Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Protected edit request on 23 December 2017

Please remove the paragraph beginning with "In November 2017 Sarsour appeared, alongside Jewish Voice for Peace activists" that was re-added before the article was fully protected (diff). The suitability of this material is disputed – see talk page section § The New School anti-Semitism panel. According to WP:ARBBLP#Principles, disputed material "should be removed until a decision to include it is reached". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:BLP and WP:ONUS, this material should not be in the article in the absence of a consensus to include it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per MShabazz. Vanamonde (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes?

If you want me to set this article to require pending change reviews, just ask. I think it makes sense. Missvain (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid we need a long-term full protection instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha covered. Just ping me if you need anything. I tried to pay attention to what happens here as much as possible but sometimes need a ping :) Thanks for your work. Missvain (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Missvain: Indef is too much I think, can we put it at 30 days? Arkon (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I also think 30 days will be enough, I suspect this latest storm will have blown over by then. If not, we can protect it again, Huldra (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I'll reassess in 30 days. It's been ongoing like this for over a year, though, I have to admit. Missvain (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Missvain: Can I ask you to put the expire at 30 days now and reassess then? I'd rather not have to do a hoopla in case you get busy. Arkon (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, considering that EC was added earlier, I'm not seeing anything in the intervening edits that even warrant full protection. Much less indefinite to be frank. Arkon (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There was ongoing edit-warring for a long time, and I believe full protection is warranted. I would personally not make it indef, but the page is on my watchlist, and if the sides can agree the protection can always be lifted (reduced to ec).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this "drama" of edit warring and unreliable/non-neutral sourcing has been going on for well over a year now. Archives have some scary bits in them. Missvain (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Heck, there are some scary bits on this talk page right now. As a woman, myself, even scarier regardless of where you fall on the "line" about Sarsour! Missvain (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There are many articles that can use your help! Perhaps take a break! :)

Hi everyone! Just a gentle reminder - please assume good faith on my following comments: if you find yourself getting a bit "addicted" to the subject of Linda Sarsour, take a break! Perhaps try your hand at helping to improve other articles on Wikipedia, or even another project, like Commons or Wikidata. There are so many places where your skill and knowledge can help to improve the world's largest encyclopedia. Or even better: step outside, take a hike, hang with your family or friends, have a beer (or tea), binge watch something on Netflix, whatever floats your boat. Folks can get really tense and very stressed when editing subjects that are "controversial," which can lead to people being rude, disrespectful, or just plain trollish. So take it easy and please respect journalism, your fellow Wikipedians, and "take a break" if you find yourself getting too tense (or obsessive) with the subject. Happy New Year! 16:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Full protection

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

---

Nowhere on Wikipedia have I seen any article or page protected so that ONLY administrators (for life) can make edits. Not in the Arab-Israeli or Israeli-Palestinian topic areas, that require editors must first be registered users on Wikipedia for 30 days and make at least 500 edits; not on Donald Trump's, Hillary Clinton's, or Barak Obama's pages (that did not even have the 30/500 protection); not in the Islamic terrorism, abortion, gun control, or death penalty topic areas. What makes Sarsour unique, more than all other people and topics in all of Wikipedia, that ONLY administrators can edit her article? What happened to Wikipedia's Fifth pillar, that anyone can edit? What's the next level of protection, that only Jimbo Wales can make the edits? The Kingfisher (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes seems to be another one protected fully for indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Bravo! Out of 5,534,589 aticles on Wikipedia, you came up with one other example. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

People don't like when those on the left are suddenly put in the spotlight for heinous actions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I had changed it to 30 days, but it looks like I failed to change the pending edits to 30 days. I have fixed that. Regardless, I'm going to re-access this in 30 days and if people are still being POV-pushing (no matter what side you fall on!) or sexist/racist/anti-whateverreligion/etc then I'll keep it going. It's really exhausting having to wake up every day and seeing what goes on with this article - one year later. Missvain (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

p.s. knock your socks off: list of all fully protected pages, even N'Sync. Missvain (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong. Most of those articles are not "fully protected," including NSYNC and Hitler. Those that are fully protected are mostly templates. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I know :) I think you'll be fine for a month. Please respect one another and request changes on the talk page. Happy New Year. Missvain (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And if editors are still pushing POV in 30 days, we'll just keep the process going until folks find someone else to obsess with.... (and I always advise: if you're totally obsessing about a subject like, Sarsour, on Wikipedia, take a break and go edit another area of wiki. There are so many other areas that can use improvement. Missvain (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

30 days, 30 hours, or 30 minutes, this is OUTRAGEOUS. You should be taken to task over your misguided censorship. Your obvious manipulation, demanding that every edit must first go through the talk page and only administrators can decide consensus and edit this article, is antithetical to WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. It has virtually allowed one editor, Sangdeboeuf, to entirely control every edit that may or may not enter this article. Have you seen the Arab-Israeli topic area? Edit wars and thousand word discussions ensue every day, yet never is there this type of oversight or protection placed. If an editor violates policy, they are blocked or banned (often). The Sarsour article is no more unique than Donald Trump et al., that doesn't have such protection.

This PR-polished Sarsour article was completely whitewashed of much legitimate and strongly sourced criticism, and now you’ve created a mechanism where a pack of Leftist POV-pushing wolves can easily prevent a comma from being placed in the article. We saw that reality when well-sourced Sarsour quotes following the San Bernardino terrorist attack (shockingly) could not reach consensus and (again, shockingly) were not placed into the article.

Then you have the audacity to lecture us like a schoolmarm. Don’t teach editors about “obsessing” over an article or other areas in Wikipedia that need “improvement.” THIS is what needs improvement. If editors don’t want to edit about quilting, that is their choice. For many editors, as in life, these are topics of major importance. THIS is ground zero and what most needs improvement.

You have set a dangerous precedent and I don’t think that I'm overstating my case: your censorship power move on the Sarour article may be the beginning of the end of Wikipedia as we know it, and a new tactic used by Leftist editors to eliminate all conservative views and legitimately sourced criticism.

It won’t be long before we see this type of tactic popping up on articles all over Wikipedia. Why not, they see how well it’s working here. The Kingfisher (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going anywhere. Requests to reduce protection level can be made at WP:RFPP. WP:AN is another venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Protected edit request on 31 December 2017

Please note that under the heading of Democratic Party - the second sentence is very misleading. Bernie Sanders is NOT a democrat. Either state that clearly or please move it to another area. JusticeforAll (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• oppose - as she was a surrogate (as well as I believe convention delegate) in the context of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 in which Sanders (current and past party affiliation aside) ran in - so this activity was clearly in the context of the Democratic Party.Icewhiz (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• oppose - actually, Sanders did not run as an Independent candidate, but as a Democratic Party candidate. Therefore I oppose the change. We could tweak the wording to make that more clear, though. Awaiting any suggestion, Huldra (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• oppose - per Huldra. The Kingfisher (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Kaepernick, NFL protest

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Short version: RFC consensus is to include no more than a one-sentence mention of the Kaepernick rally.

Everyone seems to agree that Sarsour’s speech at the Kaepernick rally is supported in reliable sources. The arguments for and against inclusion come down to due weight – is this speech important enough to be included in an encyclopedia article giving a broad overview of Linda Sarsour? Opinions are split:

4 pure excludes (Sangdeboeuf, Malik Shabazz, L3X1, Edaham)

3 pure includes (Icewhiz, Nbauman, ZinedineZidane98)

A larger number of folks prefer a much shortened mention. Some of these (Markbassett, Huldra) prefer to exclude, but seem willing to compromise at a one-sentence version. Others (BoogaLouie, Pincrete, Coretheapple, Fred, The Kingfisher) prefer inclusion, generally citing the “coverage in reliable sources” argument; but prefer the short mention, implying due weight or avoidance of trivia.

Thus, I’d suggest that the consensus of this RFC is to include no more than a one-sentence mention.

This will require a change to the current article. Pincrete’s sugestion, "In August 2017 Sarsour spoke at the "United we Stand" rally in front of NFL headquarters in New York in support of Colin Kaepernick," seems to be compromise wording supported by consensus.

I’d suggest that someone insert Pincrete’s text, or something similar. And then that the normal editing process continue to parse the wording where necessary. If no one gets around to this in a day or two, I’ll come back and insert myself. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The article currently states:

In August 2017 Sarsour spoke at the "United we Stand" rally in front of NFL headquarters in New York in support of Colin Kaepernick [...] Sarsour laid out the protesters' demands [...] Sarsour also asked protesters to call and tweet at Verizon, an NFL sponsor. Kaepernick thanked Sarsour and fellow Women's March organizers for their support.

Should this be included or excluded from the article? Other sources mentioned the event, including Ebony and Moyers & Co.. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Correction: The Moyers & Co. story was published a week before the rally. It mentions Sarsour only in the context of some of her tweets that Kaepernick re-posted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude. It's a minor blip on the news calendar. Sarsour, as a prominent activist, will be in the news for any number of activities that generate a brief flurry of news coverage with little to no follow-up evaluation or analysis in reliable, secondary sources. Just because this event was newsworthy and reported in multiple publications at the time doesn't make it encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not the news. To merit inclusion, this event would need reliable sources telling us why it is significant, so that we don't rely on original research to extract the meaning, or else end up with an indiscriminate list of every rally and speech that Sarsour has ever attended or given. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I note that most of the comments below arguing for inclusion don't cite any reliable sources to explain why this event is important; such arguments essentially amount to WP:ILIKEIT. Saying that activists are "notable" for their activism doesn't address the question of sourcing either. J.S. Bach is notable for composition; that doesn't mean that his biography should list every single one of his works. If someone wanted to create a List of public appearances by Linda Sarsour, that would be a different question.

    As for the existing sources, I'm not sure that Sports Illustrated or the New York Daily News are known for having a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy" when it comes to living people. The Root is a relatively new online publication whose reputation is not yet established. In BLPs, we should be especially careful to use only the most generally reliable sources. If this were a "major controversy" and "significant" as some here have suggested, I would expect more mainstream coverage, per WP:REDFLAG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

    • This is reliably sourced. SI is a premier source - and many other sources are available for this particular show of support - sources are not lacking. Not only that, but the Sarsour-Kaepernick relationship is receiving LASTING coverage, e.g. here - Muhammad Ali award caps big year for Colin Kaepernick, USA Today, 6 December 2017 - Linda Sarsour, a leading organizer of the Women's March on Washington, described in GQ's December issue what she told Kaepernick about his work. "I always tell Colin: 'You are an American hero. You may not feel like a hero right now, but one day, people will realize the sacrifices that you made for so many others.'".Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC) And per GQ - Colin Kaepernick Is GQ's 2017 Citizen of the Year "He helped us assemble a ten-person team of his closest confidants—including rapper J.Cole, director Ava DuVernay, activist Harry Belafonte, and Women’s March co-organizer Linda Sarsour—to speak on the subjects of activism, protest, and equality, and to offer some rare insights into Colin Kaepernick himself", and Sarsour herself here - Colin Kaepernick Will Not Be Silenced An activist is anyone who cares about something and has a talent that they're willing to put toward it. Every single one of us needs to prioritize: What is it that touches your heart the most? Is it the killing of unarmed black people? Is it domestic violence against women? Is it immigration and protecting undocumented people? I always tell Colin: "You are an American hero. You may not feel like a hero right now, but one day, people will realize the sacrifices that you made for so many others." There might even be a day when we'll be walking down Colin Kaepernick Boulevard and people will remember what Colin Kaepernick did, just like we remember Muhammad Ali. And I truly believe that in my heart. This is beyond a single protest (significant in and of itself).Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Once again, none of these sources explain how this is relevant in terms of Sarsour's life and career, with the exception of listing Sarsour among Kaepernick's "closest confidants", which is still an odd sort of detail to focus on in this article based on a single mention in GQ. This material belongs more in the Colin Kaepernick article if anywhere. I'm also skeptical that this "ten-person team" is really a significant association for those concerned. Where are the secondary sources that cover this "relationship" between Kaepernick and Sarsour in any detail? Absent those, drawing any conclusions about the August rally from these sources would be improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Also, if sources are not lacking, then please provide such sources to show that this is not simply another case of breaking news of a trivial event with no significant follow-up coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
        • An individual's life is a series of events, some of which may be covered mainly during the time of the event. Your view requiring extensive LASTING coverage for very little itty-bitty details is rather exterme policy wise. That aside, the connection between Sarsour and Kaepernick is receiving continued coverage since support for Kaepernick, following the alleged blacklisting, became a "liberal thing". The rally was covered extensively in August 2017 (do a google news search of Sarsour+kaepernick - on August - [1] - it isn't lacking). There is some subsequent coverage mentioning Sarsour in said rally, e.g. USA Today October 2017, or Washington Times on 28 September, among others. The connection between Sarsour and Kaepernick (and additional shows of support - both ways I might not), has been on-going - google news post September on Sarsour+Kaepernick - covered in a multitude of sources (in attack pieces - and in those sources that are positive to Sarsour - e.g. in their respective "persons of the year" awards). It isn't just the media pushing a connection, they are both promoting it. e.g. Sarsour in a November speech - [2] “Fifty years from now, they’re going to say that CAIR was one of the most effective civil rights organization of all time. It’s like how, 50 years from now, people are going to be walking down Colin Kaepernick Boulevard. Sisters and brothers, this is how history in this country works.” or tweeting on 24 September - Celebrities React to the NFL’s “Take a Knee” Protests Against Trump "Speak the truth even if your voice shakes." Make no mistake about it we stand with Kaepernick. #TakeAKnee. The are mentioned jointly since the summer in a number of contexts, and they both relate to each other - it is definitely a position (supporting Kap) that she's taken up and maintained.Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
          • The link between Sarsour and Kaepernick so far is made of a lot of disparate threads that are being tied together in a very synthetic way. We're not here to interpret the news or to focus on recent soundbites. I seem to recall an editor who was against mentioning Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Geller in this article because their opposition to Sarsour was merely "routine" and "not news". So it is in this case. Should it be surprising that Sarsour, who has supported Black Lives Matter (which the article already mentions) and become "the face of the resistance" to Donald Trump side publicly with a high-profile athlete protesting police brutality whom Trump, as president, has attacked? The fact is that we don't have reliable, published sources that place these events in the kind of context that's valuable for an encyclopedic biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
          • The phrase very little itty-bitty details is apt; encyclopedic bios are not meant to be exhaustively detailed and typically don't dwell on indiscriminate trivia such as mentioning every public appearance by a well-known activist. —19:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Received SIGCOV in several RS. Political activists are notable for their activist activities, and these should be covered.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per Sangdeboeuf, unless the NFL protest becomes associated with Sarsour. It's the difference between Jane Fonda visiting North Viet Nam in 1972 and Judy Collins singing at an anti-war rally in New York that year. One is worthy of notice, the other is just routine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. to quote above "Political activists are notable for their activist activities". Not every activity mentioned in an article has to be on the order of Fonda's visit to North Vietnam. A one-sentence mention is appropriate. -BoogaLouie (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

  Where would such a sentence go in the article? It's not clear from any of the sources how this event fits into Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Neutral. But if included, limit to "In August 2017 Sarsour spoke at the "United we Stand" rally in front of NFL headquarters in New York in support of Colin Kaepernick" the rest is definitely trivia. Pincrete (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude or greatly limit - something like the one line Pincrete mentioned. Just follow WP:WEIGHT - coverage seems not to the detail given -- the DailyNews site only said "Kaepernick also thanked Women’s March leaders Carmen Perez, Linda Sarsour, and Tamika Mallory. Women’s March helped to organize the rally and Mallory made a passionate speech to the crowd." And googling I only saw a medium media names -- and neither NY Post nor SI.com gave details of Sarsour involvement. Markbassett (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude (Summoned by bot) If you want it put it in List of notable activities by Linda Sarsour. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Include. For Wikipedia, the main criterion for including something is multiple WP:RS, and it meets that criterion, as described above. When Sangdeboeuf complains that the WP:RS aren't "analytical" enough, he's just adding criteria that aren't supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and using his own subjective, personal opinion. --Nbauman (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Multiple reliable sources also reported the weather this morning. Should that go in as well? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • No, because WP:RS specifically excludes routine reports like weather reports (as you should know from reading WP:RS). The reason the Kaepernick demonstration belongs in the article is that it shows Sarsour's concerns about social justice are not limited to Arabs, or Jews, but also includes black people. It may be WP:OR for me to say that, which is why I'm limiting myself to the more objective test of WP:WEIGHT. But it's also WP:OR for you to say it doesn't belong because you personally don't think it's important enough. In any case, we don't have consensus to exclude, so it stays in. --Nbauman (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
      • You hit the nail on the head with original research regarding the proffered evaluation of the event's importance. That is precisely why it is preferable to have commentary and analysis from secondary sources. Regarding consensus, I'm afraid you have it exactly backwards. The burden to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include disputed material. For this material to have sufficient WP:WEIGHT for inclusion, I would expect at least some kind of explanation from reliable sources of why it's significant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC) updated 17:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia's guidance regarding "analytical" sources states: "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"; a secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". See also WP:PRIMARYNEWS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per Sangdeboeuf. WP:TMD, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING etc. This doesn't appear to contribute significantly and while not comparable to the inclusion of weather, it is somewhat comparable to including info on someone like an author every time they organize a book signing event. If they write a book, they are going to be assessed on it in terms of how the writing compares to their previous work and the direction they may take in the future. If they attend a public speaking event, then the info if covered will likely be quickly sidelined as a marginal event undertaken by the subject during the course of their professional practice. The same discretion should apply to this subject. If it's something which makes us reassess her positions or contributes significantly to an understanding of her career by way of sustained coverage then it should definitely be in the article. If this is not the case, then challenged material can and should be freely removed. Edaham (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, Wikipedia:Notability (events) isn't the relevant guideline, since this isn't about giving the event its own Wikipedia page. However, the reasoning offered is essentially the same as NOT#NEWS, NOT#EVERYTHING, and WP:PROPORTION. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • It was typed in a rush. The above quoted policies are what I had in mind. Edaham (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. (Summoned by bot) Close question. I would lean toward include because this was and is a major controversy and multiple sources reported it. However, I think it should be shorter, just a sentence. Coretheapple (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• include but more succinct.Fred (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• include due to coverage in reliable sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• include per Icewhiz and Nbauman, yet more succinct. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment everyone and their grandmothers have supported this on the left, so it is really trivia. IF it is to be included, it should be gratly slimmed down, from 4 sentences to 1. Huldra (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

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

Moishe Rosenbaum Just point out that the article is fully protected, so the normal editing process can't refine the language and someone will have to put an edit protected request with a proposed wording. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't notice that - thought it was on pending changes. Sorry. I'll ask an admin or two to check this out. Thanks! Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Drmies! Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Headline in Haaretz: Sex, Lies and Wikipedia

• Today's Haaretz is out with a detailed, INDEPTH report on the problematic, POV editing on this page: [read more: Sex, Lies and Wikipedia: Pro-Palestinian Editors Accused of Protecting Linda Sarsour Over Harassment Claims https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.831535].E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You can mention it using a "press" template on the top of the talkpage, if you like. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

How gratifying to discover that I enjoy a "senior status" on Wikipedia. I shall have to start wearing a ring for people to kiss. Given the writer's apparent fascination with Wikipedia, it's surprising – or maybe not – that they have such little grasp of community practice and the principles of the site. I guess Sarsour's critics in the press haven't been able to actually back up the harassment/cover-up conspiracy allegations, so now they're crying "censorship". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 06:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC))

And how mortifying it is for me to discover that I had never even heard of User:Sangdeboeuf until I saw his edits on this page a few days ago! Humbly kissing your ring, oh mr Senior Status! Huldra (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz is generally considered a premier WP:RS. The article seems to be a valid source for Wikipedia practice as well as being additional coverage of this scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The entire coverage of the "scandal" here is the statement that "a website called The Daily Caller" published some allegations that were then retweeted by Trump Jr., and that Sarsour denied them. Nothing new or significant there. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that, per Haaretz, there is also a cover up of said scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz does not make that claim. The closest that piece comes is reporting that one editor anonymously told Haaretz that other editors are using their Wikipedia status to defend the Sarsour article for non-encyclopedic purposes. One editor here anonymously complaining to a newspaper about other editors is not acceptable for a BLP. -- irn (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder who is Omer Benjakob's source...? Comment: where to start? Say, A “Request for comment”, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment is not "an arbitration request ".....

Or, the sentence: In the most problematic example, Sangdeboeuf and two other editors from the pro-Sarsour camp seemed to use their Wikipedia status to lock Sarsour’s page for editing, due to what one of them called “disruptive editing ....linking to this. That is 3 non admin editors, Sangdeboeuf, MShabazz and Vanamonde asking for an edit, and a non involved admin Ymblanter, complying. And that is Sangdeboeufs fault...?

Mr. Omer Benjakob, and his informer, apparently needs to have some instruction into WP bureaucracy (Yeah, it is Byzantine, I know..) And the small matter of treating allegations against Elie Wiesel completely different from allegations against Sarsour is not even mentioned... (except as a "problematic compromise" by me. To repeat: I wanted it neither place.) Huldra (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There need not be any "source". Perhaps Omer Benjakob is capable of reading a Wikipedia talkpage. From their bio, they are writing their MA thesis on Wikipedia. Might even be a contributor here, for all we know.

I don't know what this section is for. If people want to add a "press" template to the talk page, I suggested as much above. Do people want to insert this source into this article? I don't know if I would go for that. It might be better suited for the Criticism of Wikipedia page, since it primarily deals with Wikipedia procedures and not the BLP subject per se. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Huldra: Reading the article, I believe only this came from a so-called informer: Moreover, one contributor tells Haaretz, it seems that at least two of these editors are using their Wikipedia status to defend the Sarsour article for non-encyclopedic purposes.. The rest seems to be in Haaretz's WP:RSey voice.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, whoever has informed him, has not done a very good job. E.g., a RfC is not "an arbitration request". And non-admins, like Sangdeboeuf, or myself, are not really using our "Wikipedia status"..as we have none. We cannot lock this article. I frankly do not know who he refers too, in the above sentence (it seems that at least two of these editors are using their Wikipedia status to defend the Sarsour article for non-encyclopedic purposes). I assume it is two of the several uninvolved admins who have been involved here? (And for newbies and Haaretz writers: Uninvolved, or non involved admin, is an editor who is an WP:ADMIN, and who do not normally edit in Israel/Palestine articles) Huldra (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde is an administrator FWIW--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I didn't know. Still, he hasn't used any admin action on this page, AFAIK? So supporting an edit request is "using their Wikipedia status to defend the Sarsour article for non-encyclopedic purposes"? Mystifying, indeed. That Haaretz article is more opaque that even the WP:ARCA page... Huldra (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear: I came across this page while patrolling requests for administrative action. I did take an admin action here: I protected the page nearly a year ago. Having seen the poor state it was in, though, I felt compelled to get involved in a couple of the debates that ensued. So, from the point of my involvement onwards, I have taken no admin action here, and will not do so in the future, except in the very limited circumstances permitted by WP:IAR. In sum, accusations of me using my status to "defend the Sarsour article for non-encyclopedic purposes" are complete bunk. Vanamonde (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#How_Wikipedia_fights_for_facts_by_redefining_the_truth, Benjakob has a WP-account and may be interested in feedback (I´d suggest at his talkpage). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It is quite unacceptable that the discussion has gone on to question the accuracy of the Haaretz report. That's WP:OR. The proper treatment of the WP:RS Haaretz source is to simply add it to the Fox and other sources that mention that allegations have been raised that Sarsour engaged in sexual harassment and possibly fat-shaming of a subordinate. XavierItzm (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, User:XavierItzm, what you say is factually wrong. No one, AFAIK, has claimed that Sarsour engaged in sexual harassment. And the alleged fat-shaming is also a she said/she said story: word against word. Secondly, User:עומר בן יעקב is free to participate on this page, if he wants to. For the record: I am not interested in hiding anything, but I am interested in an equal standard for any criticism, both for pro-Israeli and not pro-Israeli people. Huldra (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Saraour is indeed not alleged to have sexually harrased, but rather alleged to have covered up a sexual harrasment and assault complaint. Haaretz, a RS is yet another outlet that has repored on Saraour's alleged coverup and futhermore, per Haaretz, Wikipedia (or some of its editors to be precise) has been involved in a coverup of the alleged coverup as well as unequal treatment of Sarsour vs. other metoo BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what the point of this section is. If you want to include this Haaretz report in the article somehow, say so explicitly (how and where). As an aside: there is no policy which claims that newspaper articles have to be taken as gospel truth. As a simple example: consider ArbitrationGate which was based on a Guardian article, widely repeated in various other outlets, which turned out to be totally wrong (the Guardian later issued a correction). Most the press don't know the inner workings of Wikipedia, and frequently get things wrong. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Kingsindian is right. Also, please see WP:SUBJECT. The Haaretz article shouldn't be used to include in this article the fact that editors are accused of covering something up in this article. If it's sufficiently important, that would belong in Criticism of Wikipedia or Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia or a similar article. (To the extent that the Haaretz article repeats the allegations about Sarsour, it may be a source for that.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Since when is an op-ed in Haaretz a WP:RS for a BLP? Additionally these comments about a "cover up" by "pro-Palestinian" editors are really starting to border on harassment of editors. I have done the same thing at Max Landis, removing possible BLP violations sourced to The Daily Beast while reviewing pending changes. This was done based on previous discussions at RS/n about what sources are suitable for BLP articles. Even if this article is not ARBPIA, BLP is also a D/S topic area. The editors at Max Landis were asked to start an RfC - they have, and the last time I checked the consensus was heading towards inclusion. I am not otherwise involved in these articles. I'm not a significant contributor to this article, but I will remove BLP violations when I see them, which is all that happened here. There was and is nothing stopping editors here from seeking a formal consensus for inclusion.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for its inclusion as a source, but what makes you say it's an op-ed. I think it's "hard news" (at least as hard as news about Wikipedia can be). Note that above the headline, it says "U.S. News", not "Opinion". (There are links to two op-ed columns under the headline; maybe that's confusing.) Haaretz usually does a good job of identifying opinion columnns vs. news columns, often using the words "news" and "opinion" in the URLs. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So it is, I confused it because of the opinion links under the headline that you mentioned. I am surprised actually because it quoted a comment of mine that had been revised as the version that editors replied ("retorted") to later in the discussion (of course, this is not possible because guidelines prohibit revision after editors have replied). That kind of thing may happen in an opinion article, but I am surprised that no one at Haaretz confirmed the quotes before publishing.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is news reporting - not an op-ed, in a RS. It is a usable source. Regarding "this is not possible because guidelines prohibit revision after editors have replied" - note that the talk page here has been "refactored" numerous times, including instances of editors changing other editors' text. e.g. - 06:38, 20 December 2017, 12:42, 17 July 2017, 11:16, 26 August 2017, Revision as of 02:28, 21 December 2017, Revision as of 19:34, 16 October 2017. I'm guessing that whomever verified this (and even in the best outlets - verification is far from foolproof) probably checked that whatever was quoted was here in some revision - but I fail to see how this is a "big deal". Changing what you write (not relevant (I think!) in this case) does not exactly take it back - it is still in the edit history - NPA / OUTING / etc. are all actionable on-Wikipedia also against revised comments (though the retraction is typically positively considered).Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have asked three times: what is the point of this section? I'm going to close this section. Feel free to re-open this section (or open a new one), if someone wants to make an explicit proposal using this source in this article. Otherwise, it's just forum stuff which isn't going anywhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz and the material should be included on the page.XavierItzm (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 December 2017

Reactions

UCLA Chancellor professor Judea Pearl has criticized Sarsour for being a "Chronic Zionophobe" and a "Fake Feminist". The Kingfisher (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that I inteded to place the Pearl quote under a new heading "Reaction," but the edit submission template did not allow. No article on Wikipedia (right now) is more deserving of a reactions section than Sarsour. The Kingfisher (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

See the template {{fake heading}}. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support this is by a reputable and notable person. Of course it's never going to happen because this article is locked down to any negative information about the left's newest darling. We just need to wait as she continues to self-implode and eventually the left will find a new darling. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. BLPs are not attack pages. Any such criticism needs to be put in context by a reliable, secondary source. Absent such sourcing, the statement is WP:UNDUE. For one thing, I see nothing to suggest that Judea Pearl is an expert on politics, feminism, or gender studies, so his opinion on who is or is not a "fake feminist" hardly seems relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. BLPs are also not hagiographies. Look elsewhere on Wiki. You seem determined to exclude as much criticism as you possibly can, and when confronted with unimpeachable sources (NY Times, etc), you manage to bury any and all criticism as deep inside the article as possible, with the qualifiers that only "conservatives" (those EVIL people!) have ever dared to criticize her. Which is, of course, false. But thanks to your efforts, you wouldn't know it from reading this article. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If you believe that this article as currently written is in any way, shape or form a "hagiography," I suggest that you have not actually read it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • The lede is a hagiography - and doesn't reflect any amount of controversy. The body isn't as bad - but it doesn't reflect the degree of controversy she's been involved in.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: The RfC is not about the lede. If you want to change the lead, by all means make a different proposal -- in another section. Many leads on Wikipedia are inadequate. Btw, here's a question for you: find me one sentence in the (much longer) lead of Benjamin Netanyahu which is, in any way, critical or mentions any controversy. I can find you hundreds of such examples if you really want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Sarsour is a controversial figure. It IS our job to record her views, and criticism of her views in a neutral, balanced fashion. It isn't our job to record every bit of mud slung and it isn't clear to me what this is supposed to add to that picture. There is much in the Pearl article that is a good deal less 'sound-bitey' than the proposed text. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd also add that the source is an opinion piece (a primary source for the author's opinion), and so not suitable per WP:RS and WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Pincrete puts it well. And this article, or any other BLP, is not meant to be a repository for each and everyone who has criticised her, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per what others have mentioned already. Also, compare this article to for example the Palin or Bachmann articles, a couple of women which would be expected to attract a great deal of very negative comment/reactions. But you don't see Reaction sections or comments in those articles. For the most part the opinions of others are not encyclopedic. There are exceptions but this is not one of them. Gandydancer (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Does Donald Trump's biography contain a compendium of every time a commentator called him an "orange fascist" or a "puppet of Putin"? No? Then why would Sarsour's biography contain a compendium of every time a commentator called her something? This is not how we write biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe in WP:NPOV and I would like to see criticism of Sarsour's ideas. But I don't think Pearl does a good job. His argument is basically, "What about all the other injustices she didn't mention?" He creates a new word, "Zionophobia," in order to beg the question. Find a better critic. --Nbauman (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• PS. Here's a better critic:

“She’s bigoted because she loves Jews but hates Zionism,” Foxman said. Her progressive activism, he added, “doesn’t excuse bigotry. If you’re an advocate for human rights, for human dignity, you should be more sensitive to the human rights and human dignity of the Jewish people.”

But progressive Jews believe she is a proven advocate for human rights.... [3] --Nbauman (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's already criticism of Sarsour in the article (for her views on feminism, Israel/Palestine, religion and anti-Semitism). I don't see what this fragment adds to the text already present. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - While Pearl does have some relevant experience, his comments were not widely repeated. I do think we should include Abraham Foxman and Jonathan Greenblatt who have much greater authority on the subject and who comments were widely repeated.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support- Prominent figure about Islamic hatred toward Jews and Israel in strong left-leaning reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 10:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support- The reaction is from a notable person, i.e., the Chancellor of UCLA.XavierItzm (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Donald Trump is also notable. Should we also mention it every time he reacts to someone or something? NYT has a list of all the times Trump has insulted someone on Twitter. Do all these belong in an encyclopedia? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References

JPost December 2017

Thread retitled from "accusation of body shaming sexual harassment victim against linda sarsour".

http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Linda-Sarsour-accused-of-body-shaming-sexual-harassment-victim-519655

I believe it should be mention in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.187.13 (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, together with the The Blaze source. XavierItzm (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The Blaze is nowhere near being a reliable source for BLPs. There is so far no actual RS investigation or substantiation of these accusations; see § Asmi Fathelbab allegations, above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

References

TheBlaze

Thread retitled from "Pro-Palestinian activist denies accusations of enabling sexual assault; accuser isn’t backing down".

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/12/19/pro-palestinian-activist-denies-accusations-of-enabling-sexual-assault-accuser-isnt-backing-down

Feminist activist Linda Sarsour — who rose to national prominence in 2017 after helping spearhead the Women’s March in Washington, D.C. — on Monday addressed allegations of enabling sexual assault, which were levied against her by a former employee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.187.13 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

See above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The New School anti-Semitism panel

I've removed the recently-added material about Sarsour's appearance on a November 2017 anti-Semitism panel and the response by Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL (diff). By now the arguments against such material should be familiar to all: Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we are not here to document every public appearance by Sarsour that appears in recent news coverage; neither does every sound bite in response to her by other professional activists, pundits, politicians, and the like belong in an encyclopedic biography. The article already notes that Greenblatt and other ADL leaders have taken exception to Sarsour's views on Israel; we don't need to document every specific instance of this criticism being repeated in the news media any more than we need to document every statement by Sarsour herself on this or any issue. When this event is shown to be significant via some kind of explanation or synthesis in reliable secondary sources, then it should be easy to incorporate into the narrative of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This particular public appearance generated quite a controversy - including donors pulling funding for the New School - and quite a bit of coverage. The comment of the ADL director regarding Sarsour and antisemitism is highly relevant - and in any event should be included next to the previous stmt. Previously (in May) - the ADL had taken issue with some of Sarsour's opinions. In November - they shifted to explicitly "fomenting antisemtism". This was widely reported and a highly relevant stmt.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Then kindly produce a reliable, secondary source explaining how it's relevant, so that we are not using Wiki editors' own interpretations to extract the meaning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed both the quotes because neither of them are particularly illuminating; one is an out-of-context snippet of a panel response and the other is a barely-intelligible attempt at a joke about a hot dog company? It's clearer and more concise to simply paraphrase the fact that she spoke and that the ADL criticized the selection of people on the panel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I provided sources - and there are dozens more for this one. Sarsour actvisim on Jewish issues (which seems to be her almost main activity in the pas two years) has garnered quite a bit of coverage - and this particular one was covered by just about every Jewish English language publication worldwide (which is what Sarsour was referring to in her quote - asking the crowd, ironically, if she is the biggest problem of the Jewish community) and by non Jewish ones as well. The ADL director went beyond criticizing the selection - he said she (and the JVP jead) "foments antisemitism". Parapnrasing this is fine - as long as we do not lose the message (throw out the hot dogs, keep fomenting antisemitism).Icewhiz (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree - the quote is nowhere near specific enough, and what does "fomenting anti-Semitism" mean? It seems to be a way to attempt to create some sort of guilt-by-association link between the panelists and anti-Semitism without directly calling them anti-Semites? Pulling out-of-context quotes and accusations from partisan commentators on either side seems like precisely the sort of thing we should avoid in Wikipedia biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It is attributed to the ADL chief, an authority in the matter. What does he mean by fomenting? Probably encouraging antisemitism. This is not out of context - he refers to Sarsour directly, to the panel selection dorectly, and repeats the same message twice - once with a hot dog producer on a vegetarianism panel, and second by dorectly saying "Having Linda Sarsour & .... These panelists know the issue, but unfortunately, from perspective of fomenting it rather than fighting it." His meaning is crystal clear and direct. And, I would add, widely repeated by RSes who saw this significant and quoted this in full.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We already include discussion of what her critics think about her. We are not going to include another quote of criticism of her every time one of her speaking events makes the news. That's WP:UNDUE coatracking when the article already extensively discusses these issues. Go look at Donald Trump - he is assuredly criticized by someone every time he makes a public speech, but we don't include quotes from Trump critics at every turn. You're trying to flood this article with negative viewpoints (have you added a single positive or even neutral thing about Sarsour in all of your edits?) and that's not what we are here to do. If you're here to express your personal displeasure with Sarsour through her article, you should consider whether you can neutrally edit her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This biography contains as much text about the times Sarsour has made people Mad Online about her speaking appearances as Donald Trump's biography contains discussion of his foreign policy. I submit that we have more than enough back-and-forth, he-said, she-said arguing here. This article doesn't need a compendium of every single time someone says something about something she said. That's not how we write biographies, or at least it should not be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What does he mean by fomenting? Probably encouraging antisemitism [...] His meaning is crystal clear and direct appears to be an original interpretation of the tweet – in this case a primary source – by a Wiki editor. It should be obvious that we need a reliable, published source before we start pronouncing "meanings". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I inserted the direct quote into the article, and support inserting a paraphrased fomenting antisemtism - which is what the ADL director said. That the meaning is crystal clear is evidenced by a multitude of RSes repeating said stmt verbatim. I was responding to NorthBySoutNorth the quote is nowhere near specific enough, and what does "fomenting anti-Semitism" mean? - and in any case I do not support changing the language used by the ADL director - which is clear.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That the meaning is crystal clear is evidenced by a multitude of RSes repeating said stmt verbatim – A multitude of RSes also repeated Donald Trump's "covfefe" tweet verbatim – that certainly doesn't imply that the meaning is "crystal clear". Once again, we need to cite reliable, secondary sources before we start assigning "meaning" to things. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No sources have been put forward evaluating or explaining why this event is significant to Sarsour's bio. Unless and until such sources are provided, this material is WP:UNDUE – the fact that it was newsworthy for a short time does not make it encyclopedic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I have actually added positive information - for instance that she was listed in the Politico50 list. Some other editors should perhaps evaluate whether they are able to act here following NPOV. Much of the coverage of Sarsour is negative, and our article should reflrct this as other articles do. The stmt by the ADL on fomenting antisemitism waas widely covered, and would be included in any other bio, in many bios we even place these designations in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

There was no "statement by the ADL". The "fomenting" remark was a one-off tweet by ADL CEO Greenblatt, which did not use the phrase "fomenting antisemitism". Nor was it "widely covered" that I can see, and it certainly hasn't been mentioned in any evaluation and analysis by reliable, secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Which was covered by a multitude of sources - Fox, mondoweiss, JTA, and various JTA syndicates such as this one,Haaretz, Washington Times, Times of Israel, algemeiner, Forward, ZOA praise for Greenblatt, JPost, JPost, JPost, JPost, tabletmag, Jewish Chronicle... And quite a few others.Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you mean it was commented on (not covered, because most of those are opinion columns) by the usual suspects? And water is wet. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Who are "the usual suspects" MShabazz? Jews? Is it odd or reprehensible to you that Jews should comment on conferences that discuss Jewish people and antisemitism? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

People who get paid handsomely to assert that every criticism of the Israeli government is antisemitic, ZinedineZidane98. Most of them are Jewish, but there are some goyim on the payroll as well. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being so honest, now at least we all know where you stand. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Insofar as the leader of the ADL's comments regarding Sarsour's antisemitism received wide coverage, these should be included in the article. Agree with Icewhiz. XavierItzm (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinion pieces, even from major news outlets, don't qualify as reliable sources for factual statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This was covered by several news organization, see links above (not complete) or even this less complete list: jpost mondoweiss [4] - not opinion pieces.Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding new section about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel controversy

As a prominent women's rights activist, I think it is very very necessary to include Sarsour's controversial tweet about taking away Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel's vaginas. I propose:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Brigitte Gabriel controversy

In 2011, Sasour stated on Twitter that Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are looking for an "a$$ whippin'...I wish I could take their vaginas away-they don’t deserve to be women.” The Tweet drew heavy criticism, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a victim of female genital mutilation, later called Sarsour a "fake feminist."

When asked about the Tweet in 2017, Sarsour responded: “People say stupid shit sometimes, right? I will be judged by my impeccable track record for standing for black lives and immigrants’ rights and women’s rights, and LGBT rights, you judge me by that record and not by some tweet you think I did or did not tweet 10 years ago, or seven years ago, or whenever it was. So that’s my answer to your question. Next.”

Thoughts? PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

References

@PasterofMuppets: - it is already in the article. The tweet, in which Sarsour wrote of Ali and Gabriel, "I wish I could take their vaginas away", was circulated by Sarsour's critics as apparent proof of her intolerant views.[32] Sarsour had debated both women on radio or television; she said that the dispute centered on Ali's and Gabriel's promotion of the idea that Islam is a misogynistic religion.[4] In response, Ali called Sarsour a "fake feminist" and a "defender of sharia law",[4][37] and the New York Times columnist Bari Weiss criticized Sarsour for making "common cause with anti-feminists".[38][39][40] (and previous paragraph on later controversy on this). It perhaps could be expanded.Icewhiz (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You don't expect PoM to actually read an article before he starts pushing his POV in it, do you? And on what possible basis should it be expanded? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, missed it. Thanks Icewhiz. Hey Mshabazz, please see WP:GF. PasterofMuppets (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Sarsour has admitted to wanting to remove vaginas from women. XavierItzm (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2018

Typo:

I hope that we when we stand up to those who oppress our communities

should be:

I hope that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities Zaurus (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 02:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)