believe, inferences or speculations regarding her unstated position on the matter - though there have been quite a few people making these inferences (her organizational association (again - possibly disputed) with the wider Muslim Brotherhood lends some credence to these inferences, however Western wings on the Muslim Brotherhood have avoided staking out such wide claims - focusing more on the current minority situation of Muslims in the west. In Muslim countries the brotherhood does support Sharia law I believe). So wording her would have to be careful - though I do think attributing this to someone / some groups (e.g. X/Y/Z have claimed she supports the imposition of Sharia law) would be in place (given the amount of said allegations/speculations).Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is a BLP, as such we must be very careful what accusations to include (this applies to any material that can be seen as negative). We would need some pretty spectacular sources (I.E. people) saying this. It is not good enough for it to have been published (even in an RS). I has to be one step above "just RS".Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Israeli"

We need ore then mone source, we have to establish this is a noteworthy controversy,and I do not think that just saying "throw rocks at cars" is important enough to include. I would rather then was rather more then name calling. Also+ we can only call her (and we must attribute this) to what RS say, so if an RS just says "she has said nasty things about Israel" we cannot say she is anti-Israeli.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you move the above as a reply to my comment (as it was posted after).Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel National News calls her anti-Israel [5] She has also been accused, by a Democratic New York State Assemblyman, of saying that throwing rocks at cars in Israel is a good thing [6] This has also been said by a third party: "Sarsour once praised Arab stone-throwers in Judea and Samaria, calling their attacks 'The definition of courage'. She also expressed her disgust for Zionism, calling it 'creepy', and dismissed anti-Semitism, saying it doesn’t 'exactly compare' with Islamophobia."[7] More on this: "This April, Sarsour drew further criticism after she shared the stage with Rasmea Odeh, the (Redacted). During the April 2nd event in Chicago with Odeh, (Redacted), saying she was 'honored and privileged to be here in this space, and honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.'"[8]
She has also expressed opinion that Zionism and feminism are incompatible. Sarsour said to The Nation, “It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ [9][10]
This issue drew so much criticism that noted female actress Mayim Bialik of The Big Bang Theory show, who is Jewish, wrote a whole post about it.[11]Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What some actress thinks is irrelevant, we do not quote celebrity opinion. Also we do not engage in Synthesis, cannot say because she says X that means she is Y. Nor can we say she is X because person B called her so. We can only say "person B has called her X".Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also why is the opinion of some New York State Assemblyman important, who is he?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to make it clear that these are not her words, but are all words that Israel National News claims she has said. And praising bombers does not make her anti-Israeli so that is an irrelevance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Israel National News is a strident Religious Zionism news outlet; we ought to use it here with care if at all, perhaps only with in-text attribution. It would be like using Media Matters for America to source facts about Donald Trump.
As Slatersteven said, the application of a contentious appellation such as "anti-Israeli" needs far more sourcing than that to be stated in Wiki-voice rather than as the opinion of certain people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go further than in-text attribution and say that criticism should only be included if reported on by a reliable secondary source; see my comment below under "Courtney Love". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this count? [12] I think two things are clear. This person has been involved in anti-Israel gestures and rhetoric. And she has, multiple times, not only defended Sharia Law as being a reasonable thing that has been misunderstood but presented it as a better alternative to American capitalism. The question is how we include such information without seeming like it is biased towards her. Icantevennnnn (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either of those things you claim are "clear." Some people have accused her of being "anti-Israel," but opposing certain political policies of Israel does not make her objectively "anti-Israel," any more than Ted Cruz's opposition to the Affordable Care Act (a political policy of America) makes Cruz "anti-American." It is an opinion, and nothing more.
We can say that Sarsour has noted that Sharia prohibits interest. That she's "presented it as a better alternative to American capitalism" is original synthesis of a few tweets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about Algemeiner Journal? [13]. One has to understand that a minor activist like Sarsour being anti-israel will be a primary interest to mainly Jewish centered publications. Just because the NY times refuses to say anything about it, doesn't mean it never happened. This is a legitimate publication, check its Wiki entry. Icantevennnnn (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You should check out the NPOV policy, specifically WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which requires us to attribute statements of opinion. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. The claim that someone is "anti-Israel" is inherently opinionated and unless it's self-professed, we must attribute the claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it is right now, I feel like the real policy is to ignore everything that comes from Israel or Jew-centered news source and conservative news source. Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The the real policy is we do not put words into peoples mouths, we attribute it to the person who made the calim.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sources: [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. It really should be controversial that she is pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist (or anti-Israel), and pro-BDS. Linking her directly to Hamas is more tricky (Members of her family are clearly linked. She is clearly under the the "wide umbrella" of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas is the brotherhood's Palestine branch)) - and requires sourcing. But anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian (two sides of the same coin)? She's been identified as such from the get go - from her earliest days in activism - before taking the national stage.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC) And a few things she said - [61] [62] (interview with her in summer 2014 - during the latest Gaza war) [63] [64].Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if she had been "identified as such" we must attribute it, or at least make it clear (assuming it is a wide enough held view) that she has not in fact admitted it (thus this means we cannot put it in Wikipedia voice). We can say "she has been called anti-Israeli", we cannot say "she is anti-Israeli".Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She has been identified as such - by multiple pro-Israel sources (some above), along with the likes of Daniel Pipes (who has a long-running feud with her) - just about every Israeli/pro-Israeli source (including Ha'aretz I believe, which is very liberal and pro-Palestinian) states she is anti-Israel. Regarding statements by herself, here's a recent interview with her - [65] the headline being a claim Zionism is incompatible with feminism, and continuing to multiple alleged (by Sarsour) transgressions by Israel against Palestinians, mentioning support for BDS (against Israel). Her pro-Palestine stance and support for BDS against Israel is no secret - these are positions she has taken in the open for many years (including, I believe, calling Israelis "white supremacists" - [66]).Icewhiz (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If she had been identified as such that is what we say "she has been called anti-Israeli", but what we cannot say is she is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can say she is pro-Palestinian and supports BDS against Israel. As for anti-Israel - yes - we'd have to attribute that (to just about every pro-Jewish source) - or just leave it at "pro-Palestinian and supporter of BDS against Israel" (and leave the reader to understand this is "anti-Israel"). Here's Haaretz recently identifying her as supporter of BDS, and Sarsour herself supporting "Palestinian resistance" - [67].Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Or this (in article already) - [68] “I am a critic of the State of Israel. I always will be. I have come out in full support of BDS.”. Sarsour is careful to distinguish between her antipathy toward Israel and her support of Jews. “Because I am a critic of the State of Israel people say I’m anti-Semitic, but that isn’t true,” she said. - so she is a critic of the state of Israel and supporter of a one-state - Pressed by Haaretz to detail her views, Sarsour said that she believes in a one-state solution that, experts agree, will not be a Jewish state because the larger population will be Palestinian. “I don’t think a two-state solution is viable, is logistically possible, with the illegal building going on” in the West Bank, Sarsour said. “My hope is that it will be one state, one man one vote, that everyone is treated equally. Then you can say that part of the world is a true democracy.”. She is claiming she is not anti-Semitic, just a staunch critic of Israel. If she is a self-avowed "critic of Israel" - that's perhaps enough for anti-Israel without attribution - but would leave it at "pro-Palestinian and supports BDS against Israel".Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being a critic and being "anti" is not the same. And no, unless he says she supports BDS we cannot say she does. We are told she supports this by loads of sources, yet not one line of text by her is quoted to support this. [69] has her (apparently) saying that BDS is a tactic used to fight for the rights of Palestinian women, and not a tactic to destroy Israel. But at least it seems to have her saying she supports it as a tactic. So if we include her support for BDS we need to make it clear what (and why) she supports.Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It another way of saying the same thing (just pro-X is the same as anti-OPP-X). Regarding BDS there are numerous statements (not just related to feminism! The feminism piece was all on how Zionism/pro-Israel is incompatible, in her eyes, with feminism). for instance this - [70] “I am a critic of the State of Israel. I always will be. I have come out in full support of BDS.”. So she is a full supporter of BDS against Israel. This is a clear statement.Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I would rather see the full interview so we can have some context, but yes she does seem to support BDS here. I think we can say she does.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that we cannot publish our own interpretation of what someone has said. We can quote Sarsour saying she supports BDS (we do), we can say that others have criticized her for supporting BDS (we do), but saying "Sarsour supports BDS" is an interpretation or analysis, not to mention vague and unencyclopedic. "Supports how?", one wants to ask. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not OR that when someone says "I support X" for us to say "she supports X".Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stating "She supports" implies that we have evaluated her statements as true – as such, it's an interpretation of a primary source. Per WP:NOR, we can say "She supports X" only if reliable sources state, "She supports X". But it still wouldn't be encyclopedic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I disagree here. If a person say X us saying they think X is not interpreting it. But if this is such a huge issue, fine lets just say "she had said she supports BDS".Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me; in fact, it's already in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney love

This (to my mind) is not enough, it does not matter if she is an Icon, a picture can be an icon it does not mean it's views are worthy of inclusion. What needs to be demonstrated is that Ms love's views are noted by RS on a regular basis. That she is in fact a first point of call for opinions about feminism, and not just a rent a foot on mouth.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent half an hour providing evidence on what I think should be added, and now it has been deleted, I believe by you. Please add it back. It provides evidence.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have? When?Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where did all the material go which I just wrote? I had information on all three sections on Sharia Law, Anti Israel Views, and Courtney Love. I am not sure who deleted it. I assumed it was you since you are the one I am discussing it with.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What material? This is your last edit [71] before you asked where all your material had gone. I think you may be getting your talk pages mixed up. Which is why it is best to talk about additions to articles on that pages talk page, so we all know what we are disusing and where.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm so sorry. Yeah, it was on the other page. I think it is best if I move it here to provide context. I apologize. I have now moved it here.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Courtney Love, in addition to an internationally known celebrity, has been called "a third wave feminist icon" in this book [14] and this book [15] So does it count when Ms Love says Ms Sarsour is "a vile disgrace to women" and "anti-American' and 'anti-Semite' and a 'fraud'. I leave it up to others to decide.Icantevennnnn (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An icon and a pundit are not the same thing. She can be iconagraphic as a representation of an ideal and still not be regarded as an expert.Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. We do not should not cherry-pick defamatory statements about a living subject by persons of dubious relevance and then throw up our hands and say, "You decide". That is simply editorializing by proxy, not to mention intellectually lazy. Biographies must be written cautiously and conservatively, remembering that an actual human being has to live with the potential consequences of what we write. Per the Biographies of living persons policy, "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". That means that editorials, polemical essays, and celebrity bloviating are a no-go – all are primary sources for the author's opinion, so they fail this requirement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (updated 22:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
There are plenty of secondary sources for Love's comments; just do a Google search on her name. Clearly we can't exclude all opinions or social media statements wholesale, especially considering that in 2017 such statements often make major news (and policy!); the question then - assuming we agree on reliable sources, such as The Jerusalem Post - is one of notability (of the statement, that is, not Ms. Love, of course). I'm not endorsing either viewpoint, but just countering the idea that her statement should be excluded due to it being one person's opinion. Calbaer (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all the results for that Google search are highly partisan or focused on a particular ethnic/religious group. That's a pretty big red flag that the material is sensationalized or otherwise not relevant to a general-interest biography. Most of the sources would also not pass scrutiny for reliability, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about this exchange which is disputed: Courtney Love said what she did, and Linda Sarsour responded. No one questions this; the mere existence of unreliable sources is irrelevant. We just stick to the reliable ones... if we judge this notable. That is the ground upon which this should be argued. Hopefully your comment about whether this is "relevant to a general-interest biography" is recognition of this. Calbaer (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the mere existence of unreliable sources, but to the fact that virtually all the sources that come up are of that ilk; it suggests that the exchange (such as it is) has been sensationalized and overblown. Certainly identifying some reliable sources on the topic would help to establish its relevance; any suggestions would be welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better solution would be to mention Love's comment in the context in which it was spoken. Love was referring to a racially divisive fundraiser started on an unproven claim by Sarsour. Maybe add it with reference to that incident? [16] Icantevennnnn (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In general it seems to be an issue of what people who criticize her are relevant? Are only people an editor here considers as relevant, relevant? Her response to all criticism is almost always the same, her critics are members of alt-right or Islamophobic. The question is, should we point out her divisive and harmful words, or should we too protect it thinking everyone who criticizes her is an alt-right or islamophobic. For instance, CNN's Jake Tapper criticized her for her support of a terrorist, and her immediate reaction was to call him member of alt-right. [17] One should be careful when cherry picking. If one group appears to cherry pick only negative information, it should also be considered whether it is because another group is cherry picking only positive information. Icantevennnnn (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're reading a different article than I am; it seems to me this biography is already chock-full of people who criticize her, to the point of becoming undue weight. Encyclopedic biographies are not compendia of every single time the article subject has been criticized, and we don't include every single opinion from every single side. That's not what we're here to do. We're here to write a neutral, balanced and fair-minded biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asking to include every single thing that has been said about her, but only that which is relevant. Being anti-isreal or supporting a terrorist is relevant. At least I think it is.Icantevennnnn (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are just asking we use the opinions of celebrities and not experts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a false choice. Anyway, Tapper is an expert (on politics), not a celebrity, so at least his interaction with Sarsour could be included by your criteria. Calbaer (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You did check the title of this sub thread? This is why we should stick to disusing one subject in one place. So do you agree that we should not be including celebrity opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you didn't understand what I meant: I meant that it's a false choice to say that you have to omit celebrities to include experts, as you indicated in accusing an editor (not me), "[Y]ou are just asking we use the opinions of celebrities and not experts." So far, my opinion is that the interchange with Love doesn't rise to the level of notability, but, when/if it ever does, it's reliably sourced and it shouldn't be dismissed due to her expertise being something other than politics or due to the disproportionate interest of partisans and those having skin in the game. Calbaer (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliably sourced" how? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that just being a celebrity is not enough to make a statement significant for the purposes of inclusion (the main defense made for two "sources" here bu another user, and the subject of this thread)). WP:UNDUE means we should avoid includeing opinion unless it significant to the subject (not just reported). As such we would not (for example, and no matter how much coverage it received) report Ms Loves opinions of the big bang or open heart surgery (except in her own article). So yes opinions should be excluded unless they are experts, or at the very least highly respected pundits whose opinions are sought (not merely just reported on).Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/22/sharia-law-advocate-linda-sarsour-give-commencement-speech-taxpayer-funded-university
  2. ^ http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-myth-debunked-linda-sarsour-cannot-be-a-feminist-and-a-supporter-of-sharia-law-at-the-same-time/
  3. ^ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/232367
  4. ^ http://observer.com/2017/04/staten-island-ronald-castorina-linda-sarsour-cuny-commencement-sharia/
  5. ^ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/232367
  6. ^ http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/22/sharia-law-advocate-linda-sarsour-give-commencement-speech-taxpayer-funded-university
  7. ^ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/232367
  8. ^ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/232367
  9. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-double-standards-of-anti-zionism-and-sexism_us_58f410a9e4b04cae050dc8ac
  10. ^ https://www.thenation.com/article/can-you-be-a-zionist-feminist-linda-sarsour-says-no/
  11. ^ http://groknation.com/news/feminism-zionism-definitions-exclusions/
  12. ^ http://www.thedailybeast.com/linda-sarsour-echoes-donald-trump-smears-cnns-jake-tapper
  13. ^ https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/07/24/once-again-linda-sarsour-hails-terrorists-and-murderers/
  14. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=IN0YDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=courtney+love+feminist+icon&source=bl&ots=Yqwh8wwWJ3&sig=I5cR0RgGuyqi0th6fDYkugaQntQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiftOb8tqTVAhUlh1QKHdodDJM4ChDoAQhVMAg#v=onepage&q=courtney%20love%20feminist%20icon&f=false
  15. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=9tfTBa5ZQoAC&dq=courtney+love+feminist+icon&source=gbs_navlinks_s
  16. ^ https://jezebel.com/a-rod-j-lo-and-j-rod-are-fine-1795943765
  17. ^ https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/07/24/once-again-linda-sarsour-hails-terrorists-and-murderers/

If someone here is interested in helping me balance this article, please take a look at this article [1] and other articles with similar topic in which this person's support of people with terrorism links such as Assata Shakur and Siraj Wahhaj is highlighted. I would appreciate your contribution. Icantevennnnn (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an exhaustive investigation on her (Redacted).(Redacted) Icantevennnnn (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That document says literally nothing about her purportedly "supporting terrorists" and it's not remotely an acceptable reliable source anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, that document is a list of her statements in which she has (Redacted) or those linked to terrorism. It can be used for further research to understand her (Redacted) and her subsequent anti-semitic statements. I put it here for those who wish to help contribute on this subject.Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not — the document makes literally no statement or claim that "she has supported terrorists," and as it's an entirely-unreliable source anyway, it has no place on this talk page. I've redacted it as a BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are her own statements. No need to censor it, although I understand why you did it. It's on the internet, anyone can read it. Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand what the Biographies of Living Persons policy requires of us. We do not use unreliable sources and we do not use talk pages to make accusations about article subjects or to grind an ax against them. I read the document and there is literally no point at which the document claims that anything Sarsour said was "supporting terrorists." The closest you get is Downplaying Terrorism Plots, which... yeah, even if true, is not remotely the same as "supporting terrorists." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't talk with you on this because you are distracting this discussion from the main point over semantics. What part of "this person's support of people with terrorism links" was a personal accusation? I think accusing me of grinding an ax against this subject is completely out of place because there is no evidence and it's a personal attack, which I am not interested in.Icantevennnnn (talk) 10:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You posted a link to an unreliable source with the highly-inflammatory claim that it included information on her support of terrorists, your words right there. The document contained literally nothing which supports your assertion and contains no claim that Sarsour supported terrorists. Do you understand that that's not allowed here? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also redacted several defamatory statements about living persons that were part of the above exchange. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this report again[2], which one use here is trying to censor. It is not the main source, but is a collection of her own statements in which she underplays terrorism, makes false accusations against those fighting terrorism etc. Every statements in this report has a legitimate source that can be verified. It is provided here because the report is very long and copy pasting it here won't work. Since this is a talk page, I believe it should be allowed here, unless one wants to hide it.Icantevennnnn (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it does not say (assuming it is RS) that she supports terrorism or individual terrorists. In fact some of her comments about the patriot act could have been said by many non Muslim libertarians. This makes me very dubious about the slant being put on her statements.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She has associated with Palestinians convicted of terrorism - specifically Rasmea Yousef Odeh [72] [73] [74]. She has also met with Hamas people - [75] [76]. There are claims her family are linked to Hamas, and she has admitted members of her family served time in Israeli prisons - [77].Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I believe (based on interviews with her) that her stated position, when asked, is that she doesn't support terrorism - however there is a large amount of "tangents" with various sources have connected her with (family, appearing with former terrorists, associating with people who raised funds for Hamas in the US, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So she has spoken at the same events, and some people she knows knows terrorists. This all looks a bit too Synthasy for me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit more than speaking at the same event - it's being on-stage together in a specific event promoting an individual convicted for a terrorist attack (Rasmea Odeh). I do believe this should be mentioned - but not in Wiki's voice - saying someone on the lines of "X/Y/Z criticizes Sarsour for appearing/associating/etc. with terrorists, after A/B/C". This is a widely repeated claim by her critics.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to word this carefully, in order to ensure we do not say something that implies this is a real issue. For example appearing in support of someone who has been released from jail as an advocate of rehabilitation or prison reform is not the saem as supporting thier criminal activity.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A widely repeated claim by her critics" is not necessarily suitable for inclusion unless a reliable, secondary source has reported on those critics' claims. We aren't in the business of spreading rumors or accusations on behalf of a person's critics. See WP:BLPSTYLE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are claims her family are linked to Hamas, and she has admitted members of her family served time in Israeli prisons. Those claims are entirely unsubstantiated and moreover it's guilt by association — Sarsour can't choose what members of her family do, good or bad. We can say "X criticized her for speaking at an event with convicted terrorist bomber Rasmea Odeh," that's fair enough. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is guilt by association. It is actually grounded in fact I believe, at least for some of the family (which she admitted was in prison). I am not sure this should be out as this comes up in many critical pieces - I do think it should he attributed to whomever is making these claims. I will note she has stated (while understanding and supporting the cause, etc) that she belives in nonviolence.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but we cannot include guilt by association. No even attributed this would be too silly for words ""has accused her of supporting terrorism because some of her relatives are in Israeli jails for unspecified crimes". This is a BLP fail on so many levels.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She herself has reponded to these claims, in interviews going back a few years. She is a public figure. If we leave it out, we will face this creeping back in as well as the article being incompleten in terms of public information. I would suggested mainly including her response to such claims, and not the claims themselves - in relation to the family ties.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We already include that much; She has stated that members of her extended family have been arrested on accusations of supporting Hamas, but said they were not necessarily charged with crimes and that their situation was "just the reality of Palestinians living under military occupation". That phrasing is fine with me; what I would object to is phrasing that set of facts as "she associates with terrorists," or similar. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I do not see what needs to be added, other then her response.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her appearance with Rasmea Odeh needs to be worked in. Saying Rasmea Odeh was convicted for her role in the terror bombing of supermarket - is not a BLP violation - it is a matter of record. So is Odeh's US conviction for immigration fraud and subsequent relinquishment of US citizenship and deportation. Convictions in court do no violate BLP policy. Sources: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. This was not a mere "coincidental coappearance" - Last month, Sarsour shared a dais with her co-organizer of the women’s march, (Redacted) Rasmea Odeh, who’s in the process of being deported to Jordan (Oden was convicted in Israel of killing two Hebrew University students in a 1969 terrorist attack). Sarsour embraced Odeh, gushing to the audience that she was “honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.”Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is a BLP violation is to label someone a "terrorist" with no explanation, or to make unsubstantiated accusations of "supporting terrorists". And please be careful with sourcing – opinion essays and editorials, even in mainstream publications, are not generally reliable for statements of fact about living persons, let alone partisan outlets like Heat Street (the source of the above excerpt). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem (As I have said before) is that supporting a person as a woman against sexism (for example) and supporting their terrorism. It is A BLP violation to try and link this with supporting Ms Odeh terrorism. As to Ms Odeh's conviction for immigration fraud, as far as I know that is not a conviction for terrorism (yet).Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict). Sangdeboeuf - You redacted "former terrorist" - which is not a BLP violation for someone convicted for a terrorism charge (and subsequently convicted in the US for immigration fraud relating to non-disclosure of her conviction). Regarding sourcing here - I provides several - including ny-times. Heat Street is a center-right publication published by the publisher of WSJ - it is not a premier source, but not a bad source. The "honored to be on this stage with Rasmea." can be be easily verified with the PRIMARY video of the event - [84]. In any event, criticism of her association with Rasmea Odeh (which beyond appearing at this event involved co-organizing the women's march and more) - is widespread and has been covered by RS - for instance here by ny-times - [85]. op-eds in opposition and in support of Sarsour's appearance at CUNY (in light of her association with Odeh) ran in major outlets - including WaPo for instance. I see hundreds of +"Linda Sarsour" +"rasmea odeh" google-news hits. This has been raised by multiple sources - and has also been defended. It should be in the article - attributed to her critics.Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also WP:RSUW, it is not enough for this to have been covered. She shared a stage with a (Redacted), about a subject unrelated to terrorism or the (Redacted) actions (no these are not BLP violations, she was convicted).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should follow what WP:RS says if they mention Odeh conviction in Israeli court while discussing her links with Sarsosour then we should too per WP:DUE--Shrike (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between writing that someone was "convicted of a crime" and writing that they are (or were) a "criminal". Likewise "terrorist" – it's a label used for political purposes, since there is no universal definition of terrorism. In a BLP, it goes against writing "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone". Even when reliable sources use terms like terrorist, MoS advises using such labels only with attribution. Regarding specific terrorist acts, Wikipedia is not omniscient; therefore we should stick to what is verifiable – "X confessed" or "X was convicted", etc. If we labeled every person a terrorist whom authorities describe as such, then we'd have to apply the label to Nelson Mandela and Tenzin Gyatso as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can simply say that Odeh was convicted for the murder of 2 and the wounding 9, sentenced to life, subsequently released some 10 years later (1980) as part of a prisoner exchange deal with the PFLP, and deported and stripped of US citizenship due to concealing these facts when immigrating. Simple - and sticking to the record without interpretation.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you want the article to say something like "appeared on a stage with Odeh who was convicted for the murder of 2 and the wounding 9, sentenced to life, subsequently released some 10 years later (1980) as part of a prisoner exchange deal with the PFLP, and deported and stripped of US citizenship due to concealing these facts when immigrating", really? And why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly quite a few RSs and opinion pieces have criticized her over the company she keeps. All you have to do is google the two names together and see the torrent of connections, including calls to prevent Sarsour from speaking at an engagement a few months later at CUNY.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then propose a properly cited text.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, a "torrent" of criticism is not automatically suitable for inclusion without reliable, secondary sources reporting specifically on the criticism itself. Wikipedia's purpose is not to select and amplify partisan or sensationalistic commentary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which exists - for instance by the New York Times here (quoting both block with coverage of tie-in and Sarsour's response to said tie-in later down in the NYT piece) - [86]. The debate about Ms. Sarsour’s speech began last month with Dov Hikind, a conservative Democratic state assemblyman who represents a largely Orthodox community in Brooklyn. Mr. Hikind said Ms. Sarsour should not have been chosen, pointing to her recent appearance in Chicago with Rasmea Odeh, who was convicted in Israel of playing a role in the bombing of a supermarket that killed two civilians in 1969. Mr. Hikind also pointed to a picture Ms. Sarsour once posted on Twitter of a Palestinian boy standing across from police officers with rocks in his hands. Ms. Sarsour wrote that the photo was “The definition of courage.” Mr. Hikind said in a phone interview, “You can’t support a terrorist and then be the commencement speaker at a university that my taxes help pay for.” ...... Ms. Sarsour said she had nothing to apologize about for her views. She said there were questions about the integrity of Ms. Odeh’s conviction many decades ago. The photo of the Palestinian boy was taken during a week when about 200 Palestinians had been killed, she said. And she said she had never planned to speak about Israel in the commencement address.. Any objections for a summary of this quoted text to be included?Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, who the hell is he, why is his viewpoint noteworthy?Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times found this noteworthy - note that Dov Hikind is the only critic raising this argument - he is identified by NYT as the first - organizing protests and actions- it has since been repeated by others and street protests - enough so that the NYT ran a in-depth report on the subject of the controversy of Sarsour speaking as an invited guest. I believe this is a better quote to include than “Linda Sarsour is a Sharia-loving, terrorist-embracing, Jew-hating, ticking time bomb of progressive horror,” the conservative media personality Milo Yiannopoulos said at a rally on Thursday outside CUNY’s main office, as protesters held signs with images associated with the often racist and anti-Semitic language used by what is known as the alt-right, a far-right, white nationalist movement. by Milo Yiannopoulos (in the same NYT piece).Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT is (in part) the new paper of New York, so of course a local politicians views will be of note to them. Now with Mr Yiannopoulos you are on better ground as he is a national (and indeed international) figure. He is an...but at least a noteworthy one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to insert that Milo quote - note there were several other opinions in this regard (including a WaPo opinion piece in defense of her appearance) - Hikind is notable as he "started it" (and he is notable enough for a WP page) - I don't think (from reading the coverage) that NYT would have given him the stage if his message didn't echo onward. Sarsour herself is also a New-York figure (most of her activism until recently) - and this was a New-York engagement (with New York protests). This Sarsour-Odeh connection has been repeated by many (in many conservative outlets and in Jewish/Israeli outlets (including liberal ones)) - using NYT's secondary coverage of this is probably better than listing various who made a stmt. (e.g. just in the NY Post - Stephen Flatow [87] as well as others [88] [89])).Icewhiz (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should not use those as they are opinion pieces. And you have still not suggested any text. Until I now what you intend to say I cannot agree to anything you want to include.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to demonstrate

Text 1

"Linda Sarsour embraces Sharia law terrorism and anti-antisemitism"

This would clearly not be acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest (I think this is better than listing people who made such criticisms - though that is possible): "Sarsour has been criticized for her joint appearance with Rasmea Odeh, who has been convicted by an Israeli court for her role in a bombing that killed two civilians, prompting calls to cancel a commencement address by Sarsour before City University of New York students. Sarsour said in response that she had nothing to apologize about for her views and that questions were raised regarding the integrity of Odeh's conviction.[3]"Icewhiz (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what Sarsour needs re-wording, it needs to be made clear that she did not have nothing to apologise for but that she did not agree with what the critics said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Sarsour has been criticized for her joint appearance with Rasmea Odeh, who has been convicted by an Israeli court for her role in a bombing that killed two civilians, prompting calls to cancel a commencement address by Sarsour before City University of New York students. Rejecting the criticism, Sarsour said she had nothing to apologize for her views in general: “I’m Muslim, I’m Palestinian, I’m a woman in a hijab, I’m everything they stand against” and that questions were raised regarding the integrity of Odeh's conviction in particular.[4]"
If that is all the article says on the subject I think kit fails on weight grounds, this is hardly in depth coverage. This is a BLP we need more then one source, we need more then a few throw away comments.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This subject ("Linda Sarsour"+"Rasmea Odeh") - has a few hundred google-news hits in English [90] as well as hits in other languages. I think basing this off the NYT coverage is best - as we don't have a question of anti-Sarsour bias (the NYT if at all is biased in her favor, and is any event a premier source) - which would be present in conservative, Jewish, and Israeli sources who treated this at length - some of which are considered RS (e.g. - [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] )Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/07/24/once-again-linda-sarsour-hails-terrorists-and-murderers/
  2. ^ https://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/729.pdf
  3. ^ A Muslim-American Activist’s Speech Raises Ire Even Before It’s Delivered, NY Times, Eli Rosenberg, 26 May 2017
  4. ^ A Muslim-American Activist’s Speech Raises Ire Even Before It’s Delivered, NY Times, Eli Rosenberg, 26 May 2017
We then then have her response. Also not all of these are of the same incident (and some even give others agreeing this conviction as dubious). The Women's march may have been a one of, and as such we cannot use it to infer anything about any person there. If there is a wider issue then we must present both sides.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The conviction itself is not dubious in any sense - it is a matter of record (in this case - also a recent very US immigration fraud case against Odeh for not disclosing it while immigrating - which led to her deportation and stripping of US citizenship). The claim that the conviction is dubious (to my understanding) is on the grounds that any Israeli conviction is dubious - nothing else. The criticism of her links to Odeh (in the woman's march and in a JVP event (both speakers, shared dias, Sarsour praising and embracing Odeh) - is widespread, and appears in several pieces on several different Sarsour related coverage since the Odea co-apps (e.g. in the recent "Jihad" coverage, and in the CUNY speech). We could start enumerating all of these in the article - but I think that would give this greater weight than it deserves.Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter why it is called dubious, if we mention it we must mention why she (and other discussing this) have said about it. If it does not deserve enough weight to give a reasonable overview of what people have said (for example) in Ms Sarsour's defense then it does have enough weight to include what people have said about this to attack here. This is why people object to (and why Wikipedia does not allow) criticisms sections, they swamp articles with attacks and counter attacks.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly we can have well sourced statements, from Bari Weiss's article in the New York Times, for example, [97] about what Sarsour has said. The number of articles about her support for verified terrorists makes her statements on this topic notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Bari Weiss article shows (as do many articles) (Redacted). But you know the drill; it's an opinion piece, so by itself it probably won't hold up as RS. You need a solid array of sources to demonstrate that Sarsour has shown notable support for terrorists. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces are not generally reliable for statements of fact – see WP:NEWSORG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are non-opinion pieces - provided above - covering the Sarsour/Odeh co-appearances. However, as what is notable about this angle is the vast multitude of opinion pieces (and coverage of said opinion pieces) of this angle - then actually either providing a list of critics who have raised this point, or alternatively classifying those critics (e.g. pro-Jewish and conservatives) would be relevant for the article. So - yes - one opinion piece raising this is irrelevant. Hundreds of opinion pieces - are relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. non-opinion piece coverage from multiple sources (in addition to links above)- [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]. Seems she's also criticised for praising Siraj Wahhaj.Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think some mention of this should be included, but you need to be a bit more careful in your non-opinion source selection and a little more watchful of what is and is not an opinion. Several of those are not reliable sources (The Daily Caller, for example) and several others are clearly-labeled or otherwise-obvious opinion columns; If this were the extent of Sarsour’s unseemly conduct, she might be dismissed as merely one of the Left’s more effective loonies... is not the sort of phrasing found in a dispassionate news article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Some of them aren't the best, agreed. Wouldn't choose dailycaller to source from in this instance - I brought it up as an example of non-opinion coverage... Others are OK. I prefer to base off of NYT - [117] (+maybe a few others - e.g. Haaertz, JPost, National Review) - with the following text: "Sarsour has been criticized for her joint appearance with Rasmea Odeh, who has been convicted by an Israeli court for her role in a bombing that killed two civilians, prompting calls to cancel a commencement address by Sarsour before City University of New York students. Rejecting the criticism, Sarsour said she had nothing to apologize for her views in general: “I’m Muslim, I’m Palestinian, I’m a woman in a hijab, I’m everything they stand against” and that questions were raised regarding the integrity of Odeh's conviction in particular."Icewhiz (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That phrasing sounds fair to me. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds fair. But to reiterate, the right-wing media criticism of Sarsour is relevant only if it's mentioned by a reliable, secondary source per WP:BLP. Relevance in general is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not the opinions of Wikipedia editors. As another user pointed out above, we are not here to feed partisan media frenzies. Nor is it appropriate to analyze primary source material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First person statements

In the current entry, the following statement should be removed: She told New York station NY1:

I do believe that Israel has the right to exist [...] I mean I wouldn't want — I mean where are they gonna go? That's why I want a one-state solution. I think we can all live together in one state with peace and justice and equality for all.[8]

I believe this should be remove because this is the subject's personal statement and personal statements, as we have learned from this talk page, should not be included. On the other hand, if one wants to keep it, than we should also include her personal statements supporting Sharia Law. Currently only Ayaan Ali's accusation is mentioned, which is not enough because it paints Ayaan as the single bad guy who spews hatred against Sarsour, the latter is depicted as completely innocent saint.Icantevennnnn (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can include personal statements, as long as we attribute them. What we cannot do is say she said "I support X" if she does not actually say that, but an other source says she has.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Icantevennnnn's paragraph is referring to the statement that "editorials, polemical essays, and celebrity bloviating are a no-go," which I take issue with, and which might have just been a matter of poor phrasing; as long as they are notable and can be reliably sourced, they should be includable. Calbaer (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is based on the policy of sourcing opinions about a person to secondary sources, which is how notability (or "noteworthiness", to distinguish from WP:N) of opinions should be established. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of her personal statements, for context regarding some of the topics mentioned here:

"Only Jews in my notifications every night are ones that condone violence against Arabs and are cool with mosques being attacked."

“Nothing is creepier than Zionism."

"Regardless of what side your on, no justification to support any air strike attacks on #Syria from #Israel. Absolutely none. Disgusting."

"Underwear bomber was the CIA all along. Why did I already know that?! Shame on us – scaring the American people."

"Brigitte Gabriel = Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She’s asking 4 an a$$ whippin’. I wish I could take their vaginas away- they don’t deserve to be women."

"It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, “Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?” There can’t be in feminism. "[1]

"Girl do I wanna take down Brigitte Gabriel?! She said she walks into stores in Arlington, let her try walking streets of Bay Ridge!"

(defending the anti-semitic Nation of Islam) "Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Nation of Islam – we are Muslim, we are all part of one ummah, one family."

"Sharia law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics."

(When asked about female genital mutilation under Sharia Law at Dartmouth College she refused to answer the question because it was asked by a white male student [2][3])

"You'll know when you're living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn't it?"

[4]Icantevennnnn (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would read the article carefully, you would see that several of these points are already mentioned. But beyond that, it's not clear what action you are suggesting. Do you mean to propose that we should quote Sarsour on all of these statements? That isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia article – Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate info. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that we should infer something about the subject from these statements, that would be original research, which is not the mission of Wikipedia, and in fact is strongly prohibited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what context do these comments (in terms of the article)? Her comments about Israel are a response to accusation of being anti-Israeli, what are her comments above a response to? Also is a radio program by someone else a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one on 1

IS this [[118]] A primary sources?

It was not written by the subject (it's writer is Budd Mishkin), it was not published by the subject of the article (see thread title) and it clearly is not just an interview as it contain analysis. So why is this a primary source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If no explanation of why this fails primary soon I shall remove the tag.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.thenation.com/article/can-you-be-a-zionist-feminist-linda-sarsour-says-no/
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG9dLxABhC8
  3. ^ http://www.thetower.org/5031-the-whitewashing-of-linda-sarsour/
  4. ^ http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/linda-sarsour-tweets-hate-at-jews-whites-and-women/

Alt-right critics

Regarding this edit, the New York Times article about the CUNY speech protests says:

[P]rotesters held signs with images associated with the often racist and anti-Semitic language used by what is known as the alt-right, a far-right, white nationalist movement [...] The controversy over Ms. Sarsour’s appearance is the latest dispute in a heated national dialogue over free speech on university campuses [...] This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour [...] Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right.

To me this is pretty clear in placing members of the alt-right at the rally. However, the text was intended simply to attribute a general attitude to protest over the speech; maybe it would be clearer to say that the above were "protesting Sarsour's CUNY speech" instead of "protesting Sarsour's speech at CUNY". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdeboeuf, article ownership issues.

How many times has Sangdeboeuf immediately reverted user's edits without any discussion? Clear ownership issues here. I think it would be wise if s/he stepped away for a while. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linda_Sarsour&oldid=793786235"