Talk:Linda Sarsour

Removal of material on "jihad" comments

I endorse Drmies' removal of undue-weighted material; three paragraphs on a 5-minute news story are clearly too many. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the 3,167 byte section to her use of "jihad" was excessive, however this does merit a mention in the article - e.g. a two sentence mention (as opposed to the three paragraphs that were cut). Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. In fact, I support a drastic rewrite to eliminate most of the as-it-happens "controversy" stuff as well as the focus on breaking-news reports. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator, but you wouldn't know it from reading this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• This was a formal speech she gave to a major national organization. The speech was covered by the media. I think adding it to the page is appropriate, in brief form.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Activists give speeches; that's their job. Media sometimes cover those speeches; that's the media's job. That doesn't automatically make an event encyclopedically relevant, especially when the coverage is brief. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I've re-added a brief mention of this to the part about various accusations of wanting to impose Sharia and so forth, mainly because it was described in Time magazine and the SPLC's Hatewatch blog as an example of partisan critics taking her remarks out of context. Feel free to make any necessary adjustments, but I think that the weight given to this issue should not exceed a sentence given the sourcing available. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

2019 Women's March

The Women's March is Sarsour's signature event. It was the 2017 Women's March that catapulted her into the national spotlight, and she is chairing the January 2019 March. It therefore seems pertinent that Alyssa Milano, who spoke at the 2018 Women's March, had publicly stated that she will not speak this year because of Sarsour's failure to condemn the homophobia, antisemitism, and transphobia of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. meterial was removed.[1]

Wikpedia is not a news source. The 2019 Women's March article already mentions this (and little else, in fact). When independent, reliable sources contextualize this in terms of Sarsour's own life and career, then it may be appropriate to include. You're also omitting Sarsour's rebuttal to Mallory's critics and the fact that, according to The Independent, Sarsour did denounce Farrakhan in 2017, and that other activists have come to Sarsour's defense since Milano's statement. Giving these facts their due weight in this context would require mentioning them as well. However, the whole affair is too recent and hasn't made it past a single news cycle yet. I suggest patience here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the story ran in The Advocate on 30 October. It got picked up by national and international outlets on November 7. Today, Nov. 9, it's gone mildly viral. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Here is the story that broke this story; Why #MeToo Activist Alyssa Milano Will Not Speak at Next Women's March, it ran in the The Advocate (LGBT magazine). Frankly, there is so much coverage of this [2] that omitting looks partisan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • We're not omitting it. You yourself added the information to the 2019 Women's March article. That's where it is the most relevant, in my opinion. We don't need and shouldn't have multiple articles documenting the same breaking news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • That seems like a valid WP:SPINOFF article, as she is the chairwoman of the March. I don't think it's more relevant there, as 2018 Women's March doesn't mention any speakers (it focuses on the general participation). OTOH, I agree that defending Mallory is less important for this article (or the other) than including Mallory's controversies on her article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note this is evolving. We now have the SPD associated Friedrich Ebert Foundation nixing an award due to "Linda Sarsour, a member of the board and former president of Women's March USA, is notorious for her propagation of antisemitism towards Israel" and Sarsour "also spreads antisemitic conspiracy theories that resemble the classic antisemitic trope of blood libel. In September 2018, for instance, she claimed that when US police officers shoot unarmed black people, Jewish persons responsible would lurk in the background." per English, more coverage in German - [3][4]. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is relevant and should be added to this article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I think we need far better sources for what she allegedly said than a batch of graduate students. Is there another source which can corroborate the claim about her saying "Jewish people lurk where unarmed people get shot"? Because that seems pretty bizarre. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • So, I appear to have found the "source" for that "claim," and it is a gross misrepresentation of what she said. Sarsour criticized a program which took US police officials to Israel, because, she sargues, having American police trained by Israeli police and military would lead to more stop-and-frisk and shootings of unarmed people. One might agree or disagree with that point of view, but it's absolutely not the same as saying when US police officers shoot unarmed black people, Jewish persons responsible would lurk in the background. That is not remotely a fair representation of her words or meaning. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • So an award by a German NGO (which has not been mentioned in Sarsour's bio) has now been rescinded. Nothing there about Milano or the 2019 march. How is this relevant exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Fallout from association/stmts with Farrakhan and other issues vis-a-vis Jews. All these repudiations are clearly related.Icewhiz (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
        • We're under no obligation to include gross misrepresentations of Sarsour's positions and statements; in fact, that's clearly prohibited by BLP policy which directs us to consider fundamental fairness and sensitivity to our article subjects. The bit about "blood libel" and "Jewish people lurk..." is right out because she never said it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Better sources exist, e.g. [5][6]. Israel and the ADL are somehow reponsible. Regardless - what is really notable is the nixing of the award by the left wing APD - not each and every stmt that caused them to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Read to the bottom: "The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors."[7] Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism responsible for those two links is a highly questionable self-published source. Nor are The Algemeiner or Jewish Voice particularly mainstream publications. We're writing an encyclopedic bio here, not Dr. Weird's Tales of the Unusual. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Content of the tweet

I think it is undue to state the exact content of a tweet, which can be concisely explained in prose. This is really WP:Recentism and WP:NOTNEWS. If the tweet is kept, we can only anticipate when it will become a WP:Coatrack for similar full quotes. In order to introduce the two subjects of the tweet, there has to be several sentences of context more than what would be necessary than if we only discussed the "idea" behind it. This is too incomplete at the moment, and if it were complete, it would be wholly undue. Looking at other very similar articles, Kevin D. Williamson does not quote any tweet in full, and Roseanne Barr had an RfC, but I think that her tweet was too cryptic to properly describe without quoting it (and her situation was much more significant and high-profile). The "optics" of showing a shocking tweet can be achieved neutrally, by citing its critics. Furthermore, if someone wants to read the tweet in full, it's right there in the sources. wumbolo ^^^ 22:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not recentism - she has beeh criticized for this tweet for many years. Your edit was not a summary - sue did not compare Gabriel to Ali. She did tweet about "taking away their vaginas" - with one of the two being a FGM survivor and outspoken critic of FGM.Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The tweet itself (from 2011, later deleted) could be said to be "many years" old, but it's not even two years since Sarsour rose to prominence as one of the 2017 Women's March organizers and began to attract serious media attention. Wikipedia's standard for recentism is the ten-year test, not the two-month test or the two-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case the content of the tweet was a lot of what the controversy was about. Removing it is misleading.--Calthinus (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Islamists'" views on Sarsour

NorthBySouthBaranof the quote in question pertains to allegations that Islamists view Sarsour as a "house Arab". I have indeed searched to see if this is true. Well some leftists call her that [[8]]. Do Islamists? Is Deepti Hajela an expert on Islamist discourse? Regarding the "randomness" of other quotes, I will have to respectfully disagree with the insinuation that the ADL, ZOA, Ali etc are "random".--Calthinus (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The ADL's pretty mainstream. The ZOA? They're well noted for fringe ties to conspiracy theorists, alt-right celebrities and racial slurs. If you're gonna cite ZOA as mainstream, you can hardly then dismiss the local paper for the place where Sarsour grew up and lives. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

When did I say ZOA was mainstream? I don't support it by the way. Anyhow-- deal with the topic at hand. Is or is not Deepti Hajela in Brooklyn qualified to speak about what Islamists think of Sarsour? (How many Islamists are there in Brooklyn? Is there a notable Islamist movement in Brooklyn? Is she an expert on them elsewhere? I don't think so...) --Calthinus (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Deepti Hajela is a reporter for the widely-respected Associated Press; you're going to need something more than baseless, unsupported speculation here. Do you have evidence that she isn't qualified to report on the things she's reported on? What entitles you to suggest that you know more than her editorial staff at the Daily Eagle and the Associated Press? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Another strawman. Surely if we are going to pigeonhole Islamists we should have a source that is about... actual Islamists? Plenty of things are said in passing in good articles that should not be taken out of context and placed on pages like was done here.--Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please explain how you believe the quote is taken out of context. And no, it's not a "strawman" - you have charged that Hajela is not qualified to report on these issues, yet you have refused to provide evidence in support of your claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The context is a local newspaper article that is not going to be viewed as an authority on Islamist thought. Wikipedia is moreso. Is it acting as such here? Of course the views of actual Islamists on Sarsour, both positive and negative, could be interesting. But is "House Arab", with its allusion to slavery (cf "house negro" - an American cultural reference - alas Islamists who are mostly right-wing don't usually focus much on slavery lest some embarassments might surface, nor is it averse to the idea of women spending most of their energies in the house...), really a term of abuse in actual Islamist discourse? Most scholarship on it would instead connect it to left-wing Muslim activism in the West, not Islamists (see here: [[9]]). --Calthinus (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the "house Arab" quote from the Brooklyn Eagle piece (with "Additional reporting by Mary Frost") is not found in the original AP version of the article credited solely to Hajela. So I don't think the phrase can be attributed to her. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. So then it is Mary Frost(another local journalist[[10]]). Leading us to the same sketchy scenario as before. Again, why are we presenting this authoritatively as representing Islamists?--Calthinus (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The stmt is also factually incorrect - at least mainstream islamists (in the mainstream sense of political Islam as opposed to the "radical islamist" fringe) embrace her - e.g. CAIR and ISNA - she regularly appears as a speaker in their events. Maybe extreme elements reject her - but that is not clear from that quote.Icewhiz (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz Not sure I would call all of CAIR or ISNA Islamists on the mainspace, since the word can have very different connotations to different people. I suspect their Islamist/non-Islamist complexions are mixed in both cases, reports seem to go either way, with CAIR having ties to both teh Muslim Brotherhood and more left-leaning groups. ISNA in particular is interesting though, if we are to hold Schwartz' view that they are essentially a pro-Saudi group, their view on Sarsour could be … interesting. Nevertheless their views, and the views of groups that are uncontroversially known as Islamists (Ikhwan etc) could be interesting to include, if RS emerge. --Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I was careful to say Islamist in the non-radical sense - political islam sense. Both have some connection/inspiration with the MB. Islamist has come, often, in popular discourse been hijacked to mean radical islamist (or jihadist) - but the technical meaning is different. Regardless of the exact term - she is quite accepted (keynote speaker) in some mainstream Islamic religious groups (which ISNA claims to be) in North America.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Mary Frost's version of the article is a RS on news-like things, but the generalization in question seems to fall under WP:EXCEPTIONAL. "House Arab" is a distinctly English -- indeed American -- pun and there doesn't seem be any trace of it on the internet being applied to Sarsour aside from the blog post by Jonathan Azaziah, who's not an Islamist in any sense of the term. Eperoton (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: No worries, I knew what you meant, I just wanted to make sure everyone else did lest we risk another derailment. I had some sources months back on both praise and criticism from Muslim voices (mostly non-Islamist actually, but Muslim) -- perhaps some could find its way into this article which curiously has a fair number of Wasps talking about what "Islamists" think and little actual Muslim commentary.

@Eperoton: Thank you, this is exactly my point. The "house Arab" term is not one actual Islamists are known to use, making Frost's commentary here ... unnecessary at best.--Calthinus (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What Islamists, Muslim feminists, Ex-Muslims etc are actually saying

I lost my old stash but Icewhiz E.M.Gregory perhaps these may be of interest. Here is Sarah Haider, a prominent ex-Muslim who still advocates for those of Muslim background facing racism, while also advocating for atheists of Muslim backgrounds [[11]]. Here is a feminist writer, scroll to the bottom to find Nervana Mahmoud's commentary (this is who she is [[12]], she's been featured by WaPo, the Economist and the Daily Beast) -- she is an Egyptian Muslim feminist - [[13]] -- there is also many other left-wing Muslim reformist viewpoints here that may be of use elsewhere, including the prominent Mona Eltahawy. I have lost track of my ref for the Muslim Brotherhood's commentary on her-- working on finding it. For now, I'll leave you with this tweet from 2011, which I unearthed by accident... [[14]] Yo the Muslim Brotherhood knows how to parrrttaaay! So much for radical islamists taking over! If these r - they r da coolest! #jan25 #Egypt. Not suggesting adding this to the mainspace but .... yeah let's say I'll try to convince myself that was tongue in cheek :). --Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If this isn't a suggestion for improving the article, then what is it? See WP:NOTFORUM. We've been over this issue before – Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 12. Several cherry-picked opinion pieces don't outweigh what reliable, independent sources say on the topic of Sarsour's reception by other activists and pundits. Also, I see several editors that have commented in this thread besides the ones you pinged. Any particular reason they wouldn't also be interested? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not canvassing if they're already on the thread. And yes, cherrypicking -- more in the colloquial than Wikipedian sense-- is a severe problem on this page. Hence why we have Smith's uncorroborated allegation of Islamists calling her a smear they don't use, and a page that, as reiterated many times before, grabs all the news articles people can find that happen to call her critics "conservatives" (plus "Jewish groups" and "pro-Israel Democrats"), and jams them together what, seven times or so last I counted, giving the impression that's all her critics are, while for various arcane reasons critique from other angles is excluded. For example, "her critics among conservatives and pro-Israel Democrats accuse her of anti-Semitism for her stance on Middle Eastern politics" -- there are plenty here that are not either of those, now including Lipstadt. Not going to speculate on motives, this has the same effect as cherrypicking. On the other hand, I do believe Muslim feminist views, such as those of Mahmoud or Haider (well, ex-Muslim for the latter) are of interest to readers and would be appreciated, and bring more diversity to the page-- this is a concrete proposal for inclusion. --Calthinus (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The ABC.au article looks good and is fairly easy to find. It isn't uncommon to search for linda hijab or sarsour hijab if an editor wants to expand the 'Personal life' section. So I wouldn't really call it a "cherry-picked" source. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not Sarsour Brooklyn then? Why would we focus on the hijab issue? Especially considering hijab fear and hijab racism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your questions. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are we assuming that Sarsour hijab is the most relevant search string for finding sources to use in the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Wearing/taking off the hijab is as significant a choice in a Muslim woman's life as going vegan is for Hollywood celebrities. 'Personal life' sections are designed for such trivia. But what does that have to do with this discussion? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"Views on religion and public life"? --Calthinus (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

That would more convenient, yes. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We're not writing a treatise on the generic "Muslim woman"; we're writing a bio of one Linda Sarsour. To state anything about the personal significance of Sarsour's wearing the hijab requires a published, reliable source that comments on it directly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

My intention was simply to demonstrate that the source wasn't cherry-picked. You're making this about something else. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It may have been and it may not have been – the fact that it is possible to come across the source when doing a more general search doesn't imply that it can't also be deliberately chosen to reinforce a given POV. My point is that if we're trying to expand the "Personal life" section in general, then a narrowly targeted search query like Sarsour hijab produces an a priori slanting of the results toward one particular aspect of Sarsour's personal life that is out of proportion to its treatment in mainstream sources. Therefore it represents a departure from WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure you managed to turn this from a discussion about article content into one that centers around the possible motives behind a Google search. I'm no mind reader, and neither are you. And not that I really care, but if this article were to nominated for GA some day (doubtful, considering how potentially unstable it is), the hijab might have to be mentioned at some point. I'm done here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't care about motives; actions taken in good faith can still yield biased results. Still, I'm baffled why an explanation of Sarsour's attire would be considered prima facie as necessary to a good biography. That's like saying if Shmuley Boteach were to be nominated for GA status, "the kippah might have to be mentioned". No it wouldn't, not unless published, reliable sources put special emphasis on it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Once again, we've been over this already. Primary sources don't outweigh independent news media with actual editorial oversight. Blame them for focusing on conservative critics. NPOV doesn't mean we seek out rebuttals to reliably-sourced content; it means we look for the best sources and summarize what they say fairly and proportionally. High-level sources are best on any controversial topic, especially BLPs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Except when it is not actually proportional, as is the case on this page (with the relative proportionality compared to before in the early summer being due to... Icewhiz and myself). Using an unknown local Wasp journalist to represent the opinions of "Islamists" while at the same time refusing to consider an Australian news outlet reporting the views of an actual Egyptian Muslim feminist is not "fair and proportional". Yes, we've been over this, and nobody was satisfied. I decided to take a break, for everyone's sake, not wanting to repeat some of the unpleasantness that happened. Now, we are back to square zero. Including Nervana Mahmoud's view, covered by ABC.au, and maybe also Haider's, makes it more "fair and proportional" whereas otherwise there is a major viewpoint lacking from the article. Other Muslim viewpoints can and should find a way into the article. Additionally, per Fitzcarmalan's great suggestion, this could be a start of a section discussing hte role of her choice in public presentation -- which is a fairly widely covered and notable topic for her especially. If you don't mind, when I add a section to redress this, please don't autorevert.--Calthinus (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There are at least nine independent sources cited in the article that mention right-wing criticism of Sarsour. How many reliable, independent sources directly mention "liberal", "left-wing", or "feminist" detractors?

The characterizations of Sarsour in the source you mention are curiously out of step with mainstream U.S. sources: "New York militant Linda Sarsour"? "[D]efender of Sharia law"? "Salafist-approved"? "[S]upport for convicted terrorists"? "Islamists, like Linda Sarsour"? None of these epithets are substantiated and most several have been debunked. This is propaganda, not factual reporting. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC) (edited 09:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC))

Not sure when you became the arbiter of what is mainstream. Anyhow, those are the words of Symons. The proposal is to include the words of Mahmoud. So once again we have a strawman.[[15]]-actually working version. Of course if we have a section on her apparel/views on teh role of religion, views on either side (positive, negative) will be included. --Calthinus (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Once again, that is not how we achieve neutrality. "Fair and proportional" means we accurately reflect descriptions by high-level sources writing from a disinterested viewpoint, not that we give equal validity to both "sides" of a dispute. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it is unfortunate how you cite policy while meanwhile appointing yourself the arbiter of what exactly balance is based on a one-sided sample. Of course we've been around the moon on this. The kippah comments, and also the Bibi comments (other section)(by the way I do not support Netanyahu but most people would interpret that comment as placed their for the purpose of irritating percieved Likudniks -- whatever the intention was) -- these are Whataboutism and are not productive or constructive in any way, please do not repeat them. Anyhow when I find time I will pull together sources for section, hopefully it will be agreeable, otherwise we will an RfC or DR.--Calthinus (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"One-sided" how? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

BDS and perceived anti-Zionism

@Calthinus: This edit makes absolutely no sense. Jewish leaders have also criticized her for her support of BDS and perceived anti-Zionism—? The only "Jewish leader" that the source mentions having commented on the BDS issue is Jonathan Greenblatt, who is already quoted on this question earlier in the same paragraph. The phrase also ignores the left-wing Jewish groups that are described as having "lavished praise" on Sarsour. The ones taking issue with Sarsour's perceived anti-Zionism are described in the source as "right-wing and some centrist Jews". Attributing criticism to vague "Jewish leaders" is a misrepresentation of the source cited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC) (I've edited the text to correct the misleading prose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk))

Um as you can clearly see right next to the section you just edited, the praise was already mentioned and I didn't touch it... ahem. Anyhow, the edit was to ameliorate the fact that hte page previously said people criticized her for saying feminism was incompatible with "uncritical support of Israel" when the source says no such thing. It said people criticized her for saying "unabashed" supporters of Israel can't be feminists. Later there is a quote in the source where she criticizes those with "uncritical" support. Very different; misrepresentative. I corrected this to say what the source actually said people were criticizing her -- perhaps you're right, in a redundant way, maybe it would have been better to just remove this sentence. Not sure why that merited the tone in this post above^.--Calthinus (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You left the part about praise from "liberal politicians and activists" in a different subsection alone while adding the vague "Jewish leaders have also criticized..." Which Jewish leaders? According to the source, not just any Jewish leaders. As for the part about "uncritical support", that was another way of saying "unabashed support". The source cited states: [Sarsour] drew fire from Jewish leaders for telling The Nation that unabashed supporters of Israel cannot be feminists. "It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, 'Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?'" [emphasis added]. "Unabashed" clearly means "uncritical" here. Not seeing the confusion at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

What I did in the diff is clear [[16]] -- all I did was replace "saying that feminism is incompatible with uncritical support of Israel" with "her support of BDS and perceived anti-Zionism". "Jewish leaders" was in the sentence before, so why are you going on about that? I did not delete any reference to "praise" that previously existed (actually, insisting I had when the diff is excruciatingly clear that I only touched one sentence... is WP:TE). I am 100% certain that you would not care if it was not me who did the edit. And no, I don't agree with your interpretation of the source that "unabashed support" refers to the "uncritical support" from her quote.--Calthinus (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) EDIT: Okay I confess I misread the source, in that it does refer to the quote from teh same Nation interview. Not sure why all of this was necessary nevertheless....--Calthinus (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote above. Nowhere did I say that you removed any mention of "praise". I'm going on about it, as you call it, because you left "Jewish leaders" alone while completely changing the meaning of the sentence to suggest that Jewish leaders are united in their criticism of Sarsour on the topics of BDS and Zionism. You are 100% wrong if you believe that I would not object to any editor making such a change in contradiction to what a reliable source actually says. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's get some sourcing on these anti-semitism claims. If we go based on what RS say, we won't have these issues continually popping up. Here is a source showing they criticizing her for accusing Jews of dual loyalty with Israel. And [[17]] is a pretty good expaliner from Vox on the subject citing her closeness to Farrakhan, an anti-semite. These would be a good place to start. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The sole mention of Sarsour in the Vox piece is the statement Women’s March organizers Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour have also been linked to Farrakhan. Not much to go on there. I haven't seen any mainstream RS that elucidate these "links", which according to some op-eds and blogs (again, not RS) appear to comprise the time Sarsour spoke at a 2015 rally organized by Farrakhan, and a Facebook post where she called him "youthful". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not condemning someone and taking photos with someone is not really closeness. The converse is also true – if she was close to him, that doesn't mean she is complicit in his anti-Semitism. wumbolo ^^^ 21:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Deborah Lipstadt interview

When a public figure gets this much WP:RS coverage (Redacted), it merits a section on the page. A Q & A with Deborah Lipstadt, scholar of antisemitism. Q. "How do you view Linda Sarsour’s activism and fundraising on behalf of Jewish causes, and her collaborations with progressive Jewish groups?" A."There are lots of people who proclaim they’re against anti-Semitism — “Pittsburgh? Terrible!” Linda Sarsour, you know. At the same time, on the other side of her mouth, she’s talking about don’t humanize Israel and when you wear a Jewish star it makes me feel unsafe. She’s talking out of two sides of her mouth. "[At an event in September, after criticizing Israel, Sarsour said, “If you’re on the side of the oppressor, or you’re defending the oppressor, or you’re actually trying to humanize the oppressor, then that’s a problem…” In 2017, speaking at a march protesting racism, Sarsour said, “I’m going to be honest, there are instances of things that happened to me at this space that made me feel unsafe.” Some people took that as a reference to Zionist signs.] "I don’t trust people like that. One of the reasons I’m particularly not trusting of someone like that is that there are so many Jews on the left who come so cheap. They wrote me, “Look, Linda Sarsour criticized Pittsburgh, look, she’s helped to rebuild a cemetery,” etc. Give me a break. Anyone who’s not going to criticize what happened in Pittsburgh … someone gets credit? OK, so she’s raising money to help rebuild a cemetery, that’s very nice. But at the same time she’s making awful statements about Jews. Not just about Zionists but about Jews. "Farrakhan, he called Jews termites, and Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory and leaders of the Women’s March are embracing him and praising him. He called us termites. How much more do you need?" [18] 13 November 2914. Note that Lipstadt references 2019 Women's March: Actress Alyssa Milano, who spoke at the 2018 Women's March, told The Advocate that she has refused to participate in the 2019 March unless organizers Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour condemn what have been described as homophobic, antisemitic, and transphobic comments by the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree it would be vioalation of WP:DUE not to include this --Shrike (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. No policy says we must include any specific content, and a single primary source for Lipstadt's views does not satisfy WP:DUE in my opinion. Please note that WP:BLP is also a policy, and explicitly cautions against implying guilt by association, which is what the Farrakhan comparison does That applies to talk pages as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I've retitled this section per WP:BLP; your single opinion source doesn't support describing Sarsour as an anti-Semite. At best, you have the single opinion that she's "enabling" anti-Semitism, which is an interesting argument, but qualitatively different than being an anti-Semite. If Lipstadt had wanted to describe Sarsour as an anti-Semite in the interview, she could have done that, but she clearly did not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not support calling Sarsour an anti-Semite in the article. However, Lipstadt's views are WP:DUE. She is a topical expert and she is not partisan (in fact this last month she has excoriated many in the Republican party). Especially her expression of concern about the Farrakhan issue and the lack of condemnation from Sarsour (and Mallory) about his statements. --Calthinus (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Lipstadt is one of the leading, if not the leading, academics in the field of antisemitism and holocaust denial - her expert opinion on Sarsour is obviously DUE.Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Off-the-cuff trash-talking is not the same as well-researched and edited scholarship. I'd treat this source like any promotional interview that publishers send authors out to do, not as a serious piece of commentary. Besides some apparent factual confusion on Lipstadt's part (Sarsour's links to Farrakhan, such as they were, preceded his "termite" remarks by months or years), the tone is sensationalist. The Sarsour quotes in brackets – who is referencing them? Lipstadt? The interviewer? Their editor? What are the "awful statements about Jews"? BLPs have higher standards than other articles for a reason. When reliable, independent sources mention this in a significant way, then it might be appropriate. For now it's just sensationalist gossip.

I note that none of the editors involved here have so far suggested adding anything similar at Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Lipstadt also criticises in the interview. (Bibi did it because he wants Orban in Hungary and whoever’s leading the Polish government at the moment, and Austria, to be his friends ... don't do that and then claim Israel is the primary spokesperson and the address for fighting world anti-Semitism when you have coddled an anti-Semite like Orban, when you have made room for a soft-core Holocaust denial law like the Polish law.) That itself is a red flag to me that this is not really an encylopedic concern. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an independent reliable source. Please avoid WP:CRYBLP. As for Bibi - bring it up over there, not here. Considering Sarsour is mostly ignored by experts, expert opinion here is of great value.Icewhiz (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that her comments on Sarsour, as a leading expert on anti-Semitism, are a necessary part of this article. Without them there would be a serious NPOV issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same about Netanyahu? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll jot that down on my to-do list. We are discussing this article now and I have not edited that one. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done[19] Coretheapple (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Great. When it makes it into the actual article, then it might be worth considering here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You're raising a total red herring. Whether something belongs in Article A has nothing to do with whether it is put in Article B. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case I think it does. Our bio of Deborah Lipstadt contains several critical remarks by her about public figures whom she considers to have "enabled" or "normalized" anti-Semitism, from Jimmy Carter to Ernst Nolte to Howard Gutman to Donald Trump. Yet none of those persons' bios contain this information. What makes her opinion about Sarsour so special that it should be featured in Sarsour's bio rather than in her own along with other similar remarks? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: I won't be bringing it up there, since I don't believe the current sourcing is adequate for either article. But since it's Lipstadt's "expert opinion", I'm sure she will have mentioned Sarsour by name in her new book about anti-Semitism. Do you have a copy? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What is your basis for saying that you don't believe the current sourcing is adequate? I see multiple reliable sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing a total of one published source for Lipstadt's remarks. What "multiple" sources are you referring to? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like Lipstadt has backtracked on her unsubstantiated remark about Sarsour "making awful statements about Jews": "Lipstadt clarified that she was referring to comments Sarsour has made about supporters of Israel, which includes many Jews."[20] Kaldari (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Many Jews, indeed. Not to mention some very non-Jewish evangelicals, neocons, and even white nationalists. This is a good illustration of why we rely on sources with strong editorial oversight and shows the perils of rushing to document every recent kerfuffle that pops up in a single media source. It's a disservice to our readers and frankly makes Wikipedia look foolish. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The clarification is for a small segment therein - and doesn't change what she said really. The clarified piece still addresses Sarsour's support for Farrakhan despite Farrakhan's termite remarks. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: That's misinformation. Sarsour denounced Farrakhan as an antisemite in November 2017,[21] a year before this interview with Lipstadt. So basically, neither of the two most damning claims that Lipstadt makes about Sarsour are true. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Kaldari this is interesting actually -- I must have missed this -- do we have a ref specifically for her words condemning Farrakhan "as an antisemite"? If so, it could be of use, generally. --Calthinus (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The cited piece does not support that. The Women's march comm officer might be claiming this, but it seems hardly anyone else acccepted this - particularly given Sarsour's subsequent stmts on Mallory and Farrakhan. The piece you are citing has Milano condemning Sarsour for Farrakhan ties in Nov 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The piece says Although Ms Sarsour has already denounced Mr Farrakhan as an antisemite in November 2017, she rushed to Ms Mallory’s defence when the black activists was criticised for her association with the NOI leader. -- well I can't find this via Google yet but I'm quite curious. --Calthinus (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

.. instead I keep finding sources that say Sarsour has "refused to condemn Farrakhan" (before the "distancing" in November 2018, not November 2017) or variations on the theme... [" Sarsour and Mallory, who have not been willing to condemn Farrakhan"]... [[22]]... now this one is interesting, it's The Advocate, an LGBT rights magazine: [The widespread criticism of Sarsour and Mallory's refusal to condemn Farrakhan's statements was best encapsulated by trans activist Ashlee Marie Preston. "The reality is, at the end of the day, you cannot be an ally if you are an ally to the people who are harming us... This is a larger part of the conversation about how the African-American community still continues to cherry pick which black lives are important and which ones aren't"... ] interesting. And abstract of the 2018 piece : After years of criticism for their leadership's close connections to the homophobic, anti-Semitic leader, the Women's March finally distances themselves from Farrakhan.... --Calthinus (talk) 06:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: When did Sarsour's support for Farrakhan despite Farrakhan's termite remarks happen exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

She seems to be criticized (e.g. Milano) per her continuing support or lack of condemnation following the termites remarks - at least that's what I am reading in the sources on the backlash.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're conflating two separate things. Failing to condemn someone, which was Milano's recent beef with the Women's March, is not the same as actively supporting – or "embracing" and "praising" – them. There's no link made between Milano's criticism and Lipstadt's in any source I've seen. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Linda Sarsour Has Been A Farrakhan Fan For Years; The Women's March Has a Farrakhan Problem, and many more similar. Responsible people do not find it it at all difficult to disassociate themselves from homophobic racists like Louis Farrakhan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Extensive INDEPTH coverage makes Sarsour's Farrakhan problem notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What "in-depth" coverage? Note that opinion pieces like the ones you linked above are not generally reliable per RS guidelines. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

False allegations

The "false allegations" of support for terrorists refers to the ISIS & Hamas conspiracy theories, which are well-supported in sources as being false. Rasmea Odeh is a minor figure in all this, but this recent edit summary appears to suggest that there are "true" allegations equivalent to the persistent falsehoods spread about Sarsour in right-wing media and social-media (the "blood libel" claim mentioned above being the most recent illustration of such smears). That's a misrepresentation of the weight given the issue in mainstream sources, if not improper synthesis. The smears against Sarsour encompass the "jihad" controversy as well; the wording could be changed to "false allegations of support for terrorism" for accuracy's sake, but I think it's important to state clearly that these are false allegations if they're mentioned in the lead section at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The association with ISIS was proven false, I believe. Hamas is a rather long set of separate claims. Odeh - she was convicted for a terrorist bombing (as well as being deported from the US due to immigration issues over the former conviction and her immigration application), and whom Sarsour explicitly supported - is far from false. The Jihad kerfuffle is a mixed bag (depends on the POV slant on the reporting outlet - e.g. Fox says A, CNN says B). The sentence also could be read that her support for Islamic Law is false - which is also rather a mixed bag (IIRC - while there aren't sources for "imposing", she has been supportive of various aspects of Sharia law (e.g. "If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn't taken over America. #justsaying" is rather widely quoted). e.g. - snopes came to no real definitive conclusion on Hamas and Sharia. The only thing we can really say anything definitive in our voice about is probably ISIS (which I believe was a short lived story anyways) - we definitely can not say in our own voice "false allegations of support for terrorism". Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sarsour's support for genuine, convicted terrorist Rasmea Odeh was real. We cannot dismiss it as a "false allegation."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No one said anything about support for "various aspects of Sharia law"; that's a red herring. Those tweets have also been described as satirical or tongue-in-cheek by more than one commentator. As for Sarsour speaking on the same stage with Odeh, that's a false equivalence, since there are multiple RS that describe the ISIS and imposing-Sharia connections as specifically false, e.g. The Washington Post, Associated Press, and Haaretz. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest statement by Sarsour

• Linda Sarsour under fire for criticizing American Jews of dual loyalty to Israel. Nov. 18.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Widely covered... And "Accusing Jews of dual loyalty is one of the oldest and most pernicious antisemitic tropes" per the AJC,[23] and any student of history. Definitely should be in.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Any student of history" might also be familiar with Mearsheimer and Walt's work The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, which states, "both scholars and commentators use the term in a neutral and nonpejorative fashion to describe the widespread circumstance where individuals feel genuine attachments (or loyalties) to more than one country". Funny how all that nuance goes out the window when criticism of Sarsour hits the news. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Weird, because being critical of Sarsour has nothing to do with this "nuance". [24] wumbolo ^^^ 21:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what that means exactly. I was referring to the concern (or lack thereof) for "nuance" on this talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Include. Obviously notable.--Calthinus (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Haaretz source: [25]. This seems related to this, but I can't find anything in the article connecting it. wumbolo ^^^ 19:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it is about Omar's pre/post-election flip flop on BDS - not the headscarf.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is probably futile, but has no one here read WP:RSBREAKING? Does no one recall that the recent "expert opinion" controversy turned out to be not all it seemed to be? Not every social-media flap (A Facebook post followed by a Tweet) is noteworthy for an encyclopedic biography (@Calthinus: see WP:Notability for the actual meaning of that term). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Include this. The near-complete absence of Jewish criticism of Sarsour is a jarring omission and highlights a serious WP:BALANCE issue. Jewish criticism extends far beyond her "anti-Zionism" and includes her associations with Farrakhan via the women's march (see here) and her accusations of dual loyalty. These absolutely ought to be included prominently. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Near-complete absence of Jewish criticism"? Have you actually read the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely did. The only mentions of Jewish criticism are with regard to her anti-Zionist stance. No mention of Farrakhan, none of dual loyalty charge, etc. These are glaring absences.ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree should be include per WP:DUE --Shrike (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Seems we're at or pretty damn close to consensus here. Ought to be included. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer for an uninvolved editor to judge the level of "consensus", thanks. Consensus is not determined by a majority vote. I for one suggest caution when citing breaking news reports on such hot-button issues. Not that it will make any difference, I suppose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that breaking-news reports are considered primary sources per WP:IRS. Describing criticism of living people requires reliable, secondary sources – see WP:BLP#Balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Include. This is less "breaking news" now, and is serious enough that Sarsour has been compelled to apologize. It's a pretty glaring omission, and the current wording plays into the trope of "Allegations of antisemitism to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel". ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't know that she was apologizing for the "allegiance to Israel" statement at all. Indeed, her statement quoted in that source, "I am a bold, outspoken BDS supporting Palestinian Muslim American", would seem to imply otherwise. Sales/JTA/Haaretz mention the "allegiance" quote and response only in relation to Sarsour being a "polarizing figure" among American Jews. Well, we knew that already. I think it's still too soon to afford these dueling sound bites any special significance. As to whether the article reinforces any "tropes", that's not our business; we just look for the best sources and summarize what they say within the bounds of WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Absolutely does not belong in this article for the reasons that Sangdeboeuf has already done of good job of explaining. Gandydancer (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So... we include her explanation too?--Calthinus (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason to include this latest incidence of the usual suspects overreacting to their own (worst-case) misinterpretation of what Sarsour wrote or said, unless it's in a new section titled "Water is wet". The fact that none of you has ever heard an activist described as PEP — "progressive except for Palestine" — says more about you and the circles you run in than it does about Sarsour's alleged claims of dual loyalty on the part of American Jews. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This sounds more like your personal opinion than something useful (especially the PEP part-- which I have heard, especially being a former member of JVP, thanks for assuming). The point is that the statement is of interest to readers, especially as "dual loyalty" claims and counterclaims are an important part of diasporal identities in Western (and other) societies. --Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of editorial opinion, the "dual loyalty" stmt was widely covered. Much of Sarsour's coverage in sources, as an activist, of for her stmts and associations with other figures - we should merely reflect what sources say of her, and add, per BLP, her responses to various charges.Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, today's weather was also "widely covered". While the Farrakhan controversy has now gotten some secondary coverage, the "allegiance" quote and the AJC's response fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your sarcasm aside, this is obviously WP:DUE and your personal opinion and analysis about what's notable and what isn't carries less weight than that of a WP:RS. Icewhiz is completely correct. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that's obvious is the POV of the editors who think including this garbage represents WP:DUE. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The remarks? She's the one who said them, and we're quoting the WP:RS that reported on it. That's what guides content, not your personal opinions. Please refrain from non-policy based judgments about content and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: BLPs are written conservatively on purpose. We rely on high-level sources, especially for controversies and criticism. Breaking-news reports, however, are considered primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Classifying the sources he cited as breaking news, particularly this one seems to be a mischaracterization. That piece, for example, is not a simple reporting of news, it includes a nuanced analysis as well. And Haaretz should certainly be considered a high-quality source, unless there is consensus to the contrary that I am unaware of. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

See my reply to Bellezzasolo above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I read your reply. I respect your position but the suggestion that the pieces provided are unreliable primary "breaking news" sources is not supported by policy. Here's some of the text from WP:PRIMARYNEWS that examines this distinction: A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. The JTA source was published three days after the Sarsour post was made, included responses by other organizations like the ADL, and examined and analyzed the remarks in the context of Sarsour's other comments. The argument that we cannot address this matter because of a dearth of reliable, secondary sources is simply not accurate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It was the AJC, not the ADL, that condemned the remarks. That's one organization, not "organizations", plural. Still not seeing anything that ties the "allegiance" quote to other comments by Sarsour. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, both this piece from JTAand this one from Haaretz are still reliable secondary sources and neither is a WP:PRIMARY. You need to go back and read WP:PRIMARYNEWS because it does not just mean fresh coverage of a recent event. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news: All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS. Where are you seeing analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis in the two sources you mentioned? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The post by Sarsour was made on 11/15, and each of the pieces is dated 11/18, three days later; these were not breaking news stories. And as far as the analysis/commentary/research in both, I'm confident that if you carefully read the sources, you'll find it. Breaking news stories are distinctly different in tone, length, and character from regular pieces like the ones linked above and are easily recognizable as such. Examples of breaking news from WP:RSBREAKING include The wire service announces that a prominent politician has been taken to the hospital. The weather service says that a tornado has touched down. Clearly, neither of these pieces remotely resembles either example. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the refs in question are more like the examples The newspaper journalist describes the discussions from a meeting of the local school agency or The reporter quotes the politician's speech. In other words, primary sources. And yes, I have read them. Carefully, in fact. And the only analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis concerning the issue that I have found is Sales's (brief) comment on Sarsour being "a polarizing figure to American Jews".

Neither of those examples from WP:PRIMARYNEWS are of breaking news; the first falls under "reports on events," and these pieces go beyond that because they provide commentary and analysis (as you conceded), and the second is from "interviews," and the articles in question are not quoting from an interview. And even if we were to rely on another source that could correctly be described as a primary one, primary does not mean bad. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"They" do not provide commentary and analysis; a total of one sentence in one source qualifies as "commentary" on the issue we're discussing. If we're going by WP:PRIMARYNEWS, it's clear that contemporary news articles are usually considered primary sources. It's not a question of such sources being "bad"; it's a question of making sure that "criticism and praise" are supported by reliable, secondary sources, as required by policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism by Women's March founder

• The Hill: Women's March founder calls for group's leadership to step down: Shook specifically called out Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland and Carmen Perez of Women's March, Inc., for allowing "anti-Semitism, anti- LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric" to become a part of the platform.
• CNN: Founder of the Women's March calls for co-chairs to step down: Shook's critique comes following longstanding criticism of the group's association with Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the black nationalist group Nation of Islam, who has made numerous anti-Semitic and homophobic comments. Mallory and Perez have both posted photos on Instagram of themselves with Farrakhan praising the National of Islam leader, and Sarsour spoke at the Justice or Else rally headlined by Farrakhan in 2015. .E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Per these - [26][27] (and a number of others) - this is also connected to the "dual loyalty" talk and Farrakhan.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

How's this as a better lede given consensus that these accusations ought to be included: Sarsour was co-chair of the 2017 Women's March and of the 2017 Day Without a Woman strike and protest. She has worked with Black Lives Matter and Jewish Voice for Peace. Some mainstream Jewish organizations have accused Sarsour of anti-semitism due to her support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel, her association with Louis Farrakhan, and her accusation that Jewish-Americans have a "dual loyalty" to Israel. And we'll cite it with the two reliable sources from the Hill and CNN listed above. Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Endorse. I think that ModerateMike's is an NPOV and appropriate statement. Certainly, the lede we now have is misleading and out-of-date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Way out of proportion for the lead section. Looking at the excerpts here, this involves all the 2017 Women's March leadership, not just Sarsour. A brief mention in the relevant section of Sarsour's bio would be appropriate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It mainly involves Sarsour and Mallory, of which Sarsour is the more significant of the two. Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on which published, reliable sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on mainstream media coverage focused on racist associations of Mallory and Sarsour, including coverage of Alyssa Milano's withdrawal from the 2019 Women's March.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Glad you asked. Did the American Jewish Committee accuse the entire women's march leadership of using the anti-semitic "dual loyalty" canard, or did they specifically accuse Sarsour? See here. Did B'Nai Brith Canada ask the entire women's march not to speak at a Canadian event due to charges of anti-semitism, or just Sarsour? Let's see. ModerateMike729 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It is patently false that all of these charges "involve all" the Women's March leadership. The "dual loyalty" charge is specific to a statement made by Sarsour, as is her support of BDS. And reliable sources discuss her support of Farrakhan both in the context of the women's march broadly, but also just as an individual (see here). While it's true that sources will accurately describe her as a women's march co-chair (after all, that's a major role of hers) these are specific charges of anti-semitism on Sarsour as an individual. The entire leadership of the women's march didn't say Jews have dual loyalty--Sarsour did. The entire women's march leadership hasn't taken an official stance endorsing BDS--Sarsour did. And everything cited here reflects that. In no way is the lede I wrote in violation of WP:PROPORTION, but rather it is an NPOV way to include the frequent criticisms that Sarsour receives from major Jewish-American groups which are currently glaringly absent. It's curious to me that some editors here are trying to keep the scope of criticisms of Sarsour only limited to BDS and only in the context of the women's march, rather than being encyclopedic and going off what the reliable sources say. Linda Sarsour makes headlines weekly for her affiliations, statements, and political positions that Jewish groups believe to be anti-semitic. The idea that this shouldn't feature prominently in the lead is beyond ridiculous. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That article in The Forward is clearly marked "Opinion". Both opinion pieces and breaking-news reports are considered primary sources per WP:IRS. Describing criticism of living people, on the other hand, requires reliable, secondary sources – see WP:BLP#Balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Breaking news is PRIMARY. However, most items by WP:NEWSORGS are secondary - as is the non-breaking news reporting here. Opinion pieces are not primary if they analyze a situation, and we may use published WP:RSOPINION for attributed statements on BLPs. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Why should we give any particular weight to Petra Marquardt-Bigman's attributed opinion as the author of that Forward op-ed? Is she a notable noted expert of some kind? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC) (edited 17:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC))

Marquardt-Bigman? PhD in contemporary history, notable analyst of contemporary antisemitism - however that is beside the point - as we have several reports by WP:NEWSORGs that are not opinions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

American universities gave out 55,000 doctorates in 2015 alone – 1,145 of those were for history. There must be close to 50,000 tens of thousands of people in the U.S. with a Ph.D. in history. You could assemble a dozen of them to support any POV you wished. Doesn't help here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC) (edited)

As the English Wikipedia has some 5,754,618 articles, and estimating that the professional lifespan of a 25 year old phD is some 45 years (and assuming a normal rate of growth over the past 45 years for past PhDs) - that would be some 25,000 history PhDs commenting on 5,754,618 articles - or one PhD per each 230 articles - and this for published opinions one must note. Seems the history PhD population is still fairly sparse in relation to Wikipedia mainspace size.Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You're assuming an even distribution of opinions over those 5-million-plus articles (which are about more than just history, so your samples are incorrectly matched). However, some controversial topics inspire much more comment than others, as this article proves. Still doesn't help assess the relevance of this one person's opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PROPORTION, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. This is a perfect illustration of the latter. The criticism of Sarsour's stance on Israel and BDS (or "insistence on Palestinian rights") that we currently mention is supported by multiple reliable secondary sources spanning several months, e.g. Haaretz, JTA, and Politico. By contrast, the "dual loyalty" controversy is still in the breaking-news phase. The Farrakhan controversy has begun to receive some analytical secondary coverage, but it's (a) still pretty recent and (b) involves Mallory as much as or more than Sarsour. Putting info like this in the lead section without a corresponding explanation in the body text is definitely a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Also, the proposed text appears to eliminate the phrase earning praise from liberal activists and politicians from the lead – what's the rationale for such an omission? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse some mention of the foregoing but with less emphasis at this time than is reflected in this draft. If it receives more coverage then it can receive more emphasis. This precise language is, however, excessive weight. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, we should generally be careful if a BLP subject disagrees with a particular assessment. Of course, if an overwhelming majority of sources agrees that a BLP subject is lying, we don't give any weight to the BLP subject. In this case, Sarsour's essay ("A Letter on Loyalty, Agency, Unity and the Farrakhan Controversy") has been widely cited in news sources today (not really breaking news), and we must be careful about our sources at the moment. The essay again affirms Sarsour's support for BDS, which belongs to the lead, and is already in the lead. However, the essay also obviously condemns Farrakhan, and directly contradicts the allegations of her being close to him, which are not supported by any recent evidence. Therefore, I oppose the proposed version as POV. Needless to say, the "dual loyalty" stuff belongs to the lead by any standard of RS, as it's uncontested. wumbolo ^^^ 17:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• Another opinion piece from the Tablet: No, Linda Sarsour Did Not Accuse Jews Of Dual Loyalty. But The Right Wants You To Think She Did. If this is to be mentioned at all, we should 1: tell what Sarsour herself say, then, 2: possibly, reflect both her critics and her defenders. (Personally, I think we can probably cut out stage 2 all together), Huldra (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
• An overview of the recent controversy in The Daily Beast places Mallory's attendance at Farrakhan's event at "the root of the controversy" and says that "Several prominent members of Women’s March Inc., including board members Perez, Sarsour, and Bland" offered defenses of Mallory. It goes on to mention Milano's boycott of the 2019 Women's March "if it was led by Mallory or Sarsour, due to their past affiliation with Farrakhan and their reluctance to denounce Farrakhan’s frequent hateful rhetoric". Clearly some mention of this is warranted, but to single out the criticism of Sarsour, especially for inclusion in the lead section, without contextualizing it as a controversy involving several Women's March leaders would be highly misleading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And here's a bit of recent analysis from Ben Sales of the JTA, stating that the Women's March "has come under renewed fire recently for co-chair Tamika Mallory’s associations with Louis Farrakhan" (focus again is on Mallory). It summing up the recent controversy, it states that "Sarsour has been a polarizing figure to American Jews. Some on the right and center point to her anti-Zionist activism [...] But some progressive Jews have worked with Sarsour and defended her from charges of anti-Semitism. They point to her fundraising for the funerals of victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, as well as her raising funds on behalf of a vandalized Jewish cemetery." Sales mentions the recent Tweeted criticism aimed at Sarsour as well as Tuesday's statement apologizing to Jewish members of the Women's March (that's the breaking-news part). I'd say that this is an important additon to the Jewish responses to Sarsour that we already have in the article, but doesn't really change the overall picture, i.e. skepticism of Sarsour on the center-right part of the spectrum, support on the left. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And now this from The Washington Post: "Regional chapters, allies and some of the movement’s most visible supporters have turned their backs on the national group, saying they won’t rejoin until the four women at the helm denounce and cut ties with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan" [emphasis added]. It likewise mentions Shook, Milano, and Sarsour's statement on anti-Semitism, saying "Mallory and Sarsour have condemned anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of hatred but have not renounced Farrakhan himself". Singling out Sarsour's role here would once again be WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Plenty of sources cover Sarsour's remarks standalone - place her photo front and center. However, would you be arguing for removal of the following from the lede and article? "Sarsour and her Women's March co-chairs were included in Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People" in 2017"? That was a group award. We don't go around keeping in the good stuff with it is group related, and then arguing the bad stuff should go out when it is group related. The question should be whether there has been enough coverage of Sarsour's role in the antisemitism crisis - and there more certainly has been. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm aware that plenty of polemic sources whose primary interest is in demonizing Sarsour continue to sieze upon any criticism of her, no matter how marginal. We are not concerned with such sources, but with reliable, mainstream ones offering competent journalistic analysis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that the part about Sarsour's association with Farrakhan doesn't belong in the lead (at least in the proposed form). Most of the criticism regarding Farrakhan has been directed at the Women's March organizers in general, not Sarsour specifically. As she reiterated 2 days ago, she HAS denounced Farrakhan's anti-Semitism (apparently as far back as 2017), but no one seems to care. As she explained, she hasn't been more vocal in her condemnation of Farrakhan because she thinks it's absurd and racist that people are focusing on Farrakhan rather than the violent white nationalists who are actually attacking and killing Jewish people. But of course no one is going to write a story about Sarsour actually denouncing Farrakhan, as the only people who seem to want to write about Sarsour's relationship with Farrakhan are people attacking her. I don't think it would be fair (or accurate?) to say that mainstream Jewish organizations have accused Sarsour of anti-semitism due to her association with Farrakhan, unless we also mentioned that Sarsour has denounced Farrakhan's statements (at least twice now). Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • rather than the violent white nationalists who are actually attacking and killing Jewish people That's a lie simply not the case and she does not think that (you violated BLP). Where's Farrakhan from? NYC. Where's Sarsour from? NYC. Read this excerpt from The New York Times: If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.[28] wumbolo ^^^ 06:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment struck in favor of simply linking to an article in Haaretz which reaches the same conclusion that I reached: "Linda Sarsour Apologizes to Woman's March Jewish Members for Slow Response to anti-Semitism". wumbolo ^^^ 10:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• • • @Wumbolo: did you actually read the essay by Sarsour that you linked to earlier? A white supremacist walked in to a synagogue and killed 11 innocent people and the focus became the Minister Farrakhan and the NOI ... The real threat is white nationalism and white supremacy. They want to destroy us all. Kindly retract your unfounded accusations of lying etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo please strike your comments - that sort of talk is not appropriate for WP talk pages.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

destroy us all (emphasis mine) Sarsour is not a Jew, so she is not referring to Jews here. wumbolo ^^^ 07:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So people are only capable of identifying with members of their own ethnicity? Your claim to know what Sarsour is thinking, and selective quoting of a Times article on hate crimes, are both bizarre and irrelevant. Sarsour's statement Instead of coming together as a country to call out white supremacy and the violence being inspired by this Administration - the deflection went to a Black man who has no institutional power - this is a feature of white supremacy clearly supports Kaldari's comments. Please strike your accusation that they "violated BLP". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't. wumbolo ^^^ 19:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: please see your user talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I might be late to the party here, but I'd like to say that while I support the inclusion in the body here, I really don't think it belongs in the lede.--Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Sangdeboeuf you reverted my edit removing the statement that the subject has "won praise" from liberals- a highly questionable claim - are you also prepared to include the opinions of those from whom she has not won praise and who have been published in WP:RS, per WP:NPOV? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

What part of NPOV do you mean? Remember that WP:FALSEBALANCE is also part of NPOV. And that WP:BLP and WP:NOT also apply here. For praise from liberal activists and politicians, see this source. As for her detractors, the lead section directly referenced those covered by reliable, secondary sources until quite recently, when that content was removed by another user. Perhaps you meant to ping them instead? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I pinged the correct user, as you're the one who reverted my edit (which is not inherently wrong, but in this instance I think you're off). Just to address the two policy arguments you made:

• WP:BLP is not a blanket policy that requires omitting controversial or potentially negative information; it only requires that it be supported by an independent WP:RS. WP:PUBLICFIGURE also applies and says in the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
• Conflating WP:NPOV with WP:FALSEBALANCE is a misrepresentation of what's going on here because criticisms against her have been published in reliable sources, like in the New York Times opinion column, the Washington Post, and Newsweek.

On your last point, It's unfortunate that that other editor decided to make such a revert, and I would hope that per WP:MOSLEAD which states that prominent controversies be included in the lead, you would agree with me in calling for it to be reinserted. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that prominent controversies should be mentioned in the lead. If anyone wants to restore that part, by all means be bold and do so. However, BLP does not require just independent sources for controversial or negative information (notice that phrase "well-documented"). WP:BLP#Balance specifically says that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone (emphasis added). Opinion columns, on the other hand, are primary sources for the author's opinion, and generally not reliable for factual statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your point about the difference between WP:PRIMARY and secondary is a fair one. However, the Newsweek article was not in the editorial section. Here are a couple of other examples of independent pieces reporting on criticisms against her.

• A Muslim-American Activist’s Speech Raises Ire Even Before It’s Delivered, New York Times
• Anger over Farrakhan ties prompts calls for Women’s March leaders to resign, Washington Post

It would seem that our praise analysis is out of date in regards tk later developments and criticism.Icewhiz (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The same could be said about the later criticism. Her apology [29] will likely earn much praise in the near future. What I'm trying to say, is that I'm against removing "outdated" reception, in favor of citing retrospective analysis (as recommended by WP:PRIMARYNEWS). wumbolo ^^^ 11:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: It's not "our" analysis. It's Sales'/JTA's analysis. Whether it's in proportion to the overall coverage of Sarsour in reliable, secondary sources is another issue. However, I think the "champion of change" award suggests that it's relevant, for starters. Also significantly, Sales himself does not backtrack on the "praise by liberals" idea; instead, he says Sarsour has been a polarizing figure to American Jews. Some on the right and center point to her anti-Zionist activism ... But some progressive Jews have worked with her and defended her from charges of anti-Semitism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I will note that continuing coverage of Shook's critique - after the initial burst - has focused on Sarsour specifically. e.g. this. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

References

"Muslim American" <-> vice versa

I was curious about the "preferred" word order here, so I checked a few things right here on WP.

• Muslim-American redirects to Islam in the United States. Okay, redirects are cheap.
• In the latter article, by a simple browser text search, there are 37 instances of "muslim american", 14 instances of "muslim-american", and 88 instances of "american muslim".
• Clearly, something must be done regarding our own WP:CONSISTENCY.
• On Google Scholar, 8,640 instances of "muslim american", 12,900 instances of "american muslim".
• I am not convinced that either formulation is "incorrect". Our own category is Category:American Muslims, so that might indicate a tendency in that direction.
• Two of the sources for this very article include "Muslim American" in their article titles. One includes "American Muslims".
• Discussion, as always, is welcomed! Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

She's Palestinian American. A more precise label anyways. That she is Muslim is visible to anyone who sees a photo of her (which the page has), given that she almost always has her signature hijab on nowadays.--Calthinus (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I know her ethnicity; that is not at issue here (although to say that "Palestinian" is more precise than "Muslim" is missing the point and ignoring, e.g. Christians.) Our article describes her as "American Muslim" several times; Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs) made sure of that. What I am saying is that our other articles, and the WP:RS we reflect, are not so monotonous. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

As Muslim is both a noun and an adjective a simple count of uses is not so simple - but yes - I agree this is generally inconsistent. However, I would also posit that ot does not matter much either way - you could probably find supporting arguements for both.Icewhiz (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Anti-semitism accusations removed from lede?

Not sure why references to Sarsour being accused of anti-semitism by Jewish-American groups was taken out of the lede without consensus, especially when we were in the middle of discussing how to potentially expand upon it last week. Looks like this version is the latest consensus version, before Al-Andalusi unilaterally made drastic changes. These accusations are all heavily cited by reliable news sources, and (as we were in the middle of discussing already) exempting them from the lede reeks of violating WP:DUE. ModerateMike729 (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is why I applied the WP:POV template. Al-Andalusi was wrong to remove the material, and you are correct that it is necessary to include details regarding controversies in the lead to comply with WP:MOSLEAD and maintain WP:NPOV. Thanks! Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly in agreement with all that. Looks like it still hasn't been undone. ModerateMike729 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Certainly should be returned, as is WP:DUE given the rather wider coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is very inappropriate to label her as WP:RACIST. Certainly not mainstream usage by news sources to refer to her as an anti-Semite, even with attribution. So the WP:UNDUE reason is valid here. The new text, "Sarsour, who is of Palestinian descent, supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign" is 100 times more neutral and faithful to the sources we have. When most news article on Linda from mainstream news sources begin to use the anti-Semite label, then sure, you can restore the earlier text. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Most news articles already talk about anti-Semitism. I know which sources we have, and they talk about anti-Semitism more than they talk about BDS. E.g. at the moment, we have tons of news articles talking at length about anti-Semitism, but none elaborating on Sarsour's support for BDS. wumbolo ^^^ 15:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - her support for BDS is mainly covered in the context of claims that such support is connected to antisemitism. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Linda's Jihad against Trump

I added some content in the article for the Jihad against Trump that our Linda tried to unleash in 2017. Realclearpolitics is a reliable source. --1l2l3k (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo Where did you see the "non-violent" word in the source? --1l2l3k (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted you. --1l2l3k (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This article tells a completely different story from the one you put there: Women's March Organizer Linda Sarsour Spoke of 'Jihad.' But She Wasn't Talking About Violence. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's because Linda explained to us that she meant "Jihad" in a non-violent form, however that's her own interpretation. Check the relative lead of the word "Jihad": In classical Islamic law, the term often refers to armed struggle against unbelievers. Linda is walking the tightrope and my reverters are doing the same thing. Unless you want the reader to believe that Jihad is the non-violent war of the religion of peace, that is. That would make sense to the NPC. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this is helpful. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)