Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Edit request

Please add the following...

"Sarsour organized the Women's March on Washington, held on January 21, 2017, the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States."

There should be no controversy about this, and it is the reason she's currently in the news. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Is there a stronger reference for that? Perhaps one with attribution to someone who can be verified to have expertise or is a notable author/journalist?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the issue with that: she wasn't the organizer. Two women named Teresa Shook and Bob Bland were. Sarsour was one of three national co-chairs.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest;

Sansour was one three national co-chairs recruited by Teresa Shook and Bob Bland for the 2017 Women's March held the day after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States.

--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Sarsour did as much organizing as the other co-chairs, but your proposed edit is fine with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The entire idea was that of Teresa Shook, a grandmother in Hawaii who created the original Facebook event that spawned others. Shook and Bob Bland got together and then recruited the co-chairs. It's a matter of clarity and encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The idea was Shook's and Bland's. Then Bland brought in Sarsour and the other co-chairs, and they together did all of the organizing. However you want to word it along those lines works. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Shook did more than have an idea, she organized the original Facebook event, a real call for an actual event in this case. Shook then organized with Bland to create the national chairs. That is more than an idea, that is the top of the organizational line.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

She created a Facebook event and invited 40 people, then went to bed. This is all semantics. Let's just say Sarsour co-chaired it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Since her being co-chair is deemed important enough to be cited in the infobox for 2017 Women's March, can anyone give a reason why it should not also be cited in this article as well? Bk33725681 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Done I've added the sentence. Made a few tweaks to the links; if you don't like them I will revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Couple of things, Muboshgu. Could you fix the double wikilink to Inauguration of Donald Trump with a link to his page on his name and possibly wikilink United States please.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: I can't, because I'm not an admin. Which is why I used an edit request in the first place rather than make the change myself. I can do it whenever protection is decreased. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies! It was MSGJ that made the changes. I wrote that that wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate link - apologies didn't spot that - but are you sure you want to wikilink United States because WP:OLINK specifically advises against? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate "of"

Please add the word, "of", this should read, "...was one of three..." Sansour was one of three national co-chairs recruited by Teresa Shook and Bob Bland Ai4ijoel (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Good catch — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Name.

Howcome she's Linda if she's Muslim? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 04:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• To state the obvious, you can't discern someone's religion from their name. You may think you can, but no. Not all people with Arabic names are Muslim. Not all Muslims have Arabic names - Alison ^❤ 05:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Born in Brooklyn

She was born in Brooklyn: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/linda-sarsour

Bk33725681 (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Was married in an arranged marriage at age 17

http://www.ny1.com/archives/nyc/all-boroughs/2011/07/25/one-on-1--arab-american-association-director-finds-time-for-it-all-NYC_143662.old.html

Bk33725681 (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Hijabi Monologues

Linda Sarsour is not a graduate student. Linda Sarsour is a High School Graduate - she does not have a Bachelor's degree. Sandeep1964 (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source to indicate this? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The source that we have does not seem to assert that Sarsour is one of the three "co-founders"/"developers" of The Hijabi Monologues. Looking elsewhere, these seem to have been Sahar Ishtiaque Ullah, Zeenat Rahman & Daniel Morrison.[1][2] Sarsour is mentioned in the source that we reference as a performer. The story which she performs may, of course, be her own. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please change: Linda was one of three graduate students of the University of Chicago in 2007 that developed performance art based on stories about veiling called; "The Hijabi Monologues". To: Sarsour has appeared in "The Hijabi Monologues", a performance art piece based on stories about veiling. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC) modified per MOS:SURNAME - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I know I read somewhere that she was entering college around 2000. The fact that this was a graduates performance and the manner in which the source writes this, I have to agree, it doesn't really say she was one of the graduate students, just one of the performers. That's actually a good catch. Support edit request.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Thanks. Appreciate the positive feedback. One thing I missed - MOS:SURNAME - I've amended the request to "Sarsour" instead of "Linda". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Done I also included a link to veil, hope that's okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"pure New Yorker"

and a self-proclaimed “pure New Yorker, born and raised in Brooklyn”.New York Foundation: Linda Sarsour Lanlan lanwan (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: please wait for comments from others — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting semi protection

I am requesting semi-protection after the full protection is over.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Missvain (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Missvain: partially expired, is that as you wanted it? –2A03:2267:0:0:A1ED:A98A:F87E:A843 (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Missvain, thx. –2A03:2267:0:0:ACDA:2A2:3ECC:6878 (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sharia

Only one of the three offered references for the Sharia statement contains the word Sharia. Please add a {{fact}}, or remove the detail until you have this straight. Suggestion: Candice Malcolm writing for the Toronto Sun stated …. The overlong statement mentions three authors for multiple claims, but these authors do not correspond to the three references, it should be split. And/or find a better reference for this critical (for a BLP) point. I can't tell if it's an "alternative fact". Minor nit: Please add a paywall warning in an ordinary {{cite news}} for the Toronto Sun reference. –2A03:2267:0:0:F075:9C96:DB07:A83A (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

No progress so far. How about a sourced statement with a link to Islamic banking, over a redirection Islamic banking and finance explains that this is a part of sharia, but it's not the juicy stuff folks could expect from sharia. Generally I'd agree with Mark Miller about the notability of tweets, but a self-published tweet as a reference in a BLP would be still better than the vague Toronto Sun article. Actually realdonaldtrump and POTUS could be notable even if some mainstream media fail to quote them correctly. (same user on logon strike) –2A03:2267:0:0:B0B0:8E4A:14BD:606B (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Executive_Order_13769#CAIR_v._Trump. –2A03:2267:0:0:A186:E76:F33A:ED11 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you sign you talk page entries? The controversies about her religious law positions extend to her position on Saudi Arabia/women driving, and more general statements about religious law. I agree that adding the word "Sharia" adds more heat than light and I'd prefer to leave it as "religious" law. But I also think we might want to break out the two issues here into separate sentences: (1) he support for religious law (her tweets, the NY Times Article) have raised concerns, and (2) attacking some women in terms that have offended some feminists (the toronto sun article). The Saudi Arabia issue is really part and parcel of issue number one, so long as we phrase it as "religious law and countries".Jonmayer18 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do that with four tildes, what you see is what you get without login. @Be..anyone: on login strike, having fun? BTW, various truther sites are delighted by the CAIR lawsuit, because Sarsour is the first plaintiff, it's tricky to find a reliable source like KABC-TV. –2A03:2267:0:0:B159:B3CD:8864:D064 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The issues in this section reported by me (various 2A03:2267 IPv6) are resolved, thanks. –2A03:2267:0:0:A1ED:A98A:F87E:A843 (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

commonscat

Please add a line {{commonscat|Linda Sarsour}} at the top of the section with external links. –2A03:2267:0:0:ACDA:2A2:3ECC:6878 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Vanamonde (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarsour v. Trump

Please replace [[Lawsuits_against_the_immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump#Sarsour_v._Trump|Sarsour v. Trump]] by [[Legal_challenges_to_Executive_Order_13769#Sarsour_v._Trump|Sarsour v. Trump]] in the 2017 Sarsour v. Trump wikilink only, not in the prose. –2A03:2267:0:0:5535:3CA8:BFE6:19FB (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: unsourced makes no sense for the perfectly fine wikilink to Sarsour v. Trump (see above), of course it is sourced on the target page. The PDF linked from the CAIR PR exists, and is now available on wikimedia commons, somebody found the official court copy and uploaded it. Please revert this updating the link as suggested above, or add some {{not done}} blurb here and disable {{SPER}} as "no consensus" as you see fit. –2A03:2267:0:0:6950:B6C2:65B3:DD2F (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikilink no longer exists. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Sarsour v. Trump certainly exists, only the PDF on commons was deleted. Therefore a statement here could now simply adopt the PDF used as reference on Sarsour v. Trump, e.g.,

In 2017 Sarsour was a plaintiff in [[Legal_challenges_to_Executive_Order_13769#Sarsour_v._Trump|Sarsour v. Trump]], a lawsuit against the immigration policy of Donald Trump.<ref>[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438628/CAIR-Suit-EDVA-20170130.pdf 1:17-cv-00120 Sarsour v. Trump Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief]</ref>

The wikilink should appear somewhere in the article, I don't care how (copied reference, reference only in the target section, or in a see also section.) –2A03:2267:0:0:E109:A231:1DCA:CA56 (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Article is fine without. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 16:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Right of Israel to exist

I added this piece to the article

Sarsour is anti-Zionist and does not acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to exist.

and it was reverted with the comments that it contradicts to other sources and needs discussion. Whereas I am not a fan of Jerusalem Post, it is difficult to not notice the fact that Sarsour is a vocal opponent of Israel (though she claims to not be antisemitic) and in some way the statement should be in the article. If there are sources with opposite claims, we can present both, I am fine with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have removed material making the above claim about Sarsour, because it is unsupported by any actual quotes from her, and is directly contradicted by at least two reliable sources — the Associated Press and an interview with NY1. Quoting those sources, the AP says Ironically, Sarsour’s acknowledgement that Israel has a right to exist, her support of a Jewish man, Bernie Sanders, for president and her relationships with politicians like Mayor Bill de Blasio have earned her criticism by some Islamists as a self-aggrandizing “house Arab.” NY1 quotes her thusly, "I do believe that Israel has the right to exist,” says Sarsour. At best we're in a situation of conflicting sources, interpretations and claims, which requires writing much more nuanced statements than a blunt, untempered factual claim that is directly contradicted by her own sourced statements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The source you have provided does not contain any material supporting the author's claim about Sarsour; it's simply a bald assertion of fact. Contrasting with that is a direct quote by her that says she does believe Israel has the right to exist. At best, iff there is consensus for including the JPost claim, it must be worded as the author's opinion, not a statement of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am fine with what you suggest.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw there are other sources which say she denies the existance of Israel: [3][4]--Ymblanter (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to implement this proposal. Eperoton (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I can in principle live with that. However, the sources are talking about two different things. Sarsour herself endorses Israel as one state with Arab majority and Jewish minority. This is very different than the current state of Israel, a Jewish state, which she was accused of in denying the right to exist. It would be good to separate the two.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that the cited sources make that distinction, though admittedly I didn't try to read the JPost article beyond the relevant statement after that page hit my browser with phishing malware just now. They do make the categorical claim about denying Israel's right to exist (JPost and your other source more explicitly than Emerson). If we find a more nuanced coverage of her views, we can reflect it too. Eperoton (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

On closer inspection, this is in the NY 1 piece. I've made that addition. Eperoton (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Good for me, tnx--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I just made one tweak, and that's to flip it around so her statements are first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of decision to exclude anti-abortion groups

@Yschilov: It looks like you're mixing up different issues here. The source talks about Sarsour's role in the decision. We can have a factual statement to that effect (in fact, we did, before it got reframed as criticism). The source also quotes some criticism of the decision itself. The source does not say that someone criticized Sarsour's role in that decision, which implies that she was singled out for criticism. That's WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No response and the user has been indeffed for socking. Eperoton (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Layout

Please delete ===Notes=== {{reflist|group=note}} ===Citations===, because there are no "notes". –2A03:2267:0:0:5D69:75E5:31BD:EBE9 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Eperoton (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour in her own words

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."

71.182.242.48 (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have removed statements from this article that are not supported by reliable sources. Neither Twitter nor someone's personal blog are suitable reliable sources for claims about a living person, particularly negative claims or criticism. Please see WP:BLP for guidance on sourcing statements about living people, specifically Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What this article is and is not

Wikipedia articles, particularly biographies, are not compendiums of every time any person has ever said anything about that person. It is my feeling that recent edits have begun to turn this article in that direction — constantly adding quotes from opinion pieces in which various people critical of Sarsour opine that they don't like something she has said or done. That is fair enough, she is a public figure and some inclusion of criticism is necessary and proper. But what is not "necessary" is to add countless pile-on opinion quotes that add nothing to Sarsour's biography other than yet another note that someone disagrees with her. In an effort to keep this article from placing undue weight on critical views, I have removed a critical view after yet another critical view was inserted. To reiterate, we are in the business of writing concise, balanced biographies, not providing a reprinting platform for a person's critics. I invite further discussion here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Given Blagamaga's unwillingness to consider my good-faith compromise edits and repeated blind reversion thereof, I have reverted the article to status quo ante per the bold, revert, discuss cycle and request that proposed edits be discussed here before implementation, so as to avoid further edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Having a WP:CSECTION in a BLP is bad, and the recent version was headed in that direction. Ideally, we would have sources specifically about criticism she's received, not just examples. At a bare minimum we need to avoid gossip or cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Reversions

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Why did you make these reversions? Blagamaga (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Because you were unwilling to consider the point I offered in my compromise edit and instead simply blindly reverted it not once, not twice but three times within 30 minutes. That's edit-warring, and at that point, it suggests that we all need to step back and discuss what changes we'd each like to see in the article before implementing wholesale changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even consider it because the reason that you gave sounded like something that you pulled from your backside; there's no need for compromise edits like that when you are free to counterbalance those kind of op-eds by including the contrastive kinds of op-eds that portray her in a (more) positive light. On the contrary, if you can refer me to a Wikipedia editing policy/convention where it states/shows that op-eds that are critical of a living person are used in the Wikipedia biographical article of that person in such a way that "if one [op-ed] is added, one needs to be removed," then I may reconsider my position on this issue, but unless you can do that there's no reason why I should've accepted the compromise edits that you offered. Also, while it's understandable that you're prepared to trust what was written in the AP article at face value, I am not prepared to give her that benefit of the doubt, so unless you can come up with a better compromise edit than the one that I made (which reports the "false reports" as facts anyway), then the edits that I made for that paragraph should stand.

I will assume that the edits which I made and you did not change in your compromise edit are not under dispute and will re-add them into the article at the earliest opportunity.

I note that I did not get a response from you with regards to these comments so your reply to them is requested.

I say in closing that in light of my prior interactions with User talk:Grayfell who has constantly intervened out of spite on your side of the multiple editing disputes that we've engaged in, I will be ignoring any input that that user may have to our exchange and, absent your explicit opposition, take as a precondition of my willingness to discuss my edits with you my assumption of your acceptance that the resolutions to our disputes that we may arrive at are peremptory beyond whatever objections that that user may have to them. Blagamaga (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Inclusion of material is done by editorial consensus. There is no consensus that your proposed additions are appropriate. It is now incumbent on you to discuss your proposed changes and gain consensus for them. Continuing to edit-war disputed material into the article is disruptive editing, particularly when that material is negative in nature.

That you are "not prepared to give her that benefit of the doubt" is of no relevance to the encyclopedia, and indeed, suggests that you may not have a good enough grasp of our policies to edit biographies of living persons. Your personal opinions about Sarsour have no bearing on how we treat facts cited to news stories published in reliable sources. The statement in question is a factual statement, and as per the NPOV policy, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. There are no reliable sources contesting the factual statement in question, therefore it will be stated as a fact in this article.

Your nonsensical ramblings about "preconditions" and of completely ignoring a third user in this discussion are just that, nonsensical ramblings. You don't get to establish "preconditions" and you don't get to ignore Grayfell merely because you don't like his viewpoint. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I can respond to what you wrote six ways from Sunday but in the interest of time and effort, I'll just say this: the less that you stop acting like you occupy some moral high-ground (Redacted).

Since there's so much in my proposed edits that we substantively disagree on, it would be best for us for the purposes of clarity that we go through them one-by-one. Let's start with this: I will assume that since the edits which I made and you did not change in your compromise edit are not under dispute (if they were, you'd have modified the material accordingly as part of your compromise edit), you will not disapprove of/allow their re-addition into the article. Yes? Blagamaga (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I decline to engage with editors making personal attacks rather than policy-based arguments supported by reliable sources. Until you present the latter, we have nothing to discuss. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Tone

This entire section reads more like political marketing material instead of encyclopedic content. Does anyone want to try to clean it up?

"Sarsour does not support either Hamas or the Palestinian authority, preferring nonviolent Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation policies.[9] She supports Israel's right to exist,[19][9] and favors a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian question under conditions that would foster "peace and justice and equality for all. Sarsour describes herself as a supporter of the BDS movement.[20] ". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Since this has already been discussed above, you're going to have to be a lot more specific. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What Bob drobbs is saying is that the material reads like a press release, and needs to be reviewed for {{tone}} by neutral, non-involved editors. I agree with this, and I have never heard about the woman before I stumbled on this page ten minutes ago. Wikipedia should not just post slightly rephrased self-published WP:VANITY material. E.g. it isn't clear how a perfectly hollow phrase like "peace and justice and equality for all" adds any encyclopedic value. It conveys zero information on the subject, it is an inane statement that would not be rejected by anyone, ever, and it is clearly just here to lull the reader into feeling good about the article subject. WP:ENC means to remove such thing and increase information density of pages without sacrificing objectivity. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The statement is a direct quote from her as to what she believes about the future of the Israeli/Palestinian question. We include direct quotes from article subjects all the time. It is also a descriptor and qualifier for the one-state solution statement. The entire section is reliably sourced and is the result of extensive discussion and consensus over time. You're welcome to propose changes, of course, but we are hardly going to remove a reliably-sourced statement by the article subject about her own political views and positions in a section that is explicitly about her political views and positions. This is particularly true given that we include a number of quotes from people who oppose her political views; it seems patently unfair to extensively quote Sarsour's political opponents and not quote Sarsour herself in her own biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I just counted; we directly quote Sarsour five times in this biography, while we directly quote her political opponents twice, a political supporter once and an outside observer once. That does not seem like an improper ratio in Linda Sarsour's own biography and it certainly doesn't seem to me to be "vanity material." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Some sources

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

Here is a source;

• ELLE.com

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.

• [This source] is acceptable to reference the claim;

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

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)

References

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)

Here is another source that verifies the claim; [5].--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Tweets are not RS as per wikipedia policy.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Exactly. Missvain (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You have things entirely backwards; the onus is on you to justify inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)