Talk:Tamika Mallory

20th Anniversary of the Million Man March: Justice or Else

According to 20th Anniversary of the Million Man March: Justice or Else, Mallory served as a national organizer of the demonstration. Should this be mentioned in Mallory's article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Apparently now, she denies Israel's right to exist, calling its foundation a crime. [1]

Should that be included in the Antisemitism chapter? Wefa (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede

My recent inclusion of criticism of Mallory for anti-semitism was removed from the lede, and I think it's WP:DUE. A simple google news search of "Tamika Mallory" reveals that every single result on the first page--without exception--is about her facing anti-semitism accusations and discussions of her Farrakhan connections. These are from credible sources including the Washington Post, Haaretz, the Daily Beast, Washington Times, and others. I stand by my edit as this blatantly belongs in the lede. It's newsworthy, it's credible, it's reliable sourced. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

As I haven't gotten pushback here, per WP:BB I'm going to add this reliably sourced information to the lede to properly reflect the body. Thanks ModerateMike729 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no consensus for inclusion in the lede. Your edit is also unacceptable for other reasons — "Criticism" sections are highly deprecated in articles — particularly biographical articles — because we aren't here to create dumping grounds for everything negative ever said about a person. Biographies should discuss people's lives in a manner which presents a properly-weighted and dispassionate look at their activities, including both negative and positive reactions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, much of the coverage of her has been linked to her association with Farrakhan, which has become a major issue for organizations she's involved with, and should be in the lede. I will also note that recent coverage - [2][3] - has her asserting that "It was there that, as the women were opening up about their backgrounds and personal investments in creating a resistance movement to Trump, Perez and Mallory allegedly first asserted that Jewish people bore a special collective responsibility as exploiters of black and brown people—and even, according to a close secondhand source, claimed that Jews were proven to have been leaders of the American slave trade. These are canards popularized by The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a book published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam—“the bible of the new anti-Semitism,” according to Henry Louis Gates Jr., who noted in 1992: “Among significant sectors of the black community, this brief has become a credo of a new philosophy of black self-affirmation.”" - which is well beyond just a mere association. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is the epitome of undue weight to front-load a biography with things a person "allegedly" said based on a couple of hot-off-the-press news stories, and which, in the case of the Tablet piece, come from anonymous sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Beyond being a non sequitur (what does a RS's sources have to do with anything? Nothing). This is False. Widely reported, and Tablet actually names several of their sources and people who confirmed this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What do Tablet's sources have to do with it? Quite a lot. The "alleged" statements in question are attributed only to "several sources", "a close secondhand source" (i.e., they weren't there), and "multiple sources with knowledge of what happened" (whatever that means). If they don't name their sources, then anything based on those sources should be treated extremely cautiously, especially in a BLP article. This isn't The Pentagon Papers, and Tablet isn't the Times. Furthermore, you've omitted the part that says "To this day, Mallory and Bland deny any such statements were ever uttered", which is just as important. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKE is not an arguement - particularly when the particulars don't even add up. We have a RS reporting on events (corroborated by several sources), further re-quoted by several other RSes. Several sources is pretty strong as it is. Furthermore - they name Cassady Fendlay as being present in the meeting and - "That seventh person, Cassady Fendlay, reached today, offered a description of the events that aligns with the version described in the piece.". So - NOPE - not secondhand, not anonymous, but very strongly sourced by Tablet. As for the BLP response - we should of course mention that Mallory denies this.Icewhiz (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Further confirmed in follow up reporting - [4] - Vanessa Wruble who was also present in the meeting confirms this. Icewhiz (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's examine that follow-up reporting: Fendlay told Tablet that she definitely did not recall the specific claims described as having been made...Asked about Tablet’s report that Mallory or Perez had asserted Jews were leaders in the slave trade—a regular drumbeat of Louis Farrakhan’s—Fendlay said she 'never heard anything said about that in everything that I have ever experienced working with these women. It doesn’t even make sense.' So we have a she said/she said situation. Pretty shaky and not strongly sourced at all, it looks to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed by Wruble -- "Reached by Tablet today, Wruble confirmed the account as described in the original story.", including confirmation of personal insults - which seems related to "Tamika told us that the problem was that there were five white women in the room and only three women of color, and that she didn’t trust white women. Especially white women from the South .... I suddenly realized that Tamika and Carmen were facing Vanessa, who was sitting on a couch, and berating her—but it wasn’t about her being white. It was about her being Jewish. ‘Your people this, your people that.’ I was raised in the South and the language that was used is language that I’m very used to hearing in rural South Carolina. Just instead of against black people, against Jewish people. They even said to her ‘your people hold all the wealth.’ You could hear a pin drop. It was awful.” per Evvie Harmon who was present in a meeting. As for Fendlay - she did not deny the slave bit, and confirmed several other details - that she thinks "it doesn't make sense" in relation to her subsequent work with them (she's still named as "head of communications" in the national Women's Watch) - only indicates COI if anything. Regardless of the named sources, we have a WP:RS asserting several additional sources for their reporting. Icewhiz (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Confirmed by Wruble... Yes, we have Wruble's general confirmation against Fendlay's specific refutations. She said/she said, like I said.
• ...which seems related to... Related according to whom? Please avoid improper synthesis.
• As for Fendlay - she did not deny the slave bit... Yes, she explicitly denied the "Jews as leaders of the slave trade" reference. Read the part I quoted above.
• ...indicates COI if anything... I see. So an "RS asserting" several sources is fine until one of the sources offers a conflicting account, then it's a conflict of interest? Not how WP:RS works in any way, shape, or form. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - this whole thread is pointless (you are wrong on Fendlay - but it doesn't matter). We have reporting by RS - we don't need to vet their sources (even though - in this case - they present a strong ensemble of non-anonymous stmts, further confirmed following the initial reporting by the victim herself (who initially refused to comment)). The RS's report was further reported by other RSes (e.g. Forward, Daily Beast). End of story - fit for inclusion. Icewhiz (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you're so certain. Others may disagree. But Fendlay didn't say anything about "subsequent work". She was at the meeting, according to the source you provided, and says she never heard any statement from Mallory about Jews controlling the slave trade. Please provide links to the multiple secondary sources reporting the specific statements you are proposing to include. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I will also note that most coverage of Mallory in the past year+ (and this individual did not have much coverage prior to 2017) is of her Farrakhan ties. Thus - Washington Post brings this up recently in November 2018, and The Atlantic ran a full length feature titled "Why Tamika Mallory Won’t Condemn Farrakhan". Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for some time even before I joined, and we're no closer to consensus. Perhaps a request for comments is necessary regarding what if any anti-semitism and/or Farrakhan material ought to be included in the lede. ModerateMike729 (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References

RfC on anti-semitism in lede

After several weeks there has been no progress toward consensus on this issue so I'm making a request for comments: Should the fact that Mallory has faced accusations of anti-semitism for associating with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam be included in the lede?

Reliable sources including the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Jerusalem Post, among a number of others have written on the issue. They cite Mallory's ties to Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, both of which hold anti-semitic views including that Jews are "satanic". In fact, I'm struggling to find a single reliable source that has written about Mallory in the past year that doesn't discuss the Farrakhan/NOI ties. Thoughts? ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Include. Suppose I can start this myself. I think this is clearly WP:DUE, and it's well-sourced. Although I'd be glad to include a caveat that Mallory herself has denied being anti-semitic. ModerateMike729 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include. Well-sourced and WP:DUE. Barca (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural exclude no specific text is suggested above and a blanket 'endorse is not apt. this edit implies that Mallory has been criticised for remarks she herself made - I don't see significant evidence of that in the sources given. What is better sourced is criticism of her involvement with Farrakahn and the NOI, and her failure to condemn both, though at least one source is sympathetic to her possible reasons for doing so. Perhaps some text regarding this is apt, but as none is proposed, how can editors endorse it? Pincrete (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Nothing so far justifies it in the lede. There has to be actual statements from RSs to that effect before the term can be used to describe her anywhere in the article. What the article can anddoes now say is thevarious statements sh has made, and the reader will draw their own conclusions. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude from the lede. Burrobert (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Include, and expand on elsewhere in the article. per MOS:LEAD, which states that the lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

Source in footnote 3 does not support statement that husband murdered--says "killed"

I'm new so I hope I'm doing this right. Anyway, the Amsterdam news article says her son's father was killed. Doesn't say if murdered. Other articles do though including this one: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/nation-of-islam/555332/

I probably should have just edited the citation and fixed this? Again, I'm new.