Talk:Linda Sarsour

Sound bytes

I've been watching the fracas on this page from afar, and I see that much is devoted to precisely how we portray specific soundbytes from Sarsour and the reactions to these. This is a rather pointless exercise. Sarsour is a public figure; she makes frequent public statements. She is also a political figure, meaning that every one of her statement will be subject to an absurd level of scrutiny from a media which must fill its pages. None of this coverage has enduring value, and we should stop spending so much effort, and so much space in her biography, on such content. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I quite agree; one of the tidbits recently added was her reaction to the capture of Saddam Hussein, which happened long before she came to prominence as an activist. If the more recent sound bites lack enduring value, then this one must have even less – I've tagged it as possibly WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Saddam quote js still being brought up today. What else did she say or do of note in 2003? She was an activist back then. We do not redact past information from bios without basis.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We also don't include literally everything anyone has ever said. We're writing concise encyclopedic biographies, not quotefarm compendia. The onus for inclusion lies on the person wishing to include something to justify why it belongs in the article. While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Sadam quote from Newsday is definitely a keeper. We don't have many RS about her early days as an activist, but here's Sarsour commenting about a major event in a major NY newspaper. It gives the article more depth and breadth by providing a window into Sarsour at a time when she was just taking her first steps onto the public stage. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If the quote is actually relevant today (which I doubt), please provide updated, reliable, mainstream sources that give it more than a trivial mention (It's debatable whether Newsday is a "major" New York newspaper, but in any event, we are writing a global encyclopedia). The Newsday article is focused on reactions to a single, dramatic event from a range of people – the coverage is broad but shallow. As such, it's not much of a "window" into Sarsour's early career. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

* Another user has started an RfC on this quote below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Sarsour's response to President Obama's remarks on the San Bernardino shooting – one possibly reliable source, NPR, has just a sound bite with no analysis or context of how this fits into Sarsour's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

* I've removed that material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There is copious sourcing discussing that one. However inline it is often preferable to cite coverage that is not polemic. The stmt iitself is significant in relation to her activities to stop gvernment monitoring of Muslims.Icewhiz (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Then please cite some "not too polemic" coverage that puts the remarks in that context. Without analysis or interpretation from a reliable secondary source, all we have is a sound bite – not very encyclopedic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

e.g [1] [2][3][4][5]. We could place the quote in context of her civil rights activities to stop the "singling out" of Muslims for terror suspicions.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's your analysis of the quote. I'm asking for reliable, secondary source analysis to show that this isn't just routine coverage of a fleeting sound bite. The Erik Wemple essay is opinion, not news, and is about a different interview altogether – it doesn't mention Sarsour's response to Pres. Obama's remarks on "rooting out" extremism. Media Matters and Mic don't contain any analysis or interpretation other than saying that Sarsour "called out" Pres. Obama as an example of "Muslims shattering hateful preconceptions", which is more or less polemical commentary, and not very enlightening. I'm ignoring the links to The Daily Caller, which I assume are a joke (and not a very funny one). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

And then there was the flash in the pan that was the Jake Tapper "ranks of the alt-right" brouhaha – there's been no substantive coverage in reliable sources that I've been able to find since the first flurry of articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The Trapper incident was widely covered and condemned. Regarding the Saddam quote, it is still brought up by her detractors: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. While I don't think we should adopt her detractors' tone or interpretation of the Saddam comments, the Saddam comments are well sourced and given the wide referencing to them - should be in the article. They certainly should be in when we have a void in our article for the 2001-5 period. Typically, in a bio, we try to cover all periods in the life of the person covered, and we do not expunge information according to present day interpretation, convenience, or POV. Considering that this is the most widely cited, and most available information from back then (we also have 2005 and 2007 coverage regarding her arranged marriage and her views on arranged marriage and domestic violence - which aren't as widely cited today) - it should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again, we are interested in sources that show that these comments of Sarsour's have continuing importance. It's clear that Sarsour's detractors will take issue with just about anything she's ever said, so the fact that certain comments of hers have been "condemned" or repeatedly trotted out for political purposes isn't relevant to an encyclopedic biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any other position\activity of hers from 2002-5? The fact this particular stmt of hers from 2003 is still being brought up multiple detractors in 2017 is a clear sign of its importance. She said many things. Some things (not all, but many) get attacked in a single news cycle. Few stmts are referenced years later. This one still is, a decade and a half later.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines I'm aware of that says we must cover all periods in the life of the person. Rather, we choose content based on its importance in reliable, published sources. None of the recent biographical profiles of Sarsour that I've read have had anything to say about the Saddam episode. It's a once-pertinent sound bite that now is evidently just a target of fascination for islamophobic conspiracy theorists and other WP:FRINGE sources. The Newsday article might be useful for the page on the capture of Saddam Hussein, which focuses on that specific period, but is scarcely pertinent here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC) (updated 02:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC))

In just about every bio I have worked on there was an attempt to cover all life periods of the subject. Saddam is more notable than Sarsour, it would have to be on her page before his. The Saddam quote is also repeated by mainstream conservative criticism. It is WP:V and highly notable and significant to her world view, which is why it is repeated today.Icewhiz (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Then please cite some reliable, secondary coverage showing that the criticism is at all relevant. We are talking about a period of three years – not a major stage of life. If there is a lack of mainstream secondary coverage of this time in Sarsour's bio, it's WP:UNDUE to shove in any old content just to fill the space. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Boy with rocks

(refactored from User talk:Sangdeboeuf)

[14] It is amply sourced that she allegedly supported Palestinian rock throwing with that tweet.Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not. I just looked at the sources; neither the CBS nor the Brooklyn Eagle say she "endorsed violence", allegedly or not. I note that you now say "rock throwing", but the article text had violence. The NY Post doesn't even verify that text. Not every little fart is of encyclopedic value, and here it's pretty clear that the sources a. aren't very strong and b. don't support the text of the BLP. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The "endorsing violence" is less supoorted (some say this, others do not, one NYC councilman called it barbarous) - however the tweet itself passes V and is widely cited. Leaving in her non violence quote on one NY radio station interview, while other sources paint a different picture is a problem. Could this simpley described as per CBS "a tweet showing a young boy apparently throwing rocks at Israelis with the caption saying, “the definition of courage."Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

As I explained above, as a person who receives substantial media attention, Sarsour's tweets will be commented upon by the news on a daily basis. That does not make them encyclopedic information. Vanamonde (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yiannopoulos and Geller at rally

Two issues here: 1). whether in describing the controversy over Sarsour's 2017 CUNY graduation speech, we should describe Milo Yiannopoulos's and Pamela Geller's role in the event, and 2). if so, whether it's unduly sensationalist to quote their actual remarks against Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: see proposed text under § Proposal: CUNY speech below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• The current version of the article describes the rally against Sarsour's CUNY speech without any mention of Milo or Geller. However, the two are mentioned prominently in news and opinion coverage of the event, such as in Time magazine, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, The Forward The Forward (again), Jezebel, Gothamist, Mondoweiss, Mondoweiss (again), Middle East Eye, another piece in The Forward, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Mic, and the New York Daily News. Another contributor has argued[15][16] that we can't mention Milo and Geller without also quoting their remarks. However, this is based in no policy that I am aware of, and their actual remarks seem to be mere slander that adds no encyclopedic value. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. For the record this RFC is improperly worded, and takes a position (to which, one should note, there was little support for in the discussion here). Placing Milo and Geller in this BLP would give them undue weight for their rather singular apearance at a single protest. If they do merit inclusion, then yes, their stmts merit inclusion as well - their stmts are not slander but a political position that was quoted by just about every source that did mention them in coverage of the prrotest.Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no improper wording. The first, brief paragraph above is the RfC. The following comments are separate from the actual RfC. Also, how does calling someone "a Sharia-loving, terrorist-embracing, Jew-hating, ticking time bomb of progressive horror"[17] or “a pro-terror, vicious anti-Semite"[18] constitute a political position? It is not WP's job to be sensationalist by quoting and disseminating such slander. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    • When I made my comment, there was little to distinguish between the two paragraphs - you added indentation following my comment (which is not the best why to separate, a sub-section heading would be preferred). As for Milo's and Geller's stmts (who should not be mentioned due to UNDUE) - they are not slander but rather a political position and framing of Sarsour's positions and deeds -delivered in the typical rhetorical style of the figures saying them.Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support (I reserve the right to change my vote) If the rally was organised by elements of the right-wing, then the article should without a doubt state that. I also note that the article isn't very long ((Milo Yiannopouloss article is about twice as long) so there is "room" in this article for more details. ImTheIP (talk) 08:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I support mentioning Milo and Geller's involvement only if their quotes are included too. If we're going to talk about their involvement, then we need to contextualize it by describing their arguments with Sarsour. Otherwise, it comes across as some kind of attempt to elevate Sarsour in comparison to two detractors who seem to be protesting against her for "shadowy" unclear reasons. Scaleshombre (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion at all, per WP:UNDUE. Those two right-wing people are not magically special, and the fact that they had an opinion isn't noteworthy or particularly connected to Sarsour. Righties bash lefties and vice versa all the time, and it's not our job to quote their bickering in detail, nor treat them like "celebrity commentators", per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS (WP is most especially not tabloid news).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: Thanks for your input. However, the issue as stated is not primarily Yiannopoulos's and Geller's opinion, but rather their involvement as leaders of the opposition to Sarsour's speech. I believe this is important to include in order to put the response to Sarsour's speech in context, which the article currently describes rather amorphously as "criticism of the choice of Sarsour to deliver a graduation address at the City University of New York (CUNY) in June 2017. Critics also pointed to her support for the BDS movement". However, the protest was borne not of some grassroots movement against Sarsour, but of an organized response from notorious notoriously far-right figures. According to some of the more mainstream sources on the topic:
    • "Other protests have largely pitted left-wing students against conservative speakers like Mr. Yiannopoulos [...] this time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour [...] her critics are strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right", per The New York Times;
    • "Sarsour's selection drew criticism from some right-wing speakers and pundits, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Gellar, who both protested her speech at a rally outside the university last week", per Time; and
    • "The incident occurred Thursday night outside the CUNY building in Manhattan, where activists against radical Islam, including Pamela Geller and Milo Yiannopoulos, had rallied in protest of the decision by the institution’s School of Public Health to host Sarsour on Friday as a commencement speaker", per The Jewish Telegraph Agency. In my opinion, it would be undue not to mention their involvement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 15:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC))
    • See also Alexander Nazaryan in Newsweek:
      • "Sarsour is also a figure loathed by conservatives, in large part for her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, which some see as inherently anti-Semitic. Although she has said she wants to see Israelis and Palestinians coexist, many on the right do not trust her. Now, they are mounting a furious campaign to prevent her from speaking at the commencement for the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy".
    • It seems clear that we need some indication that this was not just some amorphous protest, but specifically a right-wing protest. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Calling BLPs notorious is a policy violation, particularly when the sources you quote refer to them otherwise (e.g. activists against radical Islam).Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Very well; I've changed it to "notoriously", which was the intended meaning. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

          That doesn't appear to fix it. I don't see it in the text now or in proposed text above, so maybe that's already resolved.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

  • We have to be careful not to extrapolate from news commentary like "their involvement as leaders of the opposition to Sarsour's speech" Was there an election of them as leaders? Just because a journo says something hyberbolic/metaphoric doesn't mean we can use it as if literal truth. This Yiannopoulos and Geller material is just name-dropping. Source material that says something like "conservative speakers like Mr. Yiannopoulos ... and ... commentators like Pamela Geller" tell us that these people were probably present and are apparently good at coughing up sound bites (it's what they do, and journalists quote them because they're good at it, and they're bombastic and entertaining/alarming). There are thousands of conservative speakers and commentators, and the overall reaction is more important to us than what "Milo" said (WP calling him by his first name is a no-no). "some right-wing speakers and pundits, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Gellar, who both protested her speech at a rally outside the university last week" is the same kind of thing; hundreds or thousands may be at any rally and we have no idea how many of them might have been notable. When it comes to left- and right-wing activists of note, they will frequently be at rallies and other events; it's part of their job to be at them. See also the other ongoing RfC on this page for the same WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE error. You could easily create very long but unencyclopedic lists of things like "political events at which Pamela Geller has made an appearance". There's nothing special about this particular one.

    It might be necessary to quote Yiannopoulos or Geller to make it clear to readers what the nature of the right-wing critiques area, but I'm skeptical. Secondary sources have probably already summarized the rightist reaction, and if they haven't, well why are we trying to write about it on Wikipedia? Two quotes from individuals don't demonstrate a right-wing consensus. "speakers and pundits" is redundant, and the second half of it is left-wing PoV; we should not parrot that. "loathed by conservatives" is PoV; it's "investigative journalist"-style writing, so we shouldn't use anything like that. "many on the right do not trust her" is weasel-wording, and doesn't appear to mean anything concrete or even be relevant (this doesn't have anything to do with trust issues). "they are mounting a furious campaign" = more weasel-wording and editorializing. Who is "they"? Why are they more "furious" than the opposition? (If you've been to a leftist rally, you know the opposite is likely true; the left thrives on "outrage"). WP's job isn't to report on current events anyway, so dwelling on reportage like this is out-of-band. What's encyclopedic is probably that Sarsour's speech provoked a negative reaction from the right, charactered by [insert paraphrase of their concerns here], if we have secondary sources that summarize these concerns, instead of focusing on the opinion of two "talking heads" who don't represent a very broad demographic, and have their own right-wing detractors; they're a narrow slice of the right.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  21:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

    • WP's job isn't to report on current events anyway, so dwelling on reportage like this is out-of-band – that's simply not true. Per WP:NOT:

      As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events.

      See also Portal:Current events. We are here to summarize reliable-source coverage of this specific event, not to compare and contrast right- and left-wing protest, speculate about who else may have attended, or evaluate Yiannopoulos's and Geller's status within the right wing. And yes, we do have secondary sources that summarize the right-wing reaction, including Time, Newsweek, and The New York Times. Regarding weasel words, it's also weasel-ish to mention "critics" of Sarsour's CUNY speech without saying who they are, as the article currently does. If SMcCandlish is skeptical that Yiannopoulos and Geller are relevant here, then perhaps SMcCandlish will propose better wording to be used in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
      • What you're quoting has to interpreted within the context of WP:NOT#NEWS. I.e., news-style reportage is already ruled out, and is not among the "current and up-to-date information within [our] coverage". People disagreeing with Sarsour isn't a "significant current event", it's business as usual for an activist. "[W]e do have secondary sources that summarize the right-wing reaction" – good enough, and that makes it not weaselly if they describe and summarize a general reaction. When sources tell us that African Americans in the aggregate do not approve of Donald Trump's policies we do not need to quote some individual African Americans; the secondary source is sufficient. WEASEL applies when we say things like "According to a study by some scientists" and then don't identify them. If the sources only indicate a few blowhard like Y&G had a noteworthy reaction, that's some chest-beating competition between a few activists, so it's name-dropping a filler (trivia). Honestly, in the end, I really don't care much, but I'll stick to the reasoning I've outlined and people either buy it or they don't.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
        • I'll buy the part about omitting routine coverage of talking heads reacting to something Sarsour has said or done; the article already has far too much of that (see § Sound bytes on this talk page). However, the analogy used here ignores the fact that "critics" of Sarsour are not an identifiable group like "African Americans". Saying "critics" in this context elides the fact that reliable sources identify the criticism as coming from the right wing. It's purposefully vague, and therefore runs afoul of WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

          Fair point, though I don't think "African Americans" are an "identifiable group" for these purposes anyway. People's views vary; I know an African American who is far-right, a Trump supporter, and super-hater of Barack Obama. [shrug]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

          Fine; I was merely using the example already given. My point is that reliable sources do identify these "critics"; see § Proposal: CUNY speech just below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) Per SMcCandlish and his persuasive UNDUE argument. Agree that the presence of these two persons is not especially notable, and that their inclusion would be gratuitous, to say the least, as well as POV. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Including names, suggest NO quotes -- Just follow WP:WEIGHT. Report the event according to content in coverage, sensationalized though that may be, and not a sanitized version. Presence of protestors are a major part of the CUNY story and WP:WEIGHT in basic Google shows commonly coverage of her and CUNY includes naming Geller over half the time, and Milo slightly less. For quotes -- quotes also seem prominent from both her and teh protestors, so ... if you include any I think you have to include all for WP:WEIGHT. I think one might perhaps skip ALL quotes and instead just paraphrase the topics each spoke on. But if quotes are included then again per WP:WEIGHT presence of all remarks should follow prominence in coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this is an encyclopedia, and we don't "censor" so I'm dismayed by the comment about "right wing" whatever. How is that NPOV? What if we started eliminating everything that was "left wing"? Be reminded of WP:NOT and avoid turning our encyclopedia into a soapbox to advocate for political causes. Leave your biases at login. We report what happened in an encyclopedic manner, dispassionate tone citing RS, and using in-text attribution if we think a statement may be challenged. We avoid "opinion" pieces. We do not "censor", advocate, promote, or condemn. We write only the facts, and we don't editorialize. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Atsme: - should they be (per 2 in RfC) included with their remarks or summary thereof, or mentioned by name or only?Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Icewhiz: - both are notable, both have been protested against by detractors the same way Sarsour has been, so why would we not include what they said as protestors? There's no reason to include their names if we don't quote at least part of what was published in the sources as to what they said. Look at Geller's BLP, and Milo_Yiannopoulos under the Berkeley section which includes quotes of what protestors were yelling. Readers are here to obtain encyclopedic information, to learn what took place - we aren't supposed to censor, whitewash or over-sensationalize articles. We're supposed to include factual information, regardless of whether it's critical or glowing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

• Ambivalent oppose - It seems to be well sourced, but it just feels like name dropping or trivia. As other's have pointed out, these are professional talking heads. If these were people who actually didn't court controversy and chase cameras for a living, and they felt the need to take the time out of their schedule to make a public statement about the issue, then I could see it being more significant. But that isn't the case, and I feel like if we get in the habit of citing these kinds of people every time they pop up on the radar, we're just going to end up with them plastered everywhere, because... popping up on the radar is what they do. Covering something about the protest seems fine, but the name dropping feels unnecessary. (The real question in my mind, I might add in passing, is how exactly Yiannopoulos manages to show up looking this fabulous to a conservative rally, and somebody actually hands him a mic.) GMG^talk 10:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: CUNY speech

Per User:SMcCandlish's comments about the general reaction of conservatives to Sarsour's speech at CUNY, here's what the mainstream sources say:

Sarsour is also a figure loathed by conservatives, in large part for her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, which some see as inherently anti-Semitic. Although she has said she wants to see Israelis and Palestinians coexist, many on the right do not trust her. Now, they are mounting a furious campaign to prevent her from speaking at the commencement for the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, which she is slated to do on June 1. That movement may have gotten a boost from a recording of Sarsour’s talk at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire on May 12.

Sarsour's selection drew criticism from some right-wing speakers and pundits, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Gellar, who both protested her speech at a rally outside the university last week. Sarsour's critics have accused her of holding anti-Semitic views because of her comments on Islam and Middle Eastern politics, including her support for the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel.

The controversy over Ms. Sarsour’s appearance is the latest dispute in a heated national dialogue over free speech on university campuses. But in this instance, the roles have been reversed. Other protests have largely pitted left-wing students against conservative speakers like Mr. Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Gavin McInnes and Charles Murray. This time, conservatives are leading the charge against Ms. Sarsour. Her critics are a strange mix, including right-leaning Jews and Zionists, commentators like Pamela Geller, and some members of the alt-right. They accuse her of sympathizing with terrorists, supporting Sharia law and anti-Semitism for statements she has made about politics in the Middle East.

Summarizing these, I propose changing the existing text:

The Dartmouth College exchange may have boosted criticism of the choice of Sarsour to deliver a graduation address at the City University of New York (CUNY) in June 2017. Critics also pointed to her support for the BDS movement.

to the following:

The Dartmouth College exchange may have boosted conservative opposition to the choice of Sarsour to deliver a graduation address at the City University of New York (CUNY) in June 2017. Sarsour's critics on the right accused her of anti-Semitism and sympathizing with terrorists for to her comments on Middle-Eastern politics, including her stated support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Conservative commentators Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Geller were two of those who protested Sarsour's speech at a rally outside the university.

Any suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

* I've ended this RfC myself – several users have made convincing arguments that Milo & Geller are mere talking heads in this controversy. Since we have the broader right-wing reaction to the speech summarized in reliable sources, I'll be adding that via the proposed text above, if there are no objections. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

References

RFC: Iraq War statement

Should the following be in the article? Please state Include/Exclude (+modifications for Include if you think some are required): In 2003, after the capture of Saddam Hussein, Sarsour said she and other Palestinians felt humiliated by the way Hussein was displayed, adding, "I think he's done a lot of things he shouldn't have done, but I was hurt. My Arab pride was hurt".Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Survey

• Exclude Not encyclopedic info. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude (Summoned by bot) Agree with Sangdeboeufl's comment below. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include Notable (or at the time, soon-to-be) figure discussing a major event, in RS. Scaleshombre (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not a valid rationale at all. By this reasoning every time any celeb is on a talk show like Letterman or Colbert and said anything about a major event, we'd be bound to quote them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  Not the same, in this case we have an Arab American activisst speaking about an Arab American issue AND this is about the ONLY thing we have on record for her in 2001-5 (we also have her views on marriage which are also out at the moment).Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude Echoing arguments made by Sangdeboeuf, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion per WP:VERIFY Kerdooskis (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as random "current events" (or in this case, obviously no-longer-current events) trivia. Professional activists (and I say this as one for over a decade) issue opinions like this on literally thousands of things; it's their job. If we catalogued Sarsour's Arab-, Muslim-, and Palestinian-activism positions on everything, that would be an incredibly long list of random bullet points that don't intrinsically relate to the subject or to each other.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• Include, I think it's relevant in the context of this article and subject's views. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude per my comment above about sound bytes. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude -- insignificant coverage of the remark so WP:UNDUE to include it. Also, I'm not seeing a contex for this to fit in to the article -- as written it does not seem a significant factor worth inclusion, or even seem clear where it would fit. Markbassett (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• Qualified Include - provided there is adequate coverage in multiple third party sources, verify that the sources exist, avoid citation overkill, and be compliant with UNDUE and NPOV. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear, "compliance" with WP policies such as WP:UNDUE is usually a matter of editorial judgement (see discussion below), and verification that "sources exist" does not guarantee inclusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude - It's an out-of-context soundbite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This was discussed under § Sound bytes, above. We rely on secondary-source evaluation and analysis in writing articles. There is no such analysis of this quote that I have seen in reliable sources, and not everything that appears in the news media is suitable for inclusion. This particular quote does nothing to illuminate Sarsour's life and political role, as is the case with most of the sound bites that have been debated ad nauseam here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Another user has argued[19][20] that we shouldn't leave a "void" for this time period in the article, as if writing a biography were merely a case of ticking boxes on a checklist. However, this ignores the fact that NPOV depends on summarizing facts in proportion to their coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. None of the in-depth profiles of Sarsour that I've read have mentioned this quote, or the Iraq war, or Saddam at all. The fact that the quote has become a target of fascination for Islamophobic conspiracy theorists and other WP:FRINGE sources does not make it encyclopedic information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This quote is still being brought up by her detractors in various opinion pieces more than a decade later. It is verifiable and is an important position regarding her self identity. The article at present does have a void of a few years in terms of her public activity with Iraq and her views on marriage expunged. We typically try to present a full bio.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As was explained under § Sound bytes above, media outlets (especially the right-wing media) get paid to scrutinize nearly every word be that issues from Sarsour's lips. That doesn't make every sound bite relevant to an encyclopedic biography. What reliable, mainstream sources support the notion that this is an "important position regarding her self identity"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is oft raised by polemic sourced as may evidenced from a sarsour+saddam gnews search. That this is repeatedly noted confers notability to this saying, regardless of the quality of the repeater. The actual saying itself is sourced to a RS. Besides repeated polemic sourcing in 2017, this has appeared also in other occasions, eg 2012 when she was relatively unknown [21].Icewhiz (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the relevant policy is due weight, not notability. In any event, Algemeiner Journal is hardly a mainstream source, and Steve Emerson's essay there is merely another polemic against Sarsour. To repeat, which reliable, mainstream sources contain any analysis to support the connection with Sarsour's "self identity"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's completely abnormal for a bio article here to have a "sound bytes" section (which is misspelled anyway; it's "sound bites"). This is a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE violation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record, there is no "sound bites" section in the article. The section on § Sound bytes is part of this talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality & balance

I tagged this article with a POV tag because it contains vague phrasing that needs to be clarified or removed, and it is unbalanced toward certain viewpoints. Sarsour is a highly controversial figure so we must be careful about weight and balance. Bari Weiss, NYTimes staff editor and credible journalist, authored this opinion piece. There are numerous other RS that have provided both sides in a balanced manner. The CNN's Tapper dispute was highly published as were incriminating tweets by Sarsour according to CBS NY. Some of the most notable concerns have been expressed by Politico, this Huff article, Snopes questioned her (Redacted) and support of Sharia Law but she has not responded to them, this IPT report actually cites RS to some of her most incriminating comments, and this source provides some balance to the opposing views from which to draw.

Like other editors, I have seen instances of UNDUE in the article, but don't have time to point them all out right now, so I'll provide a few examples of peacock terms/weasel words, use of Wikivoice instead of in-text attribution, and unbalanced opinion which brings POV into play.

• Arab American Association of New York section: Sarsour's activism has drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists. In 2012, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the White House recognized Sarsour as a "champion of change". After President Donald Trump took office, the White House removed the mention of Sarsour from its website.
• ....Sarsour "has tackled issues like immigration policy, mass incarceration, stop-and-frisk and the New York Police Department’s spying operation on Muslims — all of which have largely inured her to hate-tinged criticism." (Also see Politico article
• 2017 Women's March... "Following the march, Sarsour was targeted with false reports that she supported the militant Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and advocated imposing Islamic law in the United States."

I will replace the POV tag per the polite notice by Sangdeboeuf on my TP, which was much appreciated. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References

"Incriminating" - I suggest you change your language here, because that word implies some sort of criminality on behalf of the article subject, which would be a BLP violation.

The Weiss opinion piece is already included and discussed in the article; you need to explain what you think should be added or expanded.

I have redacted your unsupported claim of "ties" to a terrorist group as a BLP violation. Your claim that Sarsour "supports Sharia Law" is similarly unsupported; in fact, we have a reliable source which calls the claims that she supports installing sharia in the U.S. "false" - false reports that she supports Islamic State militants and favors replacing the U.S. legal system with Islamic religious law per the AP. Unless you have an actual reliable source which contests this factual statement (not an opinion column by someone with a political ax to grind), there's nothing to discuss as far as that goes.

The Times of Israel article you cite is already cited in this biography. Is there anything you think is missing?

I'm not sure what you think is POV about saying that Sarsour "has drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists." It's sourced, and is a concise way of stating the source. If you think it should be expanded to call out specific supporters, I wouldn't object to that.

Also not sure what's "lopsided" about a quote from a reliable source. If you think something should be added from that source, please advise what you think should be added.

The claims that she supports ISIS are factually false as per the cited reliable source, the Associated Press - In the days since she helped organize the massive Women’s March on Washington, the Brooklyn-born, hijab-wearing activist has been targeted on the internet by false reports that she supports Islamic State militants and favors replacing the U.S. legal system with Islamic religious law. If you have an objection to the reporting of the AP, you need to take it up with the AP, not us. It's a cited, undisputed factual statement as per WP:YESPOV: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, we've been over most of this already (check the talk archives). Weiss, Tapper, et al. are opinion sources and therefore by definition do not represent a "balanced" view. The phrase "incriminating tweets" is highly POV and is based on no reliable, mainstream secondary-source analysis that I am aware of. We base articles primarily on such secondary-source analysis, and do not engage in original interpretations of primary sources (such as tweets) ourselves. The CBS source referenced above is from a local CBS affiliate station which merely reproduces some sound bites by a New York assemblyman who apparently took offense at some of Sarsour's tweets – there's nothing here to get too excited about (see § Sound bytes and § Boy with rocks above).

Sarsour's activism has drawn praise from liberal politicians and activists. This is an entirely factual statement based on this JTA article (identical to the Times of Israel article cited above) – it could perhaps use in-text attribution for the sake of precision (avoiding weasel words), but I don't see anything controversial about it.

After President Donald Trump took office, the White House removed the mention of Sarsour from its website. What's to clarify? She was taken off the website – The End.

...all of which have largely inured her to hate-tinged criticism. Other sources indirectly support the "hate-tinged criticism" part, such as The Associated Press and The Washington Post. In any event, Politico doesn't contradict any of that, so I'm not sure why it was cited here.

Following the march, Sarsour was targeted with false reports that she supported the militant Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and advocated imposing Islamic law in the United States. That would be according to The Associated Press, one of the most reliable sources available. And the reports can be assumed to be false absent substantiated evidence to the contrary. This should not be controversial. What "clarification" is needed here exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 19:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC))

The snopes article should be cited in the article. We should consider (with great care!) mentioning her relatives in greater detail, as they are covered in depth in RS, and per my reading she has interceeded in their favor and made other public comments regarding them (which we do presently partially include). This also ties in to criticism already present regarding Odeh.Icewhiz (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[P]er my reading she has interceeded in their favor and made other public comments regarding them [...] This also ties in to criticism already present regarding Odeh. Then please provide secondary-source analysis from a mainstream, reliable source to show that this is at all pertinent to an encyclopedic biography (We don't use Wiki contributors' analytic "reading" of sources, by the way). Also, if the only (non-partisan) source for a given statement is Snopes.com, then the statement is most likely out of proportion to coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. Snopes bases its content on rumor and urban legends, and there are BLP reasons to exclude such content. Apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources should be treated with extreme caution in biographical articles. See also WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Incriminating" - I suggest you change your language here, - NBSB, there is no BLP violation in anything I said, so stop the nonsense. Read the sources I cited and linked. There was no cause for you to redact anything, as I was stating what Snopes said the same way I'm being told it's what the sources say. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: per WP:BLP, "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" and "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law". This policy applies to talk pages as well as articles. To assert without evidence that something a person has written is "incriminating" is at the very least a borderline BLP violation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf - you obviously haven't been reading any of the Trump articles. 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse or an answer. Each article is written and judged on its own merits. If you think something needs to be changed on Donald Trump articles, feel free to suggest edits there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As noted, if the only source you can find for something is Snopes, it probably doesn't belong here. Snopes can be a useful source for analysis, but we aren't going to use Snopes as a source to repeat otherwise-unreliably-sourced claims that can't be found anywhere else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine for the purpose it serves. There are multiple other articles that are very easy to find. Go back and read the sources I sighted at the beginning of this section - IPT has plenty.

Leave the reflist up with my citations where it belongs. Secondly, please calm down and stop being so defensive. The fact that you think Snopes is the only RS that has questioned the tweets tells me you haven't done your research. Lay-off the allegations about incriminating and read Webster or Oxford dictionary for Pete's sake - I used it appropriately. Also read the highly publicized tweets by Sarsour, do your homework before you start criticizing others and stop the nonsense. Your behavior is not collaboration, it's disruptive - I'm here trying to help get this article right. I explained what the issues are, I cited sources, so instead of wasting time arguing that there are no issues with DIDNTHEARIT and IDONTLIKEIT responses, either collaborate and help fix them, or I'll call an RFC for each of the issues I've found. Which do you prefer? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a game of 20 questions; you haven't proposed any additions for us to discuss. If you think specific changes need to be made, please lay out what changes you would make, and then we'll have a basis to discuss what should and shouldn't be changed. The burden lies with the person proposing the change. Please avoid making personal comments; it's disruptive and unhelpful. We aren't here to read people's tweets, we're writing encyclopedic biographies based upon reliable secondary sources. I'm not sure why you think an RFC is some kind of threat; it's a standard Wikipedia process I would welcome if you believe it's necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Snopes is generally RS, though using the sources cited by snopes is usually preferred (as it is a trietary source). It is however telling they chose this balance (which is what trietry sources should be used for). The article is currently missing early coverage of Sarsour, focusing mainly on RECENT news items. In this regard the Columbia Jounalism 2004 item cited by snopes could be an important source of information for this period.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that that source is not the Columbia Journalism Review (an indisputable reliable source) but rather work of students at the Columbia Journalism School; student journalism is often fairly reliable, but we should be careful with it. That said, I'm not really seeing much in that source to add that isn't already there, other than perhaps mentioning that part of her work with the Arab-American Association was in support of John Kerry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf - read WP:Talk page guidelines: Another helpful template is {{reflist-talk}}, which causes <ref>...</ref>-type material to be emitted immediately instead of at the end of the entire page. You could also use the NOTE feature. Regardless, that isn't what I was referring to - my clarify comment was to provide more information for why it was removed, otherwise there is no need to even mention it. We don't leave readers with cliff-hangers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a few more RS that will help balance this article and rinse off some of the whitewashing: The Tower, Jerusalem Post, Cincinnati.com. There are more. ^{Atsme📞📧} 09:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Tower" is published by the Israel Project, a right-wing, pro-Israel advocacy group, and must be viewed as a polemic, partisan source much like The Daily Caller or Media Matters for America, and the article you linked is an opinion column, suitable only to cite the opinion of the author if deemed relevant. It cannot be used as a source for factual statements about Sarsour. The Jerusalem Post story is nothing more than a reposted celebrity's tweeted opinion; again, if there's consensus that Love's opinion of Linda Sarsour is relevant, you need to demonstrate that. The Cincinnati.com article contains not a single mention of Sarsour, so I'm not sure how it's supposed to be relevant here. Perhaps you pasted the wrong link? Again, simply throwing up links to sources is not particularly helpful; you should propose specific additions or changes you believe should be made. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

We are looking for sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The article cites numerous mainstream, reputable sources that meet that standard. If the goal here is to counter some perceived "whitewashing" of the topic by the existing sources, then that's not neutrality but rather false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

[M]y clarify comment was to provide more information for why it was removed, otherwise there is no need to even mention it. I assume this refers to Sarsour's "Champions of Change" profile being removed from the White House website under Trump. More context would be nice, but the AP doesn't provide any, and I'm doubtful that any such information will be forthcoming from the current administration, which is notorious for purging information from its websites without comment. It's debatable whether this detail is encyclopedic, but one would have to be living under a rock to have absolutely no clue as to why it was done, given the president's well-known comments about Muslims. Therefore, I think the tag would simply be gratuitous. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with atsme that the net effect of the general tone, sectioning, phrasing and verbiage results in the article coming across as POV. I wouldn't call it unduely biased in any direction, but it feels as if it has been written by someone who is a proficient writer with a lot of source material to draw from who perhaps leans toward a more biographical style. I'd be hesitant to make sweeping changes, but in order to address the tag which has been placed, it might be prudent to make a single example edit in the body, discuss the effect and continue in the same vein if the consensus is that the resultant text sounds more encyclopedic. This editorial strategy of pausing for discussion might be a bit slower, but it will get results more easily than someone making ten edits and having the baby thrown out with the bath water because they got reverted. Edaham (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it a problem for Wikipedia's biographies of living persons to be written in a "biographical style"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead right. "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.". Encyclopedic biographies are factually illuminating in areas of notability. Published biographies aim to set apart the subject of their writing through what we would consider undue focus on superfluous information for the purpose of setting apart or sensationalizing their subject. This article isn't a glaring example of the latter, but it could use some of the aforementioned tidying up. Edaham (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

(Comment removed) What changes would you propose exactly to tidy up the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I'll make a change first, state the reasons for the change based on policy and we can discuss it here. Regarding the page history in which you struck out your comment, which indicated you hadn't actually read the policy text you supplied, writing in an encyclopediac style vs that of a literary biography isn't a "semantic quibble". Impartiality not typically found in a published literary work is a core part of our manual of style Edaham (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Sarsour's putative "ties" to Hamas and views on Sharia, here's what the AP says:

Other posts have falsely claimed that she supports the imposition of Islamic law on the U.S., citing, as evidence, a sarcastic tweet she made in 2015 that was actually intended to ridicule conspiracy theories about secret Muslim plots to take over the American legal system.

Bloggers and conservative websites also circulated 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. The photo, they said, was proof of 'ties' to Hamas.

If either of these mini-controversies are deemed relevant to her bio, then established, reputable sources like the AP are the ones we should use, rather than Snopes or partisan advocacy publications (as noted above). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

References