Jump to content

Talk:Tamika Mallory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.20.83.145 (talk) at 17:51, 17 August 2021 (→Original Research/Anecdotal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Education Missing

This article is missing any information about this person's education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.227.35 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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",[1] which is just as important. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.'[2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Struck comments from confirmed sockpuppet ModerateMikayla555/ModerateMike729. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darryl.jensen/Archive § 07 July 2019. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McSweeney, Leah; Siegel, Jacob (December 10, 2018). "Is the Women's March Melting Down?". Tablet Magazine.
  2. ^ McSweeney, Leah; Siegel, Jacob (December 13, 2018). "Key Participant at Center of Women's March Story Confirms Anti-Jewish Incident". Tablet Magazine.

RfC on anti-semitism in lede

[Responding to WP:ANRFC] Consensus was to include this in some form. No consensus as to the exact form. However, no objections have been made about this edit, so this is now being closed. (non-admin closure)―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 16:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Include. Well-sourced and WP:DUE. Barca (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Criticism for her alleged associations with Louis Farrakhan have indeed been published in WP:RS. Here is the relevant portion of the NYT piece to provide some context:

Ms. Mallory, meanwhile, who is now co-president of the Women’s March group, has been criticized for attending an event by Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam who has been widely reviled for making anti-Semitic remarks.[1]

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/us/womens-march-anti-semitism.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor19920 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude from the lede. Burrobert (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 The controversy over Mallory's associations with and apparent support for Farrakhan has received substantial and sustained coverage since March 2018 from sources including The Atlantic, the New York Times, Washington Post, Haaretz, and CNN, as well as the much-cited piece by Tablet. The NYT piece also specifically mentions allegations of antisemitism. I also don't understand the procedural issue raised by other editors; the question posed by the RfC seems like a perfectly appropriate use of the process, even if we haven't nailed down the precise wording yet. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural exclude - There's no proposed addition here, so there's nothing for us to !vote on to begin with. Also, there doesn't seem to be any support in the sources for stating that Mallory is anti-Semitic or supports anti-Semitism, as opposed to merely politely ignoring Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. On a personal level, I think Farrakhan's a slimeball and Mallory is being his useful idiot by not denouncing him and disassociating; but that's different than Mallory actually being an anti-Semite. There's plenty of sources discussing how Mallory is tacitly accepting Farrakhan; why does anyone find it necessary to go beyond those sources and declare Mallory guilty of something she hasn't done? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lede could absolutely state that she has been criticized for her associations with anti-semite Louis Farrakhan. The main point of the RfC was to gauge whether the association belongs in the lede--doesn't necessarily need to explicitly call her the anti-semite. ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude - deserves mention in body, but is not enough to meet criteria of WP:LEAD. Also, WP:BLP generally calls for restraint, would not want to be sensationalist or attack page. And as others mention, I am against giving RFC yes for sight-unseen text. This criticism seems in a small portion of her life - a subsection of the women’s march which is a subsection of her various activisms. So seems it deserves mention within the section, but not lead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. This has been endlessly covered by reliable sources and has influenced a lot of things (poisoned a lot of wells). Since the Women's March is Mallory's primary claim to notability and this is a very big controversy for the 2019 march, this deserves a mention in the lead. I don't understand why a specific version has to be proposed, because it is quite clear that this RfC is about including a simple sentence such as "Mallory controversially attended an anti-Semitic speech by Louis Farrakhan". I obviously take BLP into account, but Mallory chose to publicly double-down on what she did and she is in fact a high-profile individual. The only other relevance of BLP that I find here is WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but even though she receives death threats every day, they are reportedly [5] not related to this specific controversy. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You correctly explained my reasoning for not including a specific version of the lede in this RfC. But for what it's worth, the sentence you provided there as an example ("Mallory controversially attended an anti-semitic speech by Louis Farrakhan") seems sufficient to me and properly accounts for BLP. Could also just say "Mallory controversially defended anti-semitic pastor Louis Farrakhan". Either's fine. ModerateMike729 (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying that Mallory explicitly defended Farrakhan's antisemitism and we have reliable sources verifying as much? Maybe I'm missing some very important context here; can you direct me to the relevant source(s)? Snow let's rap 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Mallory has called the establishment of Israel a “human rights crime” and is an unapologetic supporter of Louis Farrakhan, a known anti-Semite and homophobe. [6] So yes, there are reliable sources making such claims, and we are only ever reducing them to satisfy NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well this my concern: I've taken a couple of hours to read through every source used in that section and to do some research for additional sources that might qualify as WP:RS to try to understand what the WP:WEIGHT of coverage looks like here. Most of those sources do not describe Mallory as an "unapologetic supporter" or a "defender" of Farrakhan. Mallory's own explanation of her attendance at the event is that she has a tradition of going because people within the Nation of Islam were of help to her in a difficult period of her life. That may or may not be the whole story of her association with the NOI's leadership, but I have yet to find a public statement from her in which she defends or even makes reference to Farrakhan, let alone one in which she defends his anti-semitism. At the same time, she has not disavowed Farrakhan--but a failure to condemn someone is not the same thing as an affirmative statement or action taken in support of that person, and even less so a defense of specific statements that person may have made. Which I assume is the reason why I have not found any sources aside from the one you supply above which describe her as a supporter. Furthermore, what Mallory has said on the matter is that she believes anti-semitism should be opposed. Now you and I, as individuals with our own personal impressions, might find her statement to be milktoast and insufficient, maybe even a little by-the-numbers and suspect. But as an editorial matter, I struggle to understand how we can use the sources and the record we have here to support the wording ModerateMike was suggesting, and to which I was responding: "Mallory controversially defended anti-semitic pastor Louis Farrakhan". That clearly gives the impression that not only did Mallory actively defend Farrakhan, but that she defended him specifically in regard to his anti-semitic views. As far as I have seen, that would be deeply misleading as to what sources say about this matter, especially if placed in the lead and outside the fuller context of our discussion of the controversy. I'm still rather torn on the issue of whether or not to mention the controversy in the lead, but I'm more confident in saying that wording would be entirely inappropriate for any such statement. Snow let's rap 08:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mallory called Farrakhan the "Greatest of All Time" in an Instagram post according to the NYT, and the Atlantic reported on the fact that she wouldn't "condemn" him. The JTA's wording (source cited by ModerateMike) is consistent with other reporting. I agree that we shouldn't introduce our own personal opinions by analyzing Mallory's conduct and statements; that's WP:OR. However, making a determination of the controversy's significance based on anything other the proportion of WP:RS reporting on it is similarly problematic. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude I don't think this controversy is sufficient for WP:LEAD, especially since WP:BLP generally calls for sensitivity and restraint, as noted above. The controversy isn't why Mallory is notable, and so I do not think including that "Mallory has faced accusations of anti-semitism for associating with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam" is appropriate in the lead. If the proposal is changed to something that focuses on how accusations of antisemitism have affected the 2019 Women's March or her role in it, I think that may be an appropriate addition. I think the best solution would be for a separate subsection inside "Post-march activities and 2019 Women's March".Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude. [Please see new !vote at next bullet immediately below] It's a somewhat nuanced case and close call, but at the end of the day, I just don't think there is sufficient WP:WEIGHT for inclusion in the lead. While there are multiple secondary sources covering the topic, they are all more or less covering the same handful of comments by involved stakeholders and other parties, rather than adding their own endorsement of the facts--and that's not really proper weight as it is typically analyzed on this project. Furthermore, I can't see many workable alternatives to the wording that has been proposed so far, and said wording has some substantial WP:weasel concerns when it comes to saying (in wikipedia's voice and without proper context and attribution) that Mallory "associates" with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. These details are best reserved for where they can be discussed at length (again with context and attribution), particularly hen there is at least some question of whether the details have benefited from appropriate weight in the sources and there is at least some concern of misrepresenting the subject; I'm often somewhat skeptical of over-reach in applying the precautionary principle when it comes to BLPs (particularly where it seems to be going against the grain of verifiability), but in this case I can see the argument, and those concerns convert a close call to an exclude for me. Snow let's rap 05:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that an experienced editor like yourself would have come to a conclusion that seems to gloss over the fact that this controversy has received extensive national coverage in sources like the NYT, CNN, and the Washington Post, and disregard MOS:LEAD which states that prominent controversies should indeed be covered in the opening. Also, WP:WEASEL does not implicate words like "some" or "several" (or other similar phrases) when the attribution is supplied later in the article or in a cited source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't claim to be entirely comfortable with either option--as I said, it's a difficult call. What I will say is that WP:WEIGHT is not just about how many news outlets pick up on a given story or how prominent they are--it is also about the extent to which those RS engage in independent analysis, therby reaching and sharing their own conclusions, and the extent to which they are simply reporting the same statements from the same handful of primary sources, verbatim. Even considering that, this is not an easy determination, but my best call here is that coverage of this event in the lead would be outsized when compared against Mallory's general notability. It's a close enough call that a few new sources (particularly where they presented new details) could change my stance, but this where I land now, particularly given the BLP context. For what it's worth, though, if discussion of this controversy is added to the lead, we could do much worse than your proposed wording below, in terms of a decent neutral summary. Snow let's rap 09:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. However, I don't agree that WP:WEIGHT isn't established with the sources given. It's not just the number of news outlets and stories focusing on this controversy, it's the continued developments and and volume and depth of commentary/reporting. In March 2018, the story was solely about the subject's attendance at the Farrakhan event and her praise of him; by December 2018, the Tablet piece reported on separate and specific allegations of anti-semitism against her based on remarks that she supposedly made during the first Women's March meeting, allegations which the NYT independently followed up on and confirmed with the respective sources. In fact, almost all of the coverage about the subject last year was about the Farrakhan/antisemitism controversy, and we already have a very detailed section dedicated to it in the article. With all this considered, MOS:LEAD seems to strongly support at the very least a mention of it in the lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for the sources above, particularly the one from the Atlantic; even though I'm no newcomer to the story of Farrakhan and his place in the black community, I still found it a particularly insightful piece on the topic. As to the post immediately above: just for context, let me say that if we were operating anywhere where my personal take was relevant, I would emphasize that I personally am unimpressed with the way she has responded to the various events in this controversy, that I find her apologies always seem to be predicated in a "this was "my truth" at that moment, but I am learning to do better" kind of language that comes off as a half-comprehension (at best) of just how bad the rhetoric is that she has been associated with (either directly or indirectly). More to the point, it makes it rather hard to believe the various accounts of her language are inaccurate.
But of course my personal opinion/speculation is not what I am meant to be basing my editorial choices off of, and when I look at those sources, I continue to have BLP concerns. And if anything I am used to being the one feeling BLP is being overemphasized in a debate. Regarding her refusal to denounce Farrakhan, the entire thrust of that The Atlantic piece was to explain just why so many leaders in the black community are inclined to view that as futile or counter-productive. As for Mallory's own purportedly suspect conduct, most of the sources referenced above rely mostly on accusations arising out of sources that are clearly identified as secondhand or else are exceedingly vague; there's really only one direct and substantive account that I've seen printed on it (Harmon's)--and while it is pretty damning, it is just one person. Normally I take a dim view of editors looking too far behind the curtain of the internal policies and decisions of an RS; I just don't think it is our job as WP editors to second-guess the individual editorial calls of sources which are generally regarded as reliable--it invites too much POV through the back door and clogs discussions that are meant to be resolved via a process that removes our biases from editorial call. But isn't the entire point of having a BLP policy to add a little nuance to that principle and urge taking a cautious approach when it comes to what we choose to emphasize as essential information to understanding a given subject--at least where said information would tend to devalue that person's reputation?
But then, as you say, the story continues on. And there is something to be said for the Streisand effect; people are going to be arriving at this article looking for some accounting of the matter. And even I do want to err on the side of BLP on this occasion, maybe the best way to accomplish that is to make use of this occasion to assure that the language adopted for the establish consensus summary in the lead is neutral and not overly-emphatic, which your version does afterall accomplish. I'll give another day's though and then consider changing my !vote. Snow let's rap 07:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Include, with caveats. Alright, I've been won over by arguments here and by the continuing coverage, including that of the newest developments this week with regard to rival marches and other continuing implications for the Women's March movement as a whole. However, I must stress that my support for inclusion is conditional on the point that the lead (and all content in the article, for that matter) must not imply a level of association with (or explicit support for) Farrakhan that is not established in reliable sources, as that would be fairly blatant WP:synthesis. Any mention in the lead should scrupulously avoid any kind of speculation or implication about Mallory's own views on Farrakhan's hate speech. For this reason, I urge that Wikieditor19920's proposed wording below be adopted as the lead language and that it be regarded as what it is--a consensus version arrived at after thorough debate reflecting numerous editorial concerns--and that it should not be altered hastily or without further discussion. Snow let's rap 02:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. Thanks for your contributions to this conversation--I think we've arrived at a fair conclusion. I've closed the rfc. ModerateMike729 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sample sentence to be appended to end of lead

Wow. Thanks for the additional sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Widely covered and DUE, especially as an integral part of her notability is the public debate regarding it. --Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include. Much of the coverage of this individual in the past year+ is due to her relationship with NOI and resulting antisemitism allegations.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • New source A new NYT piece also specifically notes her "public praise" of Farrakhan as relevant to the controversy. The article states:

Tamika Mallory, co-president of Women’s March, has publicly praised Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, who is widely reviled for anti-Semitic speeches. The Women’s March has issued a series of statements denouncing anti-Semitism and apologized for its delayed response to the controversy, but Ms. Mallory has declined to denounce Mr. Farrakhan himself.

Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar to the one currently in the article. Here's my proposed change:

Proposed revision to lead

  • In 2018, Mallory drew criticism for her attendance at an event with and public praise of controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, which prompted calls for her resignation from the 2019 Women's March. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal with anti-Semitism wording (but without her refusal to condemn Farrakhan): In 2018, Mallory drew calls to resign from the Women's March after she attended a holiday celebration held by Louis Farrakhan, who is anti-Semitic and whom she has praised [for his activism]. The thing in the brackets may or may not be necessary. If it is omitted, "praised" should be replaced with "publicly praised". It's not vague because she has praised him often and for many things, all of which is reported in the sources. wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, interesting. I really think "publicly praised" is fine—it's concise, sourced, and to the point. The bit about a "holiday celebration" is not accurate—it was more akin to a rally. I think "event" is sufficient. I see what you're getting at with the last part, but it reeks of WP:OR. Instead, we should attribute her response directly to her, rather than stating it in Wiki's voice. Mallory has said she disagrees with Farrakhan's rhetoric but lauded what she referred to as "what he's done in black communities." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a more appropriate approach to me, as well. Best to let the subject's actual statements speak for themselves, to the extent manageable in the tight constraints of the lead. I can support that wording. Snow let's rap 03:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely would not be comfortable with the wording suggested in the first two proposed versions above. To begin with, I believe there is a severe WP:WEIGHT issue with using one source's description of her public statements to establish lead wording, where no other source uses that wording or anything particularly close it. Second, even with regard to the NYT reference, it is clearly speaking of her past praise of the man in a particular context. That context and detail is stripped by adding a two word description of her position on Farrakhan, affixed to another statement which conditions the reading of that description. Therefor, while I can continue to support the consensus wording recently arrived at (despite significant misgivings about even that close call), I am a strong oppose the first two new versions being considered since, as I believe using the phrase "public praise" in that fashion is, if I am blunt, outright misleading. However, I believe the third edit proposed above (Wikieditor19920's second suggested wording in this section) sidesteps these issues by using attribution, thus allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions about just what degree of support Mallory has for Farrakhan and how acceptable it is in light of his antisemitism. (Snow let's rap 03:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple independent, high quality sources citing her praise for and attendance at an event with Farrakhan. See the Washington Post, Salon, CBS, and the Chicago Tribune describing her comments about Farrakhan (Greatest of All Time, "what he's done in the black community") in exactly those terms. In your original comment, you said my support for inclusion is conditional on the point that the lead (and all content in the article, for that matter) must not imply a level of association with (or explicit support for) Farrakhan that is not established in reliable sources, as that would be fairly blatant synthesis. The proposed two-word addition is neither synthesis nor unsupported—it has direct support and clarifies what is currently an incomplete summary of the controversy, which is over her comments and attendance at event with Farrakhan, not just her showing up to a "holiday celebration." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the wording is (whether we strictly classify it as synthesis or not) misleading. I know that's not by design on your part, but I think you need to take another look and consider this from the perspective of a reader who is unfamiliar with the relevant background information and for whom this article is meant serve as an introduction. The way you have phrased this suggests that Mallory's praise is roughly contemporaneous with the criticism of her association with Farrakhan. Now, I've read through all of the same articles and watched the same interviews as you, I think, and I can't recall where she has, since the controversy began, praised Farrakhan or made a statement which has since been described by an RS as praise. She's mostly been on the backfoot and defending her past positive commentary about the man. But that's difficult to add to the lead outside of the full context of the story. For a certainty, she has refused to condemn the man, and if you want to rephrase that clause of the sentence to say that ("...for her attendance at an event with and refusal to condemn controversial..."), I could support that. Or if you want to add one word so that the clause better orients the chronology of events ("...for her attendance at an event with and previous praise for controversial..."), I think I could support that too. In fact, if you think you can find a way to include reference to both her past praise and current refusal to condemn in the same sentence (in a way that does not overemphasize or read as tortured prose), I'll probably support that too.
But presenting any version of the proposed sentence which allows for the implicit message to the reader that Mallory doubled down on her support for another person within the context of his antisemitic statements (or criticism about same) does not accurately reflect the chain of events here, and is exactly the kind of BLP problem which made me hesitant to shift my position before. I was afraid that allowing foreshortened discussion of this topic in the lead would result in a punchier but more problematic language that would not as strictly conform with WP:WEIGHT and the nuances of the situation, and I believe the currently proposed wording runs the risk of doing just that--though again, I think it can probably be solved with the inclusion of the one word "previous". On the other hand, I fully support the addition of the attributed statement and quote of Mallory, which better allows the reader to evaluate her position on Farrakhan for themselves. I can't say as I expect it will do her many favours (especially when the reader delves into further details below, such as the tail end of the exchange with McCain), but at least she will be judged on her own words, rather than second hand descriptions of her conduct--which former approach is extremely useful for presenting the nature of the controversy neutrally, in cases such as this. Snow let's rap 21:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: While I disagree that "public praise" is not supported by the sources (that same terminology was used by the ones I linked above in reference to her post calling Farrakhan "GOAT"), I understand your concerns and I will accept the compromise you suggested, which was to note her "refusal to condemn Farrakhan." Obviously she has qualified her position on this, and I'm glad you think that's well reflected in the other line I composed. If there are no other objections, I'll move forward with some of these revisions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me; just to be clear, the proposed wording is now: In 2018, Mallory drew criticism for her attendance at an event with, and refusal to condemn, controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, which prompted calls for her resignation from the 2019 Women's March. Mallory has said she disagrees with Farrakhan's rhetoric but lauded what she referred to as "what he's done in black communities."? It's a little wordy, I have to say (I think I would have gone with In 2018, Mallory drew criticism for her attendance at an event with, and past praise for, controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, which prompted calls for her resignation from the 2019 Women's March.) But either is an acceptable variant, imeo. Snow let's rap 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two side-by-side, I agree with you—the latter is the better choice. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the complete proposed revision. Hopefully this addresses some of everyone's concerns, including Snow Rise & Wumbolo:

Proposed addition In 2018, Mallory drew criticism for her attendance at an event with and praise for controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, which prompted calls for her resignation from the 2019 Women's March. Mallory has said she disagrees with Farrakhan's rhetoric but lauded what she referred to as "what he's done in black communities." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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?--but this article is also listed for fn 5. Again, I'm new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcentmod (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I moved the Amsterdam ref, so the info is now sourced to the following ref for The Atlantic. Alsee (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday — better source available?

Can we find a better source for her birthday? The current one only links to the homepage of a family tree search website. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, no dice. The source in the lede now links to an Iowa State University website, which itself links to Mallory's own website (I tried to verify from there, but it redirected about a dozen times through various sketchy websites before I could close it, so I would not recommend visiting. Need to run a virus scan now.) However, I'm pretty sure that date is wrong. Her verified twitter has posts every year in early June (June 8th, maybe?) for various birthday celebrations - Ex., https://twitter.com/TamikaDMallory/status/475677977502437376 . It's possible the IAS website originally sourced from Wikipedia, and we then found the IAS page and used that as a reference. I propose that we at least remove her birthday from the infobox, since it seems pretty clear that September 4th is wrong. Kalethan (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Airline Episode in 2017

This was a big event. She was publicly very angry and hurt.

Why is this omitted?

What was/is the resolution?

Original Research/Anecdotal

Often the tone of this article strains credulity as it echoes of original research and anecdotal.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamika_Mallory&oldid=1039264956"